I think the spell change to Genasi is mainly a publisher one.
Their utility cantrip was a compendium option and later a Xanathar option. Now it's probably a PHB option instead. Triton got the same treatment, it's to eliminate cross-reference with other books, that are not PHB.
Essentially is you just want mechanics, as a new group, you get the new book and the PHB and you are set.
If you then want to expand, you can grab setting specific books or something. It's makes a decent amount of sense I guess. It might make the initial buy-in for new groups a bit more manageable.
I suspect a similar product will arrive for spells and for Magic the Gathering.
They used to just reprint the spells alongside them in the same book though, so there still wasn't any undue cross-reference. Not sure why they couldn't have just done the same thing here as well.
When you give magic like attacks that can't be counter spelled it is a direct nerf to casters.
They also aren't giving the monsters counterspell, which is a direct buff to casters. If the change seems like a net nerf, that indicates the DM wasn't using counterspell against you enough.
No monster I've ever seen has Counterspell. They *can,* if you modify them, but you can modify these theoretical new monsters too.
Is that exhaustive? There are over 300 monsters in the MM (searching online is unclear as to how many there are), many of which have spell like abilities. If (arbitrary numbers here) 10% of monsters that you face lose counterspell but you lose the ability to use it against 30% of monsters, that's still a nerf. Your logic only applies if the number of monsters that had counterspell was the same as the number that counterspell was useful against. That you have only listed four out of several hundred suggests that this is still a nerf. Maybe that's actually a.good thing, I don't know, but it's still a nerf.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
When you give magic like attacks that can't be counter spelled it is a direct nerf to casters.
They also aren't giving the monsters counterspell, which is a direct buff to casters. If the change seems like a net nerf, that indicates the DM wasn't using counterspell against you enough.
No monster I've ever seen has Counterspell. They *can,* if you modify them, but you can modify these theoretical new monsters too.
Is that exhaustive? There are over 300 monsters in the MM (searching online is unclear as to how many there are), many of which have spell like abilities. If (arbitrary numbers here) 10% of monsters that you face lose counterspell but you lose the ability to use it against 30% of monsters, that's still a nerf. Your logic only applies if the number of monsters that had counterspell was the same as the number that counterspell was useful against. That you have only listed four out of several hundred suggests that this is still a nerf. Maybe that's actually a.good thing, I don't know, but it's still a nerf.
Just should point out that playable races are fair game as opponents. How many of those 300 entries get used as adversaries in any context whatsoever?
It's a fair point that playable races can be made into enemies, although at best that is still merely breaking even - any that can cast counterspell will be roughly balanced by the player not having it, but some wouldn't have had counterspell to begin with, and now the playyer has been nerfed against them.
As for how many MM creatures get used as adversaries, setting aside that Pantagruel666 brought it up, while I don't have precise figures, I'd say at least three quarters of the adversaries I've fought have been taken directly from the MM. Of the remaining proportion, which is between 10-25% by my estimate, I'd say that the majority are modified forms of MM creatures (eg they've taken a Kobold, tweaked it a bit and called it a Dragonshield Kobold). For example, in my last session, the party fought Anchorites of Talos (unique to the series of adventures, so far as I'm aware), skeletons, minotaur skeletons, flesh golems, bards, war priests, magic hammocks that were just rugs of smothering which were renamed and blackguards. That's nine different kinds of adversaries, only one of which wasn't taken directly from the MM (mechanically at least). Homebrew is not something that's accountable for. Newbies will probably take almost uniquely from the MM, more confident will do more homebrewing. Regardless, Pantagruel666 brought it up, not me. It was just a convenient constraint to show how players losing conterspell is a bigger nerf than monsters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Any monster with either Spellcasting could have counterspell:
Spellcasting
A monster with the Spellcasting class feature has a spellcaster level and spell slots, which it uses to cast its spells of 1st level and higher (as explained in the Player’s Handbook). The spellcaster level is also used for any cantrips included in the feature.
The monster has a list of spells known or prepared from a particular class. The list might also include spells from a feature in that class, such as the Divine Domain feature of the cleric or the Druid Circle feature of the druid. The monster is considered a member of that class when attuning to or using a magic item that requires membership in the class or access to its spell list.
A monster can cast a spell from its list at a higher level if it has the spell slot to do so. For example, a drow mage with the 3rd-level lightning bolt spell can cast it as a 5th-level spell by using one of its 5th-level spell slots.
