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

[Psyren]

So what could DMs be doing to cause them to think that the Enchanter (or any caster in VGM or MTF) under-performs? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Their solution to that problem was "give them all ranged spell attacks, trim most of their spells and remove the ability to upcast spells".

The three statblocks I have access to thanks to the preview event are Bard, War Priest, and Warlock of the Great Old One.

Judging by how the blocks were altered, I'd say it's possible DMs were doing things like Guided Strike when they should be taking an OA, Multiattacking high AC targets instead of Sacred Flame-ing them, trying to Healing Word and Mass Cure Wounds/Flame Strike/Guiding Bolt on the same round, Casting Stoneskin or Silence and ending their Banishment/Spirit Guardians or vice-versa, casting Beacon of Hope for any reason, and so on.

The Warlock's aura was likely being forgotten on multiple rounds - which is probably a good thing since with that it was a challenge rating 6 enemy capable of doing 3d6+3d8 at will every single round (+25 cold and nearly doubling its HP with AoA) while also taking its target's reaction away or stopping them from being healed. Or against a melee-heavy party it would just take to the air and rain down 3d10 eldritch blasts on the level 6 party who likely can't fly while they plink away at its 91+75 HP.

The Bard meanwhile was incredibly swingy - if they threw out a healing word + vicious mockery, you would get a wildly different difficulty than if they opened with a Taunt for disadvantage on saves followed by a 3d8 Shatter at level 2.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The three statblocks I have access to thanks to the preview event are Bard, War Priest, and Warlock of the Great Old One.

Judging by how the blocks were altered, I'd say it's possible DMs were doing things like Guided Strike when they should be taking an OA, Multiattacking high AC targets instead of Sacred Flame-ing them, trying to Healing Word and Mass Cure Wounds/Flame Strike/Guiding Bolt on the same round, Casting Stoneskin or Silence and ending their Banishment/Spirit Guardians or vice-versa, casting Beacon of Hope for any reason, and so on.

Did you previously say that a DM making poor positioning choices was not the fault of the statblock? How is poor targeting choices, poor understanding of the spellcasting action limitations or bad use of concentration the fault of the statblock either?

These three things aren't universally improved by the new statblocks either, so I don't understand trying to use them as an argument here.

[Psyren]

Did you previously say that a DM making poor positioning choices was not the fault of the statblock? How is poor targeting choices, poor understanding of the spellcasting action limitations or bad use of concentration the fault of the statblock either?

These three things aren't universally improved by the new statblocks either, so I don't understand trying to use them as an argument here.

Again, I'm making an educated guess based on what got pruned, changed or even just repositioned between blocks. And some of the things in particular that I listed (like the bonus action spellcasting rules) are common pitfalls for many DMs, even judging by threads here, never mind among people that don't hang out on D&D message boards all day.

It's easy for us on this D&D-focused forum to go "gee, how could anyone make mistakes like that?" But again, WotC's job is not to design for us, not even primarily.

[Rafaelfras]

Iggwiliv and the statblocks from Witchlight are great. Iggwiliv is a lower CR than Halaster Blackcloack from DotMM, but overall more effective.

If the spellcasters statblocks in Monsters of the Multiverse were of the same quality as Iggwiliv’s, I would not have an issue.

Indeed, I was cautiously optimistic that Monsters of the Multiverse was going to avoid quality pitfalls based off Witchlight….sadly, the quality of design found in Strixhaven is lacking, and this seems to be somewhat true for MoM.

WotC modules, even current ones, often fail to give DM tactical advice for the specific scenarios in the module.

Casual Players are going to play for several years, (probably in part borrowing books from friends, or finding information on the internet), and then their interest will be sated and they will move on. This was the cycle in the 1980’s D&D boom.

Alienating, older, longer term players, with disposable income, may hurt WotC in the long run. I love D&D, but I have plenty of products and ideas, and am strongly considering not purchasing anything else until the Anniversary Edition comes out.

