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

[Steampunkette]

Reading this thread made me feel 20 years younger.

The amount of aggressive Gatekeeping and Passive Aggressive Insults aimed at the younger generations of players has always been there, but this is the first time I ever inhaled it like an inverse Sanderson Sister to grow more powerful and youthful by comparison!

More simply:

He's freaking VECNA. He has any spell you want at any time you want him to have it. If it suits you to have the PHB open to the spell list behind your DM screen go for it. If you're just using him as a mortal foe pre-ascension for your players, though, he's probably not going to last long enough to truly show off his full power so most should just use the statblock.

 

[dave2008]

You get it wrong.
I will not change what I have written. But I will change a foe before even it becomes an encounter. I will change the spells, the armor, thw weapon or whatever. The foes will even use their magical items in their hoard if they can. But these changes will be written in advance and will not made on the spot just to make an encounter tougher or easier.

My apologies. I either misunderstood or didn't read far enough.

But once the change is written, it will not be changed once the encounter start.

I never change anything to the detriment of the PCs, but on very, very rare occassion I have changed things to help the PCs.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh wow! You'd let Vecna have the spell slots of a 17th level Wizard before the encounter, and then switch to the new-style statblock for the encounter itself?

Normally spell slots spent in advance to shape an upcoming encounter are balanced by the fact that those slots aren't available during the encounter itself. But with your approach that isn't a limitation any more--it sounds like Vecna would have the flexibility and limited-use power of old-style statblocks with the at-will abilities and slot-independent spellcasting of the new-style statblock. Out of curiosity, do you roleplay Vecna as being aware of the fact that he isn't dependent in-combat on his out-of-combat spell slots? Or do you roleplay him as (unnecessarily) trying to conserve them for the fight? Or is how you roleplay Vecna out-of-combat (and the decisions he makes on using his out-of-combat spell slots) simply irrelevant to the eventual difficulty of the encounter?

Well, the 17th level Wizard thing was an off the top of my head example, I can’t say exactly how I would run Vecna outside the context of a campaign where I was actually running him. But, like, out of combat I’d probably have him be able to do what I need him to be able to do - I might look at what PC casters are capable of at what levels as a general yardstick, but at the end of the day, he isn’t a PC caster, so his capabilities aren’t going to be bound by the rules for PC casters. In combat, I would most likely run it according to the stat block. Maybe a modified version of the stat block, like if I wanted him to be able to use some spells that aren’t on there or whatever. If he had the chance to prepare for the battle and I wanted to have him do some preparation before hand like pre-casting buff spells or whatever, I’d probably knock a few uses off of some of his combat spells to kind of emulate the fact that he used up some of that juice already.

(Emphasis added.) To follow-up in the same vein as my questions above, what are your expectations for how the players roleplay their PCs with this mechanical change? For example, let's say the PCs suspect (rightly or wrongly) that the BBEG might be a Rakshasha and the PCs know IC that Rakshashas are famously immune to most spells. One of your players approaches you out of game to ask whether it would be reasonable IC for them to start recruiting NPC spellcaster allies who know how to cast non-spell magical attacks that bypass the Rakshasha's defenses. Would you encourage them to pursue such an effective strategy? Tell them their PC is unaware of the spell/non-spell distinction IC? Ask them to refrain from recruiting allies for game balance purposes? Something else?

Well, personally I don’t really like that these non-spell magical abilities are exempt from anti-spell features like counterspell, so I would probably house rule them to count as spells for the purpose of these features, except in the case of things like dragons’ breath weapons where it’s obviously a part of the creature’s nature rather than them manipulating the weave or whatever. But that’s kind of dodging the question, so to try to give an answer that I think satisfies the intent of the question, my answer to “would my PC think to do [insert strategy here]?” is pretty much always “if you want them to.” If you suspect you’re going to go up against an NPC that’s resistant to X, I’m totally fine with you recruiting other NPC allies who have unique abilities that get around resistance to X. Seems like smart play, assuming you’ve taken steps to verify your assumptions about your enemy being resistant to X and your potential ally having a way to get around that resistance.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

He's freaking VECNA. He has any spell you want at any time you want him to have it. If it suits you to have the PHB open to the spell list behind your DM screen go for it. If you're just using him as a mortal foe pre-ascension for your players, though, he's probably not going to last long enough to truly show off his full power so most should just use the statblock.

