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

[DND_Reborn]

In 10 years (ish) of 5e, I can't say I've ever seen a single PC actually take Magic Missile. We've had a few wands of magic missile floating around, which have seen use, but, actually burning a spell slot for it? Nope.

Again, it would be unbelievably helpful if folks would simply talk about themselves instead of trying to pretend that their preferences are so universal that every should automatically just nod in agreement.

So, here YOU are talking about your own personal experience... While in mine I've seen it probably 85% or more of the time since AD&D to 5E. That is MY experience.

Again, since no one answered me the first time around, how is it good game design to have a system that is so complex than no one can use it without making mistakes?

Talk about making statements about YOUR personal experience while acting like it is "universal".

I've never found playing high-level characters or high CR creatures "so complex" that I am making mistakes. Maybe I make bad choices about what a creature does, but it is still within the rules and systems and not a "mistake".

 

[Reynard]

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.

I'm not sure how that relates to what I wrote since I didn't say anything about caster level.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

These offer no versatility and assume that a foe will be encountered only once.

Yes it does (it gives a list of different spells he can cast instead of using his regular actions), and no it doesn't. He literally has Plane Shift.

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?

He uses the Book of Vile Darkness and his non-combat related Wizard abilities that aren't listed in the stat block (because stat blocks are for combat, not downtime) and decks out the next fight location with glyphs of warding and other magical traps.

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.

Yes it does. He has Plane Shift and infinite counterspell to stop the party from pulling a Scanlan on him. He can escape if he wants to.

At least, spell slots gave the DM a versatility in handling the monster.

The versatility is the same. The Monster Manual says that if you don't like the spells that a spellcasting monster gets, feel free to change them.

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.

If the player is looking at the monster stats and metagaming off of them . . . that's a player problem, not a WotC problem. There's literally nothing WotC could do to stop players from doing that, before or after MotM.

 

[beancounter]

You guys realize that WoTC is slowly but surely streamlining D&D into a card game.

That is their area of expertise after all...

And they've already done a crossover. It's just a matter of time.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You guys realize that WoTC is slowly but surely streamlining D&D into a card game.

That is their area of expertise after all...

And they've already done a crossover. It's just a matter of time.

You could practically do that right now...

 

[Reynard]

Creative how? It's literally "You cannot open the blue door without the blue key" in a video game. And most of the folks who can get Dispell would, at worse, have to take a long rest. It's not like you have to trick him into entering a magic circle or touching a specific material. It's only 1 BORING solution to a problem and it boils down to, once again, "the right spell at the right moment". It's just morefodder for that Wizard player to go "AHAH! I had prepared this spell for this exact situation!" and be all self-congratulating on outwitting the DM.

I can't help you if the only thing you consider an acceptable design is the PCs are guaranteed to walk in and win on the first try.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

He uses the Book of Vile Darkness and his non-combat related Wizard abilities that aren't listed in the stat block (because stat blocks are for combat, not downtime) and decks out the next fight location with glyphs of warding and other magical traps.

I guess that is the crux of the disagreement. Some of us think that the statblocks are not just for combat and should provide comprehensive information of the creature's capabilities overall, just like a character sheet gives of PCs.

And yes, I get that especially for higher level creatures doing that might result an unwieldy statblock. I don't think there is a perfectly satisfactory answer that can be executed in a book format, though digital tools could have a toggle for simple/expanded modes.

 

[Reynard]

You guys realize that WoTC is slowly but surely streamlining D&D into a card game.

That is their area of expertise after all...

And they've already done a crossover. It's just a matter of time.

1999 called and would like its conspiracy theory back.

 

[Thomas Rainsborough]

Umm . . . got any evidence for that? At all? Because I'm probably half your age and have been in the hobby for just about 6 years now. I'm a "new DM" compared to most of you.

I like this form of listing spells. Giving a list of 20+ spell slots of 9 different levels that I'd have to keep track of for Vecna in battle would not be fun and certainly would be unhelpful in making sure the fight goes smoothly.

To me, at least, this is helpful. Now I just have to keep track of individual spells and reference how many times he's cast it in the fight so far. Really easy, really helpful.

So it helps you. It likely helps many inexperienced DM's or ones that simply don't have the organizational skills to maintain spell list options in the heat of combat while running a BBEG, possible minions, and adjudicating player moves.

But there are many many DM's who DO have the experience and organizational skills to run complex spell casters, especially ones that were historically spell casters first and foremost. These changes badly hurt their options, and adds a ton of DM prep time as DM's now have to add them back in (or simply ignore them and stick with the real Mord's...yeah, I have a a copy of that and it will never go away).

Now, when facing a 10th or 12 level spell caster, who has quite literally 15 plus spell slots, sure there is no way the BBEG will use them all in a single combat. But they sure as hell could use 5 or 6 in a long combat.

What this should have been is the casters get the standard limit of useful cantrips (no BBEG is using Prestidigitation unless he is opening a dry cleaning shop), plusthe high end spell slots for that particular class. (Warlocks and partial casters excepted).

A 10th level caster should have done away with spell slots 1-2.
A 14th level caster should have done away with spell slots 1-3, because they will never come into play.

And yes, there should be a full menu of spells, per that class, available. Good DM's would make use of them. Of course, when WOTC ends up giving a BBEG virtually all Conc spells, you know they really don't understand how their own game is played.

 

[Helldritch]

You guys realize that WoTC is slowly but surely streamlining D&D into a card game.

That is their area of expertise after all...

And they've already done a crossover. It's just a matter of time.

Nope, it is slowly reverting to 4ed. That is how the monsters in 4ed worked.

I loved 4ed, but that train has passed and left its mark for good or bad.

The thing that bugs me to no end with the old/new stat block is that it us a profound change in the starting philosophy of 5ed. Monsters were having spell like abilities and character like foes would have class abilities. Yes there were a few exceptions but most foes were following the basic guidelines. And all were fine.

Now every foes will have spell like abilities and that change in philosophy is deep enough to warrant a full new edition. But WotC is afraid of going 6ed because it does not know how people would react to it and 5ed sells so well still... Why take risks? Just change the edition bit by bit and see how far we can push the changes... When enough changes will have been swallowed by the players, they will send us a nice new edition that will look exactly like 5.xed...

I simply wish that 5ed be left as it was and that WotC had the courage to throw the edition the developing team has in mind instead of perverting further the game we had in 2015.

Let them throw at us 6ed and we will see what the players truly want. The 5ed philosophy or the new philosophy that the dev team wants to take.