WotC very well might be prioritizing short term monetization over longterm maintenance of the playerbase. Barring a release of their corporate plans, we on the outside of Wizards of the Coast, can only speculate.

Yeah my opinion on the statsblocks from Witchlight are the exact oposite. I found the casters very lacking and for me it seems i am dealing with monsters and not NPCs. It causes a great disconect and realy limits what a DM can do with said NPCs
The easiest and simplest way I see of fixing this and getting to a point where both can be happy is simple text line : "Spellcasting: Iggwiliv is an increadbly powerfull spellcaster. She can prepare and cast wizard spells as a lvl 20 wizard, she knows every spell from the PHB. Additionaly lggwilv can cast s one of t he following spells, requiring no material components, using Intelligence as the spellcasting ability (spell save DC 24, +16 to hit with spell attacks):"

Done, any DM now can set up a list of prepared spells and also has the reference for how many slots she has and for those who want to just stick to the spells she can cast x/day, can freely do so.

Same can be done to any casting NPC
"Kelek is a 7th level sorcerer, he can know all fire spells plus any spell from PHB that you deem necessary, aditionaly he can casts the following spells, using Charisma as the spellcasting ability (spell save DC 14):"

Done, now you have an NPC with full capabilities and any DM can use or ignore as he wishes. You can even just use the spells that are x/day as spells known and apply then to the slots if you want to use slots but dont want to prepare a custom spell list and it is open enough for any DM that find the spell list lacking

[ProsecutorGodot]

Again, I'm making an educated guess based on what got pruned, changed or even just repositioned between blocks. And some of the things in particular that I listed (like the bonus action spellcasting rules) are common pitfalls for many DMs, even judging by threads here, never mind among people that don't hang out on D&D message boards all day.

It's easy for us on this D&D-focused forum to go "gee, how could anyone make mistakes like that?" But again, WotC's job is not to design for us, not even primarily.

If they are common pitfalls something could have been done to address them. As it stands you haven't erased the chance that one of these new statblocks has a DM accidentally trying to cast a bonus action and action spell, it hasn't prevented a DM from accidently ending concentration on one spell for another and it hasn't prevented one from using a poor attack method against a target. The final point might actually be worse as their options have been limited to the point that some types of casters who previously had options to deal with a high AC or high save target will have lost one of those useful options.

It's also added new pitfalls; no more upcasting, effects that aren't considered spells or even magic, constant tracking of a recharging mechanic (many of them have one now) that may end up being forgotten, player and NPC abilities acting differently at a world level rather than just a mechanical one.

I think we're at a net loss here, the very minor decrease in bookkeeping load for the spellcasters resources (because they do still have resources) is not outweighing the new negative aspects of this change.

[Segev]

Nope. It hinged on it being bad to leave it in the statblock.

Ah, then you do not believe that putting more into the flavor text that helps run the monster is bad, and I should not interpret any of your prior posts as saying so?

(Edited to try to be less argumentative in tone. I am trying to get to a point of agreement, not pick a fight.)

[Psyren]

Ah, then you do not believe that putting more into the flavor text that helps run the monster is bad, and I should not interpret any of your prior posts as saying so?

You should interpret my prior posts as saying I would evaluate any means of decluttering the statblocks on its own merits. As Strahd has not yet had this treatment officially, any current approach to doing so is only conjecture, but at a minimum I'd expect his multiattack to include some kind of magical ability and his spell list to be pruned. The scrying ability honestly could probably stay there, but I'd say his Detect Thoughts should be at-will or constant.

If they are common pitfalls something could have been done to address them.

They did. The War Priest's bonus action heal for example no longer conflicts with leveled spells, which means a war priest can heal and do something more impactful than a sacred flame that round. Similarly, it no longer has to choose between an attack sequence and an at-will saving throw ability, it gets to do both. They also no longer have multiple spells and passive buffs non-obviously competing for their concentration at wildly differing power levels. And finally, they can't blow their reaction on a 1/encounter ability that buffs a single attack.

