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

[Psyren]

Come 2024 and the Revised PHB Drow will probably not have Sunlight Sensitivity. If this bothers you, use the old version of the Drow in the first PHB which is still compatible.

I just want to add that it is exceedingly likely they will stop selling the 2015 PHB (both physically and digitally) when the 2024 one is released. If you are emotionally invested in old Drow, purchase it ahead of time. Again, for those who dislike being blindsided on such matters, this is a strong possibility.

Feel free to bookmark this post.

[Segev]

Are they both called "Drow" in the official material? Then they are probably both Drow. This doesn't seem particularly complicated to me.

So, then, if the PC race goblins are Medium creatures with wings and a flight speed, while the NPC goblins remain the same as they are in the MM, they are both probably drow, and there's no room for calling out how one is so unlike the other that they're not the same creatures at all, because they're both called "goblins" in the official material? Because unless you can draw for me a line where the dissimilarities start to matter more than the name of the creature, that is what your argument logically leads to. And since you're using it to try to refute my claim that there is a problem when the two races are different based on whether a player or the DM is playing them, you need to actually support it.

Actually no - my belief that it is justified is completely separate from whatever measures your DM takes (or doesn't take - as previously mentioned, I couldn't care less which) to resolve any disconnect you might have as a player.

Either it's justified or it isn't. And either your belief that the DM can take measures to resolve disconnects or to resolve problems with the races that you or I may perceive is completely separate from whether the measures are justified, or it isn't.

If it is completely separate, then your dismissal of my issue with it based on the fact that a DM can change it is utterly irrelevant, because the fact remains that the change itself is bad, because it creates that disconnect. If they are not completely separate, then the same dismissal of the justification for the change can be made as you're making for excusing the change, and it remains a bad decision by WotC to make the entirely unnecessary change (since under this "if" the DM could change it anyway).

Ok just to try and end this silly Drow argument.

Drow in the PHB have Sunlight Sensitivity and still do, this has not gone away, and so these Drow can still be played.

Come 2024 and the Revised PHB Drow will probably not have Sunlight Sensitivity. If this bothers you, use the old version of the Drow in the first PHB which is still compatible.

Lolthite Drow the primary enemy Drow fought dwell underground and don't like the sun, so will keep their Sunlight Sensitivity.

Hardly ends the discussion. The problem is that the change seems motivated by bad criteria and leads to bad design by the criteria I value.

I could also keep playing 3.5 instead of 5e. And, in fact, I do still play 3.5 in addition to 5e. I chose not to play 4e because it made such egregious changes that the game no longer felt like D&D and was, in fact, not a fun RPG anymore. I believe pointing out reasons why these proposed changes to 5e represent incremental but increasingly large steps towards making the "new" 5e no longer a fun RPG are reasonable. And having it dismissed by, "Well, your DM can change it, or you can keep using old 5e material," is just as silly as saying "4e will have zero problems because you can keep playin 3.5."

If they decided that all races and classes had exactly the same stats, with no variation except you're calling one character with exactly this spell list and this many attacks a "halfling barbarian" and this other with exactly the same spell list and exactly the same attacks a "dragonborn bard," would you say that criticism of this design choice was bad/invalid because nothing is stopping you from playing the older rules for 5e, where "halfling" and "barbarian" actually meant you had different stats from a "dragonborn" who is a "bard?"

No, I'm not saying these changes currently in discussion lead inevitably to that reductio ad absurdum, but your "well, I'll lay this to rest: just don't use the new material!" argument fails because it applies equally no matter WHAT the changes proposed are.

I am saying these changes are bad. "Well, your DM can just make his own changes, or you can use the older rules," is not an argument in their favor. In fact, it's almost a tacit admission that the changes ARE bad, and that there is no argument in their favor to be made.

[Psyren]

Because unless you can draw for me a line where the dissimilarities start to matter more than the name of the creature, that is what your argument logically leads to.

1) Why should I draw such a line for your suspension of disbelief? Managing such is (thankfully) not my responsibility.
2) Wings are not remotely similar to sunlight sensitivity - and even if they somehow were, "winged goblins are goblins" is not much of a reach in any event.

the fact remains that the change itself is bad

That's called an opinion, not a fact.

