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

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

I think that was because the assumptions the 4e DMG was laying out where different to the assumptions much the fandom had been using for 30+ years.

D&D has traditionally left much to players to interpret, making it a very flexible system. Trying to lay out "one size fits all" play undermines a key reason for it's success.

Leaving "how to do" type advice out of the core rules seems like good practice to me. There are plenty of online sources and veteran players that can be tapped for advice. With the advantage that that kind of advice is "take it or leave it".

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think it should be an either one. Really some of the iconic "boss" monster, dragons, liches, vampires, alpha werewolves, archmagi, death knights, pit fiends, balors,... could have additional text on the design philosophy and how the team designed them to run. This way if the DM prefers a different direction, they know exactly what they need to change.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't think it should be an either one. Really some of the iconic "boss" monster, dragons, liches, vampires, alpha werewolves, archmagi, death knights, pit fiends, balors,... could have additional text on the design philosophy and how the team designed them to run. This way if the DM prefers a different direction, they know exactly what they need to change.

There are a lot of people who interpret everything that is in a core rulebook as a rule. If "how to run an archmage" was part of its description you would get an awful lot of players who would interpret any alternative use as "wrong".

Published adventures often have a "tactics" section for monsters, laying out how the encounter designer expects the monster to function in that specific encounter.

I often do the same myself.

 

[Minigiant]

There are a lot of people who interpret everything that is in a core rulebook as a rule. If "how to run an archmage" was part of its description you would get an awful lot of players who would interpret any alternative use as "wrong".

That's why it's should not be "how to run an Archimage" and instead "We designed the Archimage to cast lightning bolt every turn once it runs out of cones of cold. Choose different 5th level spell if you wish for the Archimage to be more of a controller or summoner."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"We designed the Archimage to cast lightning bolt every turn once it runs out of cones of cold. Choose different 5th level spell if you wish for the Archimage to be more of a controller or summoner."

To specific and unreactive. An archmage is going to cast lightning bolt if the party are in a nice straight line, and definitely not if they notice the target is immune to lightning damage.

 

[Minigiant]

To specific and unreactive. An archmage is going to cast lightning bolt if the party are in a nice straight line, and definitely not if they notice the target is immune to lightning damage.

The Archimage has few attack spells prepared so if it runs into a cold or lighting resistant/immune party, it's gonna punch well below CR with upcasted MMs and fire bolts.

But that goes with the poor assumptions of the designs and the not following their own guidelines.

 

[Hussar]

I think that was because the assumptions the 4e DMG was laying out where different to the assumptions much the fandom had been using for 30+ years.

D&D has traditionally left much to players to interpret, making it a very flexible system. Trying to lay out "one size fits all" play undermines a key reason for it's success.

Leaving "how to do" type advice out of the core rules seems like good practice to me. There are plenty of online sources and veteran players that can be tapped for advice. With the advantage that that kind of advice is "take it or leave it".

Well, therein lies the rub then doesn't it. You can't lay out advice and sidebars and "show the work" because it's seen as "undermining the fandom" so, the DMG remains a largely unread book that sits on the shelf because it's crap.

 

[dave2008]

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.

Yes, and I think it is worth it. It is fine if you don't I mean I don't really need it myself, I just think it would be helpful to some.

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

Sure, but being unable to cover all circumstances doesn't mean you should try to cover some.

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

That is a good idea too.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, and I think it is worth it. It is fine if you don't I mean I don't really need it myself, I just think it would be helpful to some.

If it's in the core books you are paying for it whether you want it or not.

I'm a teacher. People learn through doing (and sometimes failing), not by being told what to do.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Archimage has few attack spells prepared so if it runs into a cold or lighting resistant/immune party, it's gonna punch well below CR with upcasted MMs and fire bolts.

Correct. Which is why CR is dumb.

But that goes with the poor assumptions of the designs and the not following their own guidelines.

No, it's with the archmage preparing the wrong spells. The party got lucky.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, therein lies the rub then doesn't it. You can't lay out advice and sidebars and "show the work" because it's seen as "undermining the fandom" so, the DMG remains a largely unread book that sits on the shelf because it's crap.

