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

[Telok]

If you're saying that NPCs with abilities that would reasonably be considered spells should have to go through the motions of spellcasting (e.g: needing components, being vulnerable to counterspell, etc.), I'd agree. It's a glitch in the books if that isn't the case, but an easily fixable one.

If you're saying that an NPC who will only live for a few rounds should make the DM have to track spell slots, that sounds like completely unnecessary overhead. And I'm not overly bothered if the simplified NPC gets to bend the occasional rule if it saves hassle in the long run. (E.G: If the NPC gets to launch a 4d6 damage laser and a 1d4+4 heal, I'm not going to get too worked up that they get to launch a lesser Guiding Bolt on top of a Healing Word without having to bother with the bonus action casting limitation.)

Yeah, thats sbout where I come from too, with the experience that there needs to be some minimum level of rough equality between "npc human mage" and "pc human mage". Not that they have to be exactly the same in any special way, just that if you're presenting "npc human mage" to the players then the standard anti-magic user stuff works and the players aren't left wondering why all the 5 hd npc mages seem to have more fireballs than the 9th level pc evoker wizard has total slots or the npc priest can cast unlimited numbers of leveled spells in silence & antimagic zones.

Its been done badly elsewhere, doesn't look well done here, it makes players unhappy when their characters can't be better than the npcs, novice DMs get blindsided by it and get mad when pcs make allies. They really could have said "casts like a cleric/sorcerer/warlock" and given three effects at 2/day, 3/day, & at will. Something like that's just dandy for combat and a "casts like a wizard" lets the DM know they have the rest of the spell list for non-combat if needed & might want to have a spellbook laying around.

[CapnWildefyr]

This may just be Custom Setting problems, but I get basically zero benefit from the Volos sections, and any kind of "cohort" stuff is going to be absolutely useless for my particular case. Even the origin lore (as opposed to behavioral stuff) is pretty useless. But that's because I mainly use stat blocks with everything identifying scrubbed off. And often heavily modified as to cosmetics. That "shortsword"? Yeah, that's an arm-claw now. Look and feel stuff.
?

For me, the cohort stuff I'd like to see can be generalized -- if you want a threat of a certain magnitude, here is a general guide for how to get there. I guess they try to use CR for that, but CR is a fail for me. I have to interpolate CR to my table's reality anyway. I guess it also depends on if you want combat over in 3 rounds, or not.

If you're saying that NPCs with abilities that would reasonably be considered spells should have to go through the motions of spellcasting (e.g: needing components, being vulnerable to counterspell, etc.), I'd agree. It's a glitch in the books if that isn't the case, but an easily fixable one.

If you're saying that an NPC who will only live for a few rounds should make the DM have to track spell slots, that sounds like completely unnecessary overhead. And I'm not overly bothered if the simplified NPC gets to bend the occasional rule if it saves hassle in the long run. (E.G: If the NPC gets to launch a 4d6 damage laser and a 1d4+4 heal, I'm not going to get too worked up that they get to launch a lesser Guiding Bolt on top of a Healing Word without having to bother with the bonus action casting limitation.)

I can't remember the last time I saw an NPC be down resources based on offscreen encounters they've had earlier. It would make sense that enemies might well be worn down from other fights or have spent spell slots for other utility purposes, but in practice everyone seems to come in fresh as a daisy. If you want a combat-as-war where the enemies' resources might often wind up being already spend and/or invested in ways that are not applicable to a fatal fight, D&D doesn't have many things that count aside from spell slots. That being the case, you might just have to give every serious enemy caster levels. The good news is that you don't need to only use monsters with caster levels baked into their stat blocks to begin with.

When I DM, I do consider that stuff. So does our group's other DM. However, TBH it usually does not come into play unless the NPCs have tangled with the PCs, because who else is confronting them? Except maybe for being down a slot for a divination spell... But sometimes, yes, they are weakened, although the party will never know that.

As for tracking spell slots, it's easier to track spells. Just cross them off the list. Do the thought ahead of time. The trickier part is devising strategies (plural) ahead of time, keeping them simple, and remembering them. Like, have a lesser minion caster do the concentration spells. And decide ahead of time if this caster goes defensive offensive or escape first. What takes the time is the decision about "should Xanbar the Evil strike back in anger, knowing that puts him at risk, or should he waste a round of attacking trying to defend what meager life force he has left in his desiccated husk of a body?" Decide strategy then pick the next spell of that type on the list. It helps, anyway, IME.

But, to be clear, this is a table-by-table, DM-by-DM solution, we can only try things and see what works for us.

