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

[Vaalingrade]

Creature, not statblock. The designers wanted the same creature to be usable across more levels, so they bounded accuracy to allow that to happen.

When people wonder why monster's are so tedious and boring, remember this.

 

[Maxperson]

When people wonder why monster's are so tedious and boring, remember this.

Can you clarify? Are you talking about bounded accuracy or are you talking about it being creatures and not statblocks?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Can you clarify? Are you talking about bounded accuracy or are you talking about it being creatures and not statblocks?

The usual target of my ire: BA.

 

[Reynard]

The usual target of my ire: BA.

Bounded accuracy is just numbers. Creatures aren't boring because of numbers, they are boring because they aren't given interesting things to do in combat. You can absolutely change that without ruining bounded accuracy.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Bounded accuracy is just numbers. Creatures aren't boring because of numbers, they are boring because they aren't given interesting things to do in combat. You can absolutely change that without ruining bounded accuracy.

The design philosophy is:

- Make monsters 'useful' across levels so they don't have to make a higher level version to fit the known CR bands that exist with or without making numbers flat and sad.

- Placate people for whom +2 was 'too complicated' apparently.

This philosophy has led to and encouraged lazy monster design and 'simple' design for the people everyone keeps assuming can't operate Rage.

 

[Reynard]

The design philosophy is:

- Make monsters 'useful' across levels so they don't have to make a higher level version to fit the known CR bands that exist with or without making numbers flat and sad.

- Placate people for whom +2 was 'too complicated' apparently.

This philosophy has led to and encouraged lazy monster design and 'simple' design for the people everyone keeps assuming can't operate Rage.

Okay. I'm just saying the target of your ire, as you put it, is misplaced. Bounded Accuracy isn't the problem.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Your ranger wouldn't fight like a NPC ranger because your ranger is designed for 6-8 encounters not 1.

We very rarely have more than three combat encounters. One is common, six is never.

 

[Reynard]

We very rarely have more than three combat encounters. One is common, six is never.

I don't know if it is even possible to get, but I would love to see actual user data across many tables for numbers of encounters between rests, long and short.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Okay. I'm just saying the target of your ire, as you put it, is misplaced. Bounded Accuracy isn't the problem.

Bounded Accuracy is the core of an (IMO) bad design philosophy. It's a problem even if it's not the only problem.

As I've noted before, I don't have just the one finger to point.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't know if it is even possible to get, but I would love to see actual user data across many tables for numbers of encounters between rests, long and short.

Going backwards as well as I can remember.

1, 2, 1, 2, 3 (if you count ending a fight with one use of turn undead).