GMforPowergamers
Legend
yeah that book saved 3e for my group... we would have walked away if not for it.
and with the (tragic) loss of a good friend, my group is again considering leaving D&D
D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!
- Thread starter Erdric Dragin
- Start date
and with the (tragic) loss of a good friend, my group is again considering leaving D&D
I'm sorry to hear that, I had something similar occur last year.
Nah.
NPC built like PCs have too little defense and too much offense for their CR.
This is because PC's heavily lean to damage and control, PC defense tend to lean to magic items, and PCs only get HD equal to their class level and are this always too low in HP.
Hussar
Legend
Yeah, sure we learned by trial and error. Hundreds of hours of crap gaming to finally learn the game meant that the overwhelming majority of those who tried DnD back in the day, left the hobby entirely.
There’s a very good reason why DnD’s size basically stagnated for decades. Lack of clarity in advice is a big one.
Add to this the notion that the DMG is somehow word of god being handed down from the mount, and even the slightest bit of advice becomes a deadly insult to egos.
1e certainly had no problem with a very strong voice but everyone forgets that. 2e had less and then 3e was basically so dry and bland that no one bothered to read it. A tradition that 5e picked back up after the huge pushback to 4e’s strong voice DMG.
There’s a very good reason why DnD’s size basically stagnated for decades. Lack of clarity in advice is a big one.
Add to this the notion that the DMG is somehow word of god being handed down from the mount, and even the slightest bit of advice becomes a deadly insult to egos.
1e certainly had no problem with a very strong voice but everyone forgets that. 2e had less and then 3e was basically so dry and bland that no one bothered to read it. A tradition that 5e picked back up after the huge pushback to 4e’s strong voice DMG.
Voadam
Legend
The comparison for the old stat blocks versus the new ones is best done by looking at versions in the Monsters of the Multiverse compared to their old versions.
From spot checking they seem to be the same CR, and look to me to be roughly equivalent in offense, with the new stat blocks having about twice the hp of the old wizard caster ones and fewer possible magical defenses.
The Evoker for example is CR 9 for both versions with a constant 15 AC from mage armor.
In the old version it is a 12th level caster with 1 slot for chain lightning/wall of ice, and a bunch of slots for cones of cold and counterspell, fireball, lightning bolt, and misty step. It has 66 hp.
The new version has 123 hp and no counterspell as its defensive changes (also no misty step or stoneskin).
Offensively it has an at will three shot multiattack ranged attack arcane blast that is not a spell for 25 hp each. It also has a usually every other round (recharge 4-6) scultped explosion for 9d8 not spell damage of choice of energy and knocked prone to a 20 foot radius sphere that carves out three friendlies, save for half. It also gets one wall of ice and two lightning bolts per day as decent combat spell options.
For the old one you need to know core spells and how to use slots. For the new one you need to figure out the new powers. The new one is generally simpler to manage on a resource management track.
If I was running a 12th level party and having them face a BBEG with 3 hench mages for artillery I would probably want to use the new version over the older one.
If I was using an evoker as the BBEG for a level 6 party I might prefer the older statblock for more dynamic options.
From spot checking they seem to be the same CR, and look to me to be roughly equivalent in offense, with the new stat blocks having about twice the hp of the old wizard caster ones and fewer possible magical defenses.
The Evoker for example is CR 9 for both versions with a constant 15 AC from mage armor.
In the old version it is a 12th level caster with 1 slot for chain lightning/wall of ice, and a bunch of slots for cones of cold and counterspell, fireball, lightning bolt, and misty step. It has 66 hp.
The new version has 123 hp and no counterspell as its defensive changes (also no misty step or stoneskin).
Offensively it has an at will three shot multiattack ranged attack arcane blast that is not a spell for 25 hp each. It also has a usually every other round (recharge 4-6) scultped explosion for 9d8 not spell damage of choice of energy and knocked prone to a 20 foot radius sphere that carves out three friendlies, save for half. It also gets one wall of ice and two lightning bolts per day as decent combat spell options.
