I've noticed I say too many things too early in threads. People want to say their piece before they engage with anyone else's, and then by the time they do engage with someone else's, we're on another page and my stuff is buried. Happens a lot.

What are we not engaging with?

Me disagreeing with the issue is not me failing to engage with it.  If there's a specific point you want to address, tell me.  Just be ready for me to not necessarily agree with it.

I really like the new Vecna stat block. There are a few small things I might change if I used an encounter with Vecna as the climax of a campaign, but overall I’m really impressed.

Cientia Tower is cursed by Vecna’s vile deeds. When a player or their character utters the name “Vecna,” the character takes 2d10 psychic damage (no save) and must succeed a DC 17 Intelligence saving throw or be cursed.

I like this bit of meta, fourth wall breaking, mechanic.

I'm thinking of a method of Counterspell that isn't determined by one player's roll.  Basically, when you attempt to Counterspell,  you make a contested spellcasting ability check vs the caster's spellcasting ability check.  For every level below the spell you're countering, you gain a -1 on the check, and a +1 for every level the Counterspell is above the spell you're counterspelling.    Thoughts?

(Also I do think the stat block is cool but way too simple for my games.  I love complicated stat blocks)

I've had similar notions for Counterspell, save that the counteree resists with a Concentration check rather than spellcasting ability.  Counterspell was a prime chance to make Concentration more important and prevalent, instead of just a bizarre one-off thing they did to giganerf buffs and ongoing-effect spells...and then they turned it into "spend a third-level spell slot to make the DM drink after the session."

Just...awful.

The main issue with counterspell is that it doesn't have a save; if you replaced the ability check with a save, using it to try and burn off legendary resistance seems fine (currently, I'm mostly relying on my spellcasting bad guys using cheap tactics; can't counterspell things you can't see).

I think it was 3 e that had the counterspell that worked by you having to cast the same spell. So to counter fireball, you had to have it prepared, and then burn your cast of it. It didn’t get used nearly as much, but I did like that system. But with stepping away from 100% vancian casting, it wouldn’t be quite as impactful. 

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Again - this is Vecna.  This isn't something you bust out on a whim one night against your fourth-level party of local kneebreakers.  If you're fighting Vecna in a campaign, it's at the end of it as a climactic Final Battle where the DM will be returning everything to hell and back to suit their particular party anyways, and if you're fighting Vecna as a high-level one-shot one night then nobody cares because it's a one-shot.  Do whatever's fun and tell stories about it later.

 Honest question here - is anyone who actually cares about Vecna or running an appropriately climactic Final Battle actually going to use a pregen statblock anyway? I don't know anyone who would do this.

My impression was that stuff like this is for one-shots or when you roll a d100 on the Cursed Sword of Cursiness and get "suddenly, Vecna!" or you just need a reference for what Vecna can do for some nerd argument you're having with your friends. For the rest of us, it's a jumping-off point and nothing more.

Certainly the spells-but-not-spells thing is controversial, but it's not unexpected at this point. This is just the design now and we'll all have to like it or "fix it" ourselves.

"But we shouldn't have to design our own monsters!" I agree with you. But I think many of us who comment regularly here are not a representative slice of the playerbase in this regard. Most players I know would just think this is cool and run it without worrying about the implications of the design. Part of the cost of having a larger playerbase is releasing content that is accessible even the most casual players - content that will prioritize ease of use over nearly everything else. They know that those of us who care deeply will also put in the extra work to make the game we want to have.

Quote from Xalthu >>

I think it was 3 e that had the counterspell that worked by you having to cast the same spell. So to counter fireball, you had to have it prepared, and then burn your cast of it.

 You could also ready dispel magic as a general purpose counterspell, but then you had to actually roll the dispel check.

