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

[Minigiant]

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.

But do you see how a CR 6 with a Offense of 9 and Defense of 1/2 could be a problem in the hands of a inexperienced DM?

The offense of a CR 9 monster kills most 6th level PCs in 2 rounds.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But do you see how a CR 6 with a Offense of 9 and Defense of 1/2 could be a problem in the hands of a inexperienced DM?

The offense of a CR 9 monster kills most 6th level PCs in 2 rounds.

As long as they die in one...

 

[Hussar]

But do you see how a CR 6 with a Offense of 9 and Defense of 1/2 could be a problem in the hands of a inexperienced DM?

The offense of a CR 9 monster kills most 6th level PCs in 2 rounds.

Ok, sure. But, is that a problem with the CR system, or a problem with this specific monster? I'd say it's this specific monster really. The CR system is working the way it should, but, this particular critter is bad. So, fix the critter - which is apparently what they're doing by switching away from caster slots.

I think I may have lost the thread of the conversation somewhere because I'm not seeing the problem.

 

[Minigiant]

Ok, sure. But, is that a problem with the CR system, or a problem with this specific monster? I'd say it's this specific monster really. The CR system is working the way it should, but, this particular critter is bad. So, fix the critter - which is apparently what they're doing by switching away from caster slots.

I think I may have lost the thread of the conversation somewhere because I'm not seeing the problem.

Again I'm not criticizing the CR system.

It am answering the Topic Title

"New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!"​

Because old spellcasting monsters didn't follow CR guides due to Spell Slots and were complicated to run as well.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think I may have lost the thread of the conversation somewhere because I'm not seeing the problem.

Same.

 

[dave2008]

But do you see how a CR 6 with a Offense of 9 and Defense of 1/2 could be a problem in the hands of a inexperienced DM?

The offense of a CR 9 monster kills most 6th level PCs in 2 rounds.

Sure, but that is not a fault of CR or the encounter guidelines IMO. It is a fault of the DMG, and possible the MM, to not explain these possibilities. In reality, I think there should be design note sidebars that explain troublesome monsters in the MM.

 

[Faolyn]

Ok, sure. But, is that a problem with the CR system, or a problem with this specific monster? I'd say it's this specific monster really. The CR system is working the way it should, but, this particular critter is bad. So, fix the critter - which is apparently what they're doing by switching away from caster slots.

I think I may have lost the thread of the conversation somewhere because I'm not seeing the problem.

It's probably a problem with the CR system. I've made a lot of monsters--well, converted them from older editions--and glass canons and glass tanks are everywhere. Unfortunately, the way determining CR works often lends itself to these sort of imbalances and generally disregards abilities that aren't directly related to either defense or inflicting damage. You could give a pixie the ability to spam wish spells and by RAW it really wouldn't affect their CR, because wish does not, by itself, affect AC or damage. More realistically, though, CR calculations don't take non-damaging spells and SLAs into account, no matter how much they could affect the encounter, and they don't take things like stat-drain into account, which is why shadows are so very under-CRed.

The "easy" way to fix it would be to make CR so that creatures have to have the same CR for both offense and defense and to include every ability in the calculations.

 

[Helldritch]

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.


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.

In this kind of reply, we are talking about an hypothetical "you". That "you" is anyone to which the hat might fit. You (Faolyn) were not targeted directly or even indirectly by my response. Do not take it as personal. It is probably a cultural bias that I have as the "vous" in French can be use to talk about nondescript person. I kinda of remember that it is possible to use the "you" in such a way in English but it is usually reserved for speech or literary situation. My bad.

 

[Faolyn]

In this kind of reply, we are talking about an hypothetical "you". That "you" is anyone to which the hat might fit. You (Faolyn) were not targeted directly or even indirectly by my response. Do not take it as personal. It is probably a cultural bias that I have as the "vous" in French can be use to talk about nondescript person. I kinda of remember that it is possible to use the "you" in such a way in English but it is usually reserved for speech or literary situation. My bad.

OK, then...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ok, sure. But, is that a problem with the CR system, or a problem with this specific monster?

It's a problem with the system. There is a need for glass canons and other specialist monsters if the game is to be anything like interesting. If you were using it against a lower level party you design the encounter so that they can take it out before it one-shots them. Or have it shooting at allies, the city wall, etc. Or you might have several combined with tank monsters in a higher level encounter.