Scatterbraind, I get what you're saying, absolutely. Only, please consider that people get worked up over the strangest things sometimes, this is one of mine. Intellectually, you're right and this shouldn't be a big deal. Emotionally, I'm having a meltdown like a four year old after a sugar crash. I really appreciate people helping me work this out.
A couple of things to consider to see if from my perspective:
-If I just frickin give it scrying, what the duck do I take away? Giving creatures extra things changes how they play. Scrying is a 5th level spell, it should have the same impact on the game as animate object or cone of cold. Should I sit down in combat and say...Mmm Let's just add a few more casting of cone of cold on this creature, the first one was kind of lame! One PC survived. You do you, but this appear to me to be unfair to my players.If I wanted, I could also sit down at the table and say: "a meteor falls from the sky, you all die," get up and walk out.
-Variety is the spice of life. I cast fireball over and over get pretty old pretty quick. I'd like to be able to tweak things without having to tweak a stat block with a much smaller number of spells on it. Having good rules to do so on the fly would help me.
-If the PCs are in a world where everything obviously behaves according to different rules then they are bound to, that's not fun (at least, not for me).
It's really great that this isn't a problem for you. I have never claimed it should be. This is my problem, and I'm asking help from my more experienced peers to try to solve it.
I don't mean to come off as "sucks for you, this is not a problem for me." More like, "well, we can't really change what WotC is going to do in the short term, so here's the perspective I have taken to just try to accept what it is and still have fun with the game."
As for removing/adding spells for balance, I think you're putting more faith in the CR system than it deserves. Stuff isn't that balanced in the first place (especially regarding spellcasters), and CR math focuses exclusively on in-combat abilities. Cool out-of-combat spells shouldn't really change CR at all in the same way that an NPC having a spy network or personal army or a mountain of gold doesn't change CR. They are non-combat resources. as for adding variety, I think as long as you stayed in the same spell level you could safely swap out combat spells without issue. There are already several other factors like positioning and terrain that provide wide-ranging variables on the effectiveness of any given spell, so trying to math down exact equivalents is impossible.
As for your issues with PCs and NPCs having different rules, that's so inherently baked into the game that it's not going to change, and this current change is just a small part of that. Enemy wizards never had schools, enemy barbarians never had Rage, etc. Personally I think of it as monsters having their own unique class. Yes, this guy can do stuff no PC can do. That's because he's spent his whole life learning it just like the PC Fighter learned Action Surge and the PC Paladin learned Lay on Hands. If you reduce the entire game to PC classes, the scope of the game and the things you can do become terribly restrictive. And ultimately the game wasn't balanced for PvP anyway.
-If I just frickin give it scrying, what the duck do I take away?
In terms of combat encounter balance, nothing; scrying is a non-combat spell. In terms of adventure design you do have to keep capabilities such as that in mind, but that's outside the scope of anything the encounter system even tries to handle.
-If I just frickin give it scrying, what the duck do I take away? Giving creatures extra things changes how they play. Scrying is a 5th level spell, it should have the same impact on the game as animate object or cone of cold….
Don’t take anything away. CR is only calculated by how much damage a monster can deal over the first three rounds of combat and how much it can take over those same three rounds. Since scrying won’t directly affect either it’s offensive or defensive CRs, it won’t affect their average CR, so it doesn’t need to be accounted for. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/dungeon-masters-workshop#MonsterStatisticsbyChallengeRating)
-Variety is the spice of life. I cast fireball over and over get pretty old pretty quick. I'd like to be able to tweak things without having to tweak a stat block with a much smaller number of spells on it. Having good rules to do so on the fly would help me.
The introduction to the Monster Manual has the answer to this already:
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. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/mm/introduction#Spellcasting)
-If the PCs are in a world where everything obviously behaves according to different rules then they are bound to, that's not fun (at least, not for me).
The DM’s job is to juggle smoke and mirrors and maintain an illusion that everything makes sense for the players. In that regard nothing has changed.
Emotionally, I'm having a meltdown like a four year old after a sugar crash.
Might I suggest you try to get out more often. It’s just a game after all.
Yes, it is just a game :) It's also a game I happen to enjoy. This change has made me enjoy it less. I'm trying to find a way to replace what I feel I've lost and be able to provide a good campaign for my players. I also tend to use a lot of hyperbole when speaking of my emotional state, so don't take things at face value.
The issue you're tap dancing around is that spell variety for creatures in one adventure "day" has gone down dramatically. I was fully cognizant of the rules you quote, I also appreciate your time in making me aware of them. Perhaps I will say two more things for your consideration:
-If CR only deals with damage this is, in my opinion, a flaws of CR as it currently constructed. Knowledge, as they say, is power. If a spell meets the test for being 5th level, then its impact on the game should be equivalent to damage spells of the same level. However, the same rules you so aptly quote also say: "If the monster relies more on effects with saving throws than on attacks, use the monster’s save DC instead of its attack bonus." This implies that these "intangibles" that do not cause direct damage should also be taken into account for CR computation...Or am I reading this wrong?
-I don't want to replace spells, I want to increase the variety of spells used in play back to where it was before this change was made. I want a work around that lets me get my fun back without taking other people's fun away!
I completely agree that the job of the DM is to juggle smoke and mirrors and maintain an illusion that everything makes sense for the players. The job has not changed, but I feel that it has gotten much harder.
Thank you very much for your continued engagement, talking about things with other people is indeed helping me "get over it."
Scatterbraind, I get what you're saying, absolutely. Only, please consider that people get worked up over the strangest things sometimes, this is one of mine. Intellectually, you're right and this shouldn't be a big deal. Emotionally, I'm having a meltdown like a four year old after a sugar crash. I really appreciate people helping me work this out.
A couple of things to consider to see if from my perspective:
-If I just frickin give it scrying, what the duck do I take away? Giving creatures extra things changes how they play. Scrying is a 5th level spell, it should have the same impact on the game as animate object or cone of cold. Should I sit down in combat and say...Mmm Let's just add a few more casting of cone of cold on this creature, the first one was kind of lame! One PC survived. You do you, but this appear to me to be unfair to my players.If I wanted, I could also sit down at the table and say: "a meteor falls from the sky, you all die," get up and walk out.
