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

[pukunui]

Mearls is doing this for spells now. It's great.

I like what he is doing a lot better than 2024, at least in direction, still have to see the actual work eventually

Where can I see what Mearls is working on?

 

[Zaukrie]

Where can I see what Mearls is working on?

Get more from Mike Mearls Games on Patreon

TTRPG content, design insights, and guides for making 5e content

www.patreon.com

 

[pukunui]

Get more from Mike Mearls Games on Patreon

TTRPG content, design insights, and guides for making 5e content

www.patreon.com

Thanks.

 

[Quickleaf]

I always find it fascinating that spells are the one place where lots of folks seem to emand that their PC have the opportunity to learn that thing that the NPC or monster can do. I have never had a player ask if their character can learn "dark devotion" (cultist) or leadership (knight).

The ship has sailed on this idea for mainstream 5e, but if an early design philosophy was: “We can allow some casters to use spells that are unique to NPCs they encounter, but we don’t want to spend time balancing NPC spells to PC spells, so we’re going to include some other limited-use mechanism for using ‘unique/rare spells”…that would have created a little niche in design space that gave those players a mechanism to accomplish what you describe without breaking the system’s assumptions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The kinds of magic that are needed for use in combat encounters are almost universally provided with no more text than your average trait, action or reaction. And you don't even need to conform to existing spells. In fact, shouldn't. NPC caster should scare the crap out of PCs because they don't understand the magic coming at their face.

But IMO they should be able to understand it. If one wizard can cast a spell, another should be theoretically able to do the same if they match effort, talent and circumstances.

 

[dave2008]

But IMO they should be able to understand it. If one wizard can cast a spell, another should be theoretically able to do the same if they match effort, talent and circumstances.

While I agree in concept, it is not like a wizard can watch another spellcaster while in the heat of battle and determine what exactly they are doing/casting. At best, IMO, that would witness the effect and try to reverse engineer it. That is what downtime is for IMO! At least that is how I use it, though my wizard PC is generally not interested in trying to recreate NPC/monster magic. The spell list is already plenty long!

 

[Horwath]

I have long, long contended that ALL SPELLS should be written with a very brief, mostly mechanical, description of what it does, followed (or preceded) by a longer-form version that goes over both a flowery description, and deals with reminders of corner-cases, exceptions, and delves into more specifics.

Written by the designers, at the same time as they write the spells.

THEN, both Monsters and PC Character Sheets can use the brief descriptor, and everyone can look up the long-form only in cases of conflict or questions.

if a spell can be described in one line, then it should be in MM listing, if not, just write in "PHB; page xyz".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A monster doesn't need 20+ spells. It just doesn't. It'll cast three spells, maybe, before the barbarian kills it.

Actually NPC spellcasters having all spells in their repertoire is not exactly fair. You always assume they have everything left, while PCs might have cast a few spells already.

I guess, the way spellcasting in D&D works, won't allow for a satisfying solution.
Less spells per day. More recoveries, something between warlocks and wizards could work.

The DM has enough nonsense to worry about. Simplifying spellcasting monsters is a good thing.

Yes. And it is probably more fair.

 

[kigmatzomat]

A monster doesn't need 20+ spells. It just doesn't. It'll cast three spells, maybe, before the barbarian kills it.

The DM has enough nonsense to worry about. Simplifying spellcasting monsters is a good thing.

This is sort of true but was less so in earlier editions. In <=3e, casters didn't have "concentration" so casters could fire all their spells with duration when heroes trigger an alarm. (Like....the Alarm spell...) The invisible, flying caster was a thing.

5e eliminates most of those (and 5.5 strips out more). Having said that there are still non-concentration spells that casters could cast prior to a fight. Mirrror Image, Water Breathing, Water Walk, Telepathic bond, Major Image, Armor of Agathys, etc.

Very few parties IME are really stealthy, once they kill that first foe.

I wish caster star blocks had 3 or 4 options (evoker, necromancer, summoner, etc) with "combat spells" and some example "pre-cast" spells for the caster to use once they are aware of intruders.

 

[Stormonu]

I think I would have prefered that they build the statblock with the spelled-out expected spell usage (similar to the MotM version), then use a sidebar to do a full caster spell list for those times when you want to use them outside of a direct fight.

If you want further variety, maybe have a d6 table with a chunk of options you can swap in to change things up a bit. Maybe put it on a page-long "spellcaster cheat sheet" that is usable for most spellcasters that you can have handy right along the stat block.