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

[Minigiant]

Ahem.... Last game with group number one saw a fight with a shadow dragon. The group is 11th level, 6 characters strong. My players are optimizers through and through (in those group) with 20 to 40 years playing with me. That little fight lasted... 24 rounds. Yep 24 rounds. And the dragon is still alive but fled. 3 characters died, one died because I used magic missile to kill him so that the cleric could not revived him. So yep, low level spells can be of utmost importance even at high and ultra high levels. And this dragon was a standard dragon with spell.casting ability as an option. Let's just say that I caught them with their pants down. And that dragon will come back at them with minions next time. Unless they find its lair first...

Yes the game is based around the 6-8 encounters and fights lasting around 5 rounds on average. But this is an average. Some fights last less, others last a lot longer. And again, a monster can appear more than once and the spell slot system is much better to simulate resource attrition than the stat block that they are going for.

Why didnt the shadow dragon use a cantrip over magic missile? Or the claw bite combo.

If it is due to not having a ranged attack well that's a separate problem. Because it still means lower level slots aren't useful to anyone who have both melee and range attacks.

 

[Thomas Rainsborough]

Where is your problem with this? If you have the time and energy to run it the old way, you have the time and energy to add it back in.
Or do you need the game to "dumb it down" for you, by spelling out what kinds of spells and slots a monster has, to use it the old way? Or is it only dumbing it down when the game goes in a direction you don't like?

If you think making things more efficient is dumbing it down, you should have no problem with adding stuff yourself. So maybe stop asking for your way to be included to help you run it more efficiently. Efficiency is just dumbing down, according to yourself.

If you think efficiency equates to dumbing down, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe get a dictionary?
I have another proposal. If you dislike the way D&D is played right now, might I suggest you look at Dungeon World, or any other set of games that are vastly more "efficient" than D&D.

What gives you the entitlement to waltz into a 50 year old hobby and say "nope, change it to cater to me", as opposed to you finding something more suited to your tastes? You want to shriek "gatekeeper!", so be it. I don't see many other games that have around a long making fundamental changes to their core.

Oh, and I am currently running a AD&D 1e game, a 5e game, and soon a 2nd 5e game. I do know more than a little about what I am speaking about. I have enough on my plate altering the existing stat blocks to something that is far more reasonable as it is. I don't need these added headaches.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Honestly, it is probably both LOL! FWIW, Champion IS my favorite fighter subclass because I do think it is good. I love Remarkable Athlete, both for the benefits and the concept. I know a lot of people like BM, but to me I find superiority dice annoying. EKs are ok, but take too long to really get going with their slow spell progression. The ones in XGtE have good points but also a lot of bad points IMO.

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

You really can't, of course, all you can do is state your own experiences--and in my cases the vast majority of wizards typically have spells like magic missile eventually.

When people compare it to the 4d8 of a standard 17th-level cantrip, they think the cantrip is vastly superior. It isn't. The average of 4d8 is 18 points, with a 65% chance to hit gives you about 12 damage expected. Magic missile is a guaranteed 10.5, just a bit less, and fewer creatures have resistance to force damage than the other damage types cantrips do. So, I am not saying magic missile is a better option, simply that it can be.

While I can understand the views of those who like the new stat block/spellcasting, to me this Vecna simply does not represent an archlich (wizard) who should have way more options in terms of powers and features (accomplished in the past through spells and a spell list). Given his power level, it is expected for him to have features unheard of by mortals, which WotC has attempted at least.

Now, I agree with other that WotC's spell lists in creatures is often lack luster and not great (IMO) considering what spells are available. Of course they make some good choices, but I see a lot of them as suboptimal so I have to change them anyway.

 

[Nuclear Monkey]

That is a very silly thing to contend. they are in constant contact with their player base and privvy to all kinds of information we are not. If WotC isn't doing what you think the game needs, chances are you are the one out of touch. [insert skinner gif]

Just because they have the data does not mean their interpretation is correct. On what evidence are you basing your assertion that WoTC is making the right changes for the game?

 

[theCourier]

If you think efficiency equates to dumbing down, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe get a dictionary?
I have another proposal. If you dislike the way D&D is played right now, might I suggest you look at Dungeon World, or any other set of games that are vastly more "efficient" than D&D.

What gives you the entitlement to waltz into a 50 year old hobby and say "nope, change it to cater to me", as opposed to you finding something more suited to your tastes? You want to shriek "gatekeeper!", so be it. I don't see many other games that have around a long making fundamental changes to their core.

Oh, and I am currently running a AD&D 1e game, a 5e game, and soon a 2nd 5e game. I do know more than a little about what I am speaking about. I have enough on my plate altering the existing stat blocks to something that is far more reasonable as it is. I don't need these added headaches.

Well, actually, if anyone should be looking for alternative games due to their unhapiness with D&D, it's the people who disagree with these changes. Not, you know, the ones who these changes are being made for.

You're not going to get your game to feel like it was before, they're not going to reverse the changes when the game keeps selling like hotcakes, and nobody is intruding in on a hobby. They're making it more profitable, which is what a company likes to see, so the company is going to try and make it easy for those players and new players like them to keep coming into the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was trying to engage with your argument, not the specific terminology, I apologize for being unclear!

