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

[Stoutstien]

Come on, the problem is exactly the spell slots. Having a special abilities is not in question here. Spell slots are.

Why. The slots are purely in place as a pacing mechanic for players so what purpose do they serve for NPCs?

 

[Minigiant]

I think I may have been unclear. What I was asking is did 5E make something better by forcing you to cast Magic Missile at a higher level, rather than having your caster level increase the power of Magic Missile.

Oh Iget it now. Yes. It was a net positive. It slowed LFQW.

But it does nothing to prevent buff based Batman Wizardry. So I don't even think NPC casters should even have low level slots at all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Also, I find it rather odd that there are arguments about how it would be impossible to design a monster stat block that simulates the monster's full capabilities, delivers that information in a concise manner, and makes it easy to run, when A5E did just that. You can have a spellcasting block that lists every single spell the monster would know, while still presenting the important spells in a concise way. Couple that with Monstrous Menagerie's "Tactics" section that tells you what the monster is likely to use in its 2-3 turn combat algorithm, and you've got pretty much the best of both worlds. And you don't need to rename Fireball into "Fiery Ball" and make it uncounterable in order to get it.

Yeah, this is an excellent format. Exactly what I would want.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What I was asking is did 5E make something better by forcing you to cast Magic Missile at a higher level, rather than having your caster level increase the power of Magic Missile.

No, they didn't. Except for the people who want to see casters reduced in power and complained about the LFQW issue (which was never an issue AFAIC). (LOL see the post above ^)

FWIW, we house-ruled upcasting spells to produce maximal results for the extra benefits. So, if you cast magic missile at 7th level, you get the normal three 1d4+1 damage missiles, but also six 5 points of damage missiles (auto max). Having it work with healing has been great, of course, and add in critical damage instead of critical hits and it is even better IMO.

 

[Minigiant]

This is exactly my stance with the changes they've adopted post-Tasha's. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing the kind of streamlined, more gamist design philosophy they are developing if it were a new edition. But since it's under the 5E banner, I do have to change my home games because my players will want to use the new things that, to their eyes, is 100% same as the core of the game. But it's clear that there's been a change in design philosophy, and that leads to subtle things no longer working the way I want them to. If the current design philosophy was what we had bought into, this would not be an issue. If they explicitly stated that what they are doing is under a new design philosophy (and spelled out that design philosophy), it would not be an issue. As it is, it feels like a betrayal to the edition that I liked since 2014.

Also, I find it rather odd that there are arguments about how it would be impossible to design a monster stat block that simulates the monster's full capabilities, delivers that information in a concise manner, and makes it easy to run, when A5E did just that. You can have a spellcasting block that lists every single spell the monster would know, while still presenting the important spells in a concise way. Couple that with Monstrous Menagerie's "Tactics" section that tells you what the monster is likely to use in its 2-3 turn combat algorithm, and you've got pretty much the best of both worlds. And you don't need to rename Fireball into "Fiery Ball" and make it uncounterable in order to get it.

Really I think if there were 2 or 3 versions of the same iconic spellcasting monsters, there would not be a problem.


If my fighter has 3 load outs, why can't a NPC mage.

 

[Charlaquin]

Really I think if there were 2 or 3 versions of the same iconic spellcasting monsters, there would not be a problem.


If my fighter has 3 load outs, why can't a NPC mage.

Multiple versions of the same monster was another thing they did in 4e that got massive backlash.

 

[Helldritch]

Why. The slots are purely in place as a pacing mechanic for players so what purpose do they serve for NPCs?

Already answered but again, versatility. And pacing too. What is good for the players can be applied to their foes too. Just check my other posts.

 

[Minigiant]

Multiple versions of the same monster was another thing they did in 4e that got massive backlash.

So we are stuck with a slot system that is designed for 8 encounters on a monster designed for 1-2?

 

[Helldritch]

Multiple versions of the same monster was another thing they did in 4e that got massive backlash.

Yep! And this way of doing the stat block is exactly the se as 4ed and it was, unfortunately, not well received. My main grippe for doing them like that in 5ed is that it was not what we voted for during playtests. In fact, it was quite clear that it how we got them in the MM that was the concensus.

Again, I don't mind that in an other edition, they use this way for the new edition. But 5ed is built around something else entirely. I almost feel like the devs are trying to force a modified 4ed down our throats. As much as I loved 4ed, if I wanted 4ed, I would be playing it and not 5ed.

 

[Charlaquin]

So we are stuck with a slot system that is designed for 8 encounters on a monster designed for 1-2?

Well, it seems they’re at least moving on from the slot system. Presumably because the game has gotten big enough and accessible enough that they feel the folks who leave over this won’t create the same bottleneck to new players getting into the game that it did in the late 00s.