[Pex]

So, then, if the PC race goblins are Medium creatures with wings and a flight speed, while the NPC goblins remain the same as they are in the MM, they are both probably drow, and there's no room for calling out how one is so unlike the other that they're not the same creatures at all, because they're both called "goblins" in the official material? Because unless you can draw for me a line where the dissimilarities start to matter more than the name of the creature, that is what your argument logically leads to. And since you're using it to try to refute my claim that there is a problem when the two races are different based on whether a player or the DM is playing them, you need to actually support it.

Either it's justified or it isn't. And either your belief that the DM can take measures to resolve disconnects or to resolve problems with the races that you or I may perceive is completely separate from whether the measures are justified, or it isn't.

If it is completely separate, then your dismissal of my issue with it based on the fact that a DM can change it is utterly irrelevant, because the fact remains that the change itself is bad, because it creates that disconnect. If they are not completely separate, then the same dismissal of the justification for the change can be made as you're making for excusing the change, and it remains a bad decision by WotC to make the entirely unnecessary change (since under this "if" the DM could change it anyway).

Hardly ends the discussion. The problem is that the change seems motivated by bad criteria and leads to bad design by the criteria I value.

I could also keep playing 3.5 instead of 5e. And, in fact, I do still play 3.5 in addition to 5e. I chose not to play 4e because it made such egregious changes that the game no longer felt like D&D and was, in fact, not a fun RPG anymore. I believe pointing out reasons why these proposed changes to 5e represent incremental but increasingly large steps towards making the "new" 5e no longer a fun RPG are reasonable. And having it dismissed by, "Well, your DM can change it, or you can keep using old 5e material," is just as silly as saying "4e will have zero problems because you can keep playin 3.5."

If they decided that all races and classes had exactly the same stats, with no variation except you're calling one character with exactly this spell list and this many attacks a "halfling barbarian" and this other with exactly the same spell list and exactly the same attacks a "dragonborn bard," would you say that criticism of this design choice was bad/invalid because nothing is stopping you from playing the older rules for 5e, where "halfling" and "barbarian" actually meant you had different stats from a "dragonborn" who is a "bard?"

No, I'm not saying these changes currently in discussion lead inevitably to that reductio ad absurdum, but your "well, I'll lay this to rest: just don't use the new material!" argument fails because it applies equally no matter WHAT the changes proposed are.

I am saying these changes are bad. "Well, your DM can just make his own changes, or you can use the older rules," is not an argument in their favor. In fact, it's almost a tacit admission that the changes ARE bad, and that there is no argument in their favor to be made.

"Well, your DM can just make his own changes, or you can use the older rules,"

This was said a lot during the 3E years. There was even a coined termed "fallacy" name to it. People protested loudly when it was named in 5E because of "rulings not rules" even though the fallacy accusation was apt. Now with these changes WOTC is clearly imposing rules. People aren't liking these changes. Those who support the changes use the fallacy.

[Witty Username]

Gotta be honest, I'm invested in OP's point about the new statblocks being bad, but I'm really not invested in reheating the leftovers of Tasha's Race Changes Discourse. That particular horse has been beaten to death, reanimated, beaten out of undeath, rezzed, and then killed again at least three times now, and nobody is going to shift their stances on it at this point.

Yeah, I am with that, I think at some point the conversation lost track that this is about the monsters not the PCs.

That being said, I lost track of the line on that end.

The last I recall is inconsistencies with abilities being tagged as magical.

[strangebloke]

Yeah, I am with that, I think at some point the conversation lost track that this is about the monsters not the PCs.

That being said, I lost track of the line on that end.

The last I recall is inconsistencies with abilities being tagged as magical.

some of the abilities are called "magical blasts" and some aren't which has implications for some of the antimagic effects. This is a shoddy implementation problem of course rather than a problem with the design philosophy as a whole, though I would argue it is indicative of the general care and thought involved here.

And yeah, as far as the design philosophy goes, I've come around to seeing it as having some utility for some people, but at the same time I find the idea that a future MM will ONLY contain such ultra-simple statblocks. In cases where you have a caster that has any other role than "die after 2-3 rounds" these simplified creature feel really lackluster.

[Envyus]

Gotta be honest, I'm invested in OP's point about the new statblocks being bad, but I'm really not invested in reheating the leftovers of Tasha's Race Changes Discourse. That particular horse has been beaten to death, reanimated, beaten out of undeath, rezzed, and then killed again at least three times now, and nobody is going to shift their stances on it at this point.

