• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

But is it really a new design?

Really?

How many DMs are casting 1st level spells in 1st level spell slots in combat on their CR 9 Mages and 15 HD demons?
Me????
Quite often.
A lich with an AC of 24 is hit. Shield and voilà ! It now has a higher AC for a while.
A cast in advance mirror image can work wonders, allowing for a few attacks to miss.
I see players using shield spells, mirror image spells all the time at high level.
And these are simply those at the top of my head because they are so often used. Clerics? Shield of faith and the list goes on and on.

I do not know if you often play high level and if you do the 6-8 encounters per "day". But if you do, your games are really different from what I have seen at not only my table, but dozens of others. Low level spells do not lose their utility as you advance in level, it is the type of spell being used that are.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
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.
I approach monsters the same way. The difference is I don't let aesthetics harm or ruin the situations I set up.
 

I have yet to understand a problem with the new stat blocks.

According to Crawford, most people that play D&D want to do so for 2-3 hour sessions once a week or once every two weeks. Every change they are doing isto make it so people who play the game for this duration have ample enough resources to enjoy themselves. Streamlined monster stat blocks are part of that.

If I have a 40 hour a week job and am also running a game, I don't want to have to parse an entire freaking 1st to 9th level spell list and then have to manage 1-3 of those spell lists in a session in a fight. If I have a salary position and I work anywhere from 40-80+ hours a week, I def don't have time to go through the 15 1st-5th level spells the ARchmage has but will never use, and think about what upcasting those spells would be.

I don't have the time. I'm not the only one. It is 2022, and in America, you work more then you live. On top of that, D&D is competing with board games, video games, movies, television, books, comics, and foreign entertainment markets like anime and manga. This isn't even getting into music, martial arts, or any other hobby you could have. So to convince me, and to convince other people, to play D&D every week, which takes hours of prep across a campaign and learning the rules and so on, you need the game to play a bit lighter.

D&D obviously doesn't want to get too light. They are very happy with their current amount of crunch, and are even increasing it given the upcoming feat rules changes for Dragonlance etc. But spellcasters as they were before are a nightmare to run for a time-pressed GM, and you'll never run more then 1 at the same time because holy hell is controlling 3-4 spell lists at the same time an immense feat of focus and knowledge.

Lastly, I'm sorry, but some of you are acting so spoiled. It isn't hard to change a stat block. It isn't hard to buff it. It isn't hard to add more spells, or to say that when they use one of their 1/day spells that it counts as a spell slot of that level for whatever random reason you come up with. It just isn't that hard. And the fact that "Arcane Blast" isn't a spell your players can learn doesn't matter either. Its obviously some trick the wizard has, just like how dragons breathe fire and so on. The fact that player's don't get it is mitigated by the fact that players get a huge amount of options. They don't need an Arcane Blast, which is a filler for whatever cantrip you want it to be.

People on this forum have lost perspective with the rest of the fandom. You think that because its easy for you to pick up and play the game as is, that it is for everyone, but it is not. DMing D&D has never been easy, and making monsters easier to run is a big boon for the game. I much more prefer this new direction then anything in the past, because now I can run a whole rival part of spellcasters and not have to worry about 100 spell slots to keep track of (what a horrible thing!).
 

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.
And at which point will we stop having 5ed and start having something entirely different in scope and play but still called 5ed? At some point, it will simply be a false representation. Let's be done with 5ed and move on to 6ed already as the game is starting to no longer look like what I bought.
 

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.
You know that with these lasts sentences you are making exactly my point. This is exactly why I prefer spell slots. Unlimited shield spells andirror images and even counter spells could be OP. But with spell slots, the foes are limited in usage and still versatile enough to have answers to different threats.
 

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.
But we're they even worth considering as improvement? Even during 4ed, there were those of that claimed that the stat block for casters were lacking. At least that is what I remember from the forums back then.
 

I have yet to understand a problem with the new stat blocks.

According to Crawford, most people that play D&D want to do so for 2-3 hour sessions once a week or once every two weeks. Every change they are doing isto make it so people who play the game for this duration have ample enough resources to enjoy themselves. Streamlined monster stat blocks are part of that.

