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

[Minigiant]

That would be a glass canon! And there is nothing wrong with that. You are not required to have a balanced CR. But I will check the numbers:

Defensive CR 1/2
Offensive CR 9 (at least that is what I get)

IMO, the CR should be 4.5, so round 5.

But do you see how a CR 6 with a Offense of 9 and Defense of 1/2 could be a problem in the hands of a inexperienced DM?

The offense of a CR 9 monster kills most 6th level PCs in 2 rounds.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But do you see how a CR 6 with a Offense of 9 and Defense of 1/2 could be a problem in the hands of a inexperienced DM?

The offense of a CR 9 monster kills most 6th level PCs in 2 rounds.

As long as they die in one...

 

[Hussar]

But do you see how a CR 6 with a Offense of 9 and Defense of 1/2 could be a problem in the hands of a inexperienced DM?

The offense of a CR 9 monster kills most 6th level PCs in 2 rounds.

Ok, sure. But, is that a problem with the CR system, or a problem with this specific monster? I'd say it's this specific monster really. The CR system is working the way it should, but, this particular critter is bad. So, fix the critter - which is apparently what they're doing by switching away from caster slots.

I think I may have lost the thread of the conversation somewhere because I'm not seeing the problem.

 

[Minigiant]

Ok, sure. But, is that a problem with the CR system, or a problem with this specific monster? I'd say it's this specific monster really. The CR system is working the way it should, but, this particular critter is bad. So, fix the critter - which is apparently what they're doing by switching away from caster slots.

I think I may have lost the thread of the conversation somewhere because I'm not seeing the problem.

Again I'm not criticizing the CR system.

It am answering the Topic Title

"New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!"​

Because old spellcasting monsters didn't follow CR guides due to Spell Slots and were complicated to run as well.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think I may have lost the thread of the conversation somewhere because I'm not seeing the problem.

Same.

 

[dave2008]

But do you see how a CR 6 with a Offense of 9 and Defense of 1/2 could be a problem in the hands of a inexperienced DM?

The offense of a CR 9 monster kills most 6th level PCs in 2 rounds.

Sure, but that is not a fault of CR or the encounter guidelines IMO. It is a fault of the DMG, and possible the MM, to not explain these possibilities. In reality, I think there should be design note sidebars that explain troublesome monsters in the MM.

 

[Faolyn]

Ok, sure. But, is that a problem with the CR system, or a problem with this specific monster? I'd say it's this specific monster really. The CR system is working the way it should, but, this particular critter is bad. So, fix the critter - which is apparently what they're doing by switching away from caster slots.

I think I may have lost the thread of the conversation somewhere because I'm not seeing the problem.

It's probably a problem with the CR system. I've made a lot of monsters--well, converted them from older editions--and glass canons and glass tanks are everywhere. Unfortunately, the way determining CR works often lends itself to these sort of imbalances and generally disregards abilities that aren't directly related to either defense or inflicting damage. You could give a pixie the ability to spam wish spells and by RAW it really wouldn't affect their CR, because wish does not, by itself, affect AC or damage. More realistically, though, CR calculations don't take non-damaging spells and SLAs into account, no matter how much they could affect the encounter, and they don't take things like stat-drain into account, which is why shadows are so very under-CRed.

The "easy" way to fix it would be to make CR so that creatures have to have the same CR for both offense and defense and to include every ability in the calculations.

 

[Helldritch]

You said "You might do fine without adding blue water, as long as there is some the problem will not arise. Being lucky does not mean you might not need some. Same with anti-viruses and VPN, you might never need one. Being lucky does not mean the problems will never arise." This is you literally saying that the problems will arise and that it's only because I'm lucky that they haven't.


Those are two very different things, though. If the DMG doesn't cover certain ground or explain things well, that's the DMGs fault. But it's not the DMG's fault if the DM doesn't read it in the first place.

In this kind of reply, we are talking about an hypothetical "you". That "you" is anyone to which the hat might fit. You (Faolyn) were not targeted directly or even indirectly by my response. Do not take it as personal. It is probably a cultural bias that I have as the "vous" in French can be use to talk about nondescript person. I kinda of remember that it is possible to use the "you" in such a way in English but it is usually reserved for speech or literary situation. My bad.

 

[Faolyn]

In this kind of reply, we are talking about an hypothetical "you". That "you" is anyone to which the hat might fit. You (Faolyn) were not targeted directly or even indirectly by my response. Do not take it as personal. It is probably a cultural bias that I have as the "vous" in French can be use to talk about nondescript person. I kinda of remember that it is possible to use the "you" in such a way in English but it is usually reserved for speech or literary situation. My bad.

OK, then...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ok, sure. But, is that a problem with the CR system, or a problem with this specific monster?

It's a problem with the system. There is a need for glass canons and other specialist monsters if the game is to be anything like interesting. If you were using it against a lower level party you design the encounter so that they can take it out before it one-shots them. Or have it shooting at allies, the city wall, etc. Or you might have several combined with tank monsters in a higher level encounter.