Well I personally really like the new statblocks. So we can have some discussion there.

The last I recall is inconsistencies with abilities being tagged as magical.

There are not really any inconsistencies.

[Envyus]

And yeah, as far as the design philosophy goes, I've come around to seeing it as having some utility for some people, but at the same time I find the idea that a future MM will ONLY contain such ultra-simple statblocks. In cases where you have a caster that has any other role than "die after 2-3 rounds" these simplified creature feel really lackluster.

I don't really think they seem lackluster. They generally have a fair number of support spells.

WotC put out exactly how spells will be in the new statblocks.

• The Spellcasting action doesn’t use spell slots. A creature can cast the action’s spells a certain number of times per day.
• The only spells that appear in the Spellcasting action are ones that take an action to cast. If a spell requires a bonus action, a reaction, or a minute or more to cast, that spell must appear elsewhere in the stat block. This change ensures that bonus actions and reactions—such as misty step and shield—aren’t hiding out in a list of spells.
• We’re more selective about which spells appear in a stat block, focusing on spells that have noncombat utility. A magic-using monster’s most potent firepower is now usually represented by special magical actions, rather than relying on spells.

[Veldrenor]

And yeah, as far as the design philosophy goes, I've come around to seeing it as having some utility for some people, but at the same time I find the idea that a future MM will ONLY contain such ultra-simple statblocks. In cases where you have a caster that has any other role than "die after 2-3 rounds" these simplified creature feel really lackluster.

If you want a caster that has a role other than "die after 2-3 rounds," can't you accomplish that by using PC creation rules? Or by making a custom stat block to represent your BBEG? Store-bought does the job just fine for everyday use, but special occasions call for the home-cooked touch. That also solves the complaint with a wizard NPC not being like a wizard PC: make a wizard NPC using the PC rules and now the wizard NPC is exactly like a wizard PC instead of the rough approximations of either past or present NPC stat blocks.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

"Well, your DM can just make his own changes, or you can use the older rules,"

This was said a lot during the 3E years. There was even a coined termed "fallacy" name to it. People protested loudly when it was named in 5E because of "rulings not rules" even though the fallacy accusation was apt. Now with these changes WOTC is clearly imposing rules. People aren't liking these changes. Those who support the changes use the fallacy.

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.

List of things that WotC and before them TSR did that I thought were utterly wrong and ignored at my table:

Drow having Sunlight sensitivity, Ellistrae fixed it in Forgotten Realms, it made no sense anywhere else.
Eladrin being a subrace of Elves instead of Chaotic Good Exemplars countering the evil of demons and being the polar opposite of devils.
Corellon being not an Elf progenitor god but a formless... thing...
Lolth's fall being because she "wrongfully" wanted to have an actual form that was hers.
Asmodeus being a God.
The Faewild and Shadowfell existing as actual places instead of aspects of other places.
Spelljamming in the Astral plane instead of space.
Crystal Dragons getting Wings
Forgotten Realms being removed from the Great Wheel
Ravenloft's Dark Powers being reduced to having actual motives and specific outlooks and being part of another plane instead of its own place.
Changing Bahamut, Tiamat, Chronepsis and all the other Dragon Gods away from being gods. Also seem to have removed Io entirely.
All Athasians are actually Halflings...

I could go for a LONG while here, and I could write up paragraph or more long arguments that are every bit as articulated as the folks unhappy with the removal of Sunlight Sensitivity. Heck, some people would probably agree with my points.

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.

[Witty Username]

I don't think simpler stat blocks demands loss of functionality, at least by necessity. I feel like the sample I have got from the book now, the stat blocks are all over the place. I am pretty neutral on the shift in thinking still. I have been regularly unsatisfied with caster stat blocks, so I tend to re-write them already, I don't see these new stats helping me on that end, but I don't see them as hindering me either. Overall, I feel this is a lot more the implementation is bad, rather than the idea lacking merit

I find the arguments from verisimilitude kinda weird, monster stat blocks already have divergence from PC abilities, and casters have non-spell actions they can use (Hypnotic gaze and Arcane deflection, for example). I don't think the new stat blocks are worse in that line of thinking. There is stuff that I would read as magical that aren't tagged as such, but I think that is more a typo than anything else. I am suspicious of that stuff being the target of the first round of errata. But this is also something I don't value very much in the grand scheme of things.

