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

[Bill Zebub]

... but there is nothing like a meteor swarm, dissintegrate, or horrid wilting? That is a bit disappointing.

But PCs can already do those things! How boring. I much prefer a boss who can do a bunch of awful, terrifying things to which the players don't just think, 'Oh, yeah, that's XYZ spell; I have that, too."

My suggestion is that if you want something like meteor swarm or disintegrate or horrid wilting, make up your own cool ability based off one (or more) of them, but both more dangerous and more flavorful, and add it to actions or legendary actions.

 

[Reynard]

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".

That's not strictly a mechanics issue, though. You can do that as easily in Rolemaster as you can in Fate. The difference is in the resolution.

 

[Reynard]

But PCs can already do those things! How boring. I much prefer a boss who can do a bunch of awful, terrifying things to which the players don't just think, 'Oh, yeah, that's XYZ spell; I have that, too."

My suggestion is that if you want something like meteor swarm or disintegrate or horrid wilting, make up your own cool ability based off one (or more) of them, but both more dangerous and more flavorful, and add it to actions or legendary actions.

^^^This.

Why is the horrible thing from beyond space and time casting the same spells that the PCs can. Or "casting spells" at all?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

I too disliked the change to DR... although I worked with it.

 

[Arilyn]

13th Age has amazing, flavourful, scary and tricky monsters in compact stat blocks. There are variations and "nastier specials" if the GM desires. Easy to read and concise dies not have to mean simple and boring.

 

[Minigiant]

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

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.

The thing is that would still be too much like a fighter.

A ranger, even if simplified, would feel like it were doing arrow and blade spells if it were novaing. More like a rotation caster in an MMO.

That's the thing. Most of the spellcasting class play different when they are novaing for one or two encounters or metering out spells over a whole 5+ encounter adventureing day.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

back in the 90's I had friends that claimed to be playing 3e becuse they used combat and tactics skills and powers and spells and magic... However I never had an issue finding a PHB game or a game with those splat add ons...

come 2000 I could still pretty easy find 2e or (real by wotc) 3e games... but come 3.5 I was having more issue finding 2e games at all (and what ever they used was beggers can't be choosers) no problem at all finding 3.5... but 3e was harder still.

I switched to 4e in a big way, but I know not everyone did... but the people I saw were split pf and 3.5... none of them were playing 3.0.

Essentials broke the mold I never saw anyone claim you couldn't play a PHB fighter and a slayer at the same table (one defender other striker) so that was more through...

come 2024 the real test of if it is a new edition or not (IMO) has more to do with if you can find tables that say "yeah, the 2014 phb is still allowed" or if that gets increasingly hard.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

It is so unfortunate... and this has always been the biggest thing which made me question things-- why do people put so much stock in IP? So much of themselves in the brand?

I guess I can understand it intellectually to a certain extent... but emotionally I really am hard-pressed to grasp why and how so many people put what goes on with the brand onto themselves? That they tie their own stakes of what they do and play into what they are given by the rights-holder of the name 'Dungeons & Dragons'? I just don't get it. I really don't.

There have been like 7+ versions of some type of "Dungeons & Dragons" over the close to 50 years. Every one has had similarities, but also great differences. None of these games have been the same. And there have been so many hundreds of thousands of differences over the entire length of these 50 years and 7+ games called "D&D" that I just can't understand how people still tie their sense of self into so many of these individual bits that they almost find it to be a personal affront when they get changed down the line. It's just... it's inconceivable to me.

Dungeons & Dragons isn't a thing. It's a name. That's all it is. A name that has been put onto 7+ different games. And if you like one of those games more than another... that's great! You are so lucky to have found it! Enjoy your time playing that game! Play that one you like and not the others you don't! There's NOTHING wrong with that and even the designers have tried to make that point clear over the years-- they don't care which version of D&D you play... they just want you to play something. So play that what makes you happiest, even if it isn't what the "current" version is, or the one that more other people are playing. Because none of that is important.

But for the love of all things healthy... please don't link your sense of self to just the name and the brand. Because that's when you end up feeling "betrayed" and "abandoned" when the newest versions of the game with that name come out and aren't the ones you want to play. Let yourself go. Let the name go. Play the GAME you want... not the BRAND. Because you can't control what happens with the BRAND, all you can control is your happiness playing that one specific game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Why is the horrible thing from beyond space and time casting the same spells that the PCs can.

In general when I see somebody wildly exaggerating opposing claims, I figure it means they probably don't have much an argument to make.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But for the love of all things healthy... please don't link your sense of self to just the name and the brand. Because that's when you end up feeling "betrayed" and "abandoned" when the newest versions of the game with that name come out and aren't the ones you want to play. Let yourself go. Let the name go. Play the GAME you want... not the BRAND. Because you can't control what happens with the BRAND, all you can control is your happiness playing that one specific game.

It's rough when fans who think they have a special relationship (and importance?) realize that all this time they have actually just been customers.