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

[Parmandur]

But they're all they give us to work with. You have to assume that's what they consider a monster to be, because they don't give us anything else.

Until Level Up's Monster Menagerie came out, my favorite monster book for D&D by far was the 2e Monstrous Manual. That's a book that tried to give a full picture of it's subjects. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it was designed for what I wanted.

There is nothing to suggest in the books, and plenty to indicate otherwise, that a stat block is not an all-encompassing simulation. Thst has never been the case in 5E.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But they're all they give us to work with. You have to assume that's what they consider a monster to be, because they don't give us anything else.

Until Level Up's Monster Menagerie came out, my favorite monster book for D&D by far was the 2e Monstrous Manual. That's a book that tried to give a full picture of it's subjects. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it was designed for what I wanted.

I don't consider that PC statblocks represent the entirety of what a PC can do in a game - and indeed part of my job as DM is to handle what happens when the PCs come up with absurd plans that step round the rules. If the PCs are not living in an Order of the Stick style universe where they can only do things on their character sheets then why on earth would I think that Monsters were living in an Order of the Stick style universe?

And the 2e Monstrous Manual has always been to me the most overrated D&D book in history. It's ludicrously biologically determinist, pretty much implying that all members of a given race socialise the same way and coming close to enforcing segregation between the monster races. It does precisely what I don't want from a Monster Manual right down to burying needed combat mechanics deep in the social organisation section (that in and of itself, as mentioned, I find harmful to worldbuilding).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I appreciate that you feel that way, but I don't think your preferences are universal. Nor do I think it is necessarily a positive development to continuously reduce complexity for "ease of use." I think it continues the "MCUification" of the game. Granted, my preferences aren't any more "important" than yours, so the real trends will be driven by some combination of market research, fan feedback, and designer preference.

I do however think that complexity is inherently a cost for an RPG. I say a cost because there are times when it is worth paying the cost - but if there are two ways of doing the same thing then the simpler method is, all else being equal, inherently better. But the last thing I want to do is focus on the mechanics rather than the characters and the setting.

Does this mean that going down to coin flips for everything would be better as it would be simpler? No. Complexity has its benefits. But. As far as I'm concerned neither the older nor the newer statblock for Vecna encompassed everything he could do or even every spell he could cast after a long rest. Vecna is a lich with a known penchant for secrets and a huge library. Both styles of statblock represented him in a state you were likely to meet him for the purpose of combat. Therefore as far as I can tell not one single thing of value has been lost. But the new version is simultaneously more evocative than the old style thanks to personal spells, more interesting, and definitely easier to use.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't consider that PC statblocks represent the entirety of what a PC can do in a game - and indeed part of my job as DM is to handle what happens when the PCs come up with absurd plans that step round the rules. If the PCs are not living in an Order of the Stick style universe where they can only do things on their character sheets then why on earth would I think that Monsters were living in an Order of the Stick style universe?

And the 2e Monstrous Manual has always been to me the most overrated D&D book in history. It's ludicrously biologically determinist, pretty much implying that all members of a given race socialise the same way and coming close to enforcing segregation between the monster races. It does precisely what I don't want from a Monster Manual right down to burying needed combat mechanics deep in the social organisation section (that in and of itself, as mentioned, I find harmful to worldbuilding).

If I didn't expect my love for the Monstrous Manual to be immediately attacked, I wouldn't have mentioned it. You and I couldn't feel more differently on this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do however think that complexity is inherently a cost for an RPG. I say a cost because there are times when it is worth paying the cost - but if there are two ways of doing the same thing then the simpler method is, all else being equal, inherently better. But the last thing I want to do is focus on the mechanics rather than the characters and the setting.

Does this mean that going down to coin flips for everything would be better as it would be simpler? No. Complexity has its benefits. But. As far as I'm concerned neither the older nor the newer statblock for Vecna encompassed everything he could do or even every spell he could cast after a long rest. Vecna is a lich with a known penchant for secrets and a huge library. Both styles of statblock represented him in a state you were likely to meet him for the purpose of combat. Therefore as far as I can tell not one single thing of value has been lost. But the new version is simultaneously more evocative than the old style thanks to personal spells, more interesting, and definitely easier to use.

The battle lines have definitely been drawn, and shots fired. There's no way WotC is going to please everybody. I hope the people who won this round are at least magnanimous in victory.

 

[Morrus]

There's no way WotC is going to please everybody.

No. When we're in a situation where everybody can weigh in on exactly how they think a stat block should be laid out, and defends that detail to the death, and each person has a different exact opinion that any deviation from is heresy, there's no way of pleasing people.

Also see: fandom in general.

Don't see: Star Wars fandom because it'll make you real sad.

It's the world we live in now.

 

[Umbran]

No. When we're in a situation where everybody can weigh in on exactly how they think a stat block should be laid out, and defends that detail to the death, and each person has a different exact opinion that any deviation from is heresy, there's no way of pleasing people.

It is almost as if they've never had to compromise or come to a consensus on anything.

 

[Greg Benage]

each person has a different exact opinion that any deviation from is heresy, there's no way of pleasing people.

To be fair, most people in this thread are saying "let's find a happy medium!" over and over again. Just a few are insisting "I can't possibly add/remove spells" or "my brain can't process any spells except for the exact ones that already happen to be in this stat block."

 

[Neonchameleon]

If I didn't expect my love for the Monstrous Manual to be immediately attacked, I wouldn't have mentioned it. You and I couldn't feel more differently on this.

Indeed. There is accounting for taste.

The battle lines have definitely been drawn, and shots fired. There's no way WotC is going to please everybody. I hope the people who won this round are at least magnanimous in victory.

I was on the losing side of the anti-4e edition war. I can promise to be more magnanimous than that in victory - but I don't expect too much (especially as this isn't a full victory; I still have to go through the nuisance of checking multiple books at the same time just to lose a monster). As @Morrus says, don't see Star Wars fandom or it will make you sad.

 

[seebs]

I had this same conversation when I asked about the massive power spike in 3E of giving mind flayers unlimited psionic blasts, and was told by Sage Advice that it doesn't matter because monsters are only around briefly so why model it.