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

[Paul Farquhar]

Actually, I think you raise an interesting point. We talk about wanting a different DMG that is very clear and clearly explains assumptions and whatnot. Only problem is, we got a DMG that did that and it got rejected by the fandom.

I think that was because the assumptions the 4e DMG was laying out where different to the assumptions much the fandom had been using for 30+ years.

D&D has traditionally left much to players to interpret, making it a very flexible system. Trying to lay out "one size fits all" play undermines a key reason for it's success.

Leaving "how to do" type advice out of the core rules seems like good practice to me. There are plenty of online sources and veteran players that can be tapped for advice. With the advantage that that kind of advice is "take it or leave it".

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think it should be an either one. Really some of the iconic "boss" monster, dragons, liches, vampires, alpha werewolves, archmagi, death knights, pit fiends, balors,... could have additional text on the design philosophy and how the team designed them to run. This way if the DM prefers a different direction, they know exactly what they need to change.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't think it should be an either one. Really some of the iconic "boss" monster, dragons, liches, vampires, alpha werewolves, archmagi, death knights, pit fiends, balors,... could have additional text on the design philosophy and how the team designed them to run. This way if the DM prefers a different direction, they know exactly what they need to change.

There are a lot of people who interpret everything that is in a core rulebook as a rule. If "how to run an archmage" was part of its description you would get an awful lot of players who would interpret any alternative use as "wrong".

Published adventures often have a "tactics" section for monsters, laying out how the encounter designer expects the monster to function in that specific encounter.

I often do the same myself.

 

[Minigiant]

There are a lot of people who interpret everything that is in a core rulebook as a rule. If "how to run an archmage" was part of its description you would get an awful lot of players who would interpret any alternative use as "wrong".

That's why it's should not be "how to run an Archimage" and instead "We designed the Archimage to cast lightning bolt every turn once it runs out of cones of cold. Choose different 5th level spell if you wish for the Archimage to be more of a controller or summoner."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"We designed the Archimage to cast lightning bolt every turn once it runs out of cones of cold. Choose different 5th level spell if you wish for the Archimage to be more of a controller or summoner."

To specific and unreactive. An archmage is going to cast lightning bolt if the party are in a nice straight line, and definitely not if they notice the target is immune to lightning damage.

 

[Minigiant]

To specific and unreactive. An archmage is going to cast lightning bolt if the party are in a nice straight line, and definitely not if they notice the target is immune to lightning damage.

The Archimage has few attack spells prepared so if it runs into a cold or lighting resistant/immune party, it's gonna punch well below CR with upcasted MMs and fire bolts.

But that goes with the poor assumptions of the designs and the not following their own guidelines.

 

[Hussar]

I think that was because the assumptions the 4e DMG was laying out where different to the assumptions much the fandom had been using for 30+ years.

D&D has traditionally left much to players to interpret, making it a very flexible system. Trying to lay out "one size fits all" play undermines a key reason for it's success.

Leaving "how to do" type advice out of the core rules seems like good practice to me. There are plenty of online sources and veteran players that can be tapped for advice. With the advantage that that kind of advice is "take it or leave it".

Well, therein lies the rub then doesn't it. You can't lay out advice and sidebars and "show the work" because it's seen as "undermining the fandom" so, the DMG remains a largely unread book that sits on the shelf because it's crap.

 

[dave2008]

Then you are using a lot of space to explain what experienced DMs already know and people who only run published adventures will never use.

Yes, and I think it is worth it. It is fine if you don't I mean I don't really need it myself, I just think it would be helpful to some.

Not to mention, I'm sure I can think of dozens of ways to use a monster that never occurred to the WotC bods.

Sure, but being unable to cover all circumstances doesn't mean you should try to cover some.

D&D Beyond have revived an intermittent series of articles on how to use specific monsters.

That is a good idea too.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, and I think it is worth it. It is fine if you don't I mean I don't really need it myself, I just think it would be helpful to some.

If it's in the core books you are paying for it whether you want it or not.

I'm a teacher. People learn through doing (and sometimes failing), not by being told what to do.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Archimage has few attack spells prepared so if it runs into a cold or lighting resistant/immune party, it's gonna punch well below CR with upcasted MMs and fire bolts.

Correct. Which is why CR is dumb.

But that goes with the poor assumptions of the designs and the not following their own guidelines.

No, it's with the archmage preparing the wrong spells. The party got lucky.