-Variety is the spice of life. I cast fireball over and over get pretty old pretty quick. I'd like to be able to tweak things without having to tweak a stat block with a much smaller number of spells on it. Having good rules to do so on the fly would help me.
-If the PCs are in a world where everything obviously behaves according to different rules then they are bound to, that's not fun (at least, not for me).
It's really great that this isn't a problem for you. I have never claimed it should be. This is my problem, and I'm asking help from my more experienced peers to try to solve it.
I don't mean to come off as "sucks for you, this is not a problem for me." More like, "well, we can't really change what WotC is going to do in the short term, so here's the perspective I have taken to just try to accept what it is and still have fun with the game."
As for removing/adding spells for balance, I think you're putting more faith in the CR system than it deserves. Stuff isn't that balanced in the first place (especially regarding spellcasters), and CR math focuses exclusively on in-combat abilities. Cool out-of-combat spells shouldn't really change CR at all in the same way that an NPC having a spy network or personal army or a mountain of gold doesn't change CR. They are non-combat resources. as for adding variety, I think as long as you stayed in the same spell level you could safely swap out combat spells without issue. There are already several other factors like positioning and terrain that provide wide-ranging variables on the effectiveness of any given spell, so trying to math down exact equivalents is impossible.
As for your issues with PCs and NPCs having different rules, that's so inherently baked into the game that it's not going to change, and this current change is just a small part of that. Enemy wizards never had schools, enemy barbarians never had Rage, etc. Personally I think of it as monsters having their own unique class. Yes, this guy can do stuff no PC can do. That's because he's spent his whole life learning it just like the PC Fighter learned Action Surge and the PC Paladin learned Lay on Hands. If you reduce the entire game to PC classes, the scope of the game and the things you can do become terribly restrictive. And ultimately the game wasn't balanced for PvP anyway.
Thank you for your further reply. I'm sorry I misunderstood your previous post. This is actually incredibly helpful. I particularly like the framing in your last paragraph! This does help a lot!
I completely agree that this is a change we're going to have to live with, which is why I'm coming here and saying: "help me figure this out" instead of "this (insert unhelpful word) and WoTC is (insert unhelpful and insulting statement here)."
I actually really don't like that this difference in rules is "baked into the game" as you so rightly say. In 3.5 everything was done according to the same set of rules (or so I remember, isn't nostalgia grand?)There was just so many of them that this being restrictive wasn't a problem. The whole CR thing is something I really wish I understood better.
I'm also sitting in my office procrastinating work (I hate marking!), so I should get off the forum.
Hey, I feel you. While I am personal less impacted by these changes to monsters I absolutely cannot stand the changes they are making to races and it it has already made me enjoy the game so much less that I haven’t purchased anything since Tasha’s and likely won’t ever purchase another D&D product as long as things continue this way. The only way for me to replace what I will be losing is to purchase 🤢 hardcopy of the 5e materials I already payed for on DDB to avoid having the changes forced upon me. Only, without the convenience of DDB, half of my players will likely no longer play D&D and prefer switching to a different game so the whole thing will be moot anyway.
I’m not tap dancing around anything, I just don’t see it as a problem. Monster statblocks were too cluttered and too poorly organized before IMO, so for me I say “good riddance.” All I need in the statblock is the combat oriented stuff, everything else can get dropped into the general description and is alright by me. Do I want to know they can do something? Sure. Do I need to know they could have cast scrying before combat while I’m actually running combat? Maybe. But in preparation for my juggling act it’s kinda on me to refresh my memory in such things before a session. So I really shouldn’t need the reminder on the statblock, and if I do I can add it as homebrew and just use my own amended version. For example:
Scrying. The Commoner with Scrying can innately cast scrying 3 times between long rests without the need for any components.
Actions
Club. Melee Weapon Attack:+2 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 2 (1d4) bludgeoning damage.
Description
Commoners include peasants, serfs, slaves, servants, pilgrims, merchants, artisans, and hermits.
This commoner can innately cast the scrying three times between long rests because I say so and I’m the DM.
👉(Note, the CR is completely unaffected.)
As to your comments on CR, I have known that CR is pretty much absolutely useless since the first encounter I ever built for 5e. I don’t pay it any much attention at all to be honest, I throw everything but the sink at them every combat and don’t even sweat it. I don’t worry about anything more than my gut telling me something is “close enough.” If I need to amp up a an encounter after it starts because I guessed wrong, I ramp up the encounter. If I need to dial back an encounter mid combat because I goofed in my assessment, then I dial it back mid-encounter. (It’s called “hot-fixing,” and I’m not ashamed to admit to doing it. It’s just one of the tools in my DM’s toolbox.) Yes, CR is practically worthless, as has been pointed out something as simple as terrain can massively impact combat effectiveness. In addition, it’s all balanced around the 2 short rests/day system which is also useless to me. Some days there is absolutely no combat at all, other days there is nothing but combat. Some days they can rest for hours, other days they will have a ticking clock over their heads because drama. As long as the story’s compelling and everyone is having fun, I’m doing it right.
As to your goal of adding variety back in, add the variety back in. Just increase the numbers of spells known/prepared. If something has 3 spells and says “(3/day each),” and you want more variety, then add as many spells as you want and change it to “(9/long rest).” It’s all the same. All that matters for CR is the DPR and survivability over the first three rounds of combat. If neither of those things change, then you can add as much as you want to a statblock. The only downsides are A) You gotta remember it can do all’a that, and B) You gotta sift through it all to find what you really need more often than you’ll actually use the stuff.
-If CR only deals with damage this is, in my opinion, a flaws of CR as it currently constructed. Knowledge, as they say, is power. If a spell meets the test for being 5th level, then its impact on the game should be equivalent to damage spells of the same level. However, the same rules you so aptly quote also say: "If the monster relies more on effects with saving throws than on attacks, use the monster’s save DC instead of its attack bonus." This implies that these "intangibles" that do not cause direct damage should also be taken into account for CR computation...Or am I reading this wrong?
