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

[Paul Farquhar]

It would have nipped that argument in the bud.

"The DM makes a ruling" nips that argument in the bud.

It's only people who can't accept "rulings not rules" who waste time arguing about it.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

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.

But isn't one of the arguments for doing away with spell lists that it makes it easier for new players? If the Flumph is non-aligned, doesn't have a label and with only a wee bit of fluff text, it may not be an easy task for a new DM to decide how to use it in an encounter.

As I've written before, I hope WotC stop with the half-measures and go full 4e for monster stat blocks in 2024.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Every monster is built.
Literary and mythical archetypes are often bult off combat roles. The gladiator arena lived off these.

When you give an ogre tons of HP, low AC, and a stong melee attack in order to math the myth, you are building it to be a brute.
When you make an fey have high AC, low HP, and both a good melee and ranged attack because fey are squishy but dangerous in legend, you are building it to be a marauder.
When you make the knight have hip AC, decen HP, and a good melee attack, you are building a soldier because knights were elite soldiers in RL. That's what the expensive armor and weapon training was for.

 

[Neonchameleon]

"The DM makes a ruling" nips that argument in the bud.

It's only people who can't accept "rulings not rules" who waste time arguing about it.

In my experience the people who don't want "rulings not rules" are overwhelmingly DMs who didn't pay good money and spend good time learning a game only to find out the game was incomplete and wanted them to fix it on obvious interactions rather than be able to use it as a solid foundation when the PCs come up with absurd plans to limit test things.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But isn't one of the arguments for doing away with spell lists that it makes it easier for new players? I

I didn't say I liked the change. But it doesn't really affect me, since I stat up monsters however I like.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

DMs who didn't pay good money and spend good time learning a game only to find out the game was incomplete

I paid good money for 1st edition!

So that's nonsense.

when the PCs come up with absurd plans to limit test things.

If the DM thinks something is absurd then their ruling is to disallow it. Simple. Meanwhile, on a different table, the DM can rule that shield-surfing down a staircase whilst shooting a bow is just fine.

 

[Hussar]

"The DM makes a ruling" nips that argument in the bud.

It's only people who can't accept "rulings not rules" who waste time arguing about it.

WHOA. You just argued with me over and over again that the Monster Manual was RULES and that the RULES MUST NOT BE CHANGED.

You don't get to play the "rulings not rules" card after that.

 

[Hussar]

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.

What mythical or literary archetypes is a beholder or a rust monster being build around?

Sorry, no. You are just wrong here.

 

[Minigiant]

In my experience the people who don't want "rulings not rules" are overwhelmingly DMs who didn't pay good money and spend good time learning a game only to find out the game was incomplete and wanted them to fix it on obvious interactions rather than be able to use it as a solid foundation when the PCs come up with absurd plans to limit test things.

I think one of the interesting troubles WOTC ran into is that people change, swap, or play with different DMs a lot more now. And a lot more new DMs.

5e was designed for old stable group but attracted a lot of new rotating groups. I think the content in the last few players surveys are evidence that many newcomers have joined.


So while "Rulings over Rules" may have been great for edge cases, WOTC having it so entwined in the foundation common mechanics and systems and going freeform and ignoring their own guidelines makes groups way too different from each other, adds significant work for DMs to change aspects and explain house rules, and straight up confuses or confounds new fans.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You just argued with me over and over again that the Monster Manual was RULES and that the RULES MUST NOT BE CHANGED.

Pretty sure I didn't. I've always been a rulings person.

I may have played devil's advocate for RAW interpretations, just to show how stupid RAW is.