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

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't see how the Vecna style spellcasting changes the need to look up spells in the PH.

It is still just a list of spell in the new stat blocks, no spell details are in the stat block. The only thing that changed was whether the DM uses slots that can be upcast or tracks X/day for specified spells. If you don't remember the specific details of dominate monster you still have to look it up.

Many of the spells are converted into spell-like abilities and otherwise the spell list is reduced. It's generally a group that I can much easier remember.

Obviously it's not perfect. Imagine the complaints we'd have if I got what I'd prefer - a very simplified version of the stat-block and yet everything the monster can do spelled out right there. No spell names at all (at least not without saying what the spells do). And all of that has to fit on a half-page, tops. Good thing I'm not in charge, right?

 

[Hussar]

Super minor quibble: the design assumption for 5E is 2-3 Rounds, but much closer to 2 Rounds than 3 on average. Which is what lead to them realizing after 5 years that there cam be a mathematical transparency of Monsters and Spell slots which undergirds the newer design choices.

Well, sure. Potato, potahto. Whether you peg things at 3 rounds or 2 rounds, probably doesn't make an enormous difference in monster design. 3 rounds vs 5+ rounds though DOES make a big difference. A 3 round monster doesn't need more than 4 things it can do. A 5 round monster needs 5 and probably a couple more because the combat will go longer than 5 rounds very often.

Thus, in 4e, you get monsters with one main action then 3-5 subsequent actions that they can choose from. Works very well for that system.

What we really don't need is a full spell list with 20+ different spells for a creature that's likely only going to last 5 rounds at the outside. Which is why they're going with this new stat block. Since it is perfectly acceptable for non-casters to completely ignore PC build rules, there's no particular reason why casters have to. Coupled with the fact that most of that stat block is just wasted space, confusing to use and often leads to DM's making mistakes during the game, there really aren't too many good reasons to keep the full spell list and lots of very good reasons to go with a truncated list.

@Voadam - that would answer your point too about looking spells up for monsters. Sure, you might have to look up Dominate Monster. Fair enough, it's something that is pretty complex to use and likely not something people have memorized. OTOH, it's not like you have six different spells that you have to look up - which is what you have in the longer spell list. Do you know how Prismatic Wall works without looking it up? Now, we've got an 18th level wizard, so, he should have a couple of 8th level spells too - let's see - Antipathy (I have zero idea how that one works without looking it up) and Control Weather.

Sure, I'm picking random examples but, I think I'm making my point. In a spell list of 20+ options, there are MANY spells the DM is going to have to look up in the middle of combat or make mistakes. Do the spells require concentration or not? What do these spells actually do? So on and so forth. And that's just spells from the SRD. Never minding if there's spells from other books as well. O.O

I'm still having trouble thinking that a longer spell list is somehow better than a truncated one. You're just not gaining anything with the longer spell list.

 

[Arilyn]

Many of the spells are converted into spell-like abilities and otherwise the spell list is reduced. It's generally a group that I can much easier remember.

Obviously it's not perfect. Imagine the complaints we'd have if I got what I'd prefer - a very simplified version of the stat-block and yet everything the monster can do spelled out right there. No spell names at all (at least not without saying what the spells do). And all of that has to fit on a half-page, tops. Good thing I'm not in charge, right?

I am officially putting you in charge.

 

[Eric V]

I won't say I can understand why people don't like the change (seems all positive to me), but the more interesting question to me is the (rhetorical?) "Why would WotC upset so many people by doing this? What's the motive?"

Well, I can't say for sure what the motive is...but I am sure that it's not baseless, and there's data behind it.

We're talking about 5e, the most fan-servicey version of the game ever. Designed to be popular. Constant checking for feedback, and going with what players say they want, even if it means sacrificing some brilliantly creative piece of design.

So...I am confident that if they're doing this, it's because the feedback they received indicates it's being asked for by a majority.

It's also consistent with the philosophy of "putting the power back in the hands of the DM" (which I personally think is malarky, but...): the DM doesn't need the statblock to know that Vecna can use mage hand; Vecna can use mage hand because the DM said so. Can the high priest animate the dead to terrorize the town, even if that particular spell is missing from his statblock? Of course he can. Why does a vampire need a special ability in-text to summon wolves...can't the DM just budget them in as part of the encounter?

WotC is being consistent with its marketing strategy, as well as its game philosophy.

 

[billd91]

What we really don't need is a full spell list with 20+ different spells for a creature that's likely only going to last 5 rounds at the outside. Which is why they're going with this new stat block. Since it is perfectly acceptable for non-casters to completely ignore PC build rules, there's no particular reason why casters have to. Coupled with the fact that most of that stat block is just wasted space, confusing to use and often leads to DM's making mistakes during the game, there really aren't too many good reasons to keep the full spell list and lots of very good reasons to go with a truncated list.

A truncated list may be useful, but some of the lists for the spellcasters in Monsters of the Multiverse are… well, not very good. Some of them clearly imply the NPC’s role is to force the PCs to retreat or die trying because they are NOT going to be very good at getting away to live another day if things don’t go well for them - and their defenses aren’t so good either.