I’m sorry, I missed this specific question last time. Actually, it says more the opposite. What that really says is that if the monster uses spells or abilities that force saving throws in combat more than it uses spells or abilities that require attack rolls, to use its Save DC instead of its attack bonus for calculating its offensive CR. It’s all about DPR over the first 3 rounds. That’s all CR is ever referring to “(DPR : Life Expectancy) / Three Combat Rounds” That’s it in a nutshell. Look at the chart in the DMG, half of it is all about DPR, the other half is all about survivability, and nothing else than that is even included.
If CR only deals with damage this is, in my opinion, a flaws of CR as it currently constructed.
The intent of CR is that a CR X monster, encountered by itself in a neutral setting, will on average, consume something like 10-15% of the daily resources of a party of 4 level X PCs -- some of those resources will be hit points, some will be spells used to defeat the monster and/or heal the effects it causes. For the most part, this just boils down to how many hit points does it have and how fast does it do damage, though application of status effects that require healing (disease, curses, petrifaction, etc) also consume resources.
The effect of monsters with information powers (and other non-combat powers) is to modify the chance that you encounter them in a neutral setting. Which the DMG handles separately from CR, in the section on Modifying Encounter Difficulty.
If CR only deals with damage this is, in my opinion, a flaws of CR as it currently constructed.
The intent of CR is that a CR X monster, encountered by itself in a neutral setting, will on average, consume something like 10-15% of the daily resources of a party of 4 level X PCs -- some of those resources will be hit points, some will be spells used to defeat the monster and/or heal the effects it causes. For the most part, this just boils down to how many hit points does it have and how fast does it do damage, though application of status effects that require healing (disease, curses, petrifaction, etc) also consume resources.
The effect of monsters with information powers (and other non-combat powers) is to modify the chance that you encounter them in a neutral setting. Which the DMG handles separately from CR, in the section on Modifying Encounter Difficulty.
Honestly, I find the entire NPC vs PC dichotomy to be very immersion breaking.
Consider, ALL of the characters (PCs and NPCs) live in a consistent and logical world. Magic is one element of that. The only thing special about a PC (in terms of the game world) is the fact that the decisions are made by a PLAYER instead of the DM. The only reason for the simplified NPC stat blocks is to make things mechanically easier for the DM when running encounters. However, from an in-world perspective, there should be NO difference between a PC wizard and an NPC wizard (unless the DM wants to have such differences).
The problem with further simplifying the creature stat blocks (especially NPCs) is that they now appear to use "powers" instead of spells. Why should a PC wizard cast a spell to obtain an effect while an NPC wizard has a power that does the same thing? If the "power" isn't a spell - how can a PC learn that "spell"? If it is a "power" - can a PC counterspell it?
Basically, in my opinion, the monsters/NPCs and PCs should use the same mechanics if they are DOING the same thing - i.e. casting spells. If an NPC is a wizard then unless the DM has some unusual background for them then they SHOULD be casting spells which are functionally identical to the same feature from a PC.
I can see the motivation to change things to make it easier for some DMs to run encounters but honestly it isn't worth it at the expense of making a human NPC caster totally different from a human PC caster. These are supposed to be the SAME thing IN the game world - perhaps with slightly different training - so why would one have "powers" that are not treated like spells - while a PC casts "spells". If this is a method to stealth 4e into 5e to produce a 6e that gets wider acceptance - it isn't going to work :)
Honestly, I find the entire NPC vs PC dichotomy to be very immersion breaking.
Consider, ALL of the characters (PCs and NPCs) live in a consistent and logical world. Magic is one element of that. The only thing special about a PC (in terms of the game world) is the fact that the decisions are made by a PLAYER instead of the DM. The only reason for the simplified NPC stat blocks is to make things mechanically easier for the DM when running encounters. However, from an in-world perspective, there should be NO difference between a PC wizard and an NPC wizard (unless the DM wants to have such differences).
The problem with further simplifying the creature stat blocks (especially NPCs) is that they now appear to use "powers" instead of spells. Why should a PC wizard cast a spell to obtain an effect while an NPC wizard has a power that does the same thing? If the "power" isn't a spell - how can a PC learn that "spell"? If it is a "power" - can a PC counterspell it?
Basically, in my opinion, the monsters/NPCs and PCs should use the same mechanics if they are DOING the same thing - i.e. casting spells. If an NPC is a wizard then unless the DM has some unusual background for them then they SHOULD be casting spells which are functionally identical to the same feature from a PC.
I can see the motivation to change things to make it easier for some DMs to run encounters but honestly it isn't worth it at the expense of making a human NPC caster totally different from a human PC caster. These are supposed to be the SAME thing IN the game world - perhaps with slightly different training - so why would one have "powers" that are not treated like spells - while a PC casts "spells". If this is a method to stealth 4e into 5e to produce a 6e that gets wider acceptance - it isn't going to work :)
You raise a good point. That’s exactly why I use spells instead of powers for NPC casters even if it is a little more complicated.
Honestly, I find the entire NPC vs PC dichotomy to be very immersion breaking.
Consider, ALL of the characters (PCs and NPCs) live in a consistent and logical world. Magic is one element of that. The only thing special about a PC (in terms of the game world) is the fact that the decisions are made by a PLAYER instead of the DM. The only reason for the simplified NPC stat blocks is to make things mechanically easier for the DM when running encounters. However, from an in-world perspective, there should be NO difference between a PC wizard and an NPC wizard (unless the DM wants to have such differences).
The problem with further simplifying the creature stat blocks (especially NPCs) is that they now appear to use "powers" instead of spells. Why should a PC wizard cast a spell to obtain an effect while an NPC wizard has a power that does the same thing? If the "power" isn't a spell - how can a PC learn that "spell"? If it is a "power" - can a PC counterspell it?
