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

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm curious(not a trap or to be argumentative) about why you are loathe to delete things. I've known people who hate to get rid of things, because they might need it later as an option. My wife is like this. When we moved into our new house it had a built in microwave, but my wife still wanted to save our old one "just in case." She did this despite both of us knowing that if the built in microwave breaks, we will want to replace it rather than try to find counter space for the old, large microwave in the garage. I finally convinced her earlier this week(two years later) to let me throw it out.

What's your reason?

Not answering for Dave, but as an aside, I'm not loathe to delete things, but I'd rather many things weren't there in the first place (it's like, "get the $%&@ out of my way!") A 5e monster stat block has a LOT of stuff that makes me feel that way, while ALSO missing stuff I wish was there (like spell descriptions).

In fact, I feel that the entire game would be made better if Spells were designed with a long-form (full of fluff, corner-case mechanics, standard variations, etc) version, and a short-form version (just the facts; as brief as possible; some standardized abbreviations).

Monsters and Character sheets would use short-form spells. Look up the long-form if you need more information. That's how I'd design the game.

 

[dave2008]

I'm curious(not a trap or to be argumentative) about why you are loathe to delete things. I've known people who hate to get rid of things, because they might need it later as an option. My wife is like this. When we moved into our new house it had a built in microwave, but my wife still wanted to save our old one "just in case." She did this despite both of us knowing that if the built in microwave breaks, we will want to replace it rather than try to find counter space for the old, large microwave in the garage. I finally convinced her earlier this week(two years later) to let me throw it out.

What's your reason?

Probably something similar, but I don't really give it much thought. I just accept it generally. Sorry to not be very helpful. I will give it some thought and get back to you if I have any epiphanies

 

[dave2008]

In your statement that I quoted, you specifically said that simpler stat blocks made world building easier for you, so I was curious why that was.

Like I said I was responding to MS. It was my understanding of how they interpret worldbuilding in stat block, not my own. I unintentionally befuddled the issue, my apologies. Worldbuilding and statblocks don't really impact each other in my opinion.

I certainly understand the lore part, but I am failing to see how complexity fits in.

Complexity comes in because it is easier, or perhaps more fun, for me to add to a bare slate than to have to revise a complex one. That being said, I do appreciate interesting abilities, traits, and actions.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I don't know if the NPC version represent PC equivalents. I see them as tower mages, cloister priests, landed knights, and gang thieves and not the PC adventurer equals.


I'd say the PC equal NPCs ones would be NPCs straight built as PCs. Subclass and all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know if the NPC version represent PC equivalents. I see them as tower mages, cloister priests, landed knights, and gang thieves and not the PC adventurer equals.


I'd say the PC equal NPCs ones would be NPCs straight built as PCs. Subclass and all.

But in the spellcaster's case at least, they still cast spells. The magic system should work the same way.

As an aside, at no point to my recollection has WotC ever claimed in print that their monsters entries are only supposed to represent a sliver of the creature as used for a few combat rounds, as some people here have claimed.

 

[dave2008]

As an aside, at no point to my recollection has WotC ever claimed in print that their monsters entries are only supposed to represent a sliver of the creature as used for a few combat rounds, as some people here have claimed.

I don't know it that is the case in 5e, but it was specifically the case in 4e and they talked about that being the design idea.

 

[Parmandur]

But in the spellcaster's case at least, they still cast spells. The magic system should work the same way.

As an aside, at no point to my recollection has WotC ever claimed in print that their monsters entries are only supposed to represent a sliver of the creature as used for a few combat rounds, as some people here have claimed.

In print, not so much, but they have talked about the design process on the air. Monster blocks are not through going simulationist representations of a character, and haven't been all Edition.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But in the spellcaster's case at least, they still cast spells. The magic system should work the same way.

As an aside, at no point to my recollection has WotC ever claimed in print that their monsters entries are only supposed to represent a sliver of the creature as used for a few combat rounds, as some people here have claimed.

As an aside, at not point to my recollection has WotC ever claimed in print that their monsters entries are supposed to represent the entirety of what a monster can do, as some people here seem to be claiming.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As an aside, at not point to my recollection has WotC ever claimed in print that their monsters entries are supposed to represent the entirety of what a monster can do, as some people here seem to be claiming.

But they're all they give us to work with. You have to assume that's what they consider a monster to be, because they don't give us anything else.

Until Level Up's Monster Menagerie came out, my favorite monster book for D&D by far was the 2e Monstrous Manual. That's a book that tried to give a full picture of it's subjects. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it was designed for what I wanted.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Nor do I think it is necessarily a positive development to continuously reduce complexity for "ease of use."

I think there are different ways to interpret ease of use. There's the denigrating one: "kids these days don't have the attention span to learn the rules and handle complexity...etc."

But there is another way of thinking about it, and that is a desire to have a loose framework where you fill in the details as needed, instead of something where all the details are provided. I, personally, find that latter to be less fun, and even a bit of a straightjacket. I used to enjoy that, decades ago, but my preferences have changed. Although I haven't gotten the hang of GMing Dungeon World, I've gained an appreciation for taking a skeleton description of a world and it's inhabitants and seeing where the game takes it. I love the 'tag' system of Dungeon World, and the 'traits' of The One Ring, where I can take an adjective and improvise what that means mechanically.

So, anyway....yeah. There are obviously two (or more) basic viewpoints here, but I wish the group that's feeling slighted by these changes would stop dismissing the other viewpoint as a "kids these days" thing. Some of us old guys have seen our style evolve, and think our games are better for it.