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

[dave2008]

There it is - and with the link back to the original post.

Thank you! OK, i didn't realize the mouthless one was the elite A5e archlich. I have the A5e core books, so no linked needed!

So, why are you sharing this with me?

 

[dave2008]

Design and worldbuilding is what I care about the most.

Also, you mean you want someone else to design and world build correct? I like to design and world, and I find that is easier to do with simple monster stat blocks and limited lore. Less to get in the way of my designs and world building.

 

[Parmandur]

I doubt they have it, either. How many polls by WotC have asked if we have trouble telling the difference between a spell and an ability? None that I can remember. I guess I just have a higher opinion on the capabilities of the average player. I don't think the vast majority of players don't have an more trouble tracking spells than abilities.

WotC has said this change was to make it easier to play monsters in an optimal manner and hit at the CR they are supposed to hit at. Adding in more spells and issuing a statement at the beginning of the book accomplishes that.

There is a difference between being "able to" do something and "wanting to" do that thing for a game.

 

[Reynard]

Also, you mean you want someone else to design and world build correct? I like to design and world, and I find that is easier to do with simple monster stat blocks and limited lore. Less to get in the way of my designs and world building.

Out of curiosity, how does the complexity of the monster statblock impact world building for you?

 

[Maxperson]

There is a difference between being "able to" do something and "wanting to" do that thing for a game.

So long as they provide the abilities to help monsters hit at their CR, nobody has to do "that thing"(use the listed spells) for the monster. It's simply there for those who do. It's win/win, rather than win/lose.

 

[Parmandur]

So long as they provide the abilities to help monsters hit at their CR, nobody has to do "that thing"(use the listed spells) for the monster. It's simply there for those who do. It's win/win, rather than win/lose.

I have to admit, I personally don't feel strongly about this eitger. But a proliferation of options can be a barrier to use if it induces analysis paralysis, so a streamlined approach is going to be more broadly DM friendly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also, you mean you want someone else to design and world build correct? I like to design and world, and I find that is easier to do with simple monster stat blocks and limited lore. Less to get in the way of my designs and world building.

I like design and tools that help with the process sim worldbuilding style i enjoy. Level Up does that far better than WotC's 5e, while being enough like it that I can still get 5e players (far more common than any other kind) to my table. That's why its my favorite game.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Looking in Monsters of the Multiverse it is disappointing they do not have new versions of the Volo's Guide to Monster NPC stat blocks like the conjurer. It would be nice to compare two versions of the same exact thing for a bunch of wizard types.

Just in case nobody mentions it to you: MoM absolutely does have the Conjurer, etc. It's under "Wizards" near the end of the book. I've done a side-by-side comparison of all of the wizard NPCs, and it's one of the reasons that I really like the new monster stat-block. They seem much, much easier to run. (Sure, they're not as close to their PC-equivalents anymore, but I don't personally care about that. If I want a PC-based NPC wizard, I can build it using PC rules).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also, you mean you want someone else to design and world build correct? I like to design and world, and I find that is easier to do with simple monster stat blocks and limited lore. Less to get in the way of my designs and world building.

I find that more detail, not less, is better for me. Its a lot easier to remove something I don't want than to create something I do. If I want something simple, I'll make it that way. But usually I don't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just in case nobody mentions it to you: MoM absolutely does have the Conjurer, etc. It's under "Wizards" near the end of the book. I've done a side-by-side comparison of all of the wizard NPCs, and it's one of the reasons that I really like the new monster stat-block. They seem much, much easier to run. (Sure, they're not as close to their PC-equivalents anymore, but I don't personally care about that. If I want a PC-based NPC wizard, I can build it using PC rules).

See, I don't want an NPC that conceptually represents a PC equivalent to deviate from that PC model any more than is necessary. Every spellcasting monster in post-divide 5e now does that. We all have our lines, and they've crossed mine.