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

[Minigiant]

Depends. Do the casters have shield? +5 AC for a round as a reaction interrupt to turn a hit into a miss can be useful for a CR 9 mage.

See with that. That is competing I would have made as a spell like feature. Or bumped it's base AC with an enchanted robe.

Or do something like have an abujurer straight immune to MM.

But again. What about the 2nd level spell slots? Are you casting attack spells? Are you casting buffs with those? Are you upcasting shield for 3 more uses?


Those 3 options change the mage's power drastically.

 

[Xetheral]

The Monsters are not designed to be fought multiple times.

Monsters can only be designed for ONE encounter paradigm. You fight and one side dies, flees, or surrenders.

You can't design a monster for one encounter, 2 encounters, and 5 encounters in a single state block.

But when I said 5e could and should have variant rules for different playstyles over and over and over and over, a bunch of folk say they told need it. They the complain here about something that gets fixed with a variant rules and chart.

You apparently use monsters very differently than I do. The way I approach monsters, whether or not a monster is around for one encounter or more than one is not determined when the statblock is designed. Instead, the number of encounters a monster is around for is a consequence of the monster's capabilities, the PC's capabilities, and the strategies and tactics adopted by each side.

A 12 HD mage has NO USE for a 1st level spell slots (unless he is a sorcerer and cannibalizing it into points but just give it points) since he deals more damage with cantrip.

There are plenty of 1st level spells that are valuable throughout all tiers of play. I regularly have high-level caster NPCs cast Absorb Elements, Feather Fall, Sanctuary (pre-errata), and Shield out of 1st level slots. I've even had high-level casters use Fog Cloud on themselves so that on their next turn they'd be able to cast Teleport without being countered. (And if the 1st level Fog Cloud is countered, that's still a lot better than if the 7th level Teleport is countered.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Counterspell would be so much more interesting as an unlimited use, but risky, class ability.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't recall that being one of the things people complained about.

I do. It was a big point of contention during the 5e playtest.

 

[Greg Benage]

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.

That's a fair distinction. The example I used was concentration, which is indeed a rule mistake. Yet, I don't think the answer to my struggles is to abandon the concentration rule -- though I know some people would love that.

The bigger struggle, however, is just a mastery problem -- being able to see all the possible moves, consider all the available spells and abilities, and choose the one a wizard with a 20+ Intelligence would choose. I routinely make this kind of play error, and it's specifically the most extreme version of this error -- the "trap" -- that the new stat blocks are meant to eliminate.

My point is that a "happy medium" solution would eliminate the extreme version for new DMs while retaining enough tactical depth that more experienced DMs can still play tactically -- even if that results in play errors sometimes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, these aren't all necmoves towards what 4E did, and the 4E approach had some other issues that would be best not to repeat. It's a little more complicated than that.

I agree! 5e is not 4e, and these changes aren’t making it into 4e. But they are bringing back some of the improvements 4e made to the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is exactly why I say, bring 6ed and we will see if the design was/is a good one. If 6ed outsells 5ed. Then it will have been a good decision
If not, history will repeat itself.

But one thing is for sure, when a game changes its philosophical design basics, it is time for a new edition. Otherwise, leave it at that. You can add, but not remove. Doing the later is a lack of respect for some of your customers if not all.

They’re not going to do that because the new players are attached to 5e. Whatever changes they make, pitching them as a new edition would be a risky shake-up. Pitching them as improvements to 5e that you can choose to incorporate into your current game or not will help smooth the transition.

 

[Greg Benage]

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.

I mean, poking out the eye and cutting off the hand was...a joke.

Reducing hit points would require monsters that don't need to deal damage for the effect. Banshees or mummies, for example. But you probably need to convince a banshee queen to go yell at him -- his Con is too high for a normal banshee. I don't have all the monster books memorized, so I'm not sure if there are standard creatures that would work. Mummy Lord, maybe?

As a general rule, though, I'd suggest not taking me so seriously that you get worked up about it.

 

[Xetheral]

So replace “counterspell” with “aura of warding.” My point is, anti-spell features aren’t being nerfed, the PvE metagame is changing in a way that is unfavorable to anti-spell features.

A dynamic competitive "metagame" for PCs vs NPCs only works at tables where either the lore of the setting is completely divorced from the mechanics, or else there is an equivalent IC metagame.

 

[Charlaquin]

A dynamic competitive "metagame" for PCs vs NPCs only works at tables where either the lore of the setting is completely divorced from the mechanics, or else there is an equivalent IC metagame.

Friendo, the increased prevalence of non-spell magical abilities relative to spells in monster statblocks post-MMotM makes anti-spell abilities less effective than they were pre-MMotM. If you don’t want to use the term “metagame” to describe that… ok I guess? It doesn’t change the actual content of my argument.