Basically, in my opinion, the monsters/NPCs and PCs should use the same mechanics if they are DOING the same thing - i.e. casting spells. If an NPC is a wizard then unless the DM has some unusual background for them then they SHOULD be casting spells which are functionally identical to the same feature from a PC.
I can see the motivation to change things to make it easier for some DMs to run encounters but honestly it isn't worth it at the expense of making a human NPC caster totally different from a human PC caster. These are supposed to be the SAME thing IN the game world - perhaps with slightly different training - so why would one have "powers" that are not treated like spells - while a PC casts "spells". If this is a method to stealth 4e into 5e to produce a 6e that gets wider acceptance - it isn't going to work :)
This is my problem in a nutshell, yes, and I'm with you a hundred percent. However, they are doing this and "it's not going to work" doesn't help at the moment. I also fear that this change might be permanent.
From what I understand they are copying what some DMs were already doing and they are getting a lot of praise for it. Look up some of the new model caster stat blocks on D&D beyond and you'll find people in the comment section saying how much they "love the way casters are being handled now." I started this thread (and the previous one) to try to find a way to live with it as, much as I hate it, this is the future of casters.
I would much prefer that new "abilities" are added in as spells that everybody can use. That would make obviously overpowered things like Supreme Mockery (referenced above) less likely to make the cut. Also, before anybody points it out, yes this action (it's actually part of the NPCs attack action) does fit with the CR stated for this "creature," but would you want your players to have access to it? Even as 9th level spell? If the answer is no, you now have three choices:
1) Not use an otherwise excellent product,
2) Rebuild the NPC from scratch,
3) Bend yourself into a pretzel to explain to your players why they can't have nice things.
It's the same with CR. I don't really like it as a mechanic, but I don't see it going away. Also, a big thank you to Pantagruel666 for posting the link to modifying encounter difficulty. This is a section of the DMG that I did not read with sufficient care.
The players don’t actually need to know it exists. The DM is under no obligation to state the name of the ability, and the players aren’t supposed to see the monsters’ statblocks.
I can see the motivation to change things to make it easier for some DMs to run encounters but honestly it isn't worth it at the expense of making a human NPC caster totally different from a human PC caster.
The fundamental problem is that PC casters are wildly overcomplicated, but people whined up a storm when they just made PC casters not wildly overcomplicated (see 4e).
At this point, I think you're fear-mongering. We don't yet know what the new stat blocks will all look like. Monsters of the Multiverse is months away. The closest we have is this.
And, you know what, it's okay. Damage was a little low, and Holy Fire (clearly modeled after sacred flame) isn't actually a spell so it can't be the target of counterspell. And neither can Healing Light, for that matter. I do miss some of their old Spellcasting, like upcasting magic weapon and spiritual weapon to 4th-level, but tweaking this to slip them back in as a Spellcasting Bonus Action (or some other trait) isn't that hard. It could even be fun to figure out.
The biggest problem with the old spellcasting creature stat blocks is they weren't intuitive. Fun-ish for building your world and roleplaying the character, but terrible for actually running. You had to pour over every spell, know how and when they could be cast, plan your tactics ahead of time, and defenestrate them because no plan survives first contact with the enemy. This is a bit more reader-friendly. Yeah, they're not "proper" spellcasters, but that's not a big deal. Each NPC does whatever is needed of them. And we don't yet have the rules for how to use and customize them. Remember how monsters that use a class' spell list can swap out their spells for others from that same list? Yeah, well this War Priest has a Cleric tag. We don't yet know how that's going to be implemented.
At this point, I think you're fear-mongering. We don't yet know what the new stat blocks will all look like. Monsters of the Multiverse is months away. The closest we have is this.
And, you know what, it's okay. Damage was a little low, and Holy Fire (clearly modeled after sacred flame) isn't actually a spell so it can't be the target of counterspell. And neither can Healing Light, for that matter. I do miss some of their old Spellcasting, like upcasting magic weapon and spiritual weapon to 4th-level, but tweaking this to slip them back in as a Spellcasting Bonus Action (or some other trait) isn't that hard. It could even be fun to figure out.
The biggest problem with the old spellcasting creature stat blocks is they weren't intuitive. Fun-ish for building your world and roleplaying the character, but terrible for actually running. You had to pour over every spell, know how and when they could be cast, plan your tactics ahead of time, and defenestrate them because no plan survives first contact with the enemy. This is a bit more reader-friendly. Yeah, they're not "proper" spellcasters, but that's not a big deal. Each NPC does whatever is needed of them. And we don't yet have the rules for how to use and customize them. Remember how monsters that use a class' spell list can swap out their spells for others from that same list? Yeah, well this War Priest has a Cleric tag. We don't yet know how that's going to be implemented.
So, cool your jets.
I'm sorry you think I'm fear-mongering, that was not my intent but, objectively, it is probably a valid criticism. You're correct that we don't know very much, but what we do know makes me apprehensive. This is my problem.
Again, I want to understand your perspective. Intellectually a lot of what you say makes sense, but the positives you're emphasizing are things I feel are much less important than what we are loosing. The old way of writing things might not have been intuitive for you but it made perfect sense to me. It's great that you enjoy this but you are not me.
Understand that, for me, that they're not "proper" spell casters is not just a big deal it's coming close to being game destroying bad. It's keeping me up at night. I am here, trying to figure this out, because the other option is to walk away from the game completely. Honestly, at this point, considering the amount of stress this is causing, that might be the healthier option. It is, after all, just a game, that it's taking up so much of my attention isn't a good thing.
If part of the intent of this redesign is that they want to ditch counterspell let them come out and say, we're ditching counterspell. I wouldn't have a problem with that. It's a clear statement on a rules change, and has minimal implications for the physics of the game worlds. Abjuration wizards would have, rightfully, screamed murder, and might have needed a rebuild, but that's it.
These changes, on the other hand, completely shift how magic works for one person at the table... who then has to hide it from everybody else. They break reality. They reduce spell variety in play. They reduce the incentive to add new spells so NPCs can do new things. All to make reading a stat block simpler.
