D&D (2024) Wizards have a problem with Spellcasting stat blocks

[MerricB]

Right, this monstrosity of a stat block turned up on my feeds recently:

It might not look too bad to you at first glance. But what drew my attention was Healing Word.

How much does it heal? Oh, I need to check the PHB for the description. 2d4+spellcasting ability.
What's the spellcasting ability? "Same as in Spellcasting".
What does Spellcasting say? "use Wisdom".
What's the Wisdom modifier? Check ability score line. "Oh, +3".
What was I using it for again?

This is design that is terrible at the table. It reminds me of how 3E would put the ability score required for every power, because if you changed the ability scores, you changed the modifiers. But, at least in that case, it gave the modifiers. MM2025? Nah, look it up. Or better still - use D&D Beyond. (If it actually does calculate it, which I'm not entirely sure it will).

This poor formatting/design is also visible in the Ancient Gold Dragon.

Notice in both Multiattack and the Guiding Light legendary action how it's casting Guiding Bolt.

What's the attack bonus for that spell?

In D&D 2014, that modifier would be listed in the spellcasting line along with the general spell save. But for the 2024 version, only the spell save comes up.

So, Guiding Light - need to check PHB for how Guiding Bolt works, then Spellcasting for the ability score, then CR for the proficiency bonus, then add the PB and the Cha modifier to get +16.

What the heck, Wizards?

 

[Chaltab]

Not having the Spell Attack Bonus in the Spellcasting action really is a glaring oversight.

An experienced DM would know that the bonus is Save DC minus 8 but a new DM surely wouldn't.

 

[Reynard]

When I write statblocks for casters for publication, I include as much as I can under Actions with all the relevant data. Mostly because I despise page flipping in combat.

 

[pukunui]

I seriously wish they'd stuck with the stat block approach they used for spellcasters in Descent into Avernus. I'll admit I am biased because it is how I had been doing my custom spellcasting NPC stat blocks already; however, I think it is a much better format than the bizarre format* they've been using since MotM.

For those of you unfamiliar with Descent into Avernus, here are some examples from the book:

Spoiler

The Black Gauntlet of Bane casts spells as a 5th level cleric and has the old Spellcasting trait with spells ordered by level, complete with spell slots in parentheses and so on. However, their Guiding Bolt spell is included under Actions:

Guiding Bolt (1st-Level Spell; Requires a Spell Slot). Ranged Spell Attack: +7 to hit, range 120 ft., one creature. Hit: 14 (4d6) radiant damage, and the next attack roll made against the target before the end of the black gauntlet's next turn has advantage. If the black gauntlet casts this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 1st.


Meanwhile, the Master of Souls cultist casts spells as a 5th level wizard. It too has the old Spellcasting trait, and its list of Actions includes the following:

Chill Touch (Cantrip). Ranged Spell Attack: +6 to hit, range 120ft., one creature. Hit: 13 (2d8) necrotic damage, and the target can't regain hit points until the start of the master of souls' next turn. If the target is undead, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against the master of souls for the same duration.

Ray of Sickness (1st-Level Spell; Requires a Spell Slot). Ranged Spell Attack: +6 to hit, range 60 ft., one creature. Hit: 9 (2d8) poison damage, and the target must succeed on a DC 14 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned until the end of the master of souls' next turn. If the master of souls casts this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 1st.

Scorching Ray (2nd-Level Spell; Requires a Spell Slot). Ranged Spell Attack: +6 to hit, range 120 ft., one target per ray (3 rays if a 2nd-level spell slot is used, 4 rays if a 3rd-level spell slot is used). Hit: 7 (2d6) fire damage per ray.

*For the record, I am fine with the new format for spellcasting monsters (as it's pretty much what the same as how such creatures stat blocks worked pre-MotM anyway). What I object to is using different rules for NPC wizards, clerics, druids, etc. If an NPC is supposed to have a PC class, then it should jolly well also have things like spell slots. I'm OK with NPCs having the occasional magical ability that isn't available to PCs but overall I want them to work the same way.

As it stands, I sometimes put in the effort to back-convert new spellcasters to the older format, but mostly I just use the new format and keep quiet about it. My players so far haven't really noticed the difference. (The only thing they've really noticed is how much harder some of the new monsters and NPCs hit.)

 

[Quickleaf]

Amen @MerricB

 

[Joshua Randall]

These problems were already solved in late 3e and again in 4e.

It is inexcusable that WOTC keeps making this mistake.

 

[MerricB]

These problems were already solved in late 3e and again in 4e.

It is inexcusable that WOTC keeps making this mistake.

I'd be sort of okay with it if it were just "Bonus Action: 1/day-Healing Word" and that was it. (Not really okay).

But instead we get three lines of text wasting valuable space rather than giving us information useful at the table.

 

[ninjayeti]

I'd be sort of okay with it if it were just "Bonus Action: 1/day-Healing Word" and that was it. (Not really okay).

Right - at least then you could defend it as a design choice to be concise rather than taking up more space with the extra information the DM could find elsewhere.

But what's really funny is that "using the same spellcasting ability as Spellcasting" takes up more space on the page than just saying "healing for 2d4+3." So they have used more words, but conveyed less information.

 

[mamba]

instead we get three lines of text wasting valuable space rather than giving us information useful at the table.

exactly, in the space they used to tell us to look elsewhere they could have told us what we were looking for too…

The only explanation I have is that it makes design changes for them easier because you do not have to make the change in three places, but that is a one time effort for them vs a continuing nuisance for everyone

 

[pukunui]

These problems were already solved in late 3e and again in 4e.

They already solved it for 5e as well (see my post above) but then they went and messed it up again!