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

[EzekielRaiden]

yeah a big pet peeve I have is that we have non combat things listed under action I want them spelled out but in an out of combat section

And honestly, if that were their approach, I'd be a lot more cool with it. You reference the section you need when you need it. Statblock with "here's the fighty bits" and "here's the utility bits." Clean and concise, focused on what you need. Rare as it would be to need to fluidly swap back ans forth between the two, I think such a thing would be much more effective.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The key thing here is that in 5e you only call for a roll if failure is both realistic and consequential. A DC 10 is easy for a meaningfully challenging and risky task. If a skilled individual has less than a 25% chance of failure, it’s probably not even worth rolling for.

I have a house rule (I have a lot with DCs to be honest) that if you are prof in something and the DC would be 10 or less you auto succussed. I even take this to an extreme with AC and Saves... and for skills that means jack of all trades counts as prof in all skills for this...

a funny real example i use from years ago when I explain to new players: 2 people 1 has str 24 and no training in athletics ( so +7) another has training +3 but only a 13 str (+4) and teh bard with an 8str and (+1 jack of all trades -1 str mod) has a 0... the bard and the +4 character don't need to roll the DC 10 check to climb... but the +7 character rolls and fails on a 1 or 2... and it happened. Running from a dragon they tried to climb a old brick wall (not with handholds but it was old and warped) so I said 'easy DC 10' and the paladin with a belt of G str rolled a 2 and couldn't get up it...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I am having a hard time understanding your point. NPCs and Monsters CR =/= class level. They tend to roughly match HD to class level though. For example, the Archmage is CR 12, 18HD and an 18th lvl spellcaster.

View attachment 251150

my issue is spell choice... lightning bolt is much less a party killer then fireball, and if you replace teleport and time stop with SOD how does that effect the CR?

 

[Vaalingrade]

The key problem: "skill point" systems don't actually end up doing that. As 3e demonstrated pretty handily, it becomes "you must be at least this tall to ride," and it HARSHLY punished anyone who fell behind. Skill points were way more of a "treadmill" than 4e was, they just made it LOOK like it was a viable choice to fall off.

Nothing's preventing a better DC system in conjunction with skill point though. And never EVER gating something behind skill ranks.

 

[Reynard]

Nothing's preventing a better DC system in conjunction with skill point though. And never EVER gating something behind skill ranks.

I rather liked skill rank benefits as done in Alternity, as a variation of "feats".

 

[Krachek]

my issue is spell choice... lightning bolt is much less a party killer then fireball, and if you replace teleport and time stop with SOD how does that effect the CR?

In the customizing npcs section of the npcs, they tell that swapping spells don’t affect the CR.
it is just showing once again on much CR, budget Xp, are loose and vague tools to help prepare encounters.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In the customizing npcs section of the npcs, they tell that swapping spells don’t affect the CR.

Part of the reason why CR is a hilariously elaborate joke played on new DMs.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In the customizing npcs section of the npcs, they tell that swapping spells don’t affect the CR.
it is just showing once again on much CR, budget Xp, are loose and vague tools to help prepare encounters.

right... I had a guy (maybe 6ish years ago so forgive vague bits) who ran a game at the LGS that is now closed that used to customized those stats with BOTH giving them magic items (that yes does turn into loot) and different spells... and it was a MAJOR problem. Fireball and SoD examples came from that... a 7thish level game almost TPKed when he dropped a fireball, then misty steped then fire ball and misty step the next round (although 2nd fireball caught only half the party and the melee characters had closed by then... but he then power word kill the cleric. the 4th and final (since this stat block could NOT stand up once the melee got close even with fire shield up) round he disintegrated the wizard/rogue and killed him too. 6 7ish level characters should not have lost 1/3 of the party and brough the others down to low hp just because it started at range and had some spell sswapped out... but I really felt that upped the CR (or at least should have).

 

[Maxperson]

If we can say this of 3e, then we absolutely should say the same of 4e. 4e wasn't a treadmill, and anyone saying it was a treadmill simply misunderstood how to run it, even though the books were quite clear about these things. (E.g. explicit instructions NOT to use only encounters tailored to the party's level, but a mix of encounters across a fairly broad range of levels, e.g. anywhere between level-4 and level+4, favoring high variety.)

I have no personal knowledge of 4e, so I can't really agree or disagree with you on if it's true of 4e. I did hear more than once in 4e discussions that DCs were supposed to scale with the group, and we all know that since I heard it on the internet, it must be true!!!

If this is what people have meant by "rulings not rules," they've done an absolutely terrible job of explaining it for literally a decade at this point. This doesn't, in the slightest, look like "rulings not rules" to me. It looks like treating the rules as an extant baseline, and then building new things on top of them. It's not that you're treating the rules as mere suggestions with no validity. Instead, you look to them for grounding, and build upon them with additions where you need such, only overriding or overwriting them when a serious issue comes up. That's a hell of a lot more cautious than any presentation of the "rulings not rules" concept I've been presented with.

I have two thoughts on this.

First, I think that you are partially correct when you say that it's not about treating the rules as suggestions with no validity. The "rules" are valid. However, it's also clear that they are also just suggested rules. I went through the DM last year I think it was and listed a huge number of times it calls the rules guidelines(suggestions). I'll list just a couple now.

"Chapter 3, "Creating Adventures," provides guidelines for designing combat encounters using experience points."

"AS THE DUNGEON MASTER, YOU AREN'T LIMITED by the rules in the Player 's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual. You can let your imagination run wild."

And of course at least a half dozen times spread throughout the DMG where it says that the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. All of that indicates to me that the rules are suggestions for the DM to build on or override when he feels it should happen, not just when some serious issue comes up. They are encouraging house rules.

Second, 5e seems to be deliberately designed to force rulings. There are far too many "rules" or "guidelines" that are written vaguely and/or with common situations involving that rule that are just plain missing.

The designers are forcing rulings over rules in this edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

You call them superfluous. I call them valuable. You can't have a "looking back" if you've never moved in the first place.

Sure, I get that desire, and that’s probably why scaling proficiency bonus gradually worked its way back into 5e. But if you do have scaling bonuses, you either need to accept that things will get easier as you level up, or to have commensurately scaling challenges. And in the latter case, either the challenge must be tied to the fiction (so eventually the doors you deal with as challenges will be adamantine) or not (so despite the numbers having increased, everything remains exactly as challenging as it ever was).