You can change the spells that a monster knows or has prepared, replacing any spell on a monster’s spell list with a different spell of the same level and from the same class list. If you do so, you might cause the monster to be a greater or lesser threat than suggested by its challenge rating.
I think the discussion around this shift in the design of spellcasting monsters might be a bit overblown. Just looking at the updated War Priest, I'm seeing a host of spells that I would want to counterspell: banishment, command, flame strike and hold person. I see the concern with NPCs like Kelek and Mercion (from Wichlight), but I'm not sure they are necessarily representative. And even they have spells I might want to counter (Fly, Faerie Fire, etc).
Is that exhaustive? There are over 300 monsters in the MM (searching online is unclear as to how many there are), many of which have spell like abilities.
I assume you mean 'have Innate Spellcasting', as spell-like abilities (such as the Death knight's Hellfire Orb) have never been subject to counterspell.
Most monsters either do not have any spellcasting ability, or don't have particularly combat-relevant spells (I mean, sure, a Planetar can cast Blade Barrier, but it does a lot more damage just hitting you with its sword).
It has become clear to me that a lot of you just use statblocks from the MM, and that's fine for the first few levels, but later on I drop those and use character builds. This also gets around the complaint that encounters above a certain level are too easy. So in the end my earlier complaint can be disregarded as I will just focus earlier on those types of adversaries and ignore most new statblock monsters from now on. My players are going to become infamous with their death toll of humans, but that's the breaks.
It has become clear to me that a lot of you just use statblocks from the MM, and that's fine for the first few levels, but later on I drop those and use character builds. This also gets around the complaint that encounters above a certain level are too easy.
Interesting conclusion. I never, ever use PC generation rules to make bad guys. The closest I get is to rip one or two high level Wizard features and put them on Strahd or whatever. Going in fully is just too complicated and yields way too many options for a monster that will realistically only exist for between two and ten rounds.
It has become clear to me that a lot of you just use statblocks from the MM, and that's fine for the first few levels, but later on I drop those and use character builds. This also gets around the complaint that encounters above a certain level are too easy.
Interesting conclusion. I never, ever use PC generation rules to make bad guys. The closest I get is to rip one or two high level Wizard features and put them on Strahd or whatever. Going in fully is just too complicated and yields way too many options for a monster that will realistically only exist for between two and ten rounds.
It's not that big of a job, it's what I was used to for humanoids in 2nd. Not the run-of-the-mill encounters, but anytime I need higher level enemy NPCs. I'm not going to change Strahd like you would for example, but a high LVL wizard with a completely illogical statblock I would never use and just make one from scratch to tailor it to my needs. Low levels, I use the MM stats most of the time.
But with Covid I've become lazy as we play through DnDb and Discord and I use the combat tracker and encounter builder, making mm stat blocks easier to use. The moment we go back to playing in person, I'm going back to making (generic) guards, robbers and sorcerers when needed.
It has become clear to me that a lot of you just use statblocks from the MM, and that's fine for the first few levels, but later on I drop those and use character builds. This also gets around the complaint that encounters above a certain level are too easy.
There's a reason PC statblocks aren't used for monsters; it's a lot of work to track, and it tends to turn into rocket tag where whoever goes first wins. Arguably this is bad design and PC firepower should be toned down, but that's a far bigger change than anything MMM has considered.
It has become clear to me that a lot of you just use statblocks from the MM, and that's fine for the first few levels, but later on I drop those and use character builds. This also gets around the complaint that encounters above a certain level are too easy.
There's a reason PC statblocks aren't used for monsters; it's a lot of work to track, and it tends to turn into rocket tag where whoever goes first wins. Arguably this is bad design and PC firepower should be toned down, but that's a far bigger change than anything MMM has considered.
It has become clear to me that a lot of you just use statblocks from the MM, and that's fine for the first few levels, but later on I drop those and use character builds. This also gets around the complaint that encounters above a certain level are too easy.
There's a reason PC statblocks aren't used for monsters; it's a lot of work to track, and it tends to turn into rocket tag where whoever goes first wins. Arguably this is bad design and PC firepower should be toned down, but that's a far bigger change than anything MMM has considered.
I respectfully disagree.
With what?