I think we're at a net loss here

Disagree for the reasons stated.

[Segev]

You should interpret my prior posts as saying I would evaluate any means of decluttering the statblocks on its own merits. As Strahd has not yet had this treatment officially, any current approach to doing so is only conjecture, but at a minimum I'd expect his multiattack to include some kind of magical ability and his spell list to be pruned. The scrying ability honestly could probably stay there, but I'd say his Detect Thoughts should be at-will or constant.

I think I can agree with everything here except pruning his spell list. Detect thoughts being an at-will spell should still be a spell, since IIRC vampires aren't known for mind-reading as an innate feature.

[Psyren]

I think I can agree with everything here except pruning his spell list. Detect thoughts being an at-will spell should still be a spell, since IIRC vampires aren't known for mind-reading as an innate feature.

I never said vampires should be reading surface thoughts all the time, but Strahd? Different kettle.

More to the point, getting it out of there and in the innate or even senses section helps clean things up.

[tokek]

Yeah my opinion on the statsblocks from Witchlight are the exact oposite. I found the casters very lacking and for me it seems i am dealing with monsters and not NPCs. It causes a great disconect and realy limits what a DM can do with said NPCs
The easiest and simplest way I see of fixing this and getting to a point where both can be happy is simple text line : "Spellcasting: Iggwiliv is an increadbly powerfull spellcaster. She can prepare and cast wizard spells as a lvl 20 wizard, she knows every spell from the PHB. Additionaly lggwilv can cast s one of t he following spells, requiring no material components, using Intelligence as the spellcasting ability (spell save DC 24, +16 to hit with spell attacks):"

Done, any DM now can set up a list of prepared spells and also has the reference for how many slots she has and for those who want to just stick to the spells she can cast x/day, can freely do so.

Honestly my experience was the opposite. Iggwilv felt powerful and streamlined with no real trap options there. She can use her at-will spells as legendary actions, her actions have decent impact and for any "But Iggwilv would be able to do this" there is always Wish spell which is on her stat block. There are enough things there for her to do something different and powerful every turn of an encounter, yet few enough that its really easy to pick up and think how to use her.

It even says she wrote her Demonomicon - but it plays no part in the adventure which has her stat block. Presumably given its drawbacks she has a library on another plane where she keeps it - she does have an amulet of the planes to use to retrieve it.

If facing her is the whole point of a whole series of sessions then maybe, maybe, its worth investing all the time and effort into switching around her spells and tracking the huge number of spell slots she would be expected to have. But for any normal situation most of those spell slots can't possibly be used even with her ability to cast as a legendary action - most encounters just don't last long enough. So for most cases where you use her that's a whole lot of distracting detail I don't need or want and probably a whole bunch of trap options for inexperienced DMs or simply DMs who can't afford to spend serious prep time on the mechanics for one NPC.

[Segev]

I never said vampires should be reading surface thoughts all the time, but Strahd? Different kettle.

More to the point, getting it out of there and in the innate or even senses section helps clean things up.

I don't think anything has detect thoughts in the senses section. "Cleaning things up" only works if you're putting it in a place where people will look for such things. And what about Strahd makes him an innate telepath, as opposed to a powerful vampire with spellcasting abilities? I'm not opposed to detect thoughts at will, but I would prefer it to be explicitly casting the spell.

[Witty Username]

I don't think anything has detect thoughts in the senses section. "Cleaning things up" only works if you're putting it in a place where people will look for such things. And what about Strahd makes him an innate telepath, as opposed to a powerful vampire with spellcasting abilities? I'm not opposed to detect thoughts at will, but I would prefer it to be explicitly casting the spell.

Isn't Straid a darklord of a dread domain? I though one of the darklord perks was being able to sense thoughts of individuals within their domain.

[Segev]

Isn't Straid a darklord of a dread domain? I though one of the darklord perks was being able to sense thoughts of individuals within their domain.

