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

[Reynard]

I feel like a single simple sentence solves much of the consternation in this thread: "The spells and abilities in the stat block represent the most common prepared abilities of the creature,who may have additional non combat spell casting abilities at the DM's discretion." You wouldn't even have to repeat it for every creature,just put it under the definition of the "Spellcasting" trait at the beginning.

 

[Parmandur]

I feel like a single simple sentence solves much of the consternation in this thread: "The spells and abilities in the stat block represent the most common prepared abilities of the creature,who may have additional non combat spell casting abilities at the DM's discretion." You wouldn't even have to repeat it for every creature,just put it under the definition of the "Spellcasting" trait at the beginning.

And I wouldn't be surprised to see that addressed directly in the future MM

 

[Minigiant]

It is what gives you spell slots... determined by your caster level

Which is useless.

Because if you use all the spells available in a monster caster level, you will blow your party.

Hardly. You don't "break the game", you make it challenging--if anything.

D&D has been using caster level for a very long time...

No,it's not challenge. You kill your party.

theMOTM evoker has 22HD. Let's say it hs 22 caster levels.

That;s over 22 spell slots. He can't use all those spell useless they're been alive for over 15 rounds.

Can a level 9 party who haven't killed the wizard survive being hit with TWENTY TWO evocation spells?

If a caster survives long enough to use their caster level... THE PARTY DIES!

Caster level is designed to tell you how many spells a PC is supposed to spread over the minimum of 5 encounters. Five encounters. Not one. And the Five is assuming the caster is being a spotlight hog nova-spammer.

 

[NotAYakk]

Yes, their class and level determines their spell slots. Just like it says in the lich entry in the Monster Manual: "The lich is an 18th level spellcaster." Obviously this is what people mean by caster level here, even though the term "caster level" is not technically used in 5e. Can we lay this pedantry to rest now?

That is just shorthand for "has the slots of an 18th level PC".

It has no other mechanical impact.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

We know Caster Level used to be a thing in older editions. But it’s not really needed now.

Also Spellcasting works like Innate Spellcasting did now. Spells are cast at their minimum level unless said otherwise. Like saying “Fireball (as an 7th level spell)”

 

[Minigiant]

I feel like a single simple sentence solves much of the consternation in this thread: "The spells and abilities in the stat block represent the most common prepared abilities of the creature,who may have additional non combat spell casting abilities at the DM's discretion." You wouldn't even have to repeat it for every creature,just put it under the definition of the "Spellcasting" trait at the beginning.

But you can't use caster level on monster.

All you need to know is the levels of the spells in the blocks to you can swap them.

 

[SkidAce]

I didn't read the whole discussion.
So maybe I duplicate others opinions.

I don't completely like the new spellcasting block. I think it needs another overhaul. I think recharge mechanisms should be used a bit more.

Contra new format:

• I agree that a lich should be able to prepare any spell that a mage can prepare.
• having abilities that are non spells that exactly duplicate spells but can't be countered or resisted leaves a bad taste.

Pro new format:

• A big problem with enemy spellcasters always was that you never met them after they have cast some spells, so they were always way more challenging as an equal leveled PC during a typical encounter.
• PCs also have spell like abilities or modifiers to spells that make them uncounterable or unresistable. So it is not totally out of order that NPCs have access to such abilities.

I wish that PC and NPC spellcasters have some kind of recharge mechanism that disallows using the same spell over and over again, even if it is as simple as lair actions are right now.
PCs might be allowed to prepare the same spell twice to be able to use them twice in a row or so.

In one of the first DnDnext playtests, there actually was a rule that a spellcaster had to alternate between cantrips and leveled spells. I think that this is a bit too predictable, but I really think the game would benefit from such a rule.

I liked your overall post. But artificially limiting what is within your power to cast seems to "gamey" (no insult intended). Too contrived if you will.

A character/monster etc should be able to choose it abilities (within expenditure limits) based on the situation it finds itself. I mean what if a caster need featherfall two rounds in a row? (weak example, but you prob get my point).

 

[Charlaquin]

And adapting the game environment to remove a large portion of situations where a PC ability is effective isn’t a nerf? It is. It’s just an indirect one.

It’s a metagame shift. This happens all the time in games where new elements are regularly introduced, such as TCGs and MOBAs. What’s good one season may no longer be good when something else comes out that counters it. Not because it was nerfed, but because the competitive environment evolved.

 

[SkidAce]

Noobs have a lot of issues running the old spellcasters. This new one is easier. I'm new to the game, not even a decade playing, and this spell block is easier to grok, understand, and use.

I hear your point...and I have been around since 6000 BC.

However, I dont think its as clear cut as noobs versus grognards.

Seen and assisted four new players take up the DM role since 5e came out. They never mentioned any issues with old spellcasters.



Some parts of this revised stat black make sense, particularly monsters, npcs, creatures with innate abilities that "act" like spells. This clarifies and smooths things out a bit. Kinda elegant, which IMO, is a word I'vd used for 5e since it came out.

But when your creature/monster is presumably a similar spellcaster to others in the world (maybe they went to the same Wizard School as one of the PCs, you kinda expect them to act similarly. (Not identical)

Having "casts as a X level spellcaster"* somewhere, anywhere in the stats would be a simple enough change and good enough for me. It shows and guides me to an understanding of the creatures role. A starting point, cause I know I can change anything I need or want to.


I did after all create giant rats in 1st edition that could spit poisoned teeth at characters from 30 feet away. Hehe.


* I will probably use 2/3rds of CR as spellcaster level for my purposes, from what I vaguely remember, thats what it kinda came out to be when I did npc research.

 

[Shiroiken]

WotC will no doubt give us all the opportunity to express our views on these changes when they survey us about the 50Ae revision. If they get enough negative feedback about the new spellcasting NPCs, maybe they'll change them back! After all, they backtracked on the whole removal of alignment from stat blocks thing. So you never know!

I have no problem with the new format for new DMs, but feel that leaving out a simple fix to allow everyone to get what they want would be a huge mistake. Like the alignment issue, it's possible to find a middle ground.

That said, complaining about it here at ENWorld isn't going to do any good. Best to save it for the surveys.

I keep pushing my suggestion here because I hope others who take the surveys will suggest it to them as well. The more people asking for compromise the better