I think there is a fair case for axing the DMG. It's existence is largely a hold-over, many other RPGs just have a core rulebook (and a monster book).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let me guess; you'll also against race as class, material components, stat differences by sex, gold for exp, and weapon speeds???

are there still people pro sex based stat mods???? I almost can't believe that... maybe I just don't want to

 

[GMforPowergamers]

zI've frankly never understood the actual value derived from weapon speeds. They're a huge fiddly pile of...not much going on.

teh only thing I like about it is that it gives weapons things other than damage die... why play a rogue with a knife 1d4 when you can weald the d6 short sword or d8 anarchism? flavor. Why penalize people playing for favor 2pts on average damage? If daggers were faster that would be diffrent... and a choice then.

 

[dave2008]

If it's in the core books you are paying for it whether you want it or not.

I'm a teacher. People learn through doing (and sometimes failing), not by being told what to do.

I'm not suggesting the book tells them what to do. I am suggesting the book provides helpful information. I don't mind paying for content i don't personally find useful, if it is useful to someone else. I mean at least half, if not more, of the text in the MM is not useful to me. I still buy the book though.

People learn in many ways (my partner was a teacher and I have been a coach). People can learn from experience and they can learn from the experience of others. Also, it is even better if you have both that reinforce each other.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm not suggesting the book tells them what to do. I am suggesting the book provides helpful information.

But if the book is a core rulebook, "helpful information" is interpreted as Word of God.

a booklet called "Advice for new DMs" could be included in starter sets and available online.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don’t understand why some people care so much about the accuracy of CRs. The game is so swingy, anyway.

I only vaguely pay attention to the CRs, and I haven’t used the DMG calculations for encounter difficulty in…years. I just pick some monsters that seem cool. Sometimes it turns out harder than expected, sometimes easier. But always fun.

I mostly ignore CR... but I ignore it becuse of how bad it is. (Hey I threw shadows in 1 encounter and hobgoblins in another the Hobo's are higher CR why were shadows deadlier?)

 

[Vaalingrade]

teh only thing I like about it is that it gives weapons things other than damage die... why play a rogue with a knife 1d4 when you can weald the d6 short sword or d8 anarchism? flavor. Why penalize people playing for favor 2pts on average damage? If daggers were faster that would be diffrent... and a choice then.

I don't know how it works in 5e, but daggers are good for stab-stab-throw attack routines.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Given that 5e combat is very forgiving, I’m not really sure what “tpk machines” you are referring to. Given that a pretty constant and consistent refrain is that 5e is too easy, I’d guess that “TPK machines” might be overstating things just a bit.

anything that gets around HP death... shadows, intelect devourers, mind flayers all can kill PCs way above them...

infact throw a 20th level party into a room full of shadows and intelect devourers and the idea of no PC death would be HARD

 

[Vaalingrade]

If we're talking the old 'playing smart' chestnut, the Shadow alone basically means the world is already dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

teh only thing I like about it is that it gives weapons things other than damage die... why play a rogue with a knife 1d4 when you can weald the d6 short sword or d8 anarchism? flavor. Why penalize people playing for favor 2pts on average damage? If daggers were faster that would be diffrent... and a choice then.

Well, that's why I liked the weapon keywords and properties from 4e. Those created an actually interesting space. They could even have been expanded. Frex:

Accurate (+1 to hit)
Finesse (can use Dex for hit/damage)
Defensive (+1 shield bonus to AC while wielding at least one Defensive weapon)
Brutal N (reroll damage dice that show N or less)
High Crit (roll extra dice when landing crits)
Unstoppable (increase crit range by 1)
Savage (roll damage twice, take the higher value)
Blunt (replace normal damage dice with average value, rounded down)
Thrown (can be used for ranged attacks without improvisation)

Etc. I'm sure I could come up with more if I weren't exhausted. The idea being, the properties don't have to be complicated, and each weapon could have (say) at most 2 properties, maybe 3 for fancy exotic weapons.

Of course I also liked the idea that you could have feats that hooked into "I use axes" stuff, but I doubt 5e is interested in that level of mechanical engagement.