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

[nevin]

4th edition was absolutely the best designed iteration of D&D to date. Unfortunately, I think for many D&D players, that was its fatal flaw. An important part of the experience for many D&D players is the feeling of an organic fantasy world, and design is the opposite of organic…ness. 4e was a precisely-built, well-oiled machine, but a lot of folks didn’t want a machine. Or, at least, they wanted a machine they could imagine wasn’t one.

yeah I think with a few tweaks 4th edition design would have made a great Scifi system. People want well oiled in that genre. But you are right.
most people want Fantasy to be the opposite of well oiled.

 

[Helldritch]

4th edition was absolutely the best designed iteration of D&D to date. Unfortunately, I think for many D&D players, that was its fatal flaw. An important part of the experience for many D&D players is the feeling of an organic fantasy world, and design is the opposite of organic…ness. 4e was a precisely-built, well-oiled machine, but a lot of folks didn’t want a machine. Or, at least, they wanted a machine they could imagine wasn’t one.

The problems of 4ed were a bit more than good design. But If I go into details, I fear that I will be accused of edition war even if that was one of my favorite edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

The problems of 4ed were a bit more than good design. But If I go into details, I fear that I will be accused of edition war even if that was one of my favorite edition.

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to say the only reason people didn’t like 4e was that it was too well designed, but I can see how it could have come across that way. My point was more that 4e’s design was excellent, but that isn’t actually a selling point for everyone.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You're comparing spell slots for players vs a DM having to keep track of 3-4 monsters with different abilities, some of which have spell slots as well. Novice DMs running a high-level one-shot like this Vecna one-shot are all but impossible in the old system.

Yes, I am comparing it, because it is about LEARNING THE GAME, whether you are a player or the DM.

If you want to be DM, you should understand that you will have to work harder and learn more. A novice DM who one-shots a high-level adventure is very likely going to make mistakes (probably several), no matter how much you simplify creatures.

I see new players struggle with all aspects of the game, so let's just get rid of action economy as well. You get to do one thing. No bonus actions, no reactions, no Extra Attack.

Every step you take to make the game "easier to learn" is fine. As myself and others have stated it would have been better if WotC did more work on supporting how creatures should be used/played instead of just on what they can do.

And many DMs on all social media have talked about how they feel they can finally comfortably use spellcasters as monsters now due to the new format.

So? People rarely post about a system that works well for them, they post about systems that don't and THEN will comment when what didn't work now does.

Lots of new players (and DMs) understand spell slots, enjoy the variety of spells and learning the options of everything they can do. Since that was the current system, you aren't going to hear them posting about how well it already works for them unless they are addressing someone who is struggling...

Your small sample size is reflective of the bias you have for spell slots on monsters, which itself is based out of your long history with the game. You need to recognize that there is a huge audience outside of your sample size who were very much unwilling to engage with the challenges of spell slots.

And you should recognize there is a huge audience of people out there who learned the game with spell slots (again, even DMs) without any issue whatsoever for decades in many editions.

On top of that, you have to recognize the inherent irony in your words. You argue that you have the experience and skill to do this, but you don't have the experience and skill to add in a few more spells to your monsters? If you can master 25 spells on a lich's spell block and run it comfortably, you can easily add 5-10 more spells to the neo-lich spellblocks like Vecna.

There is no irony. I said WotC would be better off keeping spell slots and adding the new features, and include a guide for novice DMs on suggested spells to use. If anything, WotC is hamstringing DMs by limiting the options when they present a nerfed spellcasting system for creatures. My suggestion is the best of both worlds. Novice DMs have advice and crib notes to help them run the monster, experienced DMs have the full list of options. There is no "more work" involved for novice DMs with my idea, so why do you insist on your way (keeping the new format) and making more work for me and other experienced DMs???

Anyway, to me this is like learning Chess. Each piece moves its own way. It takes time to learn and remember how the game goes. But once you learn it, playing is easy enough IME--mastery is what is hard, of course.

The truth? The game lacks one big thing. How to DM effectively.

Yep. That would be the biggest help for novice (and even experienced) DMs...

 

[dave2008]

Which is my point. It is there if you want to use it, and the fact you are ignoring it completely means you are, in fact, removing something already present. But in all likelihood, fireball would be on that spell list...

You are then going the next step (which is fine, of course), to add something back in the second case. But as I said, it was likely already there in the spell list. So, all you are really doing (it seems to me anyway) is ignoring the spell slots and other spell options.

I am sorry for my failure to explain as you are misunderstanding my intent. I don't have the best track record in getting people to understand my point of view, so I will leave at: we just see this differently. As someone else pointed out on this thread I believe, we can, and are, both correct. They are just different viewpoints. I accept yours, hopefully you can do the same for mine.

Now, which viewpoint is more common? I have no idea. I can only assume those that have the ability and desire to have this information do and are make decisions based on that information. Of course you know what they say when you assume!

 

[nevin]

The basic stat blocks give new DM's an easy starting point. From there they can work on system mastery and doing it "hard mode"
I don't understand how you get having the basic stat blocks prevents the use of all the rules.
Some won't. But like it or not limiting options is one of the most effective things to do when teaching anything. That was the whole idea behind the Basic set in the 70's. It worked great. people played basic, rules then added more rules as needed.

 

[dave2008]

nothing to see here

 

[Stoutstien]

And yet, just read the DMG carefully. The exp budget for the day should not be spent on to only one encounter and when you take everything into account you get, you guessed it. 6-8 encounters per day. Which is exactly an other relic of 4ed. If you missed it. How many young DM missed it? I almost missed it myself. It is only because we playtested 5ed when it got out that we found out. And we were people with 20 to 40 years into the hobby. Imagine someone new...

.. because it's based on feed back on what a party could handle with a built in buffer for DM mistakes? The exp budget is based on exp, which is based on CR, which is based on.... Nothing. Nothing is hiding behind the curtains with 5e. It's a hobbled mass of barely functional ideas and we love it for that.
Unlike 4e we don't have a pretty progression chart that maps PC potential and abilities. It's all from the hip. The game design team hasn't denied this. In fact every single time they are asked the response is the same.
-The DMG makes no suggestions on encounter count or difficulty.
-the DMG has guidance when a party "might" get low on resources.
-all mechanical pacing is purely to serve the table no the other way around.

• DMs are expected to figure it out for a given table..with no support.
• good luck suckers.

 

[dave2008]

4th edition was absolutely the best designed iteration of D&D to date. ...

4e was a precisely-built, well-oiled machine, ...

While I basically agree, I think it could have been a better machine. PF2e is a lot of what 4e could have been. I think my ideal is some combination of 4e, PF2e, and 5e. I just need the time (which is really money) to make it!

 

[Reynard]

The basic stat blocks give new DM's an easy starting point.

They really don't though, because they don't give the beginner any information on how to utilize the features or when to cast spells or what to DO with Vecna.