[JackPhoenix]

By the way, the new NPCs are nice targets for Simulacrum now. They have great at-will abilities, and even though the number of uses is more limited now, with the changes in their spellcasting they don't have spell slots, so the "can't regain spell slots" clause of Simulacrum is not an issue.

Same with Magic Jar. Ironically, despite the (completely pointless) "cleric" in the creature type, it's now harder to argue War Priest's spellcasting trait is a class ability you wouldn't get when you possess them, as it does not refer to a class anymore, and the stat block does not bear any resemblance to actual clerics.

[Psyren]

You just described a silent majority argument, again do you have anything to back that up? This forum having diverse opinions is not an argument for what other people's opinions are one way or the other.

...You're asking me to prove that the population of the GitP 5e subforum is a tiny fraction of the 50 million+ people playing D&D 5e?

By the way, the new NPCs are nice targets for Simulacrum now. They have great at-will abilities, and even though the number of uses is more limited now, with the changes in their spellcasting they don't have spell slots, so the "can't regain spell slots" clause of Simulacrum is not an issue.

A party that reaches Simulacrum levels is unlikely to have need of NPC allies, regardless of whether they use the old or new statblocks, so I expect this to be a moot point.

Same with Magic Jar. Ironically, despite the (completely pointless) "cleric" in the creature type, it's now harder to argue War Priest's spellcasting trait is a class ability you wouldn't get when you possess them, as it does not refer to a class anymore, and the stat block does not bear any resemblance to actual clerics.

Another reading is that every one of those NPCs gets their power from class abilities. They just don't happen to be class abilities accessible by PCs.

[GooeyChewie]

The new method makes running spellcaster enemies quicker and easier. The vast majority of encounters involve enemies who only matter for a few rounds of combat, and the new method seems like it works well for such enemies. (I say seems because I haven’t actually run an encounter with them. This opinion is subject to change with future experience.) So I like this new method… for the vast majority of enemies.

At the same time, some enemies are recurring enemies, or big bad evil guys. These enemies show up multiple times, and need to be fleshed out beyond just a couple rounds of combat. For these enemies, the old method made more sense.

My gut reaction to reading the original post was to disagree, because the new method works in the majority of cases. But reading the OP more closely I realize we actually agree. It’d be better if WotC also releases a compendium of monsters/NPCs using the old method, with the intent for those enemies to serve as bigger, more important foes throughout a campaign. They could call it “Boo’s Book of Big Bad Evil Guys” or something similar.

[Unoriginal]

It’d be better if WotC also releases a compendium of monsters/NPCs using the old method, with the intent for those enemies to serve as bigger, more important foes throughout a campaign. They could call it “Boo’s Book of Big Bad Evil Guys” or something similar.

They did that already, funnily enough. Minsc's & Boo's Journal of Villainy.

[GooeyChewie]

They did that already, funnily enough. Minsc's & Boo's Journal of Villainy.

I forgot all about that. Or more likely, my subconscious remembered and that’s why I thought it would be a good idea now.

[KorvinStarmast]

For my part, I run games heavily in the combat-as-war style, and I love spellcasting opponents.

My take is quite similar to yours, nice post all around.

The new stat block style for spellcasting NPCs fails to meet my needs as a combat-as-war DM on all three counts: they have no out-of-combat abilities to use in preliminary interactions, their spellcasting abilities don't follow the PC progression and thus are much harder to telegraph, and since they focus on at-will abilities their power level is less susceptible to being reduced by clever strategy.

Thanks for summing it up so concisely.

If the flavor is not telling the DMs how these monsters act, then it isn't really all that useful as flavor, now is it?

Yes, it is, how the MM is set up now works fine. They are fixing what isn't broken.

Modules should be 2-3 lines for statblocks, and MM should have multiple monsters per page.

I really miss BECMI sometimes.

At some point, these WotCers need to get off of our lawns.

By the way, the new NPCs are nice targets for Simulacrum now. They have great at-will abilities, and even though the number of uses is more limited now, with the changes in their spellcasting they don't have spell slots, so the "can't regain spell slots" clause of Simulacrum is not an issue.

Yep. (And ssssshhhh, don't tell Phoenix, he's my DM. Oops, too late ).

Same with Magic Jar. Ironically, despite the (completely pointless) "cleric" in the creature type, it's now harder to argue War Priest's spellcasting trait is a class ability you wouldn't get when you possess them, as it does not refer to a class anymore, and the stat block does not bear any resemblance to actual clerics.

*Snicker*

[LudicSavant]