D&D 5E (2014) 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]

This is a philosophical disagreement that always comes up in these conversations and isn't really reconcilable, between the viewpoint that the monster manual's job is to describe a game piece in a combat encounter vs. a simulated entity in an imaginary world.

If it needs to be both (because it clearly needs to be the former if it's to be useful as a game tome at all) then there needs to be more guidance in the write-ups on what is there for simulating an entity in an imaginary world and what is there for the DM to run the monster as an interesting encounter in a game.

It's fine to include items for verisimilitude but maybe they should organize the stat block around what should be used in encounters and stick the other information into the description block. Or have a separate "non combat encounter" block where there's information on how to make an interesting non-combat encounter with the creature (I'd like to see that anyway myself for a variety of reasons). Dumping it all into the same stat block just makes for difficulty in accessing information when it's needed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a philosophical disagreement that always comes up in these conversations and isn't really reconcilable, between the viewpoint that the monster manual's job is to describe a game piece in a combat encounter vs. a simulated entity in an imaginary world.

I vote for option B all the way. More information is preferable to less. Of course, my favorite MM was the 2nd ed Monstrous Manual, so take that as you will.

 

[cfmcdonald]

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.

 

[billd91]

If it needs to be both (because it clearly needs to be the former if it's to be useful as a game tome at all) then there needs to be more guidance in the write-ups on what is there for simulating an entity in an imaginary world and what is there for the DM to run the monster as an interesting encounter in a game.

It's fine to include items for verisimilitude but maybe they should organize the stat block around what should be used in encounters and stick the other information into the description block. Or have a separate "non combat encounter" block where there's information on how to make an interesting non-combat encounter with the creature (I'd like to see that anyway myself for a variety of reasons). Dumping it all into the same stat block just makes for difficulty in accessing information when it's needed.

Is it up to the game designer or DM to determine if the encounter is a combat encounter or non-combat encounter? Or is it up to the PCs? Certainly there are times when it's predictably one or the other... but not always. If it were always, you'd never heard the end of people complaining about being on the railroad.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

The Wednesday game I play in does more for me than a thousand mud baths.

 

[Jer]

Is it up to the game designer or DM to determine if the encounter is a combat encounter or non-combat encounter? Or is it up to the PCs? Certainly there are times when it's predictably one or the other... but not always. If it were always, you'd never heard the end of people complaining about being on the railroad.

No that's not what I mean - what I mean is that if you dump everything into a single stat block you get people who think that it's all important. Despite the fact that the monster itself, knowing its own capabilities, would know better.

So say you have a monster that can cast charm person and it's only in the stat block because a caster of its equivalent level would have spells of that level and there was a need to fill out the spell list for "verisimilitude", or because it's there for non-combat encounters. A monster where using charm person in battle would not only be suboptimal, but isn't even considered as part of the design space when determining the CR. Without guidance on what the intent behind the monster design was when the CR was assigned you're left with DM experience to figure out that casting charm person is a dumb move while the novice DM is sitting there possibly thinking "they gave this monster charm person, how am I supposed to be using it in a fight"? That information should actually be in the Monster Manual - especially if the intent is that the spells are there for flavor or "realism" and not because they're actually relevant to how a creature is expected to be run as a game piece at the table where you have something called a "Challenge Rating" that is supposed to be useful in figuring out how to build fight encounters.

The Monster Manual as published is full of stuff like this - more than I even realized when it was originally published and I already thought the 5e MM was confusing and annoying in organization. Mentoring a newbie DM through their first campaign has opened up my eyes to exactly how much I'm bringing to the table as a DM with years of experience for the material. You don't have to remove these things from the monsters but organizing it so that design intent is more obvious would go a long way towards making the book better on that front.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The survey is literally titled "D&D Feats Survey" but the first question is, "Would you like to rate the feat material presented in the Player's Handbook?" SMH, Im not too optimistic moving forward.

That’s how the surveys have been formatted for a long time.

So... get rid of both the wizard and counterspell?

I’d be down to get rid of Wizard and have several more Spellcasting classes and make most spellcasters learn spells like a Wizard.

It's funny, but myself and the groups I play with/DM for just don't use it. There's been no agreement, stated, tacit, or otherwise, just that no one ever picks it. It might be more logical to choose it, but there's just so many more fun and exciting 3rd level spells to prepare...

3rd level is really overflowing. Meanwhile 4th level is tiny.

Counterspell should be reworked. It's not a great mechanic and in many ways it goes against the grain of the spellcasting system.

If it has to be kept, I'd almost prefer it to be that you cast Counterspell and the target makes a saving throw using their relevant spellcasting ability (Int, Wis or Cha) against your spell save DC. The level of the spell mattering more than the proficiency of the caster feels like a throw back to older editions of D&D where there was really no such thing as "caster proficiency" and spell level was the only marker of power.

I’d just have the counterer roll a spell attack, against the other caster’s spell dc.

Either fog cloud is important to the encounter or it just plain shouldn't be there, IMO.

The designers aren’t designing encounters. They’re designing enemies to use in encounters of your own design.

 

[Jer]

I’d just have the counterer roll a spell attack, against the other caster’s spell dc.

That's probably even better now that you point it out.

 

[HammerMan]

So say you have a monster that can cast charm person and it's only in the stat block because a caster of its equivalent level would have spells of that level and there was a need to fill out the spell list for "verisimilitude", or because it's there for non-combat encounters. A monster where using charm person in battle would not only be suboptimal, but isn't even considered as part of the design space when determining the CR. Without guidance on what the intent behind the monster design was when the CR was assigned you're left with DM experience to figure out that casting charm person is a dumb move while the novice DM is sitting there possibly thinking "they gave this monster charm person, how am I supposed to be using it in a fight"?

yup... I have been a DM longer then the target audience has been alive, and I still have to ask sometimes "Wait, what is that here for?"

 

[HammerMan]

I’d be down to get rid of Wizard and have several more Spellcasting classes and make most spellcasters learn spells like a Wizard.

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"