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

[Shardstone]

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 mean, you can always discard what's listed in the stat block and replace it with something that better suits your needs. That's true of every monster book. I'm not tracking how that's more or less a feature of this new format.

I'm not considering 500 spells. You have deliberately twisted what I said into something else.

I came up with Disintegrate, Wall of Light, and whatever else I said off the top of my head. Because those are cool spells I already know about. I wouldn't think much harder then that. And with DND Beyond, I can filter by level, source, and school.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A little OT - Unless I'm missing something in the stat block, Vecna can cast his "Rotten Fate" ability without limits. IMO, that is OP.

"Rotten Fate. Vecna causes necrotic magic to engulf one creature he can see within 120 feet of himself. The target must make a DC 22 Constitution saving throw, taking 96 (8d8 + 60) necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A Humanoid killed by this magic rises as a zombie (see the Monster Manual) at the start of Vecna’s next turn and acts immediately after Vecna in the initiative order. The zombie is under Vecna’s control."

and yet they keep "Maybe he will throw a lightning bolt" into the stats to confuse the DMs

 

[Greg Benage]

I'm not considering 500 spells. You have deliberately twisted what I said into something else.

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.

 

[Shardstone]

and yet they keep "Maybe he will throw a lightning bolt" into the stats to confuse the DMs

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.

They also say in the adventure that you can increase the challenge of Vecna through a list of methods. Having him cast lightning bolt as a 9th level spell by default or something is thus totally valid. The damage will hit probably at least two creatures, and the Rotten Faith will keep them there.

It isn't confusing, its a fun tactic to naughty word with people. Have some imagination, I know you've been in this game longer then I have.

 

[dave2008]

Oh, okay. I agree that what's there is interesting -- I just thought you were saying that removing spell lists from the lich made it a more interesting monster for you. Would this kind of redesign still be "interesting" if the lich retained a more robust spell list to choose from?

Sure, I don't have an issue with that. I actually like the way A5e does it best.

 

[Shardstone]

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.

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.

EDIT: I will say this, as a minor concession. WotC should give every spellcasting about 15 variant/optional spells they can have not in the spell block but in the description.

 

[Remathilis]

The biggest hurdle you have to make with the new stat blocks is that they are as far from the PC classes as you can have them. The "wizard" tag is superfluous and they have actively attempted to remove any or all signposts that would allow you to define the "class and level" of an NPC as if it was a PC.

To that end, NPCs no longer have spellcasting slots, caster levels, or abilities that rely on either. They no longer use spell lists, and most don't have abilities that resemble class features (though some still mimic a few). This is also true of a feature like sneak attack (which mimicked rogues) as well.

On the one hand, I get the reason why. Look at the archmage in the MM. He's an 18th level caster who is CR 12. He is built a bit nerfed as is because he could swap time stop for meteor swam and probably tpk most groups, but if they put his level lower he's gonna lose tremendous power (compare to the CR 6, level 9 Mage). So rebuilding casters to have consistent attacks and abilities not tied to spell slots helps fix that swingy aspect of casters, at that cost of customization or internal logic. It appears WotC views high-level NPC casters as having a bunch of mid-level abilities usable repeatedly and a smattering of support spells rather than complicated high level spells.

My biggest concern is that though these NPCs don't FEEL like they are mimicking the classes they say they emulate. The warlocks don't have beam attacks that resemble eldritch blast, they use melee weapons (they're all pact of the sword apparently.) Clerics get a healing ability and wizards a blasting one, and druids get to change into a predefined animal but that's it. Rogues use poison damage and multiple attacks, not sneak attacks. etc. They feel like classes from a different game. A Champion, Transmuter, War Priest and Master Thief don't feel like a simplified Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue, they feel like expats from a different game.

So in the end, I think it's best if you ignore those names and tags that signpost it to be akin to a PC class. They are from another world. Vecna isn't a 20th level wizard. He's just a powerful creature with a lot of magicky abilities that if you squint looks a bit like a caster class.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If I really need the spellcasting level and number of spell slots of any monsters... I still have the original Monster Manual, Volo's Guide, and Tome of Foes right next to me. I can just use them if I'm not interested in using a monster from the Multiverse book or any new ones that have the new format. Or if I really want to get creative, I can just combine the statblocks together of the same creatures from both styles so I can get the best of both versions in one.

I kinda figured every time folks would say they wanted new monster books it was to add to their growing list of monsters they could use... not so they could throw away their old ones and replace them.

 

[Greg Benage]

EDIT: I will say this, as a minor concession. WotC should give every spellcasting about 15 variant/optional spells they can have not in the spell block but in the description.

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.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Somewhat related: why are there wizards who can't cast prestidigitation or thaumaturgy?

Why is 'wizard stuff' not just a thing wizards can do without sacrificing a cantrip slot? Why can't the caster classes just do their 'nod to what everyone expects these guys to do in pop culture' cantrips like druidcraft?