D&D 5E Changes to D&D's Spellcasting Monsters: Streamlining Your Way To Bliss

WotC's Jeremy Crawford talks about the way they are changing spellcasting monsters in D&D.

• Making the game more fun, easier to learn, shorting "the pathway to getting to your bliss".
• Making monsters easier to run.
• "Rumors of the death of spellcasting [in monsters] are not true". Innate spellcasting has been streamlined with spellcasting into a single trait.
• Spellcasting options are consolidated whenever possible.
• Removing options that a DM is unlikely ever to use.
• In some cases, new magical abilities in the monster statblock which exist alongside a list of spells they can cast.
• For example, the mind flayer's mind blast is not a spell, and other abilities are magical but not spells and aren't as easy to interact with with things like counterspell.
• Things which make archmages say "How is this functioning, and why can't I stop it?"

 

[Jer]

I know that it's for easy of play, but spells are IMHO one of the funniest part of the game. I'll miss them in monster stats. Hope this is just an option that don't rule out spells in stats blocks.

The stat blocks still have spells in them - they just lay them out differently. There were some screenshots showing the difference between the original Orcus stats and the new Orcus stats. Both had spells, but as one example I remember they removed his chill touch cantrip and gave him a ranged necrotic spell attack in the stat block as an attack action, listing his attack bonus and damage in the block. They also removed his spell slots and gave him a number of castings per day for his spells. That's the kind of reorganization going on - they still have spells.

 

[Zehnseiter]

So basically, the way 4e did it? Kinda.

Everything old is new again.

Well not exactly but things move in that direction. I kind of expected that to happen as soon as as some years went by and the edition warring was done.

4E might have been a divisive edition but it had very interesting stuff going on. Especially when it comes to game mechanics and rules.
Pathfinder 2 already grabbed stuff from that treasure trove. It was just a matter of time before WotC would do so as well.

I liked 4E. But I was not really aware how good it was mechanically while still playing it.

But now more then 10 years latter I am doing paid rule feedback for an entirely different rpg game and I am aware how much I owe 4E. It had a huge influence on me. It just took me a while to get it. It helped that these days you can discuss 4E in message boards without people trying to start a flame war with often ridculess claims about the game.

 

[Jiggawatts]

Quibbles like the Ranger class and Hexblade aside, 5E was almost a perfect game, and has been successful from the start. So whats the best thing to do when you have achieved near perfection...why change it all up of course!

I wish could be excited about any of the things they are doing, I love it when things I love come along with new awesome iterations. For example, I play FFXIV, and pretty much every update and change to the game Yoshi P makes is mostly celebrated and lauded, but every change D&D makes feels the polar opposite of that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

the end of 3.5 had beguiler, warmage, true necromancer, duskblade, and others... 4e trided to split swordmage/warlock/wizard/bard but I think they could have done a bit better... then 5e went back to "General class"

None of that stuff would have survived an edition change. Its the same at the tail end of all of them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then write it out and don't waste my time digging through the PH.

Just begging for some competent design over here.

I know we're not supposed to say stuff like this, but I don't see how what you appear to want is any version of D&D, except maybe 4th ed. Do you just want to play 4th ed? That's fine. But every version of D&D doesn't have to be like that. People like different things, and that's not only ok, it's great!

 

[Zehnseiter]

I know that it's for easy of play, but spells are IMHO one of the funniest part of the game. I'll miss them in monster stats. Hope this is just an option that don't rule out spells in stats blocks.

I can only partly agree. As player I have fun with them as well. As a DM I no longer do.

One of the reasons my group has been playing a different game then D&D the last two years was that they expected me to DM it. I no longer wanted to deal with all the work 5E demands. Monsters with spells and the monster design in general while not the deciding factor were among the reasons. Turned out that the other members of the groups enjoyment run among the same lines as mine and nobody wanted to DM it so we switched to another game.

 

[Azzy]

My one other comment on this whole thing, is that the bit about "the pathway to getting to your bliss" strikes me as really bizarre, and really more off-putting than any of the concrete changes. D&D is not a spa treatment.

Yeah it comes across as that weird new-corp-spiel where they're trying to sound all new-agey and connected, but instead come across as bizarre.