Yes, plans change, and should change, at the table, even a novice like me knows that. With less variety, there are fewer options and "I cast fireball" becomes the only possibility. How is having fewer options a good thing?
I understand that this is somewhere the game developers feel gameplay > realism, I can also understand that I'm too new to understand all the gameplay implications, but, at the very least, asking them to give DMs a hand with the smoke and mirrors to hide the consequences on the game physics is not too much to ask.
Extra rules for people who really liked the old way of doing things, would be very appreciated. That they've pushed this, without those rules, without clarifying how the "new" and "old" ways of doing thing works, is, in my opinion, a legitimate criticism. To date all we've gotten is a post on the D&D website saying: "Hey we're doing things this way now." No, here's how this works with the old stuff. No, if you liked how things were done before, here's what you do. It would be fantastic if they could get around to doing that. I feel that all of that should have come out together.
As it stands, it is very likely that I will not be getting Monsters of the Multiverse, or any of the new adventures WotC is working on. That is huge loss to me because, I'm sure, there will be excellent material to be found in them. To this day, I have yet to finish the Wild beyond the Witchlight because I can't get past how much I hate this change. As it stands, I will never run this adventure. I will also never touch the parts of Candlekeep Mysteries, a fantastic book, that have this in them as well. I can't, because this arbitrary change of the rules of in game physics drives me up the wall.
This for me, is a big loss, it colours everything and I am grieving that loss. Think of this as the bargaining stage as I work towards acceptance. Thank you for your understanding.
None of this breaks reality. They're NPCs. They already have features, traits, and even weapons that player characters simply cannot have. The veteran doesn't have Extra Attack; it has Multiattack. "Monsters" simply are not built like characters unless you want to go out of your way to do it with a class. How is a different form of spellcasting any different?
Again, you don't even know what's really coming. Practice a little patience. You can still use the playable races within Monsters of the Multiverse, even if you don't use the bestiary. You have older books for that. I might hybridize the two. Heck, the examples in the books are explicitly only typical examples. There are always exceptions.
At this point, I think you're fear-mongering. We don't yet know what the new stat blocks will all look like. Monsters of the Multiverse is months away. The closest we have is this.
And, you know what, it's okay. Damage was a little low, and Holy Fire (clearly modeled after sacred flame) isn't actually a spell so it can't be the target of counterspell. And neither can Healing Light, for that matter. I do miss some of their old Spellcasting, like upcasting magic weapon and spiritual weapon to 4th-level, but tweaking this to slip them back in as a Spellcasting Bonus Action (or some other trait) isn't that hard. It could even be fun to figure out.
The biggest problem with the old spellcasting creature stat blocks is they weren't intuitive. Fun-ish for building your world and roleplaying the character, but terrible for actually running. You had to pour over every spell, know how and when they could be cast, plan your tactics ahead of time, and defenestrate them because no plan survives first contact with the enemy. This is a bit more reader-friendly. Yeah, they're not "proper" spellcasters, but that's not a big deal. Each NPC does whatever is needed of them. And we don't yet have the rules for how to use and customize them. Remember how monsters that use a class' spell list can swap out their spells for others from that same list? Yeah, well this War Priest has a Cleric tag. We don't yet know how that's going to be implemented.
So, cool your jets.
I'm sorry you think I'm fear-mongering, that was not my intent but, objectively, it is probably a valid criticism. You're correct that we don't know very much, but what we do know makes me apprehensive. This is my problem.
Again, I want to understand your perspective. Intellectually a lot of what you say makes sense, but the positives you're emphasizing are things I feel are much less important than what we are loosing. The old way of writing things might not have been intuitive for you but it made perfect sense to me. It's great that you enjoy this but you are not me.
Understand that, for me, that they're not "proper" spell casters is not just a big deal it's coming close to being game destroying bad. It's keeping me up at night. I am here, trying to figure this out, because the other option is to walk away from the game completely. Honestly, at this point, considering the amount of stress this is causing, that might be the healthier option. It is, after all, just a game, that it's taking up so much of my attention isn't a good thing.
If part of the intent of this redesign is that they want to ditch counterspell let them come out and say, we're ditching counterspell. I wouldn't have a problem with that. It's a clear statement on a rules change, and has minimal implications for the physics of the game worlds. Abjuration wizards would have, rightfully, screamed murder, and might have needed a rebuild, but that's it.
These changes, on the other hand, completely shift how magic works for one person at the table... who then has to hide it from everybody else. They break reality. They reduce spell variety in play. They reduce the incentive to add new spells so NPCs can do new things. All to make reading a stat block simpler.
Yes, plans change, and should change, at the table, even a novice like me knows that. With less variety, there are fewer options and "I cast fireball" becomes the only possibility. How is having fewer options a good thing?
I understand that this is somewhere the game developers feel gameplay > realism, I can also understand that I'm too new to understand all the gameplay implications, but, at the very least, asking them to give DMs a hand with the smoke and mirrors to hide the consequences on the game physics is not too much to ask.
Extra rules for people who really liked the old way of doing things, would be very appreciated. That they've pushed this, without those rules, without clarifying how the "new" and "old" ways of doing thing works, is, in my opinion, a legitimate criticism. To date all we've gotten is a post on the D&D website saying: "Hey we're doing things this way now." No, here's how this works with the old stuff. No, if you liked how things were done before, here's what you do. It would be fantastic if they could get around to doing that. I feel that all of that should have come out together.
As it stands, it is very likely that I will not be getting Monsters of the Multiverse, or any of the new adventures WotC is working on. That is huge loss to me because, I'm sure, there will be excellent material to be found in them. To this day, I have yet to finish the Wild beyond the Witchlight because I can't get past how much I hate this change. As it stands, I will never run this adventure. I will also never touch the parts of Candlekeep Mysteries, a fantastic book, that have this in them as well. I can't, because this arbitrary change of the rules of in game physics drives me up the wall.