See, that would be an interesting way to make Counterspell(ing) suck less and to make Dispel the standard-issue tool it really should be.  Dispel can be used to Dispel a spell in the moment of casting, but you have to use the Readied Action rules to do so.  Ready a Dispel, trigger condition "when [X] next casts a spell".  You can use it to interfere with a caster's turns, but it's no longer an easy, flippant, guaranteed shutdown of anything the counterspeller feels like shutting down, and a canny enemy mage could see the Dispel being held and possibly play around it.  That could make for some interesting mind games in the field.  I might honestly implement that the next time I run a game.

Quote from scatterbraind >>

My impression was that stuff like this is for one-shots or when you roll a d100 on the Cursed Sword of Cursiness and get "suddenly, Vecna!"

I love that song from Little Dungeon of Horrors

Suddenly Vecna is standing beside you
It's too late to prepare, this will be your tomb
Suddenly Vecna, is here to slay you
Sweet oblivion, Vecna's your doom

 OK Yurei, you've convinced me of point 1, because yeah, counterspell is overpowered and even a 20th level party shouldn't be able to stop him from using his almost all his superhuman powers (via counterspell).

However, I still believe that it should be easier to change the Vecna's spells to better fit your campaign and adventure, without having to analyze each of his abilities and figure out what spell they most relate to, before having to change them.

Overall, though, I understand why whoever designed Vecna's stat block did what they did, but I'm still wishing their was an easier way to add and switch out spell based abilities, without Vecna's abilities being counterspell-able. I can't really think of a way to do this, but I wish the stat block was better made in those areas.

Quote from BoringBard >>

 Overall, though, I understand why whoever designed Vecna's stat block did what they did, but I'm still wishing their was an easier way to add and switch out spell based abilities, without Vecna's abilities being counterspell-able. I can't really think of a way to do this, but I wish the stat block was better made in those areas.

 Custom monster, base on Vecna, replace any abilities you feel like replacing?

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

See, that would be an interesting way to make Counterspell(ing) suck less and to make Dispel the standard-issue tool it really should be.  Dispel can be used to Dispel a spell in the moment of casting, but you have to use the Readied Action rules to do so.  Ready a Dispel, trigger condition "when [X] next casts a spell".  You can use it to interfere with a caster's turns, but it's no longer an easy, flippant, guaranteed shutdown of anything the counterspeller feels like shutting down, and a canny enemy mage could see the Dispel being held and possibly play around it.  That could make for some interesting mind games in the field.  I might honestly implement that the next time I run a game.

I mean I like your idea of Counterspell being an Abjuration Wizard specialty, but maybe also a Feat that one can take? And it shouldn't be just an auto fail of the spell, but rather pit the two spellcasters against one another in some sort of contested roll.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

I mean I like your idea of Counterspell being an Abjuration Wizard specialty, but maybe also a Feat that one can take? And it shouldn't be just an auto fail of the spell, but rather pit the two spellcasters against one another in some sort of contested roll.

 Target saves with spellcasting stat against the caster's spell DC? Won't be very good against PCs or monsters built like PCs because spellcasting classes are almost proficient in their spellcasting stat, but a fair number of monsters have underwhelming spellcasting stats, aren't proficient, or both.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Regardless.  Spellcasting enemies having basic damage options that can't be turned off by a player [REDACTED] every single round is a feature, not a bug.  it's an improvement to the game, and maybe now players will actually respect enemy spellcasters the way the respect punchy martials or nasty monsters whose turns they can't turn off with one single [...] reaction that EVERY [...] BODY in the party always has.

2.) The issue I see is that people are trying to obey the PC generation rules for their monsters.  An example given in the previous thread was the Evoker, which has two daily uses of Mage Armor per its new M3 stat block as well as an 'Arcane Burst' action that semi-simulates a Sculpted Fireball.  The complaint was that previously a DM could alter the character's spell list on the fly, swapping spells around as was proper for a whateverth-level whichever.  Twelfth-level wizard?  No problem - switch spells around until you have a better spell list.  Don't like 2/day Mage Armor because MA lasts eight hours and nobody would ever Dispel a caster's Mage Armor and force him to have to burn a turn re-upping it?  Switch it to something else.