 

[pauldanieljohnson]

Nah. Perfect efficiency is one of those things that sounds good only on paper.

D&D is better off staying a bit messy, asymmetrical, and weird.

If it feels right to have fog cloud on the statblock, include it.

This.

We've really just circled around to the initial point of the stat block change. Moving to Actions for signature/iconic spells saves the DM from (a) any difficulty in recognizing which are the creature's signature/iconic spells and (b) searching for the rules on how those spells work.

The amount of real estate taken up in a stat block by including the words fog and cloud is almost nothing. Including it as its own Action takes up 3 or 4 rows. If you think that's not a big deal, you've never needed to worry about fitting a stat block into a page layout.

I would point out, though, that where some commenters have suggested that spells are being included in the Spellcasting Action simply because "a spellcaster of that level would have that spell", that's not really the case here. With these changes, there is no requirement to adhere to spells per level or any other such parameters as they apply to PCs. The Spellcasting Action is intended to be used for occasional-use, typically non-combat (meaning non-damage-dealing) spells, and it can be - within reason - any list of spells the creator feels appropriate to the monster.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

'Streamlining'

You mean breaking every prior ability which relied on NPC's using spells?

DM - "The enemy wizard casts 'Ball of Fire"

Player - "Ok as Ancients Paladin my aura gives resistance to damage from spells"

DM - "It's not a spell, it's just just an ability identical in every way to a spell. Guess you die"

5e is starting to feel like an incoherent mess, where old stuff isn't meshing with the new stuff very well at all.

 

[Vaalingrade]

'Streamlining'

You mean breaking every prior ability which relied on NPC's using spells?

No actually. IT's right there in the article if one takes time reading that instead of all the Change Bad responses.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But most won't because that's fiddly and annoying.

So that’s a win-win, right?

 

[Vaalingrade]

So that’s a win-win, right?

Not as much as getting rid of wizards!

 

[Remathilis]

This seems fine if you're not a DM prone to tinkering with stat blocks, but it looks like a nightmare if you are. Before, I had a vague idea of what class equivalent a character was supposed to be. This was very useful for NPCs, where I could use different stat blocks to simulate characters of roughly similar levels to a PC (for example, a Mage was roughly equivalent to a 9th level wizard in terms of magic, so if I wanted to make an NPC who was to help the PCs, I knew a Mage stat-block was akin to having a 9th level wizard, except a little hardier but less versatile).

Now, I've looked at a few examples (especially from Witchlight and Strixhaven) and I can't figure out how to reverse engineer them. There doesn't seem to be any guidance on creating these new "not spell-spells" like holy fire or cacaphony, assigning utility spells, designating caster level when that's relevant, etc. Taking Strixhaven for example: Each of the NPCs for the five schools have a class tag (silverquill are bards, prismari are sorcerers, etc) but I don't see what actually MAKES them bards, sorcerers, etc. The professors at each school have 2-4 cantrips, a few utility spells they cast x/day, and some magical attack actions and reactions. Save for those cantrips and utility spells, they share nothing in common but their PCs students! The warlocks lack invocations and pact effects (and many lack eldritch blast), the bards lack bardic inspiration, the sorcerers lack metamagic, etc. They don't even use the spells from their classes spell lists as they often have utility spells that aren't on their "classes" spell list (the druids getting revivify).

Forget trying to design of customize my own NPCs; it's too much work now to figure out how to do it. I guess if you're the kind of DM who just wings it and it doesn't matter if the math makes sense, it's liberating. But I liked the idea that an archmage represented an 18th level wizard (though simplified) rather than just being some collection of magic attacks and a few utility spells pulled from any and all spell lists. The old stat blocks were a good compromise between building complex characters like a PC and using monster stat blocks.

Anyway, if anyone wants to make a few bucks, make a giant book of generic 1500 NPCs, especially spellcasters. I don't think I'll be making my own anymore, so I might as well pay for enough of them to not get bored with the same 30 NPC stat blocks...

 

[carmachu]

For low level monsters? Sure stream line them.

Mid to higher level monsters? No thanks, I want more complexity and options. I don't want them to be one trick ponies

 

[dalisprime]

'Streamlining'

You mean breaking every prior ability which relied on NPC's using spells?

