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

[Minigiant]

Creature, not statblock. The designers wanted the same creature to be usable across more levels, so they bounded accuracy to allow that to happen.

I was taking about a generic humanoid mage stat locks

We very rarely have more than three combat encounters. One is common, six is never.

So I don't know how you are not using the ranger nova spells by mid levels.

There is no way you'd use half your spell if you don't.

 

[Minigiant]

I also had a 'luchad-orge' who could grab you and literally pile drive you into the ground so you were stuck in the dirt like a cartoon character

My luchadogre had a hurricarana reaction attack and a crossbody attack.

 

[Maxperson]

The usual target of my ire: BA.

I'm split on this. I like the concept, since I felt that 3e and from what I hear 4e had too much number inflation, but I think they bounded it too much. We start at +2 and get 4 more pluses over 20 levels. They should have started at +1 and added 9 more over 20 levels for a total of +10.

 

[Stoutstien]

You can definitely say that a lot of npc blocks are boring sacks of HP but you can't blame bounded accuracy for that. It has no impact on anything but the accuracy of said features.

 

[Maxperson]

The design philosophy is:

- Make monsters 'useful' across levels so they don't have to make a higher level version to fit the known CR bands that exist with or without making numbers flat and sad.

- Placate people for whom +2 was 'too complicated' apparently.

This philosophy has led to and encouraged lazy monster design and 'simple' design for the people everyone keeps assuming can't operate Rage.

I've taken to using 3rd party monsters mostly. I love the A5e Monstrous Managerie monsters, as well as those from @dave2008 here. I rarely take a monster directly from the MM any longer.

 

[LizardWizard00]

I'm not saying it wasn't an issue, but I find 'aggressively bland' and 'poor progression pacing' worse than 'unbalanced'.

What does that have to do with BA?

I like BA, but I could see it being extended a bit.

 

[dave2008]

I've taken to using 3rd party monsters mostly. I love the A5e Monstrous Managerie monsters, as well as those from @dave2008 here. I rarely take a monster directly from the MM any longer.

I wish I had time to make a lot more!

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm split on this. I like the concept, since I felt that 3e and from what I hear 4e had too much number inflation, but I think they bounded it too much. We start at +2 and get 4 more pluses over 20 levels. They should have started at +1 and added 9 more over 20 levels for a total of +10.

That's basically 4e's way of doing it, only they went to +15 for 30 levels and had to patch in an extra +1 when it turned out players lagged behind monsters.

 

[Reynard]

True. If an ogre can't pick up a PC and use them as a weapon, why are we even playing this game?

I also had a 'luchad-orge' who could grab you and literally pile drive you into the ground so you were stuck in the dirt like a cartoon character.

^^^This guy ogres.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think it works better when the CR 2 ogre has special abilities, too. For me, anyway, the core of the problem is bags of hit points without much to do besides stand and punch PCs.

yeah I agree... each monster should have at least 1 cool feature and "Hit hard with big HP" isn't a cool feature

again even 4e fell down on this basicly giving them a 1 time power attack: Once per encounter the ogre can perform a Grand Slam, which does double the damage of a normal club attack and yeets pushes the target 2 squares on a hit.