If I have a 40 hour a week job and am also running a game, I don't want to have to parse an entire freaking 1st to 9th level spell list and then have to manage 1-3 of those spell lists in a session in a fight. If I have a salary position and I work anywhere from 40-80+ hours a week, I def don't have time to go through the 15 1st-5th level spells the ARchmage has but will never use, and think about what upcasting those spells would be.

I don't have the time. I'm not the only one. It is 2022, and in America, you work more then you live. On top of that, D&D is competing with board games, video games, movies, television, books, comics, and foreign entertainment markets like anime and manga. This isn't even getting into music, martial arts, or any other hobby you could have. So to convince me, and to convince other people, to play D&D every week, which takes hours of prep across a campaign and learning the rules and so on, you need the game to play a bit lighter.

D&D obviously doesn't want to get too light. They are very happy with their current amount of crunch, and are even increasing it given the upcoming feat rules changes for Dragonlance etc. But spellcasters as they were before are a nightmare to run for a time-pressed GM, and you'll never run more then 1 at the same time because holy hell is controlling 3-4 spell lists at the same time an immense feat of focus and knowledge.

Lastly, I'm sorry, but some of you are acting so spoiled. It isn't hard to change a stat block. It isn't hard to buff it. It isn't hard to add more spells, or to say that when they use one of their 1/day spells that it counts as a spell slot of that level for whatever random reason you come up with. It just isn't that hard. And the fact that "Arcane Blast" isn't a spell your players can learn doesn't matter either. Its obviously some trick the wizard has, just like how dragons breathe fire and so on. The fact that player's don't get it is mitigated by the fact that players get a huge amount of options. They don't need an Arcane Blast, which is a filler for whatever cantrip you want it to be.

People on this forum have lost perspective with the rest of the fandom. You think that because its easy for you to pick up and play the game as is, that it is for everyone, but it is not. DMing D&D has never been easy, and making monsters easier to run is a big boon for the game. I much more prefer this new direction then anything in the past, because now I can run a whole rival part of spellcasters and not have to worry about 100 spell slots to keep track of (what a horrible thing!).
Thanks for qualifying your position:

"I don't have the time and energy to play D&D the way it has been played the last 50 years, and I want WOTC to dumb the game down to cater to my lifestyle".

Well, it is clear that the accountants and marketers at WOTC/ Hasbro are listening to you.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Me????
Quite often.
A lich with an AC of 24 is hit. Shield and voilà ! It now has a higher AC for a while.
A cast in advance mirror image can work wonders, allowing for a few attacks to miss.
I see players using shield spells, mirror image spells all the time at high level.
And these are simply those at the top of my head because they are so often used. Clerics? Shield of faith and the list goes on and on.

I do not know if you often play high level and if you do the 6-8 encounters per "day". But if you do, your games are really different from what I have seen at not only my table, but dozens of others. Low level spells do not lose their utility as you advance in level, it is the type of spell being used that are.
I am not saying that low level spells lose utility.

I'm saying that action economy prevent use of low level spells during combat because D&D Combats are "short". So the mage would have to use them as reactions or precombat buffs.

And this is problematic as the spell slot chart was designed for 6-8 encounters. I realized this after casting shield for the 5th time and nuking the party into submission.
 

Thanks for qualifying your position:

"I don't have the time and energy to play D&D the way it has been played the last 50 years, and I want WOTC to dumb the game down to cater to my lifestyle".

Well, it is clear that the accountants and marketers at WOTC/ Hasbro are listening to you.
Yep! They are! Good!

People like you who don't respect people like me can still play the game with your 50 years of material and experience.

People like me can come in and actually make sure that D&D stays afloat and doesn't crash when it was just you and co in 4E.

Not too late to be on the right side of history, friend!
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Again, no attack, no save, guaranteed damage. There is something to be said for that, otherwise why would SO MANY PCs take it???

I don’t know if you’ve made this particular argument, but many people have said the champion fighter is popular not because it’s good but because the hobby is full of clueless noobs.

Both theories are plausible, but I don’t know how one would demonstrate which is true.
 

Remove ads

Top