DM - "The enemy wizard casts 'Ball of Fire"

Player - "Ok as Ancients Paladin my aura gives resistance to damage from spells"

DM - "It's not a spell, it's just just an ability identical in every way to a spell. Guess you die"

5e is starting to feel like an incoherent mess, where old stuff isn't meshing with the new stuff very well at all.

I mean the enemies in motm still have actual damaging spells so those class features will still see use.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Anyway, if anyone wants to make a few bucks, make a giant book of generic 1500 NPCs, especially spellcasters. I don't think I'll be making my own anymore, so I might as well pay for enough of them to not get bored with the same 30 NPC stat blocks...

Did you try looking at the DM's Guild? Shouldn't that have all the immersive NPC stat blocks you want?

 

[Demetrios1453]

Anyway, if anyone wants to make a few bucks, make a giant book of generic 1500 NPCs, especially spellcasters. I don't think I'll be making my own anymore, so I might as well pay for enough of them to not get bored with the same 30 NPC stat blocks...

Go check out our own Nixlord's Monster Manual Expanded books on the DM's Guild. While most of the stat blocks in the books are monsters, there are lots of varied NPCs in the appendix of each one. MME3 has already been converted to the new format, and MME1 and 2 will be soon...

 

[pauldanieljohnson]

Forget trying to design of customize my own NPCs; it's too much work now to figure out how to do it. I guess if you're the kind of DM who just wings it and it doesn't matter if the math makes sense, it's liberating. But I liked the idea that an archmage represented an 18th level wizard (though simplified) rather than just being some collection of magic attacks and a few utility spells pulled from any and all spell lists. The old stat blocks were a good compromise between building complex characters like a PC and using monster stat blocks.

You can always just keep doing what you've always done. The old style of spellcaster stat block is still fully functional and compatible with the rules.

FWIW, I've made about a half dozen spellcasting NPCs with the new stat block style, and I've had no troubles. Transcribing a few spells into the format of Actions is simple enough, and the list of spells under the Spellcasting action is the same as it's always been, excepting that you aren't obligated to populate the list according to the rules of a PC class.

It sounds like you've been building new NPCs by using existing NPC stat blocks as templates, which no doubt works, but really you should be using the monster creation rules starting on pg 273 of your DMG. Once you get the hang of how the NPC's stats determine its challenge rating, it gets pretty intuitive to start not only assigning existing spells, but playing around with them to make new and interesting spellcasting options. THAT'S the math that needs to make sense, not a perceived obligation to have NPCs mirror PCs in every last detail.

And, in my own experience, it's a lot more fun to have NPCs and monsters show up with new and unique magical abilities brought to the table by an imaginative DM, rather than the same litany of spells over and over again.

 

[see]

Yeah, definitely not going to bother picking up Monsters of the Multiverse when it comes out solo.

In the freeform environment of a tabletop RPG, every statblock designed for publication needs to include serious consideration of "What happens if the party befriends, allies with, or just dominates this creature?" And if the answer is something along the lines of "Well, then, the PCs now have an unlimited source of healing", you have failed your statblock design roll.

If you do not consider this in statblock design, you are setting up DMs to fail. A DM who would have difficulty using a Monster Manual spellcaster statblock efficiently as a combat encounter is a DM who is going to have much more trouble doing on-the-fly reworking of a stat block designed for use purely as an enemy so that it's balanced as an ally.

That's why using PC mechanisms is particularly important when defining player-race encounters. Player-race creatures are much more naturally befriendable, ally-able, and even dominate-able (5th level person instead of 8th level monster), and the PC mechanisms are already balanced for the "What happens if the players' party has this capability?" An NPC caster with ordinary slots is a lot less likely to be an exploit than a creature with a statblock that lets it spam fireball every single round of every single encounter.

The responsible way to solve DMs not knowing how to use a given statblock in a combat encounter is to use wordcount to explain how to use the monster. This explanation will additionally impart to the DM a better understanding of the game system.

 

[Khelon Testudo]

In the freeform environment of a tabletop RPG, every statblock designed for publication needs to include serious consideration of "What happens if the party befriends, allies with, or just dominates this creature?" And if the answer is something along the lines of "Well, then, the PCs now have an unlimited source of healing", you have failed your statblock design roll.

I think this is a valid question.