Heh. I wonder what the reaction would if the stat block's spell section just said "He's freaking Vecna. He's a 20th-level Wizard that knows and can cast every spell in the PHB."

 

[Helldritch]

D&D 5e's monsters are never listed with Tool Proficiencies. Do none of your NPCs have Tool Proficiencies, then? You know that the official Pirate Stat Blocks in D&D 5e (from Ghosts of Saltmarsh) aren't listed as having proficiency in Sea Vehicles, right? The NPC stat block for Bards isn't listed with instrument proficiencies, either. So, by this very rigid and close-minded code that you've for some reason adopted, in D&D 5e, Pirates literally cannot sail the ships that they use to do their pirating, and Bards can't play the instruments that they need to be, you know, Bards. Is this how you run your games?

None of the monster stat blocks for Wizards before has listed their spellbooks, either. Does that mean that Archmages don't have spellbooks in your games? Most monsters don't have sections describing their equipment besides those relevant in combat (magic items, armor, weapons). Are commoners in your games all completely naked all the time, because they're not listed as wearing clothing or armor?

Or do you have your own special, homebrew version of the 5e monster stats that includes an extra line for tool proficiencies and a huge section for every single piece of equipment that the NPC has on them?

If you answered no to any of these questions and your games aren't filled with cities filled with hundreds of thousands of completely naked commoners, wizards with no spellbooks, bards with no instruments, and pirates that can't sail . . . you don't actually follow that strict rule you say you follow.

Clearly, the base assumptions of 5e do not follow this logic you claim to follow. It would make the game worse if it did, in my opinion.

?
I am referring to changing the abilities, equipment, spell allotments a foe, enemy has once a fight starts. Changing these during a fight is out of the question. I thought I was clear on that but it appears that it was not as obvious as I thought. My bad. Sorry.

 

[Charlaquin]

I apply a strict rule of:" If it is not not written, it does not have it." Period. Acting any otherwise would simply be cheating in my POV.

Huh. Does this not go against the spirit of “rulings not rules”?

 

[Helldritch]

My apologies. I either misunderstood or didn't read far enough.

I never change anything to the detriment of the PCs, but on very, very rare occassion I have changed things to help the PCs.

No apologies needed. I was not clear enough. Others read as you did.

But for the second part. Not even to help the PCs. If they succeed, it is on their own powers, skills and inventiveness. I will not modify the story to help them. When they succeed, they know I did nothing to help them.

 

[Charlaquin]

It appears @Helldritch was referring to changing stats once the fight starts, which I totally get and adhere to myself. They weren't saying they never changed the published stats.

Ah. Ok, that makes more sense.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I will not modify the story to help them. When they succeed, they know I did nothing to help them.

Ditto.

 

[Helldritch]

Huh. Does this not go against the spirit of “rulings not rules”?

No, it plays right into it.
I make zounds of rulings. But I do not change foes to favor PCs or Foes. What I adjudicate however, is the results of actions not covered by the rules. If a player makes his character attempt something not covered, I might give advantage on the roll or disadvantage or nothing depending on how the player explains his/her action(s). I have had a player using a giant zombie as a jump board to jump on the top of an elder brain levitating beside the giant zombie. The athletic check was hard, 20, but succeeded. Since that check was successful, I gave the rogue advantage on his attack. It resulted in the death of the elder brain, right before I could TPK the group (the same with the shadow dragon). This is what I call ruling not rules.

Edit: some letters were missing. I hate phone keyboards...

Note: The fight with the Elder Brain lasted about 15 rounds. Minions were there and character's ressources had been stretched to their limits. This fight was played in a four hour session as multiple waves of opponents were involved.