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

[Faolyn]

Wrong. I said nothing of such. I speak of a hypothetical DM. Stop assuming that I accuse or assume that you are a bad DM. To be able to say such a thing, I should've played with you. I always assume the best in people. Not the worst.

You said "You might do fine without adding blue water, as long as there is some the problem will not arise. Being lucky does not mean you might not need some. Same with anti-viruses and VPN, you might never need one. Being lucky does not mean the problems will never arise." This is you literally saying that the problems will arise and that it's only because I'm lucky that they haven't.

But a lot of people blame the game, a lot for their own short comings. One thing they have in common, they do not read the DMG. They do not analyze their games and why they went wrong. And when I go and watch how they play, when I show them where they got it "wrong" for beginners the reaction is always the same:"surprise and stupefaction". The one failure the game has is that it does not explain the whys such rules and such rules go or do not go together and their detailed mechanics.

Those are two very different things, though. If the DMG doesn't cover certain ground or explain things well, that's the DMGs fault. But it's not the DMG's fault if the DM doesn't read it in the first place.

 

[Faolyn]

I would go further, give the default rules for Gygaxian exploration with optional rules to make it grittier and then consider what optional rules would be best for exploration and social for other play styles. For a least 2 or 3 styles.

That sounds good. A section for each of the standard styles of player, and a section for each of the standard type of campaign. The DMG has a couple of paragraphs on things like "heroic fantasy" and "sword and sorcery," but those should also be expanded, perhaps even with rules to help support each type.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That sounds good. A section for each of the standard styles of player, and a section for each of the standard type of campaign. The DMG has a couple of paragraphs on things like "heroic fantasy" and "sword and sorcery," but those should also be expanded, perhaps even with rules to help support each type.

That would be a pretty good use of pages in the DMG, actually.

 

[Minigiant]

The CR guidelines allow you to make glass-canons, regardless of spellcasting. There is not a required "rate" to define CR in a monster. I like to mostly balance defensive and offensive CR, but it is not required. In fact, it is sometimes quite interesting to take on or the other to an extreme. And it is possible to make spellcasting monsters that are balanced offensively and defensively. In fact, in my updated Vecna (which includes slot based spellcasting) my initial design was a defensive CR of 23 and offensive CR of 23.

I don't have my books on me right know. But I believe the CR 6 NPC Spell slot Mage has an offensive CR of 8-10 and a defensive CR of 1/2.

Because it's built like a PC. PC offensive grows a lot faster than PC defense (barring treasure)

 

[Reynard]

I guess you'd have to be there to have a sense of how it is at the table. We all laughed out loud about the idea of x-cards one time, because the consensus was (and still is) that if someone has an issue with something, we're all adult enough to broach the topic with others at the table and resolve it as a group, face to face, on the spot. I know it's a foreign concept to some, but it is possible for people of different races, genders, and orientations to get together and enjoy each others' company without being thin-skinned and looking for reasons at taking offense to one another. The one thing we all have in common is that we're a bunch of DnD nerds, and that works for us.

X cards are for people that aren't comfortable. if your group has been playing together forever and everyone "gets" everyone else, they aren't necessary. They are part of the set of tools that has helped the game grow and become more welcoming and inclusive.

There is entirely too much navel gazing in the hobby, probably because groups tend to be insular.

 

[Reynard]

That would be a pretty good use of pages in the DMG, actually.

5E desperately needs a GM facing book with deep discussions on everything from dungeon crawling to magic item economy to war and domain management. We are WAY overdue.

 

[dave2008]

I don't have my books on me right know. But I believe the CR 6 NPC Mage has an offensive CR of 8-10 and a defensive CR of 1/2.

That would be a glass canon! And there is nothing wrong with that. You are not required to have a balanced CR. But I will check the numbers:

Defensive CR 1/2
Offensive CR 9 (at least that is what I get)

IMO, the CR should be 4.5, so round 5.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Then it's less of an issue about needing a better CR system and more of an issue on needing a better DMG.

That goes hand in hand.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Don't forget Half the Point of this whole thread is because WOTC didn't follow their own CR guidelines when creating spellcasters in the MM.

That's their secret Cap, they never use their monster or encounter guidelines.

 

[MichaelSomething]

5E desperately needs a GM facing book with deep discussions on everything from dungeon crawling to magic item economy to war and domain management. We are WAY overdue.

Who needs that when you have DM Empowerment!?!