 

[Hussar]

It's a problem with the system. There is a need for glass canons and other specialist monsters if the game is to be anything like interesting. If you were using it against a lower level party you design the encounter so that they can take it out before it one-shots them. Or have it shooting at allies, the city wall, etc. Or you might have several combined with tank monsters in a higher level encounter.

I'm going to strongly disagree there. There is no need for glass cannons. The whole "bang you're dead" type monster thing is just not all that fun. Glass cannons rely too much on random chance. If the glass cannon doesn't get its shot off, it's pointless. But, if it does get its shot off, the players only survive through luck. Whoopee. That's not strategy or planning, it's just dumb luck.

Glass cannon is not a good game design. I'd much rather have monsters that fall within a fairly broad spectrum - say monsters that take 2-6 rounds to defeat for a 5 PC party. The 4e monster designs of skirmisher, soldier, etc. worked fantastic.

A monster needs about 2-4 powers to be interesting. That's it. That's all it needs. Anything more than that is mostly pointless and too complex to run. I imagine that if someone sat at your, or my or anyone else's table, during an encounter with say, 5 baddies, 3 of which are casters, and counted the number mistakes the DM was making, it would likely be once per round. People make mistakes with the rules all the time. Making monsters more complicated is not going to fix the problem.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The whole "bang you're dead" type monster thing is just not all that fun.

Whether or not the encounter is fun depends on what you are doing with them.

I'd much rather have monsters that fall within a fairly broad spectrum - say monsters that take 2-6 rounds to defeat for a 5 PC party.

Generic hit-point sacks are not good game design.

Boring boring boring.

A monster needs about 2-4 powers to be interesting. That's it. That's all it needs.

It only needs one. So long as it's an interesting one. You can always combine it with something with complementary abilities.

3 of which are casters,

So, glass cannons then.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In this kind of reply, we are talking about an hypothetical "you". That "you" is anyone to which the hat might fit. You (Faolyn) were not targeted directly or even indirectly by my response. Do not take it as personal. It is probably a cultural bias that I have as the "vous" in French can be use to talk about nondescript person. I kinda of remember that it is possible to use the "you" in such a way in English but it is usually reserved for speech or literary situation. My bad.

I had the same problem and was told that one can use "one" in such situations.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

More realistically, though, CR calculations don't take non-damaging spells and SLAs into account

AoE crowd control abilities are the real party killer.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It is a fault of the DMG, and possible the MM, to not explain these possibilities. In reality, I think there should be design note sidebars that explain troublesome monsters in the MM.

Just a general note to the effect "when designing an encounter examine a monster's abilities carefully and consider how they will interact with the party's. And ignore CR." at the beginning.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

So, glass cannons then.

I'm sorry, since when are clerics, warlocks or various other casters "glass cannons"? It's not like the wizard thing is all that prevalent. I was unaware that Hags were glass cannons. Or most demons or devils. Or a rather wide variety of caster monsters. But, sure, we could always just assume that all casters mean wizards.

The problem of glass cannons is a completely unrelated issue to the new stat blocks. As is the whole CR thing. These are both separate issues. The problem that the new stat blocks is resolving is that the old stat blocks were too complicated and had too many different abilities on them, most of which will never see play. All this side bar stuff about CR and glass cannons and whatnot is not really the issue that's being addressed.

We've wandered rather far afield from the original issues of the thread- which basically boil down to the fact that 5e stat blocks are too bloated with different effects.

 

[Helldritch]

I had the same problem and was told that one can use "one" in such situations.

Yeah, depends on which "English" you got raised. In Canada, that usage of "you" is still common place in provinces touching Quebec, such as Ontario and New Brunswick.

 

[dave2008]

Just a general note to the effect "when designing an encounter examine a monster's abilities carefully and consider how they will interact with the party's. And ignore CR." at the beginning.

I would prefer a sidebar with particular monsters rather than a general note.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would prefer a sidebar with particular monsters rather than a general note.

Then you are using a lot of space to explain what experienced DMs already know and people who only run published adventures will never use.

Not to mention, I'm sure I can think of dozens of ways to use a monster that never occurred to the WotC bods.

D&D Beyond have revived an intermittent series of articles on how to use specific monsters.

 

[Hussar]

Then you are using a lot of space to explain what experienced DMs already know and people who only run published adventures will never use.

Not to mention, I'm sure I can think of dozens of ways to use a monster that never occurred to the WotC bods.

D&D Beyond have revived an intermittent series of articles on how to use specific monsters.

Actually, I think you raise an interesting point. We talk about wanting a different DMG that is very clear and clearly explains assumptions and whatnot. Only problem is, we got a DMG that did that and it got rejected by the fandom. Pretty much from the first day of release, virtually anything in the 4e DMG became front line fodder for edition wars.