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

[Bill Zebub]

Spellcasters don't have to explain anything ever.

Martials must fill out this form in triplicate, have it signed by both a PhD in Physics and a Medical Doctor, and turn it in at the check in station on the third sub-basement of D&D HQ in Nome, located in a broken file cabinet behind a locked door marked 'Beware the leopard'.

Huh?

I'm missing this point entirely.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Huh?

I'm missing this point entirely.

What point? Who are you responding to?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Huh?

I'm missing this point entirely.

the point is that people put limits on some heroic class/characters but not others

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There are many games that use the same resolution system for combat and non combat which I would argue are by structure alone better balanced between out of combat and combat. FATE, Cortex+, etc.

Of course, they are different beasts.

You took me wrong. I don't want the same resoulution system for out of combat and in combat.
I also don't want 50-50 balance. We like the balance how it is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There are many games that use the same resolution system for combat and non combat which I would argue are by structure alone better balanced between out of combat and combat. FATE, Cortex+, etc.

Of course, they are different beasts.

You took me wrong. I don't want the same resoulution system for out of combat and in combat.
I also don't want 50-50 balance. We like the balance how it is.

Yeah I want a better balance... but not 50/50... especially since I see 2-3 out of combat thing differently

I would love for it to be 50% combat mechanic
30% exploration mechanic
15% social mechanic
and that last 5% be spy/intrigue type things

 

[Bill Zebub]

the point is that people put limits on some heroic class/characters but not others

Except I wasn’t saying anything about that, and it seemed to be a response to my post.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What point? Who are you responding to?

@Vaalingrade

Blocked, maybe?

 

[Micah Sweet]

@Vaalingrade

Blocked, maybe?

Yeah. I forgot about that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Except I wasn’t saying anything about that, and it seemed to be a response to my post.

I think he was (at least as I read it) useing your point (Magic doesn't need a how) to enforce his (and mine) main complaint with 5e that martial characters are under developed.

 

[Hussar]

You can do that and I would do the same. But let's say the PCs have captured an NPC wizard. Are you at that point going to just invent new capabilities for said wizard, that let them escape or communicate with their allies? That is the sort of situation some people (rather understandably, I feel) want to avoid.

Note, you've got two points here - want to communicate AND escape - but, fair enough. My question would be, why not?

Unless the party specifically knows (and how could they?) that this caster doesn't have things like Message or various other magical means of communication, how could they possibly know that the caster couldn't do that? Maybe the caster has a familiar. There are a million and one reasons and means that this caster could use to contact allies, and very, very few ways outside of killing the caster of stopping it. So, no, it's not "understandable". It's limiting and frankly, rather pointless. The stat block should not be considered the sum total of what that creature can do.

Additionally, the stat-block cannot cover every eventuality either. So, why should we add Message (for example) to the caster's stat block in the 1 in a 100 chance that the Players capture the caster? Taking the caster prisoner is very much a rare event. Why bother cluttering up the stat block to cover it? You want the caster to be able to communicate with allies? Poof, he can communicate with allies.

Trying to cover all the bases is how we get caster stat blocks that are two pages long.