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

[Greg Benage]

He's invulnerable, how the HECK do you reduce his HP, or inflict grievous wounds like that?

You don't "inflict grievous wounds," you reduce his hit points. As far as I know, you'd need to get monster allies -- I don't think there's any spells or character abilities that reduce hit points. Sounds like an adventure!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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).

Maybe there is a better way to implement this. This example is why I proposed (maybe in an earlier post) that you are allowed to prepare a spell twice or more often to be able to cast it more than once in a row.
I mean before 5e you could cast each spell only once anyway.

Maybe instead of casting it x times in a row it would be x times until your next short rest. I would of course give a few more preparation slots per day and maybe I would give some signature spells for some classes/subclasses.
But having such a mechanic in place would in my opinion make a) PC and NPC spellcasters a little bit more balanced without actually nerfing them and b) combats with spellcasters more knteresting, because it is not fireball, fireball, fireball, fireball.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Eh, the less counterspelling the better. It's a do-nothing mechanic. Both side have expended a ressource, but nobody's any closer to being defeated. It dosn't progress the game state.

It's an unfortunate dilemma in D&D design. If countering a spell actually advances play, then you basically never want to allow your opponents to cast spells if you have any chance of countering them, because hey, you've not only made them spend resources, you've actually had those resources hurt them. Under that situation, counterspell becomes a degenerate strategy, something everyone should always be doing all the time. But if you make it so it doesn't advance play, it just spins wheels, then it's pretty rare that "just spinning wheels" is actually worth anything. Especially since design has moved away from spells that auto-win fights, so eating one enemy spell (and losing a generally manageable amount of your allies' resources) in order to respond with a spell of your own is generally superior to trying to counterspell.

There are, of course, going to be examples one can construct in either direction, e.g. enemies that use trivial/weak spells to expend your counterspells before using their powerful ones. But overall it ends up being just kind of dull. Not much happens.

I do wonder how one might go about making a counterspell mechanic that was actually interesting without being overpowered.

 

[Charlaquin]

Worse just seems like strong word for it.

I don’t think it’s strong, worse comes in degrees from trivial to tremendous. This to me seems a bit worse. Like, noticeably, but not significantly.

 

[Hussar]

That was me, and this is really interesting, because I completely disagree with you. I don't think the very real fact that I sometimes make errors means I "can't use the system" or that it needs to change. I think the fact that I sometimes make errors indicates that it can be challenging. I make errors when playing chess, too, and that game is perfect. I don't think it should be dumbed down to the point that I can play it without error.

Having said that, repeating myself again, I do like a lot of what they're doing here. And they can keep the streamlined design while also providing some guidance on playing Vecna as a D&D spellcaster. If I make an occasional mistake, that's fine -- my players do, too, because D&D is strategically and tactically challenging and engaging (at its best). I really don't think we want to replace that, whole cloth, with a series of dice roll exchanges to see whose hit points reach zero first.

But, when you make errors in chess, are you making play errors - as in making a bad move - or rules errors as in moving your knight to the wrong square or moving a rook diagonally? I imagine it's the former, not the latter. So, your example doesn't really say what you think it says. You make bad moves in chess, which is fine. Making a bad move is expected, really, or we'd all be grand masters. But, you don't make mechanical errors, I assume.

Yet, you admit that you cannot keep the rules straight during play. Again, I hardly think you're alone here. Watch any live play and you'll see DM's with gobs and gobs of play experience making mechanical mistakes all the time. It's like I said with the 1-2-1 rule. Sure, that's a fine rule until someone runs or you try to calculate the range to a target that isn't exactly othagonal or diagonal to you. I guarantee that everyone makes mistakes with that system and makes them all the time. Which is why we don't use that system anymore. Any gains in accuracy you might get with 1-2-1 are lost through user error.

The same goes with caster enemies. Running a caster is complicated. Running a high level caster, when you haven't actually played that character, in the middle of combat is so complicated that I would bet dollars to donuts that 90% of DM's using those rules will make mistakes. Most will be minor mistakes, but, they'll make mistakes. We all do. Because I wrote the adventure a couple of weeks ago, then last week's session got cancelled because of real life, so, I haven't looked at the stat block in two weeks and we're three hours into a four hour session when the encounter begins. Of course mistakes are going to be made.

So, what's the point of having these detailed rules that are only making play more difficult and mostly won't even see play at the table? An 18th level caster has what, 25-30 spells known at any given time? At the absolute outside the DM is going to use 10 of them and most likely 3-5. So, most of those rules are just taking up space and will never see actual use at the table.

The whole, "The statblock is the in game description of the monster" really needs to finally be put to bed. That was only ever true in 3e.

 

[Undrave]

You don't "inflict grievous wounds," you reduce his hit points. As far as I know, you'd need to get monster allies -- I don't think there's any spells or character abilities that reduce hit points. Sounds like an adventure!

You mntionned poking his eyes or cutting his hands. Neither of which you can do if he's Invulnerable! And the Clay Golem has an ability that reduces max HP... but it needs to inflict DAMAGE to get that off.

It's an unfortunate dilemma in D&D design. If countering a spell actually advances play, then you basically never want to allow your opponents to cast spells if you have any chance of countering them, because hey, you've not only made them spend resources, you've actually had those resources hurt them. Under that situation, counterspell becomes a degenerate strategy, something everyone should always be doing all the time. But if you make it so it doesn't advance play, it just spins wheels, then it's pretty rare that "just spinning wheels" is actually worth anything. Especially since design has moved away from spells that auto-win fights, so eating one enemy spell (and losing a generally manageable amount of your allies' resources) in order to respond with a spell of your own is generally superior to trying to counterspell.