This for me, is a big loss, it colours everything and I am grieving that loss. Think of this as the bargaining stage as I work towards acceptance. Thank you for your understanding.
Why can’t you just change it if you don’t like it? Get rid of Supreme Mockery and replace it with Vicious Mockery. Although granted your NPC will be a lot less tough if you do that.
This is something I do intuitively. I just gave some hags warlock spells at a level I felt was appropriate for their difficulty and didn’t even think twice about it. Granted, I knew which of their spells they were most likely to use and didn’t think too deeply about all the rest, but still.
The players don’t actually need to know it exists. The DM is under no obligation to state the name of the ability, and the players aren’t supposed to see the monsters’ statblocks.
You're right that this is the case, and I really need to be getting my actual work done, but on this point, if all of this is to be understood as spell casting, there is a rule in Xanathar's Guide on identifying a spell that kind of forces your hand: dungeon-masters-tools
Obviously you can say: "This isn't a spell it's an ability, this doesn't apply." It's the same as with counterspell. Or you can lie and say: "I'm sorry, you fail your arcana check." Eventually, as a player, I would ask why these NPCs - -Who, let's remember, are supposed to be wizards, bards, clerics and druids-- have so many cool abilities the PCs don't have access too. I would ask what subclasses grant these abilities and how can players get access to them. Or I would want to know why a 32 on arcana fails when the max DC, to identify a 9th level spell, is 24.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't mean to come off as "sucks for you, this is not a problem for me." More like, "well, we can't really change what WotC is going to do in the short term, so here's the perspective I have taken to just try to accept what it is and still have fun with the game."
As for removing/adding spells for balance, I think you're putting more faith in the CR system than it deserves. Stuff isn't that balanced in the first place (especially regarding spellcasters), and CR math focuses exclusively on in-combat abilities. Cool out-of-combat spells shouldn't really change CR at all in the same way that an NPC having a spy network or personal army or a mountain of gold doesn't change CR. They are non-combat resources. as for adding variety, I think as long as you stayed in the same spell level you could safely swap out combat spells without issue. There are already several other factors like positioning and terrain that provide wide-ranging variables on the effectiveness of any given spell, so trying to math down exact equivalents is impossible.
As for your issues with PCs and NPCs having different rules, that's so inherently baked into the game that it's not going to change, and this current change is just a small part of that. Enemy wizards never had schools, enemy barbarians never had Rage, etc. Personally I think of it as monsters having their own unique class. Yes, this guy can do stuff no PC can do. That's because he's spent his whole life learning it just like the PC Fighter learned Action Surge and the PC Paladin learned Lay on Hands. If you reduce the entire game to PC classes, the scope of the game and the things you can do become terribly restrictive. And ultimately the game wasn't balanced for PvP anyway.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
In terms of combat encounter balance, nothing; scrying is a non-combat spell. In terms of adventure design you do have to keep capabilities such as that in mind, but that's outside the scope of anything the encounter system even tries to handle.
Yes, it is just a game :) It's also a game I happen to enjoy. This change has made me enjoy it less. I'm trying to find a way to replace what I feel I've lost and be able to provide a good campaign for my players. I also tend to use a lot of hyperbole when speaking of my emotional state, so don't take things at face value.
The issue you're tap dancing around is that spell variety for creatures in one adventure "day" has gone down dramatically. I was fully cognizant of the rules you quote, I also appreciate your time in making me aware of them. Perhaps I will say two more things for your consideration:
-If CR only deals with damage this is, in my opinion, a flaws of CR as it currently constructed. Knowledge, as they say, is power. If a spell meets the test for being 5th level, then its impact on the game should be equivalent to damage spells of the same level. However, the same rules you so aptly quote also say: "If the monster relies more on effects with saving throws than on attacks, use the monster’s save DC instead of its attack bonus." This implies that these "intangibles" that do not cause direct damage should also be taken into account for CR computation...Or am I reading this wrong?
-I don't want to replace spells, I want to increase the variety of spells used in play back to where it was before this change was made. I want a work around that lets me get my fun back without taking other people's fun away!
I completely agree that the job of the DM is to juggle smoke and mirrors and maintain an illusion that everything makes sense for the players. The job has not changed, but I feel that it has gotten much harder.
Thank you very much for your continued engagement, talking about things with other people is indeed helping me "get over it."
Thank you for your further reply. I'm sorry I misunderstood your previous post. This is actually incredibly helpful. I particularly like the framing in your last paragraph! This does help a lot!
I completely agree that this is a change we're going to have to live with, which is why I'm coming here and saying: "help me figure this out" instead of "this (insert unhelpful word) and WoTC is (insert unhelpful and insulting statement here)."
I actually really don't like that this difference in rules is "baked into the game" as you so rightly say. In 3.5 everything was done according to the same set of rules (or so I remember, isn't nostalgia grand?)There was just so many of them that this being restrictive wasn't a problem. The whole CR thing is something I really wish I understood better.
I'm also sitting in my office procrastinating work (I hate marking!), so I should get off the forum.
Hey, I feel you. While I am personal less impacted by these changes to monsters I absolutely cannot stand the changes they are making to races and it it has already made me enjoy the game so much less that I haven’t purchased anything since Tasha’s and likely won’t ever purchase another D&D product as long as things continue this way. The only way for me to replace what I will be losing is to purchase 🤢 hardcopy of the 5e materials I already payed for on DDB to avoid having the changes forced upon me. Only, without the convenience of DDB, half of my players will likely no longer play D&D and prefer switching to a different game so the whole thing will be moot anyway.
I’m not tap dancing around anything, I just don’t see it as a problem. Monster statblocks were too cluttered and too poorly organized before IMO, so for me I say “good riddance.” All I need in the statblock is the combat oriented stuff, everything else can get dropped into the general description and is alright by me. Do I want to know they can do something? Sure. Do I need to know they could have cast scrying before combat while I’m actually running combat? Maybe. But in preparation for my juggling act it’s kinda on me to refresh my memory in such things before a session. So I really shouldn’t need the reminder on the statblock, and if I do I can add it as homebrew and just use my own amended version. For example:
Scrying. The Commoner with Scrying can innately cast scrying 3 times between long rests without the need for any components.
