D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[Reynard]

And that's my biggest issue with WotC and how they have been treating D&D.

I'm perfectly fine with catering to casuals and rookies.

But NOT at the cost of trashing/ignoring/deleting/butchering/watering-down/simplifying everything the veterans loved. Everything that pretty much were the foundations and traditions of the game just tossed aside like it didn't mean anything or somehow can't be integrated into the rules of the new system.

The D&D community has become rather laughable. All-inclusive...but only if you're either brand new or willing to toss at least half your material out (or all of it if since the other half is game lore and Perkins and team pretty much made it clear that consistency and lore canon doesn't mean crap anymore.)

WotC could have easily gone two routes:

1) Support the older editions at a slow pace, while using the newer edition to bring more people to the game. Money from all ends since profit is all they care about.

2) Create two versions of the game; bring back AD&D. The new people have 5e and the veterans can have something a lot more closer to everything from 1e-3e than what 5e is providing now. Which is miniscule lumps of vegan meat.

This is why we have Edition Wars. Instead of pleasing everyone, which is easy to do logistically, they create bigger and bigger divisions with each new iteration of the game.

I've proposed an easy solution for them;

SOLUTION
Allow the DMs Guild to be open to all editions for creators, not just 5e. Allow writers to publish a "Fiendish Codex III: Yugoloths" or "Complete Incarnum" PDF for 3e. Allow another to rewrite 2e Psionics for the 2e system or publish a 2e Psychic Warrior. Allow the 1e creators to make PDFs converting 4e adventures to 1e. The list goes on.

Don't see the issue with that; literally everyone profits.

You don't need DMsGuild for that. If it's not for profit you can make and distribute anything you want. If it is, you file the serial numbers off and sell it on DTRPG under the OGL.

 

[pogre]

Why wouldn't these spells be considered spells subject to counterspell, dispel magic, or globes of invulnerability and such?

Theoretically, they would be... provided we make the assumption they're all cast as if they had been cast from their default spell slot and not upcast in a higher slot. Maybe the introductions to the newer books would have some clarification to that effect?

[
Has WOTC clarified whether these abilities can be counterspelled?

I thought they were nerfing counterspell a bit with these abilities.

IMC I am allowing the spell-like abilities to be countered, but I would be interested in the RAW or even RAI.

Thanks.

 

[dave2008]

That is your Vecna, and he can cast because you added them back in. WotC's Vecna doesn't have them and can't.

And now it is yours and anyone else who wants to use. Free of charge!

He can cast them. A monster is not limited to the statblock. No reason to shackle yourself like that. I mean, what is the point. Also, the WotC statblock is just fine for its intended audience.

The decisions they made in changing this aspect of statblocks was simply a bad move IMO.

I disagree.

It severely hampers such creatures because many DMs won't change the statblocks. I see it all the time. I just joined a new group who is learning the game and the guy who is DMing is making so many mistakes--but at least we're having fun.

This type of statblock is perfect new DMs. This type of monster works without have to look up or rely on spells. Good for new DMs and casual players, the heart of the D&D market.

 

[billd91]

I'm perfectly fine with catering to casuals and rookies.

But NOT at the cost of trashing/ignoring/deleting/butchering/watering-down/simplifying everything the veterans loved. Everything that pretty much were the foundations and traditions of the game just tossed aside like it didn't mean anything or somehow can't be integrated into the rules of the new system.

The D&D community has become rather laughable. All-inclusive...but only if you're either brand new or willing to toss at least half your material out (or all of it if since the other half is game lore and Perkins and team pretty much made it clear that consistency and lore canon doesn't mean crap anymore.)

I'm with you on a portion of that. It's not that hard or complicated to pull key attacks out of the spell list of a fully kitted out Vecna and put them in the action list - then you serve both the ease of use and the more complex options of a more experienced player group. It's also not that difficult to include, for example, both the leaning into traditional racial archetypes with fixed ASIs and have the floating ASIs.

But with both examples you really can't serve both options/preferences if you only present one of them.

WotC could have easily gone two routes:

1) Support the older editions at a slow pace, while using the newer edition to bring more people to the game. Money from all ends since profit is all they care about.

2) Create two versions of the game; bring back AD&D. The new people have 5e and the veterans can have something a lot more closer to everything from 1e-3e than what 5e is providing now. Which is miniscule lumps of vegan meat.

But on this, you lose me. Supporting multiple editions is just dividing up their resources while splitting their market. A better plan is to support a bit of both with the same edition - and 5e, to date, had been doing that with reasonable success.

 

[dave2008]

But NOT at the cost of trashing/ignoring/deleting/butchering/watering-down/simplifying everything the veterans loved.