Stat blocks cut down on work you need to do in a fight. Players frequently have issues with using their character sheet, a DM will have half a dozen to deal with in a given fight. It's much easier to deal with statblocks than character sheets. If you want a different monster? Alter the ststblock a little. You could go whole hog and distill a character sheet into a statblock...but that's a fair amount of effort. It's probably worth it for a nemesis , a recurring character or creature, but it's more effort than it's worth for a mook that turns up for 3 round in a fight and then you never see again. If you have time to spend those 15 minutes doing a fresh character, that's great, it really is. I suspect.most of us are like me; I have half dozen things tearing at my attention, so if I can just spend 30 seconds looking for a premade statblock instead and another 30 seconds modifying it, that's going to be much better. I can spend the rest of the time working on other areas of the campaign.
If you mean power levels...I'm not sure. You don't want mooks to be at the PC level, or you'll have maybe a fight and then everyone will need to have a long rest to recuperate between fights and greater foes will be unassailable...nemeses and BBEGs? Sure, stat them up. A nemesis could go either way, but a BBEG can have a proper character sheet.
If you mean timeframe...yeah, that's not happening for another decade due to compatibility issues.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It has become clear to me that a lot of you just use statblocks from the MM, and that's fine for the first few levels, but later on I drop those and use character builds. This also gets around the complaint that encounters above a certain level are too easy.
There's a reason PC statblocks aren't used for monsters; it's a lot of work to track, and it tends to turn into rocket tag where whoever goes first wins. Arguably this is bad design and PC firepower should be toned down, but that's a far bigger change than anything MMM has considered.
I respectfully disagree.
With what?
Stat blocks cut down on work you need to do in a fight. Players frequently have issues with using their character sheet, a DM will have half a dozen to deal with in a given fight. It's much easier to deal with statblocks than character sheets. If you want a different monster? Alter the ststblock a little. You could go whole hog and distill a character sheet into a statblock...but that's a fair amount of effort. It's probably worth it for a nemesis , a recurring character or creature, but it's more effort than it's worth for a mook that turns up for 3 round in a fight and then you never see again. If you have time to spend those 15 minutes doing a fresh character, that's great, it really is. I suspect.most of us are like me; I have half dozen things tearing at my attention, so if I can just spend 30 seconds looking for a premade statblock instead and another 30 seconds modifying it, that's going to be much better. I can spend the rest of the time working on other areas of the campaign.
If you mean power levels...I'm not sure. You don't want mooks to be at the PC level, or you'll have maybe a fight and then everyone will need to have a long rest to recuperate between fights and greater foes will be unassailable...nemeses and BBEGs? Sure, stat them up. A nemesis could go either way, but a BBEG can have a proper character sheet.
If you mean timeframe...yeah, that's not happening for another decade due to compatibility issues.
My main objection is to the statement that players need to be downgraded in power. I would go as far that some need to be buffed. For example, the Berserker and the Battle Rager.
My main objection is to the statement that players need to be downgraded in power. I would go as far that some need to be buffed. For example, the Berserker and the Battle Rager.
If you want PC vs PC to be something other than rocket tag, the ratio of damage to hit points for PCs needs to go down. This can be accomplished by reducing damage, increasing hit points, or both.
My main objection is to the statement that players need to be downgraded in power. I would go as far that some need to be buffed. For example, the Berserker and the Battle Rager.
If you want PC vs PC to be something other than rocket tag, the ratio of damage to hit points for PCs needs to go down. This can be accomplished by reducing damage, increasing hit points, or both.
Sure I'm all for going back to 2nd edition, are you? Less HP, no stat increases, no feats. Don't think the majority would even consider this a good thing. And oh yes Wizard power x4 were the belong! Ah Good Times!
My main objection is to the statement that players need to be downgraded in power. I would go as far that some need to be buffed. For example, the Berserker and the Battle Rager.
If you want PC vs PC to be something other than rocket tag, the ratio of damage to hit points for PCs needs to go down. This can be accomplished by reducing damage, increasing hit points, or both.
That'll overvalue save or suck/die spells over straight damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Sure I'm all for going back to 2nd edition, are you? Less HP, no stat increases, no feats. Don't think the majority would even consider this a good thing. And oh yes Wizard power x4 were the belong! Ah Good Times!
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
My main objection is to the statement that players need to be downgraded in power. I would go as far that some need to be buffed. For example, the Berserker and the Battle Rager.
If you want PC vs PC to be something other than rocket tag, the ratio of damage to hit points for PCs needs to go down. This can be accomplished by reducing damage, increasing hit points, or both.
That'll overvalue save or suck/die spells over straight damage.
Save-or-suck spells are fairly marginal in 5th edition, so increasing their relative value isn't necessarily a problem. Also, I'm not convinced it's even true, SoS spells in 5e have very short duration and reducing damage/hp ratios causes combat to last longer.