My gut reaction is I will probably scrounge MOTMV for parts as I do with most monster books, but that may be swiping specific features as much as using the monsters as written.

[strangebloke]

Well I personally really like the new statblocks. So we can have some discussion there.



There are not really any inconsistencies.

Only if you believe that arcane blast is intended to function normally in an anti-magic field.

I don't really think they seem lackluster. They generally have a fair number of support spells.

WotC put out exactly how spells will be in the new statblocks.

Nah, I disagree, they suck.

CR 5 enchanter has 2 spells per day plus cantrips. These spells are universally second level. That's obviously not enough to justify an enchanter doing normal enchanter things outside of combat; everything there has to be managed by the DM. Of course a DM can come up with abilities to grant this NPC outside of combat, but the statblock is no help, where an older one might have been. The new enchanter also has zero stamina if encountered more than once in a dungeon.

And if you should use an enchanter more than once, the encounter will play out in almost the same fashion because of how limited their abilities are.

The new enchanter is like a 2d audience member in a video game, that looks like a real wizard (enchanter wizard, as its called) until the PCs actually get to interact with it. Avoiding that effect becomes the DMs job: they have to give the enchanter personality, new spells, more slots, rituals, etc. so that the enchanter looks like a real wizard, and not a massively weakened version of one.

The point of this all was to make things easier for the DM, but imo the opposites been achieved in scenarios where the PCs actually interact outside a 2-3 round combat encounter.

If you want a caster that has a role other than "die after 2-3 rounds," can't you accomplish that by using PC creation rules? Or by making a custom stat block to represent your BBEG? Store-bought does the job just fine for everyday use, but special occasions call for the home-cooked touch. That also solves the complaint with a wizard NPC not being like a wizard PC: make a wizard NPC using the PC rules and now the wizard NPC is exactly like a wizard PC instead of the rough approximations of either past or present NPC stat blocks.

Of course I can. I also just could whip out mouse guard mid session and play that instead. "The DMG says you can homebrew something" just doesn't mean anything. That's been true in every TTRPG forever. I could've made something like the new enchanter myself too, indeed, doing so is a lot easier than creating a full PC from level 1.

At least theoretically though, I'm buying these books because they enable a sort of game I enjoy. This sort of simplified NPC has utility for some people, but its not the only thing I want to run.

[Envyus]

Corellon being not an Elf progenitor god but a formless... thing...
Lolth's fall being because she "wrongfully" wanted to have an actual form that was hers.
The Faewild and Shadowfell existing as actual places instead of aspects of other places.
Spelljamming in the Astral plane instead of space.
Ravenloft's Dark Powers being reduced to having actual motives and specific outlooks and being part of another plane instead of its own place.
Changing Bahamut, Tiamat, Chronepsis and all the other Dragon Gods away from being gods. Also seem to have removed Io entirely.

Corellon is both. He's formless, and the Elf Progenitor god.
Lolth's fall in Mords was not because she wanted to have an actual form, it's because she decided to try and kill Corellon to obtain power for herself.
The Feywild and Shadowfell are reflections of the Material Plane.
Spelljamming is done in both the Astral Plane and Wildspace. Spelljamming could also always be done in the Astral Plane, the Githyanki Astral Ships being fairly iconic spelljammers.
FR is part of the Great Wheel.
The Dark Powers are still vague, no details have really been given about them other then theories.
Bahamut and Tiamat are still gods.

The other topics I did not reply to are not because I agree or disagree with them, but because they are subjective.

[Pex]

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.}

If someone doesn't like what 5E does, you can disagree with that dislike and say 5E did right for doing that. You cannot say someone is wrong for disliking it because he can change it. The thing is still disliked and is still a 5E error for that person. Changing it for their game doesn't solve the problem existing, preferring 5E did not do that and why 5E was wrong to do it that way.

[Envyus]

Only if you believe that arcane blast is intended to function normally in an anti-magic field.

CR 5 enchanter has 2 spells per day plus cantrips.

Not getting into the rest right now cause I am going to bed (I will collect my thoughts on the rest tomorrow one I am rested), so just elaborating on these two points.

