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

[dave2008]

If WotC is getting rid of the spell lists,

They are not. They are just reducing them.

then at least start again from scratch and do monster blocks 4e style, with lots of fun and different abilities.

That is exactly what they are doing. Have you looked at the Vecna they just posted for free that was the source for the OP.

 

[Delazar]

on the one side I like these new stats-blocks, now casters are much easier to use, and indeed you only need info to handle 5-6 rounds of combat at the most. I actually prefer to use their "non-spell" actions, at least it's something new and unexpected for the players. I usually use spells as Legendary Actions.

On the other side, I understand that new DMs will look at the stats-block and think "ok, this is the sum of everything that this monster can do, that's it!". And why wouldn't they? Especially when it concerns spells and magical abilities. Same goes for "by-the-book" DMs, I suppose.

Though I think he deserved to get a Power Word Kill...

 

[Krachek]

Typical 4ed monster block with the addition of a list of standard spells for thematic and versatility. Noting so new.

 

[Charlaquin]

They're just removing the 2e cover over the 4e engine that 5e has been all along.

5e is very, very much not 4e, my friend.

 

[Shardstone]

Except without spell slots, Vecna can't actually cast any of those spells in the Book of Vile Darkness..... so, it is pretty useless in that respect.

This is a bad argument, and I really can't take you seriously when you make an argument like this. At this point, you're being defeatist just to be defeatist.

 

[Vaalingrade]

They're just removing the 2e cover over the 4e engine that 5e has been all along.

If only.

There wouldn't be any useless spell lists you have to go to another book to get if it were.

 

[Greg Benage]

Well, obviously interesting is subjective., so this would be what I find interesting. There a few points of comparison, using the Vecna example;

1. I am not likely to use spells from a spell list unless I know them well and can run them on the fly. So a list of things I don't know what they do is not interesting to me.
2. Spells are less interesting than unique magical abilities because the player knows what they are and what they can do. Everyone knows what a fireball is, that is not very interesting.
3. Vecna has 5 unique magical abilities that do things the players don't know. Unique and unknown abilities are more interesting to me than common and known abilities.

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?

 

[Greg Benage]

What is this "caster level" of which you speak? (For real though, there is no such thing as "caster level" in 5e--and for that I say "good riddance to bad rubbish.")

The "spellcasting" entry in 5e stat blocks provides all this information. "Monster is a X-level spellcaster. Its spellcasting ability is Y (save DC Z)."

Were you truly confused about what the poster meant by "caster level"?

 

[Shardstone]

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?

Not for me, because that's too much info for me to keep up with and keep it interesting. The new Vecna has a suite of spells picked out for thematic reasons. If I were to run this Vecna, I'd add 3 more spells to the 2/day and 1/day, and change all his spells to suit whatever need I had. I'd also change it so that any character Vecna drops to 0 automatically has animate dead cast on them at the end of that creature's next turn. Then I'd plop disintegrate, telekinesis, and a reflavored Wall of Light that is a Wall of Shadow that deals necrotic damage. Then I'd make it so any spell 5th level or lower he can cast 2/day via his Book of Vile Darkness. Why? Dunno, seems fun.

And that's the fun thing about this stat block. I can more easily mod it. Even knowing all the spells like I do, having to keep track of slots is my least favorite thing about the D&D magic system. I hate it tremendously, and I think its a silly system that is unintuitive and not all that good as a legacy tradition to keep around. Having to keep up with potentially 25 spells that Vecna has, having to sit down and think for so long before I run the session about how to use 25 spells and make them impactful or what the designers were thinking for each added spell...it isn't fun for me.

Give me less spells, the ability to swap out or mod the spells (which they did), and some off-brand spells like his Rotten Faith, and you have a spellcaster that is actually fun for me to use and requires a lot less effort to grok.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The "spellcasting" entry in 5e stat blocks provides all this information. "Monster is a X-level spellcaster. Its spellcasting ability is Y (save DC Z)."

Were you truly confused about what the poster meant by "caster level"?

No. I was saying the idea of "caster level," as in the technical term used in prior editions of D&D, doesn't exist. There is no such thing as "caster level" in 5e. You have, at most, the idea that a particular creature has X Wizard levels or the like, but that's not the same thing as "caster level." And it's frankly irrelevant and unnecessary for running the vast majority of creatures, because NPCs don't work like PCs in 5e.