Sure I'm all for going back to 2nd edition, are you? Less HP, no stat increases, no feats. Don't think the majority would even consider this a good thing. And oh yes Wizard power x4 were the belong! Ah Good Times!
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
My main objection is to the statement that players need to be downgraded in power. I would go as far that some need to be buffed. For example, the Berserker and the Battle Rager.
If you want PC vs PC to be something other than rocket tag, the ratio of damage to hit points for PCs needs to go down. This can be accomplished by reducing damage, increasing hit points, or both.
That'll overvalue save or suck/die spells over straight damage.
Save-or-suck spells are fairly marginal in 5th edition, so increasing their relative value isn't necessarily a problem. Also, I'm not convinced it's even true, SoS spells in 5e have very short duration and reducing damage/hp ratios causes combat to last longer.
Or you raise the damage output of MU? That would be fun to play something else than a CC buff/debuff machine.
Sure I'm all for going back to 2nd edition, are you? Less HP, no stat increases, no feats. Don't think the majority would even consider this a good thing. And oh yes Wizard power x4 were the belong! Ah Good Times!
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
My main objection is to the statement that players need to be downgraded in power. I would go as far that some need to be buffed. For example, the Berserker and the Battle Rager.
If you want PC vs PC to be something other than rocket tag, the ratio of damage to hit points for PCs needs to go down. This can be accomplished by reducing damage, increasing hit points, or both.
That'll overvalue save or suck/die spells over straight damage.
Save-or-suck spells are fairly marginal in 5th edition, so increasing their relative value isn't necessarily a problem. Also, I'm not convinced it's even true, SoS spells in 5e have very short duration and reducing damage/hp ratios causes combat to last longer.
Polymorph lasts an hour, and even the minute you get from Dominate Person is plenty considering there's no prohibition against making the target do something that'll make them defenseless, or will hurt or potentially kill them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As game designers ourselves I asked if the Systems Reference Document would receive an update. There are many monsters in that resource also appearing in the Monster Manual and I wondered if the SRD would integrate these new designs but unfortunately the answer was no.
If MotM is not going to automatically update the SRD, maybe the new stat blocks will be optional here on DDB? Who knows.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They used to just reprint the spells alongside them in the same book though, so there still wasn't any undue cross-reference. Not sure why they couldn't have just done the same thing here as well.
Is that exhaustive? There are over 300 monsters in the MM (searching online is unclear as to how many there are), many of which have spell like abilities. If (arbitrary numbers here) 10% of monsters that you face lose counterspell but you lose the ability to use it against 30% of monsters, that's still a nerf. Your logic only applies if the number of monsters that had counterspell was the same as the number that counterspell was useful against. That you have only listed four out of several hundred suggests that this is still a nerf. Maybe that's actually a.good thing, I don't know, but it's still a nerf.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's a fair point that playable races can be made into enemies, although at best that is still merely breaking even - any that can cast counterspell will be roughly balanced by the player not having it, but some wouldn't have had counterspell to begin with, and now the playyer has been nerfed against them.
As for how many MM creatures get used as adversaries, setting aside that Pantagruel666 brought it up, while I don't have precise figures, I'd say at least three quarters of the adversaries I've fought have been taken directly from the MM. Of the remaining proportion, which is between 10-25% by my estimate, I'd say that the majority are modified forms of MM creatures (eg they've taken a Kobold, tweaked it a bit and called it a Dragonshield Kobold). For example, in my last session, the party fought Anchorites of Talos (unique to the series of adventures, so far as I'm aware), skeletons, minotaur skeletons, flesh golems, bards, war priests, magic hammocks that were just rugs of smothering which were renamed and blackguards. That's nine different kinds of adversaries, only one of which wasn't taken directly from the MM (mechanically at least). Homebrew is not something that's accountable for. Newbies will probably take almost uniquely from the MM, more confident will do more homebrewing. Regardless, Pantagruel666 brought it up, not me. It was just a convenient constraint to show how players losing conterspell is a bigger nerf than monsters.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Any monster with either Spellcasting could have counterspell:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think the discussion around this shift in the design of spellcasting monsters might be a bit overblown. Just looking at the updated War Priest, I'm seeing a host of spells that I would want to counterspell: banishment, command, flame strike and hold person. I see the concern with NPCs like Kelek and Mercion (from Wichlight), but I'm not sure they are necessarily representative. And even they have spells I might want to counter (Fly, Faerie Fire, etc).
