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

[Stoutstien]

It’s ethos was really solid, but its communication was poor. Which is quite typical of D&D in general.

Well WoTC. I don't necessarily believe paizo has a better system but boy did they present it a lot clearer and in a format that is more user friendly. I know technically Pathfinder isn't dnd but it is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Since the NPC wizard is using a 9th level power word kill spell I am guessing this is the CR 12 archmage with some spells swapped out like losing time stop for power word kill and losing lightning bolt for fireball and losing globe of invulnerability for disintegrate.

Without looking it up I don't know the math for a six member party versus an APL+5 encounter but 7th level characters facing a caster with 9th level slots being in the deadly encounter realm does not seem ridiculous on the face of it.

As described the stock archmage could have done the same two times misty step AoE sequence using cones of cold or lightning bolts instead of fireball and just not had the single target spells but possibly a time stop buff sequence ending with another cone of cold. The dice+40 damage from a non-dodged disintegrate is big, as is the no save 100 hp or less death targeted at a 7th level wounded character, but I imagine two more cones of cold (one from the time stop instead of power word kill and one instead of disintegrate) would have been fairly devastating as well.

cone of cold does about the same damage as a fireball (even being higher level) I would have to look up range but I assume that would work, but lightening bolt almost never hits the whole party (the way fireball will often) and he came in buffed so time stop buff would not have been much. the disintegrate and PW kill both were HUGE deals where the fireball was a small deal... and I think trading teleport, globe, time stop for big offensive spells is a problem.

 

[Undrave]

You can do that and I would do the same. But let's say the PCs have captured an NPC wizard. Are you at that point going to just invent new capabilities for said wizard, that let them escape or communicate with their allies? That is the sort of situation some people (rather understandably, I feel) want to avoid.

Depends on what kind of narrative would be best, and depend if the PC are worried about such thing and take steps to avoid it. If they think 'We don't know all his spells, better make sure he can't cast' then I won't invent a new ability, but if they get too smug or if it might make the game more interesting, sure I'll give the NPC Wizard a sending spell or something like that.

If so many people got the wrong idea about 4e, even those who ran it for a reasonable amount of time, how clear could its design ethos have really been?

It's because people didn't bother to really read it and just tried to run thing like in 3.X.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well WoTC. I don't necessarily believe paizo has a better system but boy did they present it a lot clearer and in a format that is more user friendly. I know technically Pathfinder isn't dnd but it is.

And TSR. I mean, it’s almost a meme that nobody actually knew how to play AD&D 1e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Depends on what kind of narrative would be best, and depend if the PC are worried about such thing and take steps to avoid it. If they think 'We don't know all his spells, better make sure he can't cast' then I won't invent a new ability, but if they get too smug or if it might make the game more interesting, sure I'll give the NPC Wizard a sending spell or something like that.



It's because people didn't bother to really read it and just tried to run thing like in 3.X.

Well, if you're going to make a game that different from your previous edition for the same fanbase, you really should make that clear.

 

[dave2008]

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?

OK, but I don't think we were discussing that. But, I'm not sure. I really am not following the responses I got so I am just dropping out of this conversation.

 

[Reynard]

And TSR. I mean, it’s almost a meme that nobody actually knew how to play AD&D 1e.

I don't think it's that nobody knew how to play it, it's that everyone played it different, mixing and matchingvarious versions of B/X and BECMI.

Now, OD&D no one except Gary knew how to play...

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think it's that nobody knew how to play it, it's that everyone played it different, mixing and matchingvarious versions of B/X and BECMI.

Now, OD&D no one except Gary knew how to play...

Sure, but point being, terrible communication is part of the legacy of D&D. It has always explained itself terribly, and continues to do so to this day.

 

[Stoutstien]

I will say for those who haven't actually sat down and read the 4e system I'd highly recommend it. Not a review or a anything of that sort but the actual game.
Even if you have no plans to ever run it as it is 4e has a lot of little ideas and design angles that are great and can be ported over to either 5e/Pathfinder. It was the first edition to actually understand the difference between linear and exponential growth.

 

[Reynard]

Sure, but point being, terrible communication is part of the legacy od D&D. It has always explained itself terribly, and continues to do so to this day.

It's a hard thing to explain, if you think about it. the games that do it well generally do so because they really narrow their focus.