Club. Melee Weapon Attack:+2 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 2 (1d4) bludgeoning damage.
Description
Commoners include peasants, serfs, slaves, servants, pilgrims, merchants, artisans, and hermits.
This commoner can innately cast the scrying three times between long rests because I say so and I’m the DM.
👉(Note, the CR is completely unaffected.)
As to your comments on CR, I have known that CR is pretty much absolutely useless since the first encounter I ever built for 5e. I don’t pay it any much attention at all to be honest, I throw everything but the sink at them every combat and don’t even sweat it. I don’t worry about anything more than my gut telling me something is “close enough.” If I need to amp up a an encounter after it starts because I guessed wrong, I ramp up the encounter. If I need to dial back an encounter mid combat because I goofed in my assessment, then I dial it back mid-encounter. (It’s called “hot-fixing,” and I’m not ashamed to admit to doing it. It’s just one of the tools in my DM’s toolbox.) Yes, CR is practically worthless, as has been pointed out something as simple as terrain can massively impact combat effectiveness. In addition, it’s all balanced around the 2 short rests/day system which is also useless to me. Some days there is absolutely no combat at all, other days there is nothing but combat. Some days they can rest for hours, other days they will have a ticking clock over their heads because drama. As long as the story’s compelling and everyone is having fun, I’m doing it right.
As to your goal of adding variety back in, add the variety back in. Just increase the numbers of spells known/prepared. If something has 3 spells and says “(3/day each),” and you want more variety, then add as many spells as you want and change it to “(9/long rest).” It’s all the same. All that matters for CR is the DPR and survivability over the first three rounds of combat. If neither of those things change, then you can add as much as you want to a statblock. The only downsides are A) You gotta remember it can do all’a that, and B) You gotta sift through it all to find what you really need more often than you’ll actually use the stuff.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I’m sorry, I missed this specific question last time. Actually, it says more the opposite. What that really says is that if the monster uses spells or abilities that force saving throws in combat more than it uses spells or abilities that require attack rolls, to use its Save DC instead of its attack bonus for calculating its offensive CR. It’s all about DPR over the first 3 rounds. That’s all CR is ever referring to “(DPR : Life Expectancy) / Three Combat Rounds” That’s it in a nutshell. Look at the chart in the DMG, half of it is all about DPR, the other half is all about survivability, and nothing else than that is even included.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The intent of CR is that a CR X monster, encountered by itself in a neutral setting, will on average, consume something like 10-15% of the daily resources of a party of 4 level X PCs -- some of those resources will be hit points, some will be spells used to defeat the monster and/or heal the effects it causes. For the most part, this just boils down to how many hit points does it have and how fast does it do damage, though application of status effects that require healing (disease, curses, petrifaction, etc) also consume resources.
The effect of monsters with information powers (and other non-combat powers) is to modify the chance that you encounter them in a neutral setting. Which the DMG handles separately from CR, in the section on Modifying Encounter Difficulty.
Now that is far more useful than CR.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Honestly, I find the entire NPC vs PC dichotomy to be very immersion breaking.
Consider, ALL of the characters (PCs and NPCs) live in a consistent and logical world. Magic is one element of that. The only thing special about a PC (in terms of the game world) is the fact that the decisions are made by a PLAYER instead of the DM. The only reason for the simplified NPC stat blocks is to make things mechanically easier for the DM when running encounters. However, from an in-world perspective, there should be NO difference between a PC wizard and an NPC wizard (unless the DM wants to have such differences).
The problem with further simplifying the creature stat blocks (especially NPCs) is that they now appear to use "powers" instead of spells. Why should a PC wizard cast a spell to obtain an effect while an NPC wizard has a power that does the same thing? If the "power" isn't a spell - how can a PC learn that "spell"? If it is a "power" - can a PC counterspell it?
Basically, in my opinion, the monsters/NPCs and PCs should use the same mechanics if they are DOING the same thing - i.e. casting spells. If an NPC is a wizard then unless the DM has some unusual background for them then they SHOULD be casting spells which are functionally identical to the same feature from a PC.
I can see the motivation to change things to make it easier for some DMs to run encounters but honestly it isn't worth it at the expense of making a human NPC caster totally different from a human PC caster. These are supposed to be the SAME thing IN the game world - perhaps with slightly different training - so why would one have "powers" that are not treated like spells - while a PC casts "spells". If this is a method to stealth 4e into 5e to produce a 6e that gets wider acceptance - it isn't going to work :)
You raise a good point. That’s exactly why I use spells instead of powers for NPC casters even if it is a little more complicated.
Isn’t it simple enough to list it as a power but treat it as a spell? That way it’s convenient to read, but counterspell still works.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is my problem in a nutshell, yes, and I'm with you a hundred percent. However, they are doing this and "it's not going to work" doesn't help at the moment. I also fear that this change might be permanent.
From what I understand they are copying what some DMs were already doing and they are getting a lot of praise for it. Look up some of the new model caster stat blocks on D&D beyond and you'll find people in the comment section saying how much they "love the way casters are being handled now." I started this thread (and the previous one) to try to find a way to live with it as, much as I hate it, this is the future of casters.
I would much prefer that new "abilities" are added in as spells that everybody can use. That would make obviously overpowered things like Supreme Mockery (referenced above) less likely to make the cut. Also, before anybody points it out, yes this action (it's actually part of the NPCs attack action) does fit with the CR stated for this "creature," but would you want your players to have access to it? Even as 9th level spell? If the answer is no, you now have three choices:
1) Not use an otherwise excellent product,
2) Rebuild the NPC from scratch,
3) Bend yourself into a pretzel to explain to your players why they can't have nice things.
It's the same with CR. I don't really like it as a mechanic, but I don't see it going away. Also, a big thank you to Pantagruel666 for posting the link to modifying encounter difficulty. This is a section of the DMG that I did not read with sufficient care.