I assume you mean 'have Innate Spellcasting', as spell-like abilities (such as the Death knight's Hellfire Orb) have never been subject to counterspell.
Most monsters either do not have any spellcasting ability, or don't have particularly combat-relevant spells (I mean, sure, a Planetar can cast Blade Barrier, but it does a lot more damage just hitting you with its sword).
It has become clear to me that a lot of you just use statblocks from the MM, and that's fine for the first few levels, but later on I drop those and use character builds. This also gets around the complaint that encounters above a certain level are too easy. So in the end my earlier complaint can be disregarded as I will just focus earlier on those types of adversaries and ignore most new statblock monsters from now on. My players are going to become infamous with their death toll of humans, but that's the breaks.
Interesting conclusion. I never, ever use PC generation rules to make bad guys. The closest I get is to rip one or two high level Wizard features and put them on Strahd or whatever. Going in fully is just too complicated and yields way too many options for a monster that will realistically only exist for between two and ten rounds.
It's not that big of a job, it's what I was used to for humanoids in 2nd. Not the run-of-the-mill encounters, but anytime I need higher level enemy NPCs. I'm not going to change Strahd like you would for example, but a high LVL wizard with a completely illogical statblock I would never use and just make one from scratch to tailor it to my needs. Low levels, I use the MM stats most of the time.
But with Covid I've become lazy as we play through DnDb and Discord and I use the combat tracker and encounter builder, making mm stat blocks easier to use. The moment we go back to playing in person, I'm going back to making (generic) guards, robbers and sorcerers when needed.
There's a reason PC statblocks aren't used for monsters; it's a lot of work to track, and it tends to turn into rocket tag where whoever goes first wins. Arguably this is bad design and PC firepower should be toned down, but that's a far bigger change than anything MMM has considered.
I respectfully disagree.
With what?
Stat blocks cut down on work you need to do in a fight. Players frequently have issues with using their character sheet, a DM will have half a dozen to deal with in a given fight. It's much easier to deal with statblocks than character sheets. If you want a different monster? Alter the ststblock a little. You could go whole hog and distill a character sheet into a statblock...but that's a fair amount of effort. It's probably worth it for a nemesis , a recurring character or creature, but it's more effort than it's worth for a mook that turns up for 3 round in a fight and then you never see again. If you have time to spend those 15 minutes doing a fresh character, that's great, it really is. I suspect.most of us are like me; I have half dozen things tearing at my attention, so if I can just spend 30 seconds looking for a premade statblock instead and another 30 seconds modifying it, that's going to be much better. I can spend the rest of the time working on other areas of the campaign.
If you mean power levels...I'm not sure. You don't want mooks to be at the PC level, or you'll have maybe a fight and then everyone will need to have a long rest to recuperate between fights and greater foes will be unassailable...nemeses and BBEGs? Sure, stat them up. A nemesis could go either way, but a BBEG can have a proper character sheet.
If you mean timeframe...yeah, that's not happening for another decade due to compatibility issues.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
My main objection is to the statement that players need to be downgraded in power. I would go as far that some need to be buffed. For example, the Berserker and the Battle Rager.
If you want PC vs PC to be something other than rocket tag, the ratio of damage to hit points for PCs needs to go down. This can be accomplished by reducing damage, increasing hit points, or both.
Sure I'm all for going back to 2nd edition, are you? Less HP, no stat increases, no feats. Don't think the majority would even consider this a good thing. And oh yes Wizard power x4 were the belong! Ah Good Times!
That'll overvalue save or suck/die spells over straight damage.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
Save-or-suck spells are fairly marginal in 5th edition, so increasing their relative value isn't necessarily a problem. Also, I'm not convinced it's even true, SoS spells in 5e have very short duration and reducing damage/hp ratios causes combat to last longer.
Or you raise the damage output of MU? That would be fun to play something else than a CC buff/debuff machine.
Polymorph lasts an hour, and even the minute you get from Dominate Person is plenty considering there's no prohibition against making the target do something that'll make them defenseless, or will hurt or potentially kill them.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There's like three different threads about this, but I suppose this one makes the most sense for another video from Nerd Immersion:
Mostly concerning the press briefing here: https://nerdarchy.com/wizards-of-the-coasts-reveals-monsters-of-the-multiverse-details/
I think a relevant excerpt would be this:
If MotM is not going to automatically update the SRD, maybe the new stat blocks will be optional here on DDB? Who knows.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!