It's Force Blast not Arcane Blast assuming you are talking about the Abjurer.

Secondly I think you have utterly misunderstood how these casters work. The Enchanter does not have 2 Spells per day, it has 12 spells per day. This is the Enchanter's List
2/day each: charm person, mage armor, hold person, invisibility, suggestion, tongues
It can use each of these spells Twice a Day.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

(Removed decently thought out explanations to my D&D gripes, not out of dismissal but to keep the post shorter)

The other topics I did not reply to are not because I agree or disagree with them, but because they are subjective.

That's the thing, I don't need those explained, I'm not bothered if other people like them or can make them make sense and even if I personally don't use them I still reference them when discussing 5e Lore.

My point wasn't to make a bunch of complaints to argue but to point out that I have a laundry list of things that bug me the way Sunlight Sensitivity being removed bothers others. But I don't insist that "Factually" WotC is wrong or needs to change.

If someone doesn't like what 5E does, you can disagree with that dislike and say 5E did right for doing that. You cannot say someone is wrong for disliking it because he can change it. The thing is still disliked and is still a 5E error for that person. Changing it for their game doesn't solve the problem existing, preferring 5E did not do that and why 5E was wrong to do it that way.

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."

[Witty Username]

If someone doesn't like what 5E does, you can disagree with that dislike and say 5E did right for doing that. You cannot say someone is wrong for disliking it because he can change it. The thing is still disliked and is still a 5E error for that person. Changing it for their game doesn't solve the problem existing, preferring 5E did not do that and why 5E was wrong to do it that way.

I think there are a few different things being talked about on the dislike and change, that are worth trying to keep straight.

Dislike of thing is wrong because it is fixable, what you're talking about. The DM can fix it is not an argument in support of the thing, this is one of the things that gets into whether 5e is flexible or vague, which depends on the chunk of game being discussed.

-
Dislike of thing because it changes from what was established, this amounts to change is bad. The 'default' setting being contradicted is this one. It is far to dislike new thing in comparison to the old, but this is more new is bad because it is new instead of old. Also, I would point out this one is an argument against 5e as a whole, as it represented sweeping changes to established lore and game expectations.
-

And then there is the dislike thing because of effect on the game. Gameplay/verisimilitude stuff goes here. The ultimate question really.

[Tanarii]

"Well, your DM can just make his own changes, or you can use the older rules,"

This was said a lot during the 3E years. There was even a coined termed "fallacy" name to it. People protested loudly when it was named in 5E because of "rulings not rules" even though the fallacy accusation was apt. Now with these changes WOTC is clearly imposing rules. People aren't liking these changes. Those who support the changes use the fallacy.

What "fallacy" is that? Are you referring to the Oberoni Fallacy?

The Oberoni Fallacy is that it's an invalid response to say: "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

WotC put out exactly how spells will be in the new statblocks.

IMO if the Action is a "Spellcasting Action", then it seems pretty clear they're casting a spell when they use it.

[JackPhoenix]

Went back and read, you are correct, my mistake. Well. That makes now a single official D&D world with Light Sensitive Drow. I'd be curious if they're actually meant to be light sensitive or if Matt was just being compatible with official lore there, but that's not important.

Happy to admit my error there, though that still stands that Forgotten Realms and Eberron don't have Light Sensitive Drow in lore. If we want to talk about which settings are big (It's an argument that's valid, i said Big as in official, but you're right to point out Exandria, Ravinica, Theros, etc are not Big the way Forgotten Realms, Eberron or Ravenloft are).

My point was that Lore in almost every setting specifically doesn't have Sunlight sensitivity. It was added from a mechanic viewpoint in the core book. I'm not arguing it "Existed" in 5e. I'm arguing that prior to 5e it did not exist in Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc, etc and that there was nothing in the lore that explained them gaining it in 5e, So, simple enough, they are not taking away anything or altering the "Default" setting by changing it.

Your "point" is not true, and your argument simply shows a lack of knowledge. Eberron drow have light sensitivity, and had it since the Eberron was published. Forgotten Realms drow have light sensitivity, and had it from the beginning in some form (whether that form was losing abilities, being blinded by bright light or a disadvantage on attacks), even though some specific individuals found ways to deal with it. In fact, if you want to repeat your false arguments about Eberron's drow, here's a question on the matter and an answer from Keith Baker, Eberron's creator:

Q: a recurring defining element of Drow through the editions is their discomfort with a sunlit environment. It makes perfect sense to apply that to the subterranean Umbragen, but perhaps less, I feel, to their (arguably more numerous) counterparts above the surface – the jungle canopy can’t be *that* dense everywhere, to say nothing of the desert parts… What is your view on that?

