My least favorite thing about recent monster books (A small rant)

[Psyren]

That's not a fallacy, that's the reality of how the system works.

And it's not being used incorrect by those who support the change, it's just now the coin is flipped and before we didn't vocally complain about it.}

There are various rulings made by WotC that I didn't like and so changed at my table. The difference is I did not go vocally yell on forums about how WotC was ruining the game because what they had in the official book did not match my head canon.

***

But ultimately, it does not matter, WotC gets to put out the books THEY want and I can either enjoy the product as is, enjoy the product with changes made to fit my table, or not purchase the product. But lengthy arguments about how it's "Ruining" the game are a bridge too far and there's no fallacy in pointing that out.

No one's saying they're wrong for disliking it because they can change it. Dislike away. It's when we start having people claim that "It's factually bad design" or other such nonsense, or that WotC is Harming the game by not doing it the way they think. There's where the "Change it at your table" comes from. Not a "Ignore all problems because you can change them." but a "If you still like the system but don't like that, nothing stops you changing it."

I'm with Pixel_Kitsune on pretty much every point.

Nah, I disagree, they suck.

CR 5 enchanter has 2 spells per day plus cantrips.

As mentioned, you are reading the caster statblocks completely incorrectly.

As shown in earlier comparisons, the new statblocks often have spells that are well below par (in part because they no longer upcast, in part because they no longer have versatile/ adaptable spell lists, in part because of a few other things).

They’re not so much spellcasters anymore as they are elemental archers. See for instance the comparison of old enchanter vs new enchanter. That new one is *not* a CR-appropriate challenge spending its combat actions on spells (while the old one very much is). It’s not even *remotely* close to the spellcasting prowess of the old one. The old one’s spellcasting Actions were vastly stronger.

By way of analogy: Yeah, an Eldritch Knight might have spells, but it sure as heck doesn’t feel like an Enchanter Wizard or anything of the sort.

I agree that it works differently than the old enchanter but I disagree that it's worse. The old enchanter was a lot swingier at CR 5 - one DM might paralyze 3 members of the party from max range and drop an autofail 10d6 fireball on them all, while another might have him cast stoneskin when targeted by an archer but forget that breaks the suggestion he landed on the fighter. I think the new one ultimately is more consistently in line with its CR from table to table.