They're just removing the 2e cover over the 4e engine that 5e has been all along.
What is this "caster level" of which you speak? (For real though, there is no such thing as "caster level" in 5e
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.
Eh. They're very slightly repainting the 2e cover. It's not really the 4e engine, either, just one copying about half the parts but used in completely different ways for completely different reasons even if they can be superficially compared. As I have argued elsewhere. Mike Mearls was somewhat inaccurate when he said that 5e was going to have 3e rules with 4e "streamlining." It would be more accurate to say that it started from 4e rules but re-wrote them as if they had always been present in 3e. In so doing, they demonstrated only the most superficial understanding of lessons from 4e (except in certain areas where 4e faltered, mostly presentation and marketing.) Several of the problems that came up very late in the playtest (such as the "ghoul surprise") or which have been slowly whittled away at over 5e's lifespan (e.g. dragonborn and Beast Master Rangers being mechanically hot garbage, Sorcerers not getting enough spells, etc.) were things that wouldn't have been a problem if they had learned more from what 4e did well and not tried so damn hard to pretend that 4e never existed.They're just removing the 2e cover over the 4e engine that 5e has been all along.
Because WotC wants to continue to get more new players to play the game, they are always going to choose methods that facilitate that over what we veteran players might prefer.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???
WotC will no doubt give us all the opportunity to express our views on these changes when they survey us about the 50Ae revision. If they get enough negative feedback about the new spellcasting NPCs, maybe they'll change them back! After all, they backtracked on the whole removal of alignment from stat blocks thing. So you never know!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).
Except that this isn't the stat block for Vecna as a god. It's explicitly a stat block from before he even lost his hand and eye to Kas.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.
OK, I don't exactly follow you, but I just don't think we will see eye-to-eye on this one.I was just mentioning that one ability. Overall he is underpowered since he can't cast spells like a normal wizard.
They are not. They are just reducing them.If WotC is getting rid of the spell lists,
That is exactly what they are doing. Have you looked at the Vecna they just posted for free that was the source for the OP.then at least start again from scratch and do monster blocks 4e style, with lots of fun and different abilities.
5e is very, very much not 4e, my friend.They're just removing the 2e cover over the 4e engine that 5e has been all along.
This is a bad argument, and I really can't take you seriously when you make an argument like this. At this point, you're being defeatist just to be defeatist.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.
If only.They're just removing the 2e cover over the 4e engine that 5e has been all along.
Well, obviously interesting is subjective., so this would be what I find interesting. There a few points of comparison, using the Vecna example;
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
The "spellcasting" entry in 5e stat blocks provides all this information. "Monster is a X-level spellcaster. Its spellcasting ability is Y (save DC Z)."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.")
Not for me, because that's too much info for me to keep up with and keep it interesting. The new Vecna has a suite of spells picked out for thematic reasons. If I were to run this Vecna, I'd add 3 more spells to the 2/day and 1/day, and change all his spells to suit whatever need I had. I'd also change it so that any character Vecna drops to 0 automatically has animate dead cast on them at the end of that creature's next turn. Then I'd plop disintegrate, telekinesis, and a reflavored Wall of Light that is a Wall of Shadow that deals necrotic damage. Then I'd make it so any spell 5th level or lower he can cast 2/day via his Book of Vile Darkness. Why? Dunno, seems fun.Oh, okay. I agree that what's there is interesting -- I just thought you were saying that removing spell lists from the lich made it a more interesting monster for you. Would this kind of redesign still be "interesting" if the lich retained a more robust spell list to choose from?
No. I was saying the idea of "caster level," as in the technical term used in prior editions of D&D, doesn't exist. There is no such thing as "caster level" in 5e. You have, at most, the idea that a particular creature has X Wizard levels or the like, but that's not the same thing as "caster level." And it's frankly irrelevant and unnecessary for running the vast majority of creatures, because NPCs don't work like PCs in 5e.The "spellcasting" entry in 5e stat blocks provides all this information. "Monster is a X-level spellcaster. Its spellcasting ability is Y (save DC Z)."
Were you truly confused about what the poster meant by "caster level"?