Player Races Leaks from Monsters of the Multiverse

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). 

Quote from Linklite >>

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.

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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. 

Quote from Nechaef >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

Quote from Linklite >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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!

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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. 

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

Quote from pangurjan >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

Quote from pangurjan >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

Quote from pangurjan >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.  

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:

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.

I'd post it on every thread, it's relevant to every discussion on this.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

 Nah, it's just that PC resource economy is based around the long rest cycle and around having to tackle tons of different scenarios, and monsters don't need all that because they tend to exist for the length of one encounter. There's no reason, for example, to choose skills for your monster unless it's Stealth or, if your party grapples a lot, Athletics/Acrobatics. There's no reason to select ritual spells for a monster unless it's stalking the player characters for a long time. Etc.

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Nechaef >>

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.

 Nah, it's just that PC resource economy is based around the long rest cycle and around having to tackle tons of different scenarios, and monsters don't need all that because they tend to exist for the length of one encounter. There's no reason, for example, to choose skills for your monster unless it's Stealth or, if your party grapples a lot, Athletics/Acrobatics. There's no reason to select ritual spells for a monster unless it's stalking the player characters for a long time. Etc.

 The Archmage statblock has spells you don't need for an encounter. Statblocks are just badly made especially for spellcasters. 

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

I think a relevant excerpt would be this:

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.

 Interesting use of "unfortunately," there -- I'm sure many in this very thread would disagree about that.

I'm certain the intro blurb for this book is going to explain how these critters are not meant to wholly replace, or something. It'll be like, "these are intended for groups who prefer X, so feel free not to use them if you prefer Y." And just like with flanking, potion crafting, identifying spells as they're being cast, and floating ability score increases, people will either not listen, or incorrectly guess what's best for their groups. Because most people aren't game designers. And most people don't think much about D&D when they're not playing it. And most people are bad at recognizing exactly why they don't like something, and at communicating that to others. But none of these are new problems, and this is not a new phenomenon.

It would really be nice if that blurb was part of the marketing though. I feel like hardly anything has been officially said about this book.