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?"

 

[Nebulous]

So.....the Necrotic Bolt from Orcus does NOT count as a spell for the purposes of spell resistance or globe of invulnerability or anything? Isn't that going to cause some fights at the table with peeved players when the DM does this? I don't really care what WotC does anymore, I quit buying their products a long, long time ago. But I do occasionally follow just to see where the game is headed.

 

[Jer]

So.....the Necrotic Bolt from Orcus does NOT count as a spell for the purposes of spell resistance or globe of invulnerability or anything? Isn't that going to cause some fights at the table with peeved players when the DM does this? I don't really care what WotC does anymore, I quit buying their products a long, long time ago. But I do occasionally follow just to see where the game is headed.

What makes you look at that block and think that it isn't a spell? It says "spell" right in the description.

 

[Nebulous]

What makes you look at that block and think that it isn't a spell? It says "spell" right in the description.

I thought someone upthread said so. I was trying to confirm if that was true or not. I could have read it wrong.

 

[Jer]

I thought someone upthread said so. I was trying to confirm if that was true or not. I could have read it wrong.

I think there are a lot of people who are making assumptions on what the changes are based on a game of telephone, rather than looking at the actual changes that have been made. Lots of folks don't even have the book yet since they're waiting until May. Nowhere has it been stated that monsters aren't using spells anymore and in fact everywhere anyone has posted an example from the book or where the D&D team (or more truthfully Jeremy Crawford) has talked about it it's exactly the opposite.

 

[Nebulous]

I think there are a lot of people who are making assumptions on what the changes are based on a game of telephone, rather than looking at the actual changes that have been made. Lots of folks don't even have the book yet since they're waiting until May. Nowhere has it been stated that monsters aren't using spells anymore and in fact everywhere anyone has posted an example from the book or where the D&D team (or more truthfully Jeremy Crawford) has talked about it it's exactly the opposite.

ok, thanks, that's all I wanted to know.

 

[Paragon Lost]

You can always stick to PHB, DMG and MM though.

Not if you want to be a part of The Adventurer's League and the ease of finding groups that use that. All these changes do impact that play.

 

[billd91]

What makes you look at that block and think that it isn't a spell? It says "spell" right in the description.

That's the fifty dollar question isn't it? It says it's a ranged spell attack, which might imply it's a spell. But it's distinct from his spellcasting action. So it might be a spell as far as magic resistance is concerned.
But as far as globe of invulnerability or counterspell? It lacks a level reference so if it's a spell it's one that's immune to the influence of any other spell that references levels.
Kind of begging for a clarification, if you ask me.

 

[HammerMan]

That's the fifty dollar question isn't it? It says it's a ranged spell attack, which might imply it's a spell. But it's distinct from his spellcasting action. So it might be a spell as far as magic resistance is concerned.
But as far as globe of invulnerability or counterspell? It lacks a level reference so if it's a spell it's one that's immune to the influence of any other spell that references levels.
Kind of begging for a clarification, if you ask me.

and boom goes the dynamite

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's the fifty dollar question isn't it? It says it's a ranged spell attack, which might imply it's a spell. But it's distinct from his spellcasting action. So it might be a spell as far as magic resistance is concerned.
But as far as globe of invulnerability or counterspell? It lacks a level reference so if it's a spell it's one that's immune to the influence of any other spell that references levels.
Kind of begging for a clarification, if you ask me.

Based on Perkins' comments, it seems they want Counterspell to be ineffective against those effects. To them, it's a feature.

 

[tomBitonti]

Two points:

(1) With what can be done with software, this seems a missed opportunity.

I'm thinking of an application which presents a potential opponent, which has the full internal crunch for the creature, and which has several different views of that crunch. Each view would be tailored to a specific use:

RAW/Full: Show full details
Social: Show only those details most relevant to a social encounter.
Combat: Show only those details most relevant to a combat encounter.
Utility: Show only those details most relevant for an exchange of services. That is, where the party is hiring the monster for a particular service which it may provide.

The point being that different circumstances need different information.

(2) The whole "bliss point" presentation really sounds like corporate marketing jargon. This seems to be backsliding to earlier behavior.

TomB