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

[Minigiant]

Oh, what is your source for the initial claim...?

Constant complaining about the 6-8 default here on ENworld and reddit.

WOTC and many fans stating that groups have shorter adventuring day.

WOTC shifting to Prof bonus times per long rest in order to support tables with shorter, nova heavy days.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'd argue that saying "And good riddance to an entire demographic whose playstyle I disagree with! The game should completely abandon them." with a straight face counts as wanting barriers of entry.

If anybody is saying “good riddance” it’s to the gatekeeping, not the play style. It may feel like the same thing.

 

[Shardstone]

This is so far from the truth, I don't know where to begin. A hyper-modular D&D would allow multiple play styles, the mid-edition shift we saw does not expand the playstyles but pushes the game from one style to another. What was promised in the playtest was one group being able to run an OD&D style game while another had a 4E-like AEDU system and yet another group ran a 3.5-like game with many fiddly bits, all with the same chassis. We had a whole thread about this a few weeks ago. Right now the new content is actively making it harder to run simulationist games where the rules attempt to reflect the fantasy world's reality, the whole thing with counterspell itself makes it harder to keep verisimilitude going because something being a spell but not really just runs to the opposite of the world's logic. Unless you define modularity as "covering the highest number of tables", which makes no sense since a product with only one way to play would be more modular with your definition because a huge number of people can play it in that one way. Modularity needs allowing more playstyles, not more tables.


This is the most needlessly aggressive comment I've seen in a while. It also completely misuses gatekeeping since nobody in this thread said "real D&D players learn all of the spells by heart, and if you need simplified stat blocks you're a pussycat!" People are not against more simplified stat blocks. A5E's stat block system also allows running spellcasters with more ease, but it stays true to the simulationist ethos of the game, which is why several people who disliked the new spellcaster block said they quite liked A5E's method. If these people were really concerned with gatekeeping as you claimed, they'd also hate A5E's model since it also streamlines casters by writing out the important spells in the stat block.

Also, it is extremely unhelpful to label people as gatekeepers in this way. Because doing so actually plays into the gatekeepers' hands. You know, the ones like nu-TSR who claim that real nerds are being pushed out of their hobby by progressives and that their game is being stolen from them. To be clear, this is not what is happening, but what you said basically pushes for the same idea from the other side. A lot of people have enjoyed TTRPGs in very different forms since pretty much the founding of the hobby. The real gatekeepers are making this argument to get people in an us-vs-them mentality in order to then push them into political fringes.

And here you are, saying that D&D should be taken from the smelly nerds who spend a lot of time prepping it. You've gone so far into one end that you've come out at the other and sided with the true gatekeepers when it comes to what is happening.

But this isn't what's happening. We can all play in this hobby together, people who like verisimilitude and people who want a streamlined game. By taking this combative tone, you're actively creating the wedge that you claim to despise. I strongly urge you to reconsider your view. What you said basically means "people who just want the playstyle they liked in 2014 to continue are gatekeepers that need to be pushed out". It's a really bad view.

Putting insults in my mouth and exaggerating my message means whatever you think my view is not the case

 

[Parmandur]

That's domonstrably false.

Exhibit A: Weapon versus Armor type modifiers.
Exhibit B: Articulated material components for spells.
Exhibit C: Ability score limits based on gender.
Etc

Now, you may not like some of the sim elements in pre-3E D&D, but they absolutely existed.

Individual subsystems as built by an insurance adjuster, yes, but not a deep level throuough accounting for everything in the world.

Your examples all fall under what I would consider Gamist considerations, actually.

 

[Parmandur]

Constant complaining about the 6-8 default here on ENworld and reddit.

WOTC and many fans stating that groups have shorter adventuring day.

WOTC shifting to Prof bonus times per long rest in order to support tables with shorter, nova heavy days.

Dozens of people, dozens!

I don't believe WotC has ever said that, but a source saying otherwise would be nice. They have said that the Adventure Day represents the maximum a party can handle, and a given table can choose not to be challenged by not pushing the limit.

Though it is nice that they are DM proofing various Class and race features.

 

[Helldritch]

I did not read that thread at all but @Charlaquin seems to put her finger right on it. A streamlined stat block breaks a bit (a lot?) of the "high concept sim" as the "unnecessary" information for non combat is missing.

Contrary to many, and "modern" style, the world evolve with and without the PCs. Some PCs decisions to do or not to do some missions might come back to haunt them later. And NPCs might be encountered for combat or not. When not encountered for combat but RP, the non combat related spells might come in handy. The new stat blocks removes these options from us and forces us to take the block, work to retrofit it to what it used to be (should have used to be?). Meaning not only a lot of work but also a breack in the game design we were promised. Thus my stance on make a new edition or revert to what it was supposed to be. Or give us both stat blocks?

 

[Stoutstien]

Dozens of people, dozens!

I don't believe WotC has ever said that, but a source saying otherwise would be nice. They have said that the Adventure Day represents the maximum a party can handle, and a given table can choose not to be challenged by not pushing the limit.

Though it is nice that they are DM proofing various Class and race features.

They never made any claim in min or max side of encounters per recovery cycle. They are adamant that they didn't even give a suggestion.

 

[Parmandur]

They never made any claim in min or max side of encounters per recovery cycle. They are adamant that they didn't even give a suggestion.

2 Short Rests between Long Rests, with 6-8 Encounters interspersed is the design assumption for designing everythin, and still is. Less than that is totally fine, but the fewer Encounters, the less challenging things will be, and some Raves and Classes are negatively impacted by a lack of Short Rests, which is why those powers are being phased out.

 

[Stoutstien]

2 Short Rests between Long Rests, with 6-8 Encounters interspersed is the design assumption for designing everythin, and still is. Less than that is totally fine, but the fewer Encounters, the less challenging things will be, and some Raves and Classes are negatively impacted by a lack of Short Rests, which is why those powers are being phased out.

It isn't tho. It's an assumption based on baggage from older editions and a misinterpretation of what the DMG actually says. It is not a baseline or assumed pacing requirement whatsoever

 

[dave2008]

If you do end up working on it and want some help on it, I’d be interested.

Will do! The offer has even pushed me 1 step closer to making that at reality!