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

[Dausuul]

A little OT - Unless I'm missing something in the stat block, Vecna can cast his "Rotten Fate" ability without limits. IMO, that is OP.

He's a CR 26 monster. He's supposed to lay down a ton of hurt. Rotten Fate is pretty reasonable for his CR--in fact, it's on the lowish side.

Compare Vecna's raw damage output to what Zariel (also CR 26) can dish out, and Vecna comes out distinctly behind. He makes up for it with his defensive reactions, his self-heal, and his ability to shut off PC healing. Zariel hits you like a freight train; Vecna grinds you steadily into dust.

 

[Xetheral]

All you really need in the stat block is what he can do in combat. If you want him to do other stuff outside of combat… Just have him do it.

To be useful to me personally as a DM, an NPC statblock needs to reflect the NPC's actual stats. Combat-only statblocks that are a subset (or, in some cases, a superset) of what the NPC is capable of out-of-combat don't do me any good, because it is important to me that how an NPC fits into the setting reflect their capabilities. If I need to determine the out-of-combat capabilities of a printed NPC spellcaster before I can use it, then using the printed NPC doesn't save me any time or effort.

Yes, my insistence on harmonizing NPCs' mechanical abilities with their role in the setting is idiosyncratic. And yes, 5e has always had lots of NPC entries that I find less than useful. But WotC's increasing use of the types of statblocks I find least useful means 5e is drifting away from supporting my playstyle. For what is ostensibly a big tent edition, that's disappointing to me. I'd prefer they find ways for the edition to support a wider range of playstyles over time, and make the tent even bigger, rather than shrinking it.

 

[Charlaquin]

To be useful to me personally as a DM, an NPC statblock needs to reflect the NPC's actual stats. Combat-only statblocks that are a subset (or, in some cases, a superset) of what the NPC is capable of out-of-combat don't do me any good, because it is important to me that how an NPC fits into the setting reflect their capabilities. If I need to determine the out-of-combat capabilities of a printed NPC spellcaster before I can use it, then using the printed NPC doesn't save me any time or effort.

Yes, my insistence on harmonizing NPCs' mechanical abilities with their role in the setting is idiosyncratic. And yes, 5e has always had lots of NPC entries that I find less than useful. But WotC's increasing use of the types of statblocks I find least useful means 5e is drifting away from supporting my playstyle. For what is ostensibly a big tent edition, that's disappointing to me. I'd prefer they find ways for the edition to support a wider range of playstyles over time, and make the tent even bigger, rather than shrinking it.

Every decision will appeal to some players and be unappealing to others. They wouldn’t make a change like this without good reason to believe it will bring in more players than it chases away. I do sympathize if you’re in the latter group.

 

[Umbran]

Sadly, it is the way things are going, because people are either too lazy or not smart enough to handle spellcasting monsters.

Mod Note:
Please find an approach to critique that doesn't insult your fellow gamers.

 

[Xetheral]

As a player, I really don't know what to do with the setting implications of PC and NPC spellcasters using different types of magic. If I'm up against a Rakshasha or an Abjurer, does my PC spellcaster know that NPC spellcasters have primary attacks that trivially bypass those foes' anti-spell protections? Is it good IC strategy to go hire or dominate an NPC spellcaster to trivially deal with these enemies, or am I supposed to play my character as unaware of the differences? When my character sees an Abjurer's Globe of Invulnerability stop my cantrips, but my Globe of Invulnerability doesn't stop NPC spellcasters' "cantrips", what sort of IC conclusion is my character supposed to reach about what the Globe of Invulnerability spell actually does?

The answer to these questions are going to be up to how an individual table views the relationship between the mechanics and the game world. I don't see any way around sitting down with each new DM and asking them whether/how they use old-style vs new-style spellcasting NPCs, how they conceive of the nature of spellcasting in their game world, and the extent to which they expect PCs to have an IC awareness of the differences.

 

[Xetheral]

Every decision will appeal to some players and be unappealing to others. They wouldn’t make a change like this without good reason to believe it will bring in more players than it chases away. I do sympathize if you’re in the latter group.

Much appreciated! I hope that the changes do indeed bring in more players than they chase away.

I'm skeptical on that count, particularly since the changes seem to be alienating entire playstyles without appealing to previously un-included playstyles, but I will readily admit my own frustration with the changes makes it hard for me to consider the question dispassionately.

 

[Greg Benage]

Because it is more interesting and easier run than a list of spells.