A: You’re assuming that their darkvision and light sensitivity is a product of environment and evolution. I’d counter that it could simply be an inherent part of what it means to be drow. It’s said that the Sulat League created the drow by “binding the essence of night” to elves. They were CREATED to kill in the darkness. So to me, it’s not that the jungles are all so dark that they CAUSE light sensitivity, it’s that the drow SEEK OUT places with heavy canopy because it’s most comforting to their sensitive eyes. In sunlit environs, they would either follow a nocturnal lifestyle or wear shaders, which are lenses introduced in 3.5 as a tool for races with light sensitivity. Or they’d just put up with the sensitivity when they have to.

Which, funnily enough, is exactly the same thing I was talking about earlier: mechanics influencing worldbuilding. Something the more bland, generic races don't inspire.

Personal opinion =/= Fact. I personally found what made Drow unique was the innate magical abilities, the cosmetics and things like the gender dimorphism. The fact that bright light hurt them was something I found obnoxious and immediately ret-conned out of my table. I'm genuinely curious how a specific weakness makes them unique but access to certain magics, weapons, their entire culture, their biological differences from other elves, none of that makes them unique.

The "cosmetics" that are being changed? The sexual dimorphism that's not mentioned anywhere? The culture that has been removed from the racial description? The biological differences (like, say, sunlight sensitivity) that are being removed? The weapon proficiencies that don't matter since Trasha, and that likely won't exist in a rewrite? But wow, they can cast few spells with minimal impact. Yes, being able to create a blob of darkness for for 10 minutes a day surely make them special.
Removing features and lore does make them less unique than before. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

If you want a caster that has a role other than "die after 2-3 rounds," can't you accomplish that by using PC creation rules? Or by making a custom stat block to represent your BBEG? Store-bought does the job just fine for everyday use, but special occasions call for the home-cooked touch. That also solves the complaint with a wizard NPC not being like a wizard PC: make a wizard NPC using the PC rules and now the wizard NPC is exactly like a wizard PC instead of the rough approximations of either past or present NPC stat blocks.

I can. But then, I can also use the old statblocks effectively. A new or inexperienced GM, at whom the changes are aimed, probably can't. Which is a problem for multiple reasons, one of which is putting even more emphasis on the already most heavily supported pillar of gameplay (combat), at the cost of other pillars. It's 4e all over again.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Your "point" is not true, and your argument simply shows a lack of knowledge. Eberron drow have light sensitivity, and had it since the Eberron was published. Forgotten Realms drow have light sensitivity, and had it from the beginning in some form (whether that form was losing abilities, being blinded by bright light or a disadvantage on attacks), even though some specific individuals found ways to deal with it. In fact, if you want to repeat your false arguments about Eberron's drow, here's a question on the matter and an answer from Keith Baker, Eberron's creator:

Q: a recurring defining element of Drow through the editions is their discomfort with a sunlit environment. It makes perfect sense to apply that to the subterranean Umbragen, but perhaps less, I feel, to their (arguably more numerous) counterparts above the surface – the jungle canopy can’t be *that* dense everywhere, to say nothing of the desert parts… What is your view on that?

A: You’re assuming that their darkvision and light sensitivity is a product of environment and evolution. I’d counter that it could simply be an inherent part of what it means to be drow. It’s said that the Sulat League created the drow by “binding the essence of night” to elves. They were CREATED to kill in the darkness. So to me, it’s not that the jungles are all so dark that they CAUSE light sensitivity, it’s that the drow SEEK OUT places with heavy canopy because it’s most comforting to their sensitive eyes. In sunlit environs, they would either follow a nocturnal lifestyle or wear shaders, which are lenses introduced in 3.5 as a tool for races with light sensitivity. Or they’d just put up with the sensitivity when they have to.[/COLOR]

I stand corrected on Eberron. For Forgotten Realms, they did have it, and Ellistrae got rid of it, which I quoted up above.