My point is that having the effectiveness of anti-spell abilities change in the mechanics either requires the table to ignore that change in the lore of the game world, or else to have that change in IC effectiveness be reflected by a change in the lore of the game world. A OOC dynamic environment where certain spells and abilities change in mechanical effectiveness creates a problem for tables that want the in game lore to reflect the mechanics but don't want to retcon the setting or have an IC dynamic environment where characters are aware that the utility of certain spells changes over time.

For example, at a table that wants to switch to using new-style caster statblocks, Globe of Invulnerability has changed OOC from blocking almost all PC caster and NPC caster offensive abilities to only working at full effectiveness against a small handful of people in the game world (the PCs and any NPCs built using slots)--all the other casters' primary attack bypasses the spell's protection. Such a table could: (1) choose to simply ignore that change and have PCs and NPCs make IC decisions on whether or not to prepare/learn Globe of Invulnerability as if the spell was still fully effective against all casters; (2) retcon the setting so that the perceived IC value of preparing/learning Globe of Invulnerability matches the new mechanics, and rebuild all PCs and NPC casters so that they can make a new IC decision on whether or not to prepare/learn the spell; or (3) have an IC event that explains the change in effectiveness so that casters are IC aware of the change and can take IC actions to adapt to it as best they can. At my table, at least, none of these options are palatable.

More broadly, because of the myriad approaches that tables take to connecting mechanics to in-game lore, there are far more complications to having a dynamic PC vs NPC metagame in an RPG than there are in games without as strong of a roleplaying element.

Oh! Ok, now I see what you mean. Yeah, this could certainly pose a challenge to some ongoing campaigns. For me, I think it just wouldn’t really come up. Anti-spell abilities become a bit less useful, it doesn’t particularly need to be addressed in the fiction. But, if your group is especially concerned with that kind of process simulation then yeah, I’d recommend not introducing these changes until your current campaign wraps up, and incorporating them into the next one from the start (if you want to incorporate them at all, that is).

 

[Undrave]

'Creativity" in this context usually means players throwing stuff at the wall hoping the DM will just give them the win. No thanks. You need a specific spell to defeat the Tarrasque (Wish), why not Vecna? Or how is it different than needing a special weapon, or need to toss the ring in the right volcano? Sometimes quests come with victory conditions.

A Wizard player's gonna show at the first battle with Vecna and be like "I prepared Dispell because I knew we'd be fighting Vecna" and the DM's gonna be moaning and malding about 'Meta-gaming'.

A fight isn't a 'quest'. If you need a special weapon then there's a whole adventure to get there and you got a goal to work towards to and a ton of obstacles to overcome. Taking a rest and getting Wish or Dispel is not.

And even at the end of LOTR, there was some creativity in play: "I can't carry the ring but I can carry you"

I could also see a quest to get a special weapon where the blade is shattered and our heroes use the pieces to make arrow heads.

One time in Adventurer League, none of the caster players showed up. Our party ended up fighting a group of animated trees that took basically no damage from our mundane weapons and our Paladin had spent all their Smite and we stll weren't through. My character had a lantern and oil in his backpack so we threw oil at the trees and set them on fire (I don't recall if we managed to kill them or just run away but the fire was instrumental). Maybe you think the DM went easy on us but I think THAT's problem solving and we didn't have to rely on a friggin' Caster to pull us out of trouble.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just the term 5E D&D has enough popularity and traction that it warrants a 5.5 release to hang onto the 5E term for another half decade or full decade. Calling it 5.5 (or something similar) is going to be the better marketing decision. So I agree completely.

Or heck, even 5.1! But that is probably too incremental.

I don’t think they’re likely to use the 5.X terminology either, as that was in retrospect kind of a misstep in the 3.0 to 3.5 transition. And they already don’t really like calling the current edition 5e if they can help it. It’s almost always just “D&D” unless they specifically need to refer to it in contrast with other iterations of the rules. I think if they call the 2024 rules anything, it’ll be the 50th anniversary edition or 50th anniversary revisions.

 

[Thomas Rainsborough]

Well, actually, if anyone should be looking for alternative games due to their unhapiness with D&D, it's the people who disagree with these changes. Not, you know, the ones who these changes are being made for.

You're not going to get your game to feel like it was before, they're not going to reverse the changes when the game keeps selling like hotcakes, and nobody is intruding in on a hobby. They're making it more profitable, which is what a company likes to see, so the company is going to try and make it easy for those players and new players like them to keep coming into the game.

Your statement is sadly accurate. I recognize that WOTC/Hasbro has made a conscious decision to cater to a mainstream crowd, which has no interest in any kind of complexity that takes away from valuable Tik Tok time, plus a much much younger customer base (aka 5 year olds), and only care for short term profits.

But in the long term, once the fad of D&D dies with the pop culturists, WOTC will be left with a rapidly shrinking customer base of bored teens and Gen Z's, and a hugely alienated base that has supported the company for decades.

 

[theCourier]

I think I just aged like a decade or two from reading that post.