NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ondath" data-source="post: 8661318" data-attributes="member: 7031770">I think the people getting angry at the people getting angry at the new spellcasting blocks (that's a confusing chain of anger) don't realise one thing: People might be operating with different play goals in mind.Is the new spellcasting system easier to run? Yes. Would counterspell getting nerfed actually make things more interesting for both players and the DM? Admittedly, yes.But saying that these points mean the complaints have no validity because of the benefits overlooks the fact that these are all concerns about D&D as a game. A lot of people play D&D as a simulation, where whatever the rules provide about the monster, item or class feature aims to represent the thing as it would exist in a fantasy world. And for simulationist people, having spells-but-not-spells is especially grating.So when you're saying the evoker would KILL the party of it used all its 15 spell slots, you're completely missing the point. It's not supposed to use all of those slots or have all its spells be useful in the same encounter. What the simulationists want is having stat blocks that accurately represent what the evoker can do, so they can take a look at their spell list when something unexpected comes up ("so the party locked the wizard in the dungeon... Luckily I know that this evoker would know knock, so it can escape!"). Having a stat block that focuses solely on what the monster can do in its 1 encounter lifespan really can't achieve this. Incidentally, I think 4e's stat blocks were disliked for a similar reason, even though 4e monsters are much more interesting to run.It's a classic simulationism vs gamism and conflict, and acting like the simulationists have no point and are just grognards who can't accept change is a bit silly and counterproductive.</blockquote>

Verification