And that’s not much better than being the oft criticized “bag of hit points”.

 

[billd91]

Well, I can't say for sure what the motive is...but I am sure that it's not baseless, and there's data behind it.

We're talking about 5e, the most fan-servicey version of the game ever. Designed to be popular. Constant checking for feedback, and going with what players say they want, even if it means sacrificing some brilliantly creative piece of design.

So...I am confident that if they're doing this, it's because the feedback they received indicates it's being asked for by a majority.

Maybe? But trends based on survey data can be kind of vague. I can see surveys indicating that DMs want some ease of use improvements with NPC spellcasters. But are they being so specific that they’re saying “and give none of those wizards a frickin’ shield spell”? There‘s room for wondering if the D&D team is developing the best way of satisfying the preferences they are seeing in the feedback they’re getting.

 

[Voadam]

@Voadam - that would answer your point too about looking spells up for monsters. Sure, you might have to look up Dominate Monster. Fair enough, it's something that is pretty complex to use and likely not something people have memorized. OTOH, it's not like you have six different spells that you have to look up - which is what you have in the longer spell list.

Vecna has 13 spells in addition to his five not spell magical power actions (plus his dagger attack and multiattack).

Spellcasting. Vecna casts one of the following spells, requiring no material components and using Intelligence as the spellcasting ability (spell save DC 22):
At will: animate dead (as an action), detect magic, dispel magic, fly, lightning bolt, mage hand, prestidigitation
2/day each: dimension door, invisibility, scrying (as an action)
1/day each: dominate monster, globe of invulnerability, plane shift (self only).

Do you know how Prismatic Wall works without looking it up? Now, we've got an 18th level wizard, so, he should have a couple of 8th level spells too - let's see - Antipathy (I have zero idea how that one works without looking it up) and Control Weather.

Actually the default MM NPC archmage 18th level caster has only one 8th level spell prepared.

6th level (1 slot) : globe of invulnerability
7th level (1 slot): teleport
8th level (1 slot): mind blank*
9th level (1 slot) : time stop
*The archmage casts these spells on itself before combat.

Sure, I'm picking random examples but, I think I'm making my point. In a spell list of 20+ options, there are MANY spells the DM is going to have to look up in the middle of combat or make mistakes. Do the spells require concentration or not? What do these spells actually do? So on and so forth. And that's just spells from the SRD. Never minding if there's spells from other books as well. O.O

Looking in Monsters of the Multiverse it is disappointing they do not have new versions of the Volo's Guide to Monster NPC stat blocks like the conjurer. It would be nice to compare two versions of the same exact thing for a bunch of wizard types.

You have to go to something like the Hobgoblin Devastator which in Volo's is a 7th level caster with 13 spells and 1/3/3/4 slots versus the MotM version which has a non spell 21 damage devastating bolt as an action and spellcasting of seven spells, five of them 2x day.

Of note for minigiants complaint of novaing with slots versus the new format, a MotM devastator can fly and throw two fireballs and two lightning bolts in a fight/day. A Volo's slot based one can use his three third level slots and his one fourth slot among his prepared fireball, fly, lightning bolt, and ice storm spells. After those big guns the Volo's goes to scorching rays, magic missiles, and fire bolts at 7th caster level compared to the 21 damage MotM devastating bolt.

The new MotM format seems to roughly cut the listed spells in half and throw in more magical non-spell powers for their actual caster types.

 

[Hussar]

A truncated list may be useful, but some of the lists for the spellcasters in Monsters of the Multiverse are… well, not very good. Some of them clearly imply the NPC’s role is to force the PCs to retreat or die trying because they are NOT going to be very good at getting away to live another day if things don’t go well for them - and their defenses aren’t so good either.

And that’s not much better than being the oft criticized “bag of hit points”.

That, however is a separate issue. That's not a problem with the length of the spell list.

 

[Stoutstien]

Just curious, because I guess i missed the origin of this conversation, what the heck are you talking about?

It's just another example of how people are reading into the game and confusing common patterns with design intent. A lot of the core things that are upsetting a subset of players/DMs never actually existed. The adventuring day isn't broken because a table can't maintain the 6-8 average because that doesn't exist. The length of combat isn't supposed to be approximately three rounds because that is solely for calculating offensive CR. NPCs changing format isn't moving away from some underlining design paradigm because the vast majority of them are put together with a top/down approach meaning they start with theme, feel, and flavor and smooth out the the fit n finish until it's close enough. It's apparent because you can see it in the way NPCs glaring breaks in pattern from when they got to the end and realized it was off. Thanks to the fact they don't have anything solid to meet they just changed some numbers and called it good.

 

[Hussar]

The new MotM format seems to roughly cut the listed spells in half and throw in more magical non-spell powers for their actual caster types.

Which is exactly solving the issue is it not? You still have a fair number of spell options (which can easily be swapped out) and a creature that is considerably easier to run. That's a plus isn't it?