Is it? If so, then yeah, that can just be an innate feature without being a spell.

[strangebloke]

Is it? If so, then yeah, that can just be an innate feature without being a spell.

Either way, should be on the statblock. You shouldn't have to search random lore blurbs to put together the enemy's abilities.

[Segev]

Either way, should be on the statblock. You shouldn't have to search random lore blurbs to put together the enemy's abilities.

Agreed. All of a monster's expected capabilities should be in the stat block.

[Psyren]

Either way, should be on the statblock. You shouldn't have to search random lore blurbs to put together the enemy's abilities.

Agreed. All of a monster's expected capabilities should be in the stat block.

So you two are saying all this should be added to his already meaty statblock?

"Strahd knows when any creature enters or dies violently within Barovia, and takes personal offense when his agents or the domain's wolves are slain. Strahd can also manifest a variety of dramatic effects, such as causing his voice to be heard on the wind, making his visage appear in the clouds, changing the weather, and so forth. He can't use these effects to aid him in combat, but they can make his presence known throughout the land."

"Strahd avoids harming Vistani who travel through his lands. Strahd closes Barovia's borders whenever something that interests him threatens to escape, surrounding the domain with poisonous mist. Those who enter the Mists choke and are affected as detailed in "The Mists" chapter."

"Strahd cannot leave his domain. If he enters the Mists or uses any other method to attempt escape, the Dark Powers unfailingly return him. Even death rarely allows a Darklord to escape their prison for long...should {Strahd} fall, the temporary defeat lasts until {he's} restored by the Dark Powers. {Strahd} has no concept of how long {he's} lived, how many times {he's} died, or why {he's} returned to life."

"The curse that engulfs Barovia means that the soul of Tatyana, the subject of Strahd's obsessions, perpetually reincarnates into new physical forms. No matter what form she takes, Strahd unceasingly seeks her, determined to possess her and soothe his rejected ego."

[Segev]

So you two are saying all this should be added to his already meaty statblock?

"Strahd knows when any creature enters or dies violently within Barovia, and takes personal offense when his agents or the domain's wolves are slain. Strahd can also manifest a variety of dramatic effects, such as causing his voice to be heard on the wind, making his visage appear in the clouds, changing the weather, and so forth. He can't use these effects to aid him in combat, but they can make his presence known throughout the land."

"Strahd avoids harming Vistani who travel through his lands. Strahd closes Barovia's borders whenever something that interests him threatens to escape, surrounding the domain with poisonous mist. Those who enter the Mists choke and are affected as detailed in "The Mists" chapter."

"Strahd cannot leave his domain. If he enters the Mists or uses any other method to attempt escape, the Dark Powers unfailingly return him. Even death rarely allows a Darklord to escape their prison for long...should {Strahd} fall, the temporary defeat lasts until {he's} restored by the Dark Powers. {Strahd} has no concept of how long {he's} lived, how many times {he's} died, or why {he's} returned to life."

"The curse that engulfs Barovia means that the soul of Tatyana, the subject of Strahd's obsessions, perpetually reincarnates into new physical forms. No matter what form she takes, Strahd unceasingly seeks her, determined to possess her and soothe his rejected ego."

No. I do think the following should, however:

"Lord of Barovia. Strahd knows when any creature enters or dies violently within Barovia. He can manifest dramatic effects that make his presence known throughout the land, though these do not aid him in combat. He can close Barovia's borders at will, surrounding the domain with poisonous mists (see "The Mists" chapter)."

Alternatively, I can agree that most of that should be in his descriptive text outside the blurb, but then I also feel that further description of how any particular monster uses the features it DOES have in the statblock in a typical encounter would be equally appropriate - something you pooh-poohed before.

Explicit powers should probably be in the stat block. General behaviors and how he uses those powers can be reserved for the descriptive text. Describing the kinds of dramatic effects can be reserved for the descriptive text. After all, they're examples, not an explicit and complete list.