The players don’t actually need to know it exists. The DM is under no obligation to state the name of the ability, and the players aren’t supposed to see the monsters’ statblocks.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The fundamental problem is that PC casters are wildly overcomplicated, but people whined up a storm when they just made PC casters not wildly overcomplicated (see 4e).
At this point, I think you're fear-mongering. We don't yet know what the new stat blocks will all look like. Monsters of the Multiverse is months away. The closest we have is this.
And, you know what, it's okay. Damage was a little low, and Holy Fire (clearly modeled after sacred flame) isn't actually a spell so it can't be the target of counterspell. And neither can Healing Light, for that matter. I do miss some of their old Spellcasting, like upcasting magic weapon and spiritual weapon to 4th-level, but tweaking this to slip them back in as a Spellcasting Bonus Action (or some other trait) isn't that hard. It could even be fun to figure out.
The biggest problem with the old spellcasting creature stat blocks is they weren't intuitive. Fun-ish for building your world and roleplaying the character, but terrible for actually running. You had to pour over every spell, know how and when they could be cast, plan your tactics ahead of time, and defenestrate them because no plan survives first contact with the enemy. This is a bit more reader-friendly. Yeah, they're not "proper" spellcasters, but that's not a big deal. Each NPC does whatever is needed of them. And we don't yet have the rules for how to use and customize them. Remember how monsters that use a class' spell list can swap out their spells for others from that same list? Yeah, well this War Priest has a Cleric tag. We don't yet know how that's going to be implemented.
So, cool your jets.
I'm sorry you think I'm fear-mongering, that was not my intent but, objectively, it is probably a valid criticism. You're correct that we don't know very much, but what we do know makes me apprehensive. This is my problem.
Again, I want to understand your perspective. Intellectually a lot of what you say makes sense, but the positives you're emphasizing are things I feel are much less important than what we are loosing. The old way of writing things might not have been intuitive for you but it made perfect sense to me. It's great that you enjoy this but you are not me.
Understand that, for me, that they're not "proper" spell casters is not just a big deal it's coming close to being game destroying bad. It's keeping me up at night. I am here, trying to figure this out, because the other option is to walk away from the game completely. Honestly, at this point, considering the amount of stress this is causing, that might be the healthier option. It is, after all, just a game, that it's taking up so much of my attention isn't a good thing.
If part of the intent of this redesign is that they want to ditch counterspell let them come out and say, we're ditching counterspell. I wouldn't have a problem with that. It's a clear statement on a rules change, and has minimal implications for the physics of the game worlds. Abjuration wizards would have, rightfully, screamed murder, and might have needed a rebuild, but that's it.
These changes, on the other hand, completely shift how magic works for one person at the table... who then has to hide it from everybody else. They break reality. They reduce spell variety in play. They reduce the incentive to add new spells so NPCs can do new things. All to make reading a stat block simpler.
Yes, plans change, and should change, at the table, even a novice like me knows that. With less variety, there are fewer options and "I cast fireball" becomes the only possibility. How is having fewer options a good thing?
I understand that this is somewhere the game developers feel gameplay > realism, I can also understand that I'm too new to understand all the gameplay implications, but, at the very least, asking them to give DMs a hand with the smoke and mirrors to hide the consequences on the game physics is not too much to ask.
Extra rules for people who really liked the old way of doing things, would be very appreciated. That they've pushed this, without those rules, without clarifying how the "new" and "old" ways of doing thing works, is, in my opinion, a legitimate criticism. To date all we've gotten is a post on the D&D website saying: "Hey we're doing things this way now." No, here's how this works with the old stuff. No, if you liked how things were done before, here's what you do. It would be fantastic if they could get around to doing that. I feel that all of that should have come out together.
As it stands, it is very likely that I will not be getting Monsters of the Multiverse, or any of the new adventures WotC is working on. That is huge loss to me because, I'm sure, there will be excellent material to be found in them. To this day, I have yet to finish the Wild beyond the Witchlight because I can't get past how much I hate this change. As it stands, I will never run this adventure. I will also never touch the parts of Candlekeep Mysteries, a fantastic book, that have this in them as well. I can't, because this arbitrary change of the rules of in game physics drives me up the wall.
This for me, is a big loss, it colours everything and I am grieving that loss. Think of this as the bargaining stage as I work towards acceptance. Thank you for your understanding.
And now you're being melodramatic.
None of this breaks reality. They're NPCs. They already have features, traits, and even weapons that player characters simply cannot have. The veteran doesn't have Extra Attack; it has Multiattack. "Monsters" simply are not built like characters unless you want to go out of your way to do it with a class. How is a different form of spellcasting any different?
Again, you don't even know what's really coming. Practice a little patience. You can still use the playable races within Monsters of the Multiverse, even if you don't use the bestiary. You have older books for that. I might hybridize the two. Heck, the examples in the books are explicitly only typical examples. There are always exceptions.
Calm down.
Why can’t you just change it if you don’t like it? Get rid of Supreme Mockery and replace it with Vicious Mockery. Although granted your NPC will be a lot less tough if you do that.
This is something I do intuitively. I just gave some hags warlock spells at a level I felt was appropriate for their difficulty and didn’t even think twice about it. Granted, I knew which of their spells they were most likely to use and didn’t think too deeply about all the rest, but still.
You're right that this is the case, and I really need to be getting my actual work done, but on this point, if all of this is to be understood as spell casting, there is a rule in Xanathar's Guide on identifying a spell that kind of forces your hand: dungeon-masters-tools
Obviously you can say: "This isn't a spell it's an ability, this doesn't apply." It's the same as with counterspell. Or you can lie and say: "I'm sorry, you fail your arcana check." Eventually, as a player, I would ask why these NPCs - -Who, let's remember, are supposed to be wizards, bards, clerics and druids-- have so many cool abilities the PCs don't have access too. I would ask what subclasses grant these abilities and how can players get access to them. Or I would want to know why a 32 on arcana fails when the max DC, to identify a 9th level spell, is 24.