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

[dave2008]

With that simple comment you convinced me to order the books. It will be after my graveyard shift but you got me right there. You do ship in Canada don't you?

I'm surprised you weren't already familiar, we don't call LevelUp: A5e (Advaced 5th Edition), for nothing!

 

[dave2008]

I should be able to turn the page, see the monster stat block for the very first time, and run it.

Me too. I like designing complex monsters, but what I want when I play the game is exactly what you described. However, I am willing to make an exception of the final boss type monsters.

Now, I'm not going to get that in 5e. I understand that and because I'm quite willing to compromise, I accept that I'm going to get a stat block that is going to require me to do some reading. Fair enough. But, there is a rather large difference between a stat block that has a half dozen spells on it and a stat block that has over two dozen spells listed. The latter is pointless to me, because there is just zero chance I will ever use a monster that complicated. It might as well not even exist as far as I'm concerned.

6-8 different effects is about the upper limit for my tolerance of a stat-block. Anything more than that makes my eyes glaze over and reach for the Monster Manual to pick a different monster. Which has meant that in 10 years of gaming we've almost never faced NPC casters. Certainly nothing over about 5th level. It's just 100% not worth the effort.

I feel pretty much the same. Thank you for expressing better than I could!

 

[dave2008]

It was one but not the only one. Of course you remember only the one that you thought was me telling you (actually an other poster complaining about not having time) what you did not want to hear. Underlining the main spells you, as a DM are going to actually use against your players is but one other solutions. But they all involve some prep. Is what bugs you? That as a DM you have to prep a bit for a game?

And again, these stat blocks were used in 4ed and there were people complaining that high level monsters were to hard to handle in numbers... And I was defending these same stat block back then.

I don't remember hearing complaints that high level monsters in 4e were hard to handle, and I spent a lot of time on the 4e WotC forum (less time here back then). I remember high level encounters being hard to handle because high level PCs had so many tools and synergies that the monsters couldn't keep up.

There were also complaints that high level monsters had action economy issues (which the did until MM3 came out), to many hit points (depends on the group), and do to little damage (they never really solved that one). But I don't remember anyone saying a particular 4e monster was to hard to handle. If you came from 3e I don't think you would ever say that.

Once more my main grippe with these stat blocks is not the block themselves. But the fact the old books are now obsolete.

Why? I will still use my "legacy" monsters for quite some time, if not indefinitely. These new versions are just different versions, never a bad I idea to have more monsters IMO. I can use the old versions in the same combat as the new versions even.

Were they introduced in an updates edition of 5ed, I would have welcomed them. Again, I would have welcome them If they had been part of a 5.5ed. I never was a big fan of changes in mid editions whatever the game system was. I see this way of acting as a cash grab to force people to buy the next edition simply because it will update your old books to the new edition.

Current edition uses spell slots. They should keep using spell slots. Come 5.5 and they change them to the new format? Good, I'll buy 5.5 and use and learn (again) the new way. But those who want to stick with 5ed will not have been force to use something they did not want to buy for. Introducing them before a new edition simply lacks cohesion, courage and for me shows that WotC is acting in bad faith. But that is my opinion, you do not have to share it.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I can't share it. If we are not getting a new edition (which we aren't IMO), I prefer a steady stream of updates. I don't want to wait to introduce new ideas until we have enough to make a new edition. I am not familiar with 3e, but 1e, 2e, and 4e all introduced changes to the game during those editions that didn't warrant and were not called edition changes. If you think WotC is acting in bad faith now, then I assume you think they, and TSR, have always acted in bad faith?

 

[Hussar]

@dave2008 - I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I don't recall anyone ever complaining that 4e monsters were too complex to run. And, frankly, I'm struggling to think of an example that even could be considered too complex. I opened my 4e Monster Manual and picked a couple of random examples - Aboleth Overseer Level 18 Elite Controller (Leader) - about as complex a 4e monster as you get. 5 abilities, all completely described in the stat block. Lich (Eladrin Wizard) Level 24 Elite Controller - about equivalent to a 5e lich - 5 powers, all completely contained within the statblock. Sorrowsworn Deathlord - Level 28 Lurker (leader) - 3 powers, plus an aura.

I'm pretty sure that too complex was NEVER a complaint about 4e stat blocks.

Now, to be fair, I'll freely admit that I don't mind monsters being a bit more complex than they were in 4e. That's not really a problem AFAIC. 4e monsters really were very, very simple sometimes and a bit more variation isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But, again, WHY do I need TWENTY FIVE spell slots (the A5E Mouthless One example that's being used), plus EIGHT at non spell powers, plus a reaction, plus FIVE Legendary Action options? I'm sorry, but, no, that should not be the baseline we're working from. There's a pretty broad, excluded middle here that I think that WotC is hitting pretty well with it's version of Vecna. It's significantly more complex than a 4e stat block, but, at the same time, significantly less complex than the stat block could be.

