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

[Vaalingrade]

I don't think we can call stating preferences "lies" even if they were presented hyperbolically.

But we can 1 billion percent call what happened back in the day lies.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not talking about public statements. I'm talking about explaining their design choices and intentions for the system in the books (particularly the DMG).

And besides, whether or not people have a negative reaction, its good practice to tell your audience why you made the choices you made.

You’d think.

But when a very vocal segment of the fandom will weaponize anything you say, there’s just no point. A single line about skipping gate guards means that WotC hates gamers after all.

Like I said, WotC will not make that mistake again. Heck, making a couple of minor changes to stat blocks has resulted in people freaking out. And you want them to be up front and clear in the books? Not going to happen.

 

[James Gasik]

The reason is simple. If WotC stays silent about their intentions, everyone can argue that WotC supports "their conclusions" about how the game is meant to function- ie, the way they want it to function. Thus 5e is "their kind of game, not yours".

If they communicate what their intent is, it could become "not their kind of game" and they won't be happy, and possibly not buy their product.

So vagueness = success when your game plan is to try and appeal to the broadest base of consumers possible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The reason is simple. If WotC stays silent about their intentions, everyone can argue that WotC supports "their conclusions" about how the game is meant to function- ie, the way they want it to function. Thus 5e is "their kind of game, not yours".

If they communicate what their intent is, it could become "not their kind of game" and they won't be happy, and possibly not buy their product.

So vagueness = success when your game plan is to try and appeal to the broadest base of consumers possible.

That makes sense, of course, but it's a weak strategy that leads to negative results almost as much as positive ones. Still, if your top priorities are making a buck and avoiding offense, being intentionally obtuse about your own work does do that.

 

[Hussar]

Which pretty clearly shows why WotC will not give more than the vaguest of guidelines.

 

[dave2008]

I wouldn't say the 4e rules were all that user friendly. They were extremely jargon-y and technical, and put too much emphasis on putting items into boxes. Just explain what your intentions are, in plain language, and it will be fine.

IDK, the whole debate about Vecna and his dread counterspell as made me want the jargon of 4e back. It would have nipped that argument in the bud. I actually quite miss the jargon, icons, and short-hand of 4e now.

I mean we can't seem to agree what plain and "natural" language is after all!

 

[Reynard]

But we can 1 billion percent call what happened back in the day lies.

If you say so. I am not sure why we would want to rehash old battles, though.

 

[teitan]

I really really hate the new spellcasting blocks. Just...why? Why was this done?

How does this make it "easier" for DMs?

1. I have no idea the caster level of the monster.
2. I have no idea up to what spell levels they have access to because of that or how many spell slots they have.

What it looks like is all the "Spellcaster" blocks now look like what used to "Spell-Like Abilities" in older editions. I've noticed this in the "Beyond the Witchlight" book and the "Monsters of the Multiverse" book and it's horrible.

Take the latest Vecna stat block from D&D Beyond.

---

At will: animate dead (as an action), detect magic, dispel magic, fly, lightning bolt, mage hand, prestidigitation

2/day each: dimension door, invisibility, scrying (as an action)

1/day each: dominate monster, globe of invulnerability, plane shift (self only).

---

That's it. These are just "spell-like abilities." Where's his magic? This almighty lich has NO SPELLS? He definitely should be able to cast every spell from the Player's Handbook.

Can someone explain to me why the designers decided this? It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make my games "streamlined and easier" at all either.

Do they HAVE to do this? Can't they go back to the original spellcasting block? This is sadly, and angrily, getting ridiculous with their changes.

Looks pretty easy to me. You have their save targets already listed plus the damage. You don't really NEED caster level if that is already calculated.

 

[Minigiant]

from your mouth to god ears... we need MORE expansion of the roles and explanations not less

Labeling monsters as:

• Artillery
• Brute
• Caster
• Controller
• Lurkers
• Marauder
• Skirmisher
• Sniper
• Soldier
• Tank

would have helped people understand what monsters were build to do.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

would have helped people understand what monsters were build to do.

Why should monsters be "built" to do anything in particular? D&D monsters are built around literary and mythical archetypes, not combat roles. Once you have your archetype statted up the DM can look at what it can do and then decide how to use it in an encounter.