If you're ready to do that, I'm completely unsure why you wouldn't just write up some notes on "Vecna's tactics" when running a 5e encounter. Like...you don't actually have to be flipping pages and reading spells at the table, right? I mean, it sounds like that's what you're going to be doing anyway. I'm really confused.
The poster is hereby found guilty by reason of technicality. Well done, sir.
Writing tactics for 3-6 spells is a lot easier then writing tactics for 25+ spells.
Why would you ever write tactics for 25 spells? You might consider 25 spells in writing his tactics, but you don't have to write tactics for all them. Just as you are considering unlisted spells when working up your tactics for this Vecna...
Then why are would I want 25 spells on the character sheet?
My point was to challenge their perspective about it. Hence why, in the parenthetical you deleted, I specifically said "good riddance to bad rubbish," because the whole idea of "caster level" is bad design.
Because it's easier to consider 25 spells than 500 when working up his tactics? And because a listing of spells is an easy way for the designers to add a little depth and flavor to the character, rather than saying "You can give him whatever spells you want."
I'm sympathetic to that, actually, but some guidance on how many spells they can prepare (can they? do they? do they have a spellbook?) and such might be useful. Using the notation DMs already know (because it's used for PCs) seems like a reasonable, economical way to provide that guidance.
this is what I don't understand... why keep weirdness like this but cut combat spells?Important combat information.
I'm not considering 500 spells. You have deliberately twisted what I said into something else.
and yet they keep "Maybe he will throw a lightning bolt" into the stats to confuse the DMs
I'm a deliberate twister, I am. Anyway, it's easier to consider a curated list than the full spell list when working up tactics for your monster, and DMs such as you can always discard whatever guidance is listed and instead make up something off the top of their heads because it seems cool if that's what they want to do. That is not a feature of the new format, as far as I can tell.
He can do both on the same turn, and it isn't confusing. Vecna starts his fight in a 80 foot corridor with deadly walls and a lair action that puts obstacles in the way. He casts lightning bolt and Rotten Faith at the start of the fight, doing 8d6 lightning damage + the Rotten Faith's 96 damage and fear effect.
Sure, I don't have an issue with that. I actually like the way A5e does it best.
WotC has said before that they balanced old spellcasters with their spell list. That means you have to read and understand the spell list in order to understand the creature. This was one of the main reasons Crawford cited for the new change; now they design the blocks so the intention of the design is upfront, and the spells let you accent the upfront design.
Let's leave it there, then. As I've said, I like what's here, and I even like the general approach of streamlining stat blocks. But when it comes to spellcasters -- and especially high-level spellcasters -- a little more guidance from the designers pays dividends. You can make it easier for new DMs to run interesting encounters, give the baddies a little flavor, and do it in an economical way.