I'm seeing this as a pretty healthy compromise.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure. We have the option of just stagnating and never getting anything new. That's not much of an option.

I mean, I have a used 1E Monster Manual I found at Half-Price Books. It still works, and I wouldn't call it "stagnating" to experiment with it.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, in a bit of irony, I actually used a Deathlock Mastermind in my game today. I had planned on using it for a while, so, it wasn't a spur of the moment thing. It's just a bit funny because it was held up as such a fantastic example of design.

Three round in, the Deathlock Mastermind Dimension Door's away, after attacking in the first two rounds with it's non-spell ranged blasty attack whose name i'm too lazy to look up right now. I'm just so glad that that stat block had 18 different spells on it. They were just so useful. Well, I guess that Mage Armor spell made a huge difference. So, it did cast two of its 18 spells.

Yeah, not really convinced that I needed a full spell list for something like this.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

4 pages of content can still be easy to read provided it is layouted in a useful way. I think A5E's stat blocks do that.

I think we shoud be glad that there is 5e and A5E.
I have bought the whole A5E package including Zeitgeist. But it is not a game I'd want to play as a newby DM or with new Players. And not as long as I have time constraints.
So probably if you look at Vecna through the lense of players who don't have played 3e with all the simulation and player-monster parity and little details, you might find the statblock including spells sufficient and less intimidating than the A5E one.

So what do we want: 5.5e as detailed as A5E or as even more accessible as 5e?

I prefer it acessable (even though I would have liked different solutions for enemy and PC spellcasters).

 

[Ondath]

I think we shoud be glad that there is 5e and A5E.
I have bought the whole A5E package including Zeitgeist. But it is not a game I'd want to play as a newby DM or with new Players. And not as long as I have time constraints.
So probably if you look at Vecna through the lense of players who don't have played 3e with all the simulation and player-monster parity and little details, you might find the statblock including spells sufficient and less intimidating than the A5E one.

So what do we want: 5.5e as detailed as A5E or as even more accessible as 5e?

I prefer it acessable (even though I would have liked different solutions for enemy and PC spellcasters).

Granted, I haven't run a pure A5E game yet (the players in my current 5E game are happy with how their characters currently are to rebuild them in A5E), so it might be the case that it's a difficult game to run for first timers. But at a glance it doesn't seem more difficult than O5E, provided you start the newbies at a reasonable point - say, Level 1 or 3. At that point, both the PC abilities and monster abilities seem decently limited to make it easy for newbie players and DMs. Mind that the Mouthless One is an Elite CR 26 monster - something designed to end an epic-level campaign. It's not surprising that such a monster uses the full complexity of the system, and presumably both the DM and the players would be familiar with the system by the time they faced this monster.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think we shoud be glad that there is 5e and A5E.
I have bought the whole A5E package including Zeitgeist. But it is not a game I'd want to play as a newby DM or with new Players. And not as long as I have time constraints.
So probably if you look at Vecna through the lense of players who don't have played 3e with all the simulation and player-monster parity and little details, you might find the statblock including spells sufficient and less intimidating than the A5E one.

So what do we want: 5.5e as detailed as A5E or as even more accessible as 5e?

I prefer it acessable (even though I would have liked different solutions for enemy and PC spellcasters).

I want 5.5e as detailed as A5e. Good thing I have it!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Granted, I haven't run a pure A5E game yet (the players in my current 5E game are happy with how their characters currently are to rebuild them in A5E), so it might be the case that it's a difficult game to run for first timers. But at a glance it doesn't seem more difficult than O5E, provided you start the newbies at a reasonable point - say, Level 1 or 3. At that point, both the PC abilities and monster abilities seem decently limited to make it easy for newbie players and DMs. Mind that the Mouthless One is an Elite CR 26 monster - something designed to end an epic-level campaign. It's not surprising that such a monster uses the full complexity of the system, and presumably both the DM and the players would be familiar with the system by the time they faced this monster.

A5E looks (and probably is, I have not run it yet) very decent and well organized, and still it has a lot more levels of complexity. Ancestry, heritage, martial maneuvers. A lot of differemt spell lists.
It is very well designed. But it is not exactly beginner friendly, because it just has a lot of pages to go through.
I mean, it has "advanced" in the title, so it does exactly what is promoted.