I think I missed the first round of this discussion, so I'd be interested in hearing more about this. I can definitely see why it's easier, and why Wizards might prefer this approach as a result, but how is it more interesting?

 

[dave2008]

I think I missed the first round of this discussion, so I'd be interested in hearing more about this. I can definitely see why it's easier, and why Wizards might prefer this approach as a result, but how is it more interesting?

Well, obviously interesting is subjective., so this would be what I find interesting. There a few points of comparison, using the Vecna example;

1. I am not likely to use spells from a spell list unless I know them well and can run them on the fly. So a list of things I don't know what they do is not interesting to me.
2. Spells are less interesting than unique magical abilities because the player knows what they are and what they can do. Everyone knows what a fireball is, that is not very interesting.
3. Vecna has 5 unique magical abilities that do things the players don't know. Unique and unknown abilities are more interesting to me than common and known abilities.

 

[dave2008]

A little OT - Unless I'm missing something in the stat block, Vecna can cast his "Rotten Fate" ability without limits. IMO, that is OP.

Since he doesn't have legendary actions, then assuming he can get all three of his reactions in, his DPR is only 158 (max and could be much less). A straight up CR 26 monster could have a DPR in the 231-236 range. So not really OP per the DMG. What is different is that a big chunk of that damage is in one attack.

It seems more people thing he is underpowered than overpowered in the Vecna thread.

 

[Synthil]

For me this is great. I view monster an PC stats more like scientific models. Tools that help calculate things, not 1:1 representations of reality.

Otherwise you end up with weird stuff like devils, angels, fey and Cthulhu giving out the exact same cantrip. One that weirdly no other spellcaster can access. That's breaking versimilutude more than viewing Eldritch Blast as a modell for a variety of spell attacks. That also leaves options to refluff your spells.

 

[Charlaquin]

For me this is great. I view monster an PC stats more like scientific modells. Tools that help calculate things, not 1:1 representations of reality.

Otherwise you end up with weird stuff like devils, angels, fey and Cthulhu giving out the exact same cantrip. One that weirdly no other spellcaster can access. That's breaking versimilutude more than viewing Eldritch Blast as a modell for a variety of spell attacks. That also leaves options to refluff your spells.

Agreed!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Vecna literally has the Book of Vile Darkness, which says it can contain literally any spells the DM wants to put inside of it, and even weird non-spell magic things that would require human sacrifice or other dark rites. You literally have a magic item that says slap Venca with more naughty word because the players can take it. Come on guys. Come on.

Except without spell slots, Vecna can't actually cast any of those spells in the Book of Vile Darkness..... so, it is pretty useless in that respect.

 

[pukunui]

Except without spell slots, Vecna can't actually cast any of those spells in the Book of Vile Darkness..... so, it is pretty useless in that respect.

Sure he can! He wrote the bloody thing. He can use it however you want. Or, if it matters that much to you, you can give him spell slots that he can use to cast spells from the book. Converting newer spellcaster NPCs back to the older format shouldn't be that difficult.

 

[Hussar]

Except without spell slots, Vecna can't actually cast any of those spells in the Book of Vile Darkness..... so, it is pretty useless in that respect.

Except that he has whatever spell slots you want to give him.

I'm frankly baffled that this actually needs to be spelled out after ten years of 5e. The Stat Blocks are not a simulation of ANYTHING. They never have been. They have never, EVER been a limit on what a monster could do. So, he can cast anything he wants.

For years, all I heard was all the complaints about how D&D magic is boring because it is completely predictable. It's formulaic.

So, WotC actually listens to the complaints and fixes things. Now, monsters DON'T USE PC RULES.

Repeat that with me. MONSTERS IN 5E DO NOT USE PC RULES.

They really, really really don't. And never, ever have.

So, why should the Globe of Invulnerability, to pick an example, of a ten thousand year old lich work exactly the same as your 55 year old wizard?

You'd almost think that creating new spells and effects is something that casters were capable of doing. Huh. Funny that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sure he can! He wrote the bloody thing. He can use it however you want. Or, if it matters that much to you, you can give him spell slots that he can use to cast spells from the book. Converting newer spellcaster NPCs back to the older format shouldn't be that difficult.

Others could also have run stat blocks (the way they used to be) in any fashion they wanted, as well, but WotC felt such changes were necessary.

So, instead of people converting the old stat blocks to get they want, now I (and others) have to convert the new format???

