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

[Shardstone]

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.

Just pick a method damn it and stick to it! Or in other words, just do what you think is best, and design the monsters that way. Let's hope it works out! I think it will.

 

[Morrus]

Just pick a method damn it and stick to it! Or in other words, just do what you think is best, and design the monsters that way.

That’s the province of indie creators, not international megacorporations.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Do not forget shield. Do not forget it. Or mirror image and any other low level spell. Do not tunnel vision the fact.that a magic missile can be upcast for a 7th level spell... It is but one possibility that spell slot offers.

yeah I almost feel like every caster in this new way needs a sheild like effect as a reaction... Vecna can teleport away (no help agains the rogue but big help against the fighter)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Indeed. There is accounting for taste.

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.

I love Star Wars, but I happily ignore the fandom.

 

[Shardstone]

That’s the province of indie creators, not international megacorporations.

Alas, if only we all had the freedom of smaller presses, smaller audiences. WotC has no easy job before them, if these threads are any indication!

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know if the NPC version represent PC equivalents. I see them as tower mages, cloister priests, landed knights, and gang thieves and not the PC adventurer equals.

Then they shouldn't have the same name. Make a summoner, not a Conjurer. Conjurer is specifically a Wizard subclass and we know their abilities.

 

[Reynard]

So, anyway....yeah. There are obviously two (or more) basic viewpoints here, but I wish the group that's feeling slighted by these changes would stop dismissing the other viewpoint as a "kids these days" thing. Some of us old guys have seen our style evolve, and think our games are better for it.

Preferences change over time, for sure. Sometimes it is just about available mental bandwidth. I totally get that some folks like simpler or more unified or cleaner or whatever mechanics as a method to reduce the stress of play. But if you like D&D because it is kind of a crunchy game with lots of knobs and dials and other peculiarities, it is perfectly reasonable to be less than excited about the design paradigm changing to smooth out that crunch. Just like sometimes preferences change and games don't, sometimes games change and preferences don't.

Overall, I think there is plenty of design space in D&D to do both.

 

[Reynard]

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.

Right. The value of complexity is entirely subjective, depending on a large number of factors mostly boiling down to "what people want out of the experience of play." In the case of Vecna and his spells, some people want to model what an arch-lich should look like in the fiction while others want to optimize the stat block for utility while still others want to hew close to tradition and on and on.

It is also important to note that individual points of complexity are tied up in broader system details and sometimes trying to fix one point causes a cascade of problems. My favorite example is the fiddly rules for weapons in 1E, including weapon versus armor type, weapon reach and other details that most people tossed out because they did not judge the benefit of that complexity worth the cost. But by tossing that stuff out, people inadvertently contributed to the borification of the fighter. That is, the fighter's primary advantage in 1E was their ability to use any weapon, which meant they had tools to face many kinds of opponents. By eliminating the granularity of weapon utility in tossing out those rules, all that was really left was the size of the damage die. Suddenly the fighter was boring and not especially useful compared to other martial classes, and certain when compared to clerics and magic users. The cost of reducing complexity in that case was very high, but essentially invisible to most people.

 

[Minigiant]

Then they shouldn't have the same name. Make a summoner, not a Conjurer. Conjurer is specifically a Wizard subclass and we know their abilities.

Part of me says YES, Separate the PC names and NPC names. Conjurer for PCs, Summoner for NPCs. Fighters for PCs Battlers? for NPCs.

Part of me says NO because there are only so many commonly understood synonyms for things in D&D. So you'll get dumb names like Battler or running into "MTG Naming Syndrome" where a simple blasty mage is a Sardonyx Sindermage.

 

[Maxperson]

Part of me says YES, Separate the PC names and NPC names. Conjurer for PCs, Summoner for NPCs. Fighters for PCs Battlers? for NPCs.

Part of me says NO because there are only so many commonly understood synonyms for things in D&D. So you'll get dumb names like Battler or running into "MTG Naming Syndrome" where a simple blasty mage is a Sardonyx Sindermage.

I don't mind using a synonym in fiction, because that's where such things are typically used. If the farmer says that a conjurer of magic tricks came through, he could be talking about anything from a Cleric, to a Conjurer, to a Arcane Trickster, to a Bard and a dozen other things besides.

When it comes to mechanics and titles of things, I think being clear is a bigger deal. A Conjurer is different from all other spellcasters that isn't the Conjurer subclass. We use these titles to have discussions, run the game and talk about the game.

So title the thing Summoner in the books and then have the farmer call it a Conjurer, Caller of Beings or whatever.