[Psyren]

No. I do think the following should, however:

"Lord of Barovia. Strahd knows when any creature enters or dies violently within Barovia. He can manifest dramatic effects that make his presence known throughout the land, though these do not aid him in combat. He can close Barovia's borders at will, surrounding the domain with poisonous mists (see "The Mists" chapter)."

Alternatively, I can agree that most of that should be in his descriptive text outside the blurb, but then I also feel that further description of how any particular monster uses the features it DOES have in the statblock in a typical encounter would be equally appropriate - something you pooh-poohed before.

Explicit powers should probably be in the stat block. General behaviors and how he uses those powers can be reserved for the descriptive text. Describing the kinds of dramatic effects can be reserved for the descriptive text. After all, they're examples, not an explicit and complete list.

So you want the "dramatic effects" in the statblock without describing what they are? What's the point of that? The DM will have to read elsewhere anyway. Why not keep the statblock clear? Same thing for the immortality effect and what the mists do to him, all of which are game mechanics. They're not in the statblock now because none of them matter for combat, as they shouldn't.

All of the stuff I quoted is just from VGtR btw, I didn't even look through Curse of Strahd for more non-combat mechanics that would clutter his block further.

[Segev]

So you want the "dramatic effects" in the statblock without describing what they are? What's the point of that? The DM will have to read elsewhere anyway. Why not keep the statblock clear? Same thing for the immortality effect and what the mists do to him, all of which are game mechanics. They're not in the statblock now because none of them matter for combat, as they shouldn't.

All of the stuff I quoted is just from VGtR btw, I didn't even look through Curse of Strahd for more non-combat mechanics that would clutter his block further.

Let's put it this way: I either want the descriptive text to be clearly defined as having actual rules and abilities listed in it, or I want all abilities listed clearly in the statblock. No, the DM doesn't have to look elsewhere; DMs are perfectly capable of coming up with "dramatic effects." (And, if not, you're bolstering my position on the failure of the skill system.) Having examples in the descriptive text is still good, though, to help out those who want some more refined guidelines. Just as having description of how, say, a Necromancer will typically be set up in an encounter would be fitting.

[Psyren]

Let's put it this way: I either want the descriptive text to be clearly defined as having actual rules and abilities listed in it, or I want all abilities listed clearly in the statblock. No, the DM doesn't have to look elsewhere; DMs are perfectly capable of coming up with "dramatic effects." (And, if not, you're bolstering my position on the failure of the skill system.) Having examples in the descriptive text is still good, though, to help out those who want some more refined guidelines. Just as having description of how, say, a Necromancer will typically be set up in an encounter would be fitting.

Whereas my desire is that all combat-relevant abilities are clearly listed in the statblock. I think the designers and writers shouldn't be chained to go "oh crap, we thought of a cool fluff ability like Strahd making his face appear in the clouds or sensing every time the party kills a wolf, better go back to the statblock and make sure that's in there." Forget the statblock being bloated, you might never be done designing the damn thing if that's the standard. And every single time the DM misses a relevant combat ability while they're running Strahd in a fight because their eyes are glazing over from all that unnecessary text is a failure of game design. One that WotC themselves have said is a problem, whosoever here might consider them to be bald-faced liars.

[Segev]

Whereas my desire is that all combat-relevant abilities are clearly listed in the statblock. I think the designers and writers shouldn't be chained to go "oh crap, we thought of a cool fluff ability like Strahd making his face appear in the clouds or sensing every time the party kills a wolf, better go back to the statblock and make sure that's in there." Forget the statblock being bloated, you might never be done designing the damn thing if that's the standard. And every single time the DM misses a relevant combat ability while they're running Strahd in a fight because their eyes are glazing over from all that unnecessary text is a failure of game design. One that WotC themselves have said is a problem, whosoever here might consider them to be bald-faced liars.

