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

[Reynard]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly from a "storytelling" standpoint, but I thought we were talking about mechanical complexity.

 

[Reynard]

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.

Wait, people want NPCs to be limited to PC rules? Why?

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

The thing is that Dragotha will have had something like

Feats: Blind-Fight, Combat Expertise, Extend Spell, Flyby Attack, Hover, Improved Maneuverability, Large and in Charge, Power Attack, Recover Breath, Rend, Shape Breath, Snatch​

in their stat block (actually taken from an ordinary Dracolich). And those aren't rules but pointers. (As for that matter are spells). Saying "Dragotha's stat block was only a page and a half" doesn't take into account that that page and a half doesn't contain all the rules needed to play Dragotha but frequently only the names of the rules.

What I've seen of Level Up is far more usable than that. At least you only need to look up the spells.

 

[Reynard]

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

Which one is which?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Which one is which?

At least I didn't go with my gut and answer the titular question like this:

Q: New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

A: Uh-cuz.

See? I said that I like to keep things simple! That's gotta be the simplest answer.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

With that simple comment you convinced me to order the books. It will be after my graveyard shift but you got me right there. You do ship in Canada don't you?

 

[Morrus]

With that simple comment you convinced me to order the books. It will be after my graveyard shift but you got me right there. You do ship in Canada don't you?

There are a few places we don't ship to, but Canada isn't one of them!

 

[Helldritch]

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?

So, if I follow your logic I can make this assumption.

Whenever I play a six string guitar, it sounds like someone is slitting the throat of a poor cat. By your analogy because I can't play six string guitars, people should stop making six string guitars because poor Helldritch can't play one.

This is what we call in French:" leveling to the bottom." It is too hard? Remove the top difficulty and make it the new standard for everyone. The problem there is with this mentality is that you will never truly improve your play. There were way easier solutions and I even shared some and got flamed for daring offering a solution or simply saying that WotC were wrong in their approach.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I agree wholeheartedly from a "storytelling" standpoint, but I thought we were talking about mechanical complexity.

In my experience the mechanics of a system and the storytelling that results are pretty entangled.

 

[Helldritch]

In my experience the mechanics of a system and the storytelling that results are pretty entangled.

Yep. Too much and the RP side gets smothered.
Not enough and the game becomes boring and people stop playing it. There is a fine balance to reach.