The "cosmetics" that are being changed? The sexual dimorphism that's not mentioned anywhere? The culture that has been removed from the racial description? The biological differences (like, say, sunlight sensitivity) that are being removed? The weapon proficiencies that don't matter since Trasha, and that likely won't exist in a rewrite? But wow, they can cast few spells with minimal impact. Yes, being able to create a blob of darkness for for 10 minutes a day surely make them special.
Removing features and lore does make them less unique than before. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

The cosmetics are being changed? Last I checked Drow still have varying shades of gray and purple skin, white to silverish hair on norm. As for sexual dimorphism. Males are both shorter and thinner than the females which is in the height and weight generating tables. The Culture has not been removed, someone linked the new description. The Cult of Lolth is one culture, the Scorpion worshiping tribes are described in Eberron. The Luxon are in Exandria. All unique cultures that are Drow. None changed because Drow no longer get a penalty that hinders casual play of the race.

Removing Sunlight Sensitivity does not change any of the above, which is what makes Drow unique and interesting. For someone insisting they want meaningful uniqueness to a race, you seem to be pinning their entire thing on one hindrance.

[LudicSavant]

I don't really think they seem lackluster. They generally have a fair number of support spells.

WotC put out exactly how spells will be in the new statblocks.

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.

[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.

[LudicSavant]

Kind of a different subject from what I was talking about in my last post, but...

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.

Mathematically, the new one's performance is actually significantly more swingy in terms of how much RNG impacts its performance (again, demonstrated in prior comparisons).

What you describe as "swinginess" here isn't a difference in RNG randomness, it's quite literally the DM's decisions influencing the outcome. It's skill, the opposite of random luck.

[Psyren]

What you describe as "swinginess" here isn't a difference in RNG randomness, it's quite literally the DM's decisions influencing the outcome. It's skill, the opposite of random luck.

I'm aware of that and that's quite literally the point of simplifying the blocks per JC. They wanted to reduce the possibility space of suboptimal decisions in the simplified statblocks, judging (correctly in my mind) that the DMs experienced enough to avoid such pitfalls would also be experienced enough to use the PC creation rules for more textured spellcasters if they wished. I didn't say anything about "RNG randomness."

[Unoriginal]

I'm aware of that and that's quite literally the point of simplifying the blocks per JC. They wanted to reduce the possibility space of suboptimal decisions in the simplified statblocks, judging (correctly in my mind) that the DMs experienced enough to avoid such pitfalls would also be experienced enough to use the PC creation rules for more textured spellcasters if they wished. I didn't say anything about "RNG randomness."

There is no indicator Crawford or anyone on the design team judged anything about DM "us[ing] the PC creation rules for more textured spellcasters if they wished".

The stated goal was to reduce the possibility space of suboptimal decisions. No mention of anything else.

[Psyren]

There is no indicator Crawford or anyone on the design team judged anything about DM "us[ing] the PC creation rules for more textured spellcasters if they wished".

The stated goal was to reduce the possibility space of suboptimal decisions. No mention of anything else.

Sure, but the logical alternative to the complaint "I think the new caster statblocks are too simple now" is to make more complex ones. Because the only other alternatives are to stick to the ones in older books (which they have stopped selling and designing more of) or to do nothing. That's it.

[Unoriginal]

Sure, but the logical alternative to the complaint "I think the new caster statblocks are too simple now" is to make more complex ones.

Indeed. Except WotC will not take that logical alternative.

[Psyren]

Indeed. Except WotC will not take that logical alternative.

I meant it's logical for the dissatisfied players in question. I don't actually think it's logical for the company, for reasons we've gone through in multiple threads (but I'm happy to repeat here.)

[Envyus]

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.

The old Enchanter was not even casting Enchantment spells for the most part, the primary damage was from Fireball. The New Enchanter can do some heavy Psychic damage, and also hold, charm or suggest, which are the Enchantment powers.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The old Enchanter was not even casting Enchantment spells for the most party, the primary damage was from Fireball. The New Enchanter can do some heavy Psychic damage, and also hold, charm or suggest, which are the Enchantment powers.

Right. The old enchanter wasn't actually any more of an enchanter in practice. But that's a fundamental issue with the entire wizard class it's based on, where subclass really doesn't change your optimal day to day behavior (except bladesinger)