Are they adding this to the fluff section of the monster's entry, or in some obscure section of the adventure as a one-off thing he does because it's "cool?" In the latter case, how will the DM ever FIND it, or even know to LOOK for it, unless he's running that specific section of that module? And should he assume it's something Strahd can do any time he wants, or that it's a one-off thing for this section, or...what?

You seem to me to be jumping back and forth between DMs needing their hands held and everything in one place, and also needing to read every scrap of every document that might possibly mention the monster anywhere or they're not doing their jobs right.

[Psyren]

Are they adding this to the fluff section of the monster's entry, or in some obscure section of the adventure as a one-off thing he does because it's "cool?" In the latter case, how will the DM ever FIND it, or even know to LOOK for it, unless he's running that specific section of that module? And should he assume it's something Strahd can do any time he wants, or that it's a one-off thing for this section, or...what?

You seem to me to be jumping back and forth between DMs needing their hands held and everything in one place, and also needing to read every scrap of every document that might possibly mention the monster anywhere or they're not doing their jobs right.

How am I "jumping back and forth?" Do you disagree that combat and not-combat are different situations? "The statblock is designed for the former" seems pretty straightforward to me, and I've been consistent on that point.

As for where exactly the non-combat stuff should be put, I don't really care. Presumably that's something they'll want to iterate on. What I do know is what they've said, that having too much stuff in the statblock has been a problem.

[Segev]

How am I "jumping back and forth?" Do you disagree that combat and not-combat are different situations? "The statblock is designed for the former" seems pretty straightforward to me, and I've been consistent on that point.

As for where exactly the non-combat stuff should be put, I don't really care. Presumably that's something they'll want to iterate on. What I do know is what they've said, that having too much stuff in the statblock has been a problem.

I disagree that it's the problem it's said to be.

I also disagree that the statblock's sole job is to handle combat. The rules for the creature need to be in one place. If you want to organize the stat block to have combat rules condensed together, that's fine, but non-combat features should still be in the stat block ,easy to find.

[Psyren]

I disagree that it's the problem it's said to be.

Based on, again, your no data.

I also disagree that the statblock's sole job is to handle combat. The rules for the creature need to be in one place. If you want to organize the stat block to have combat rules condensed together, that's fine, but non-combat features should still be in the stat block ,easy to find.

I don't think it's the "sole job" either - but it's primary enough that if making cuts is the stated goal (which it is), then non-combat mechanics are the obvious choice to chop. But we may have to agree to disagree on that.

[Rafaelfras]

Honestly my experience was the opposite. Iggwilv felt powerful and streamlined with no real trap options there. She can use her at-will spells as legendary actions, her actions have decent impact and for any "But Iggwilv would be able to do this" there is always Wish spell which is on her stat block. There are enough things there for her to do something different and powerful every turn of an encounter, yet few enough that its really easy to pick up and think how to use her.

It even says she wrote her Demonomicon - but it plays no part in the adventure which has her stat block. Presumably given its drawbacks she has a library on another plane where she keeps it - she does have an amulet of the planes to use to retrieve it.

If facing her is the whole point of a whole series of sessions then maybe, maybe, its worth investing all the time and effort into switching around her spells and tracking the huge number of spell slots she would be expected to have. But for any normal situation most of those spell slots can't possibly be used even with her ability to cast as a legendary action - most encounters just don't last long enough. So for most cases where you use her that's a whole lot of distracting detail I don't need or want and probably a whole bunch of trap options for inexperienced DMs or simply DMs who can't afford to spend serious prep time on the mechanics for one NPC.

Thats why I like my sugestion, Because it gives guidance for DMs who want more and want to feel that a wizard is still a wizard, while keeping these daily spells for those who do not want to use a caster for more than 4 rounds.

The only thing i think it needs to go are these multiattack options with "arcane blasts " or whatever. Give then spells for damage, instead of turning then into fighters with lasers.

I know this is what i will do if I decide to use any of those stats blocks

[Segev]

Based on, again, your no data.