For the old one you need to know core spells and how to use slots. For the new one you need to figure out the new powers. The new one is generally simpler to manage on a resource management track.
If I was running a 12th level party and having them face a BBEG with 3 hench mages for artillery I would probably want to use the new version over the older one.
If I was using an evoker as the BBEG for a level 6 party I might prefer the older statblock for more dynamic options.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
4e's voice was strong, but very different from 1e's voice.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
If PC hp is so low, why are base CR encounters such a cakewalk? If the answer is healing and reviving the downed, the same thing should apply to intelligent NPCs.
That's multiple issues really.
It really comes own that PCs and Monster are built for different tactics.
PCs are built to be force of offensive combined arms. They are like the Humans in an Fantasy Strategy game. The footmen act as a blocker for the archers and a anvil for the cavalry. PCs are indivdually squishy but if they are allowed to combine arms, they churn though foes. That is the issue with MM casters and archers built like PCs as enemies. They are squishy because a tank is supposed to tank for them. Hence No Tank = Cakewalk Tank = TPK.
The other issue is monster are boring in tactics without a lot of DM help. They are the Dwarves of Strategy. They have one tactics and lose if you exploit their weakness.
Then you have the monsters who are just understated. They are the Goblins of Strategy games. They will lose without help and only self to drain resources.
Or like I said from the first pages, WOTC created a CR system then proceeded to not follow their own guidelines because of Traditional Feel and Ease of Reading.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
IMO, they should have thrown out the CR guidelines, and stuck with traditional feel and ease of reading coupled with actual advice on how to use the monsters they made. WotC really seems to have an aversion to explaining themselves in their own products.
EDIT: This is absolutely wrong. I wrote it off memory and did not check. @James Gasik set me right.
Leaving the original up for posterity.
Last edited:
Actual advice on how to use a monster has never been a thing in a core MM? So what's this "Combat" section, then?
And if someone says "oh but that just tells us how it's powers work, and isn't really combat advice", here's another example:
Point taken and conceded. I was operating off memory and didn't check.
On the upside, the 2E MM is even better than I remember.
Hussar
Legend
Not really my point.
After 1e only the 4e DMG had a strong voice. And as a result, the DMG barely gets read.
Hussar
Legend
Well yes. Because when they explain themselves everyone gets up in arms about badwrongfun and loses their poop.
So of course they don’t. You got what you asked for.
Personally I've love for the 4e Monster roles to come back, added to, de-mathed, and explained in the front.
It would have helped DM understand howto run the monsters in books AND cause WOTC to catch themselves when creating wacky mosters with irrational or volatile combat tactics.
It would have helped DM understand howto run the monsters in books AND cause WOTC to catch themselves when creating wacky mosters with irrational or volatile combat tactics.
Hussar
Legend
IMO, the 4e monster rules were probably the best DnD has ever had and I think rank among some of the best rpg game design ever.
The mistake with 4e was the proliferation of status effects. That got ludicrous and unnecessary. But combined with 5e’s combat assumptions and 4e’s clarity and I would buy the hell out of that book.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I'm not talking about public statements. I'm talking about explaining their design choices and intentions for the system in the books (particularly the DMG).
And besides, whether or not people have a negative reaction, its good practice to tell your audience why you made the choices you made.
I am curious wheere you think that occurs often enough to be able to judge it a "good practice." Specifically, in the work at hand. I can't say I have ever seen a video game stop to tell me why the Boss has its special attack, or a film that breaks to explain the importance of the lighting in a scene. Those things are part of design diaries and commentary -- which tabletop RPGs have in spades, found mostly online.
I think it is worthwhile for a monster book to explain how to use a monster, or for the DMG to explain how to set up an encounter or days worth of encounters (see the LevelUp encounter building chapter for a really thorough example), but the DMG certainly doesn't need a built in "design diary."
GMforPowergamers
Legend
from your mouth to god ears... we need MORE expansion of the roles and explanations not less