Repeat that with me. MONSTERS IN 5E DO NOT USE PC RULES.

Vecna has the spellcasting trait, so should abide by those rules. A game that insists on different rules/systems of monsters and another for PCs is not well designed IMO. Vecna could have kept his spells as was formerly done, and given him other features if DMs desired.

So, WotC actually listens to the complaints and fixes things

And creates OTHER complaints in the meanwhile.

 

[Hussar]

Others could also have run stat blocks (the way they used to be) in any fashion they wanted, as well, but WotC felt such changes were necessary.

So, instead of people converting the old stat blocks to get they want, now I (and others) have to convert the new format???



Vecna has the spellcasting trait, so should abide by those rules. A game that insists on different rules/systems of monsters and another for PCs is not well designed IMO. Vecna could have kept his spells as was formerly done, and given him other features if DMs desired.


And creates OTHER complaints in the meanwhile.

Why does this only apply to casters?

After all, the non-caster fighter types certainly don't follow PC rules. What class is a Knight? What class grants me this non magical special ability:

Leadership (Recharges after a Short or Long Rest): For 1 minute, the knight can utter a Special Command or warning whenever a nonhostile creature that it can see within 30 ft. of it makes an Attack roll or a saving throw. The creature can add a d4 to its roll provided it can hear and understand the knight. A creature can benefit from only one Leadership die at a time. This Effect ends if the knight is Incapacitated.

So, why aren't people all up in arms about how the non-casters don't follow class rules?

As far as "not being well designed", well, that's 5e for you. It has been this way since day 1. Monsters have NEVER followed PC rules. That's a 3e thing that never made it out of 3e. It certainly was never true in 5e. So, since you haven't been banging the "D&D is poorly designed" drum until now, what's the actual problem? Or should we go back to the days when orcs only had warrior class and had to be leveled up to advance them?

So, no, you're flat out wrong here. It's not poor design. It's the way the game has always been designed. They went with spell slots as per class previously, but, well, that turned out to be a huge waste of time and space. Why bother giving Vecna, what, something like 40 spells known, when he's going to cast, maybe 5 of them? The days of monsters following PC rules ended fifteen years ago and hasn't been true since the release of 4e and was only true for the 3e and 3.5 e's.

 

[Tallifer]

This new change is half-assed. 4E presented a magic-using monster in a stat block with no leafing or scrolling or clicking through other pages or links to find out what each magical ability was.

 

[Hussar]

This new change is half-assed. 4E presented a magic-using monster in a stat block with no leafing or scrolling or clicking through other pages or links to find out what each magical ability was.

Well yes. But we can’t get too close to 4e without people losing their minds, so half assed it will remain.

Gotta keep pretending that 4e didn’t happen right? Gotta maintain the illusion.

 

[Shiroiken]

The sad part of this is that the entirety of this problem could be solved by adding one sentence to each creature with the spellcasting trait: "X is a Y level caster using Z ability score for spellcasting." It existed in all previous versions, and adding this one line would give both sides of the argument what they want. DMs that prefer the new method could use the stat block as it is, while DMs that prefer the old method could use the level to figure out what spells they should have (and upcast if desired).

Sure he can! He wrote the bloody thing. He can use it however you want. Or, if it matters that much to you, you can give him spell slots that he can use to cast spells from the book. Converting newer spellcaster NPCs back to the older format shouldn't be that difficult.

This argument is saying that an incomplete product is fine, since the DM can just do whatever they want. If I wanted to do that, why would I buy the product in the first place? Since Vecna is supposed to be a god, we have no idea how many spell slots he should actually have, because it could be level 20 or it could be more (possibly less, but I doubt it). This conversion is actually pretty difficult if you want to maintain balance, which was the big concern I had when MPMM came out.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

1. I have no idea the caster level of the monster.
2. I have no idea up to what spell levels they have access to because of that or how many spell slots they have.

1. What is this "caster level" of which you speak? (For real though, there is no such thing as "caster level" in 5e--and for that I say "good riddance to bad rubbish.")
2. He has access to the listed spells, plus whatever you feel is appropriate for being in his fancy "can contain anything, even magic mere mortals can't use" stuff. Unless you just mean in general, in which case, it would be "the creature has access to the listed spells, and it's on you if you want them to cast anything else anyway." How is this any different from homebrewing any other creature?

For real, I don't understand what your issue is. The first thing literally doesn't exist in 5e, and the second is either "whatever you want" or "whatever you want, with more steps."