As opposed to based on your no data. "WEll, they said--" Well, they also said that TCE was optional. You may feel that cynicism makes things less than helpful; I do not disagree, but credulous belief in untrustworthy sources is equally useless.

I don't think it's the "sole job" either - but it's primary enough that if making cuts is the stated goal (which it is), then non-combat mechanics are the obvious choice to chop. But we may have to agree to disagree on that.

I actually believe it is the stated goal, for the record. And the real goal. I just don't think it a worthy goal. I think this is going to make it harder to use monsters in the future.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The only thing i think it needs to go are these multiattack options with "arcane blasts " or whatever. Give then spells for damage, instead of turning then into fighters with lasers.

I'm curious as to why this is the sticking point. After all, warlocks with eldritch blast are basically identical. And you could trivially (as in "merely by changing formatting") say that those "arcane blast" options are labeled as "Cantrip: arcane blast (VSM)" and leave everything else the same. Sure, they'd be slightly odd cantrips, but no odder, really, than a bladesinger's Extra Attack (mixing melee attacks and cantrips).

As I said in post...2?...in this thread, I think the optimum (for me) is to pare down the list of spells/slots tremendously and not be afraid to go "off book" (ie use "spells" not listed in the PHB/other player-facing books), but still list them as spells. And the extent to which things are pared down can depend on the monster--for your generic "evoker" or especially "sahuagin shaman" (ie a monster that happens to cast spell, not a PC-race spell-caster), they only need
* Primary cantrip-class combat spell (their go-to "if nothing else can be cast"). I'm personally fine with this going as a generic "action" entry, but noted as casting a cantrip with XYZ components.
* Primary thematic non-concentration spell (or two), with notation like "3@4th level & 2 @5th level).
* Primary thematic concentration spell (or two). This is only going to get cast once or twice due to concentration, so pick a level and go with it.
* 2-3 utility/defensive/flavor spells. These tend not to upcast much, so don't bother.

So the evoker could be something (off the top of my head, not optimized at all) like

Mage Armor The evoker casts mage armor at the beginning of each day, making its AC 15 (included in the stat block).

Spellcasting The evoker is a 12th-level spellcaster. Its spellcasting ability is Intelligence (spell save DC 15, +7 to hit with spell attacks) and has the following spells prepared. All its spells require at least one component.

Concentration slot: Wall of ice* (1@6th level), Bigby's hand* (1@5th level)
Non-concentration: Cone of cold* (1@5th, 1@6th), fireball* (1@3, 3@4), magic missile (3@1)
Utility: mirror image (1@2), misty step (2@2), counterspell (2@3)
Cantrips (3 dice): firebolt, ray of frost

That's 4 lines for spells instead of 7, with a lot more directly useful information (such as which ones are concentration and how many dice the cantrips get). A savings of roughly 50%. Sure, the (x@y) notation could be better. But that's off the top of my head. And sure, it means you can't upcast fireball to a 6th level slot. But it's a sane, usable set of defaults.

And for named, BBEG-class NPCs (especially at the module level)? Sure. Those can stand to be beefier stat blocks. But there's lots of fat to be trimmed on the every-day ones that are much more salient to 99.999% of DMs than those big ones that may actually get referenced directly 1x in campaigns where they come up, and don't actually come up in many campaigns (that end before getting to the BBEG).

Spoiler: spells removed

Show

light, burning hands, mage armor (slot automatically deducted, for simplicity it's just up), burning hands, shatter, lightning bolt, ice storm, stone skin, chain lightning

Although you could move the cantrips into the Actions block without loss of generality as long as you note that it's a cantrip.

[Schwann145]

I've long thought that many game developers have an attitude, whether intentionally or not, of: "Our customers are mostly idiots, so we need to do everything in our power to hold their hands. They can't grasp complex rules like *insert not-very-complex thing here* so we have to dumb it down even further for them. Because we care/want to sell to as wide an audience as possible."