I'm an old veteran and I'm fine with the changes. In fact I prefer some them and wish WotC would kill some more sacred cows. Would I do some things differently? Yes, but I can say that for every edition since I started playing around 1984-85.

Not all of us old-timers want what you want.

 

[Parmandur]

[
Has WOTC clarified whether these abilities can be counterspelled?

I thought they were nerfing counterspell a bit with these abilities.

IMC I am allowing the spell-like abilities to be countered, but I would be interested in the RAW or even RAI.

Thanks.

They clarified that they cannot be counterspelled, because they are not "Spells."

Doesn't break anything if you allow it, really, but Mosnters will be weaker.

 

[DND_Reborn]

He can cast them. A monster is not limited to the statblock. No reason to shackle yourself like that. I mean, what is the point. Also, the WotC statblock is just fine for its intended audience.

By that logic, a PC is not limited to his character sheet... But we all know a player doesn't just get to add stuff to his character because he feels like it...

I disagree.

Obviously.

This type of statblock is perfect new DMs. This type of monster works without have to look up or rely on spells. Good for new DMs and casual players, the heart of the D&D market.

Are you kidding? If a "new" DM is trying to run a CR 26 monster, they are going to do it "wrong" regardless (as in not going by the rules as written) unless they have devoted a lot of time to learning how the game works. Trying to understand everything in this stat block is a nightmare for a new DM IMO. At least with spells and spellcasting, you have a common ground to PCs for the DM to work with.

Yes, you have to look up/ rely on spells. OH NO! The horror! It's only what players and DMs have already been doing for decades now.

Anyway, I see little point in continuing this conversation. Reply if you wish, but I won't be. We simply will never agree on this issue or, IMO, the general direction WotC is taking the game. While you might be fine as an old-hat at D&D with all the changes, there are plenty of us old-hats out there who aren't.

 

[Helldritch]

I see I am not the only only one to literally hate the new stat block.
These offer no versatility and assume that a foe will be encountered only once.
What if Vecna (or any lich for that matter) appears to fight a few rounds and must go because the characters receives reinforcement?
Then the lich prepares accordingly to the "strengths and weaknesses" of the characters a few levels/months/days or whatever after?
It does not allow for recurring villains. These are just static monsters with no potential for tactical change in their behaviors. Not unless a DM is willing to build that villain from the ground up again which is, in essence, as much work (if not more) than just building one from scratch.
At least, spell slots gave the DM a versatility in handling the monster. Now... I a player owns the same book, he can be pretty sure what the foe will be able to do. That is a bad design option. A terrible one. MotM is really not a book a like and it has disapointed me quite a lot.

 

[Charlaquin]

Aye. Same with EB and probably a few others like guidance. IMO spells and spell casting is a bloated and dated pillar that needs to go on a diet.

Wouldn’t it have been nice if, when they fixed basically all the problems with the old spellcasting system, people hadn’t begged and screamed for the clunky, inconvenient version back?

 

[Malmuria]

And that's my biggest issue with WotC and how they have been treating D&D.

I'm perfectly fine with catering to casuals and rookies.

But NOT at the cost of trashing/ignoring/deleting/butchering/watering-down/simplifying everything the veterans loved. Everything that pretty much were the foundations and traditions of the game just tossed aside like it didn't mean anything or somehow can't be integrated into the rules of the new system.

The D&D community has become rather laughable. All-inclusive...but only if you're either brand new or willing to toss at least half your material out (or all of it if since the other half is game lore and Perkins and team pretty much made it clear that consistency and lore canon doesn't mean crap anymore.)

This seems like an extreme response to what is essentially a page layout problem.

WotC could have easily gone two routes:

1) Support the older editions at a slow pace, while using the newer edition to bring more people to the game. Money from all ends since profit is all they care about.

2) Create two versions of the game; bring back AD&D. The new people have 5e and the veterans can have something a lot more closer to everything from 1e-3e than what 5e is providing now. Which is miniscule lumps of vegan meat.

This is why we have Edition Wars. Instead of pleasing everyone, which is easy to do logistically, they create bigger and bigger divisions with each new iteration of the game.

3e is quite different from AD&D. And 4e is quite different from both. This is not a feasible or practical business strategy

I've proposed an easy solution for them;

SOLUTION
Allow the DMs Guild to be open to all editions for creators, not just 5e. Allow writers to publish a "Fiendish Codex III: Yugoloths" or "Complete Incarnum" PDF for 3e. Allow another to rewrite 2e Psionics for the 2e system or publish a 2e Psychic Warrior. Allow the 1e creators to make PDFs converting 4e adventures to 1e. The list goes on.

Don't see the issue with that; literally everyone profits.

Have you ever heard of the OSR?