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

[Vaalingrade]

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

Yeah, this is not a new problem. In my own memory, the only edition I've played that didn't get a new monster stat block was 3e, but that's because the new statblock came with 3.5... which then changed stat blocks twice.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

But again it would require WOTC to formally name the NPC versions of each class and each "major" subclass.

I mean...

What do you call the NPCversion of a Abjurer Wizard?
What do you call NPC hunter rangers if ranger is the class and hunter is the subclass?
When the thieves guild sends guys to gank ya in the dungeon, which NPC entry is the DM pulling from? Thief assassin and rogue are subclasses and classes!
Are NPC bard minstrels?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

Is that really important though? A conjurer is a wizard who conjures stuff. What's the big deal if there's more than one way to do it? You can tell which one it is because one is a Player's character and the other one is a DM's monster. In the world, BOTH of them are wizards who do things the way that they personally do them.

EDIT: I missed your more in-depth explanation. I agree with that. (Though I don't think it's a big deal either way, and I doubt you do either).

 

[Micah Sweet]

But again it would require WOTC to formally name the NPC versions of each class and each "major" subclass.

I mean...

What do you call the NPCversion of a Abjurer Wizard?
What do you call NPC hunter rangers if ranger is the class and hunter is the subclass?
When the thieves guild sends guys to gank ya in the dungeon, which NPC entry is the DM pulling from? Thief assassin and rogue are subclasses and classes!
Are NPC bard minstrels?

Good point. I guess they'll just have to keep spellcasting the same for both, to avoid confusion.

 

[Maxperson]

But again it would require WOTC to formally name the NPC versions of each class and each "major" subclass.

I mean...

What do you call the NPCversion of a Abjurer Wizard?

If it acts like an Abjurer Wizard, you call it an Abjurer. If it just sort of counters and dispels things sometimes, you can call if a Singing Pea if you want to. If you want to make it sound something like an Abjurer, which you don't have to, then you have to find some sort of synonym.

What do you call NPC hunter rangers if ranger is the class and hunter is the subclass?

Again, an NPC hunter RANGER is a Hunter Ranger subclass and would have those abilities. Or you can just call it a Mercenary Tracker or something. You don't need 8 variations of the same sort of NPC, so it's not hard to come up with synonyms. If you want it to be the NPC version of an actual subclass, you call it the subclass name and give it subclass abilities, including spells if any.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I want to try again, because that’s still not it. It’s not about mental bandwidth or free time. (At least for me.)

It’s that I’ve found I enjoy RPGs more when less is predefined. I like world-building as it unfolds, in response to what the players do. Sure, some broad outlines are set up of major NPCs and factions and conflicts. But the details largely get invented as they are needed. And I find I am way more creative if I use player actions as my inspiration, than I am if I just try to invent it whole cloth.

Elsewhere I’ve praised Kelsey Dionne’s adventures. NPCs aren’t given complex stories: they are given a motivation, and a couple adjectives. I find this far more useful and fun (and, yes, quicker to read) than multiple paragraphs of some author’s detailed instructions. It’s my NPC, not theirs.

Does that make sense? If I had infinite time to do nothing but play D&D, I would still want the abbreviated version. I like the games that result.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. It's funny. Dragotha, for 3.5 in Dungeon Magazine, had a page and a half stat block and was the longest stat block Dungeon published for 3.5. And 3.5 D&D is a heck of a lot more complex than 5e. Yet, here, we have a two page stat block and that's heralded as being simpler to use? And, it's not actually addressing the point that's been made repeatedly throughout this thread that NPC's and PC's should use the same rules. It's apparently okay to not use PC rules, so long as you aren't WotC?

Again, in a combat that's going to last about 3 rounds (give or take), why do I want a stat block that gives me dozens of potential actions per round? And, again, since this keeps getting ignored, since DM's can't actually handle the complexity without making mistakes in play, what's the point of using higher complexity?

Do people really think that they don't make multiple mistakes per combat with high level monsters?

Just to add a later thought - isn't this the best of both worlds though? Those that want a more complicated version of D&D are getting a more complex version of D&D. Those that want a simpler version are getting what they want. Where's the problem?

 

[MichaelSomething]

This thread feels like a conflict between the lawful and chaotic alignments...

 

[Morrus]

Heh. It's funny. Dragotha, for 3.5 in Dungeon Magazine, had a page and a half stat block and was the longest stat block Dungeon published for 3.5. And 3.5 D&D is a heck of a lot more complex than 5e. Yet, here, we have a two page stat block and that's heralded as being simpler to use? Thank goodness I know that the Mouthless has Prestidigitation.

Again, in a combat that's going to last about 3 rounds (give or take), why do I want a stat block that gives me dozens of potential actions per round? And, again, since this keeps getting ignored, since DM's can't actually handle the complexity without making mistakes in play, what's the point of using higher complexity?

Do people really think that they don't make multiple mistakes per combat with high level monsters?

We're making Advanced 5E. It's OK if that's not what you personally want or need, but I'm not sure why the dripping sarcasm or badwrongfun overtones are necessary. Plenty of people love our books, but they don't have to be for everyone.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Heh. It's funny. Dragotha, for 3.5 in Dungeon Magazine, had a page and a half stat block and was the longest stat block Dungeon published for 3.5. And 3.5 D&D is a heck of a lot more complex than 5e. Yet, here, we have a two page stat block and that's heralded as being simpler to use? Thank goodness I know that the Mouthless has Prestidigitation.

Again, in a combat that's going to last about 3 rounds (give or take), why do I want a stat block that gives me dozens of potential actions per round? And, again, since this keeps getting ignored, since DM's can't actually handle the complexity without making mistakes in play, what's the point of using higher complexity?

Do people really think that they don't make multiple mistakes per combat with high level monsters?

I'm pretty sure its not all DMs, and making that decision for other people based on assumption can cause some real problems. Just say you don't like it. That's fine.