Rules updates like these? Not doing much to change my opinion. :/

[Unoriginal]

I'm curious as to why this is the sticking point. After all, warlocks with eldritch blast are basically identical.

But they're not warlocks with eldritch blast. That is the thing.

It's like saying "why are people upset that the new Justice League has this new Wonder Man character instead of Superman? They're basically identical". If you create something new that is "basically identical" to something already existing, well... it kind of doesn't work out for many reason. It's also far from a compliment to say it.

We do not need NPCs that are "basically identical".

If we want to have warlocks, then warlock-like statblocks are good to have. If we want to have wizards, then having statblock "basically identical" to the warlock ones is a bad thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But they're not warlocks with eldritch blast. That is the thing.

It's like saying "why are people upset that the new Justice League has this new Wonder Man character instead of Superman? They're basically identical". If you create something new that is "basically identical" to something already existing, well... it kind of doesn't work out for many reason. It's also far from a compliment to say it.

We do not need NPCs that are "basically identical".

If we want to have warlocks, then warlock-like statblocks are good to have. If we want to have wizards, then having statblock "basically identical" to the warlock ones is a bad thing.

Here's the thing. NPC "wizards" are not, canonically, PC-classed Wizards (using capitals to distinguish). I find the idea of reifying the classes to be utterly toxic to worldbuilding. And mechanical implementation details are the least interesting, least meaningful way of differentiating NPCs. Because they're hidden from everyone but the DM, who doesn't really care. The meaningful differences are thematic, not "do you have a multi-beam cantrip option". Because otherwise, a wizard with two levels of warlock is a warlock, not a wizard. NPC "clerics" are not (by black-letter RAW) generally actual PC-class Clerics. Classes are not things that exist in their full mechanical implementation in a world; they're just bundles designed for PC use and balance. That's it. They're not fundamentally part of a world. Note that the Evoker does not say "The Evoker is a 12th level wizard." It says "the Evoker is a 12th level caster." Sure, it pulls from the wizard list, but there are tons of monsters who pull from multiple lists. Spell lists are a PC-side thing, not a world-side thing.

You can rewrite "Arcane Blast" as a cantrip without really changing anything. It's just one of the thousands (millions, uncountable really) of spells that's not in the PHB.

Heck, I could imagine a setting where every full caster is built on the warlock model (strong cantrip + a couple SR slots). In fact, I think that world would be much better than the current one. Or a setting where every caster is slightly different and there is no such thing as "wizards" (as an in-world thing). And that would be a much better world than the current one.

There is no PC/NPC transparency in character building by default. They use (some) of the same rules (multi-attack is not Extra Attack) and they actually resolve actions similarly, but the character creation is entirely disjoint. They use neither the same basic building blocks (race, background, class, feats vs bare features), the same patterns (20 levels with fixed values at each level vs completely ad hoc) or even the same measure of strength (level vs CR).

So from the players' side of the screen, a guy with a spellbook who has a strong cantrip but also has classic wizard spells and acts like a wizard is a wizard. No matter what his implementation is. Switch up the theming and spell selections and keep the chassis (maybe adding in some armor) and now you've got a cleric. Differences mechanically...negligible. Differences in play--significant.

Stat blocks are not the character. Stat blocks are a compressed summary for a few specific purposes. Mechanics are not the character. They're not even the most important facet of the character, especially for NPCs. They're a UI-level convention for playability, unless you're playing in an isekai world where everyone is aware of their stats. There is no "wizard" tag hanging over people's heads. The whole distinction in world is not nearly as clear as people make it out to be. And there's room for tons of variation and cross-pollination. I strongly disagree with the mechanics-first (and mechanics-only, it seems) approach to NPC building. Mechanics, fundamentally, are the least important part of an NPC. They're entirely arbitrary. In fact, they can be made up on the spot without substantial player-side effects. How do I know? I've done it multiple times. And those have been some of my best battles. And as long as you're not continuously adjusting them in play, it's not even deceptive.