There are, of course, going to be examples one can construct in either direction, e.g. enemies that use trivial/weak spells to expend your counterspells before using their powerful ones. But overall it ends up being just kind of dull. Not much happens.

I do wonder how one might go about making a counterspell mechanic that was actually interesting without being overpowered.

Good analysis of the problem. Also, in a lot of situaton where Counterspell is good, Dispell works almost just as well (let's say the enemy mind controls the party's Barbarian, as an exemple) while feeling more versatile for out of combat applications.

Personally I'd find it more interesting if spells and certain monster abilities had delays in firing off, giving a chance for an opponent to basically disrupt them if they take the risk, or find the opening to, rush the caster. Casting a spell could basically be delaying your turn down the iniative order and make it clear you're casting. This would have the effect of making mundane classes more tactical to play as well.

 

[Undrave]

So, what's the point of having these detailed rules that are only making play more difficult and mostly won't even see play at the table? An 18th level caster has what, 25-30 spells known at any given time? At the absolute outside the DM is going to use 10 of them and most likely 3-5. So, most of those rules are just taking up space and will never see actual use at the table.

Oh yeah, considering how short 5e combats can be, how many ACTIONS is the enemy caster even gonna get? Probably no more than 5 if the fight is particularly long. Having 30 options is pretty useless.

A lot of these problems could be solved if we had a robust ritual system instead of the halfbaked one we have now. You'd just give NPC spellcasters just about any ritual you want for your story without having to bog down their stat blocks with useless information.

 

[Ondath]

I think the people getting angry at the people getting angry at the new spellcasting blocks (that's a confusing chain of anger) don't realise one thing: People might be operating with different play goals in mind.

Is the new spellcasting system easier to run? Yes. Would counterspell getting nerfed actually make things more interesting for both players and the DM? Admittedly, yes.

But saying that these points mean the complaints have no validity because of the benefits overlooks the fact that these are all concerns about D&D as a game. A lot of people play D&D as a simulation, where whatever the rules provide about the monster, item or class feature aims to represent the thing as it would exist in a fantasy world. And for simulationist people, having spells-but-not-spells is especially grating.

So when you're saying the evoker would KILL the party of it used all its 15 spell slots, you're completely missing the point. It's not supposed to use all of those slots or have all its spells be useful in the same encounter. What the simulationists want is having stat blocks that accurately represent what the evoker can do, so they can take a look at their spell list when something unexpected comes up ("so the party locked the wizard in the dungeon... Luckily I know that this evoker would know knock, so it can escape!"). Having a stat block that focuses solely on what the monster can do in its 1 encounter lifespan really can't achieve this. Incidentally, I think 4e's stat blocks were disliked for a similar reason, even though 4e monsters are much more interesting to run.

It's a classic simulationism vs gamism and conflict, and acting like the simulationists have no point and are just grognards who can't accept change is a bit silly and counterproductive.

 

[Hussar]

A lot of people play D&D as a simulation, where whatever the rules provide about the monster, item or class feature aims to represent the thing as it would exist in a fantasy world.

The simulationists really don't have any point and never have in 5e. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. 5e has never even pretended to serve as a physics engine style game. It's never come close to that. Ten years of supplements, not a single one even remotely hinting at being this kind of simulation game and we're just now hearing about how the game is changing? Sorry folks, you lost this argument at the tail end of 3e. 5e most definitely has never been the game for this despite pretenses to the contrary.

And another thing. Why is it always "a lot of people"? Why not just speak for yourself and your preferences? Why the appeal to popularity? How does that help your argument? You play D&D this way, and well, that's fine. You do you. But, pretending that somehow there is this nebulous "group" of like minded people doesn't actually mean anything. My imaginary group of people is just as big as your imaginary group of people. Guess we're at an impasse.

 

[Ondath]

The simulationists really don't have any point and never have in 5e. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. 5e has never even pretended to serve as a physics engine style game. It's never come close to that. Ten years of supplements, not a single one even remotely hinting at being this kind of simulation game and we're just now hearing about how the game is changing? Sorry folks, you lost this argument at the tail end of 3e. 5e most definitely has never been the game for this despite pretenses to the contrary.

And another thing. Why is it always "a lot of people"? Why not just speak for yourself and your preferences? Why the appeal to popularity? How does that help your argument? You play D&D this way, and well, that's fine. You do you. But, pretending that somehow there is this nebulous "group" of like minded people doesn't actually mean anything. My imaginary group of people is just as big as your imaginary group of people. Guess we're at an impasse.

Just because you found simulationism to be impossible, it doesn't mean that it is. I'm a DM with mostly simulationist tendencies, and I've been running 5e since 2015 in that style and I never felt particularly hindered by the game not pretending to be a physics engine. On the contrary, you'll find that there's a brand of simulationism like in the OSR that doesn't want GURPS-like rule for every situation. They just want the design philosophy to generally agree to the conceit that the game engine follows the fantasy world, but they can still be rules light. Hell, the lich stat block DND Reborn posted above hardly looks like a physics engine simulation of the lich.

As for the appeal to popularity, that wasn't my intention. I am, however, joining a thread started by someone who presumably thinks like me, with several other people who have also expressed their disdain for the new stat blocks just within this thread. Why can't you accept that people who dislike the edition's new direction aren't individual outliers but a specific demographic with specific play aims? What's wrong with taking that into account in our discussion?