My take: DMs have no need to limit themselves to PC generation rules and the sooner they realize that the better they'll be as DMs.  If you decide your Evoker knows Globe of Invulnerability because she's learned to protect herself from weenies whilst doing her job of Blowing Up Infantry?  Just have her cast GoI.  Decide on the spot that she gets one of them a day and don't worry about what else on her spell list you're replacing to do it. If that matters, it's something you can sort after the encounter if your Evoker is still alive, and if she's not then the players aren't really going to care if she cast an extra spell that didn't end up helping her in the end.  If you-the-DM want to give a casty critter certain spells, give them those spells.  Trust your judgment, remind yourself that you're not trying to screw your players over (unless you are, in which case stop it), and that whatever you're planning on will be fine.  Actual game-ruining disasters of bad judgment are vanishingly rare, and casters' CRs in M3 don't take their innate casting into account anyways.  All of a caster's Innate Casting stuff is basically side jobbies, their CR is calculated using their spell-like actions.  So long as you're still primarily using those actions in a stand-up fight, you're golden.  And if you're not?  Well hell, you're the DM.  Try shit, break stuff, and fix it in post.  You don't have to run a perfect game, just a good one.

[REDACTED]

 

 Honestly I have to love this take, personally though I still like setting up their level so I know what they might have access to as spells, but thats a personal thing, overall if you want your baddies to know a spell? have them know it, theres nothing wrong with that. and I've been giving my HB npcs spell like abilities for awhile, I just dislike they got rid of almost the entire spell list the npcs had, like necromancer, just going by raw now, it cant have like about 50 undead, but now only 5, its just weird.

Quote from BoringBard >>

 However, I still believe that it should be easier to change the Vecna's spells to better fit your campaign and adventure, without having to analyze each of his abilities and figure out what spell they most relate to, before having to change them.

 Why do you have to do that now? Why change them even? Just add in whatever you want to what’s there. It’s fricking Vecna. He can cast any spell he wants. Level 3 spells are basically cantrips for him. Higher than that he can only do it 1-3/day. Easy peasy.

Quote from Xalthu >>

Quote from BoringBard >>

 However, I still believe that it should be easier to change the Vecna's spells to better fit your campaign and adventure, without having to analyze each of his abilities and figure out what spell they most relate to, before having to change them.

 Why do you have to do that now? Why change them even? Just add in whatever you want to what’s there. It’s fricking Vecna. He can cast any spell he wants. Level 3 spells are basically cantrips for him. Higher than that he can only do it 1-3/day. Easy peasy.

 Why? Because new DM's don't have the background for it. This is a prime example how oversimplification leads to a more complicated end result. People are always complaining about the difficulty curve of older editions, and to a point I agree, but this dumbing down creates a problem down the road. Namely, people who have a lesser understanding of game mechanics and every problem following out of this.

Quote from Nechaef >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

Quote from BoringBard >>

 However, I still believe that it should be easier to change the Vecna's spells to better fit your campaign and adventure, without having to analyze each of his abilities and figure out what spell they most relate to, before having to change them.

 Why do you have to do that now? Why change them even? Just add in whatever you want to what’s there. It’s fricking Vecna. He can cast any spell he wants. Level 3 spells are basically cantrips for him. Higher than that he can only do it 1-3/day. Easy peasy.

 Why? Because new DM's don't have the background for it. This is a prime example how oversimplification leads to a more complicated end result. People are always complaining about the difficulty curve of older editions, and to a point I agree, but this dumbing down creates a problem down the road. Namely, people who have a lesser understanding of game mechanics and every problem following out of this.

This... doesn't make any sense. New DMs don't "have the background" to be tinkering with stat blocks regardless of whether they're OG 5e or the newer versions. The new format is explicitly less complicated for new DMs to use in combat