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

[Maxperson]

isnt that the same offer to anyone playing a previus edition?

Half editions are not new editions. If they were, then 3.5 would have been 4e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The albino dwarf is not generic.

It's easy enough to change it to a different lineage. It's not like the albino dwarf gets any special stuff.

And both are more fighters with a skill proficiency. Neither plays like a ranger.

Albino dwarf has hunters mark on it's spell list, so it plays exactly like a typical low level ranger. The archer plays like a ranger with no combat spells prepared. Which happens.

But the albino dwarf is a good example of why WotC don't design mobs that way any more. You might want to have half a dozen of them. Which means half a dozen hunters mark targets to keep track of, half a dozen lots of concentration to track.

The modern style would be to give them a flat +1d6 poison damage and remove hunters mark. Because that is mechanically almost identical, but involve much less tracking of variables.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Half editions are not new editions. If they were, then 3.5 would have been 4e.

except even your example proves it... 3.0 stuff not only stopped being printed and supported, but a good portion of the 3.5 splats just updated 3.0 concepts to be 3.5, so if you liked 3.0 and wanted to keep it you were out of luck

 

[Reynard]

except even your example proves it... 3.0 stuff not only stopped being printed and supported, but a good portion of the 3.5 splats just updated 3.0 concepts to be 3.5, so if you liked 3.0 and wanted to keep it you were out of luck

3.0-3.5 was easily as significant a change as 1E to 2E.

 

[Maxperson]

except even your example proves it... 3.0 stuff not only stopped being printed and supported, but a good portion of the 3.5 splats just updated 3.0 concepts to be 3.5, so if you liked 3.0 and wanted to keep it you were out of luck

And I was out of luck. I hated the change to the new DR system. That doesn't make it okay. Make a new edition if you want to make major changes.

 

[Maxperson]

3.0-3.5 was easily as significant a change as 1E to 2E.

And it probably should have been called 4e, but it wasn't, so it wasn't a new edition.

 

[Reynard]

And it probably should have been called 4e, but it wasn't, so it wasn't a new edition.

Probably, or not even really acknowledged in the "edition count" -- which is why we are getting what we are with the "stealth" upgrade in 2024.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be really fair though, the pendulum swings back and forth. Go back to AD&D and the monsters are far, far simpler than the same monster in 2e. Compare dragons if you want to see what I mean. Heck, the fact that in the 1e MM, you got two, three or even four monsters to a page, while in 2e, it was 1. Then they became a lot more complex in 3e. Then it swung back HARD in 4e towards simplicity (and, honestly, even though I'm a huge 4e booster, even I'll admit they probably went too far) then it swung back a bit towards greater complexity with 5e, although, nowhere near the level of 3e. Now, ten years later, it's swinging back towards streamlining again.

This isn't so much anything new, but rather just the swing back and forth. I'll freely admit I'm happy that it's swinging back more my way, but, I also know that it's going to swing back the other way in a few years again.

TSR's monsters, while far simpler, did provide the deep worldbuilding lore I like. As I've said, my favorite monster book was the 2e Monstrous Manual, which was all about providing monster lore. And spellcasters were treated the way I prefer back then as well.

But, I see your and others' point here. I'm happy the game got to the point where a version I really like could be made by dedicated designers, and if people like WotC's new direction, I'm happy for them. I do feel for folks who dislike where the IP holder is headed but, for one reason or another, are unable or unwilling to jump off WotC's bandwagon. That's unfortunate.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ah, 3.5.

The edition where they decided that stirring things should require spellcasting ability.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

To clarify, I wasn't referring to some kind of trade-off or balance between mechanics and roleplaying, which is an entirely different topic.

What I meant was that the actual mechanics of a game encourages different types of participation in the storytelling by the players, and different amounts of set-up by the GM. As a simple example, in some games a player might announce he swings from a chandelier, without asking if there is one, and the GM wasn't envisioning a chandelier but, sure, there's a chandelier, because that sounds cool. And in other games the player will first ask if there is one, and the GM will (variously) only say yes if it's actually in his notes, or roll dice to see if there is one, or just say "no".

And...to make the point again...while any of these playstyles can be used, in theory, with any system, my experience is that different systems tend to encourage specific certain directions.

And the context for that is that the new stat blocks are, to me, a (very) small step in the direction of encouraging DM improvisation, and away from strict set-pieces where the DM is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of algorithms. These stat blocks say...whisper...to me, "But you're the DM, so do whatever you think will be fun."