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

[DND_Reborn]

LIches in 1ed were anywhere from 11th to 18th level wizards.

They were 18th, minimum:

You might have been confused by the HD at 11+, which, despite being d8s, I assume was because magic-users in 1E were limited to 11d4 hit points, gaining only +1 per level after 11th.

it would lose a level if its original body could not be found and eaten...

Where is that? I don't recall that at all...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I
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. So no, I would not add powers or items to a foe in the middle of the fight. If the group dies, it dies. If it kills my BBEG swiftly because of luck, great tactics or both, so be it. Easy fights or hard kne will not be modified because I feel like it. I do not fudge and roll.on the open. A gritty realism game we play and doing this, modifying a creature on the fly, would be disrespectful to my players.

Then your problem is entirely, 100% self inflicted.

If you can't spend two minutes thinking about whether a certain spellcaster NPC could cast a couple utility spells, that's on you.

How many exactly-as-written, zero-modification caster NPCs give you the spells you speak of? The Abjurer in VGM doesn't have knock or feather fall. You'd have to add that. The Evoker literally doesn't have any spells that aren't combat related besides cantrips (and of its spells, only six are not evocation, counting prestidigitation.) How is that any different from the current situation? If you wanted them to be able to do it, you'd still need to modify. If you forget or don't have time to do it before you enter the creature into play, you'd have exactly the same situation.

What is actually different here?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I did play a lot of 4e and I do think that 5e has a 4e engine. So much of 5e is a direct development from 4e.

Frankly I’m baffled by arguments to the contrary. How can it not be mostly 4e under the hood?

Well, I wrote about the issue with calling it "mostly 4e under the hood" at one point, and a fair few folks (even some I normally butt heads with on here) seemed to find value in my critique of the assertion.

In very simple terms: some, usually peripheral, elements are the same or can potentially play the same if used with an intentionally 4e-like mindset (skills being the main example of the latter.) Most, usually central/core, elements have a skin-deep similarity to 4e rules, but beneath that skin they not only diverge from 4e but (sometimes actively) oppose 4e's goals. Divergence is expected, a new edition should change things. Opposition, on the other hand, is not really to be expected if it's supposed to be "mostly 4e under the hood."

 

[Helldritch]

They were 18th, minimum:

View attachment 250852

You might have been confused by the HD at 11+, which, despite being d8s, I assume was because magic-users in 1E were limited to 11d4 hit points, gaining only +1 per level after 11th.


Where is that? I don't recall that at all...

A dragon magazine if I recall correctly. A "best of" maybe? It has been quite a while since I have touched 1ed.

 

[DND_Reborn]

A dragon magazine if I recall correctly. A "best of" maybe? It has been quite a while since I have touched 1ed.

Hmm... certainly possible. I had some dragon magazines, but not many of them. If it was that good / important, I think it would have made it into 2E, but I didn't find anything in there either.

 

[Helldritch]

Then your problem is entirely, 100% self inflicted.

If you can't spend two minutes thinking about whether a certain spellcaster NPC could cast a couple utility spells, that's on you.

How many exactly-as-written, zero-modification caster NPCs give you the spells you speak of? The Abjurer in VGM doesn't have knock or feather fall. You'd have to add that. The Evoker literally doesn't have any spells that aren't combat related besides cantrips (and of its spells, only six are not evocation, counting prestidigitation.) How is that any different from the current situation? If you wanted them to be able to do it, you'd still need to modify. If you forget or don't have time to do it before you enter the creature into play, you'd have exactly the same situation.

What is actually different here?

As I said earlier. Modifications on the fly will never be done.
Modification prior to the actual encounter will be done.
The magic word here is on the fly, during an encounter; I will not add or remove anything.
You might be tempted to read further on.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I wrote about the issue with calling it "mostly 4e under the hood" at one point, and a fair few folks (even some I normally butt heads with on here) seemed to find value in my critique of the assertion.

In very simple terms: some, usually peripheral, elements are the same or can potentially play the same if used with an intentionally 4e-like mindset (skills being the main example of the latter.) Most, usually central/core, elements have a skin-deep similarity to 4e rules, but beneath that skin they not only diverge from 4e but (sometimes actively) oppose 4e's goals. Divergence is expected, a new edition should change things. Opposition, on the other hand, is not really to be expected if it's supposed to be "mostly 4e under the hood."

Meh. That is far, far too mich to read. But needless to say, I disagree with pretty much everything I did read in the first two or three sections. To me there are quite obviously large amounts of 4e dna in 5e. It’s not really subtle. But the presentation is such that we can pretend it’s not there so we don’t get 4e cooties on 5e.

 

[Hussar]

As I said earlier. Modifications on the fly will never be done.
Modification prior to the actual encounter will be done.
The magic word here is on the fly, during an encounter; I will not add or remove anything.
You might be tempted to read further on.

But, again, because you decided to play that way, which most certainly isn’t even suggested by the game, your problems are now self inflicted.

For anyone who doesn’t insist that the stat block is immutable in play, your play preference is actively hurting their experience because you are insisting that confusing and unnecessary material must be included solely because you chose a way of playing that isn’t even expected by the game.

Why should the game cater to your preferences and not the preferences of people who are actually playing in suggested ways?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

They were 18th, minimum:

View attachment 250852

You might have been confused by the HD at 11+, which, despite being d8s, I assume was because magic-users in 1E were limited to 11d4 hit points, gaining only +1 per level after 11th.


Where is that? I don't recall that at all...

I don’t think the 1e hit dice has anything to do with Caster levels. In 1e monster design and PC design was completely different.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don’t think the 1e hit dice has anything to do with Caster levels. In 1e monster design and PC design was completely different.

No, I don't think it does either, but I could understand someone seeing the 11+ HD might think a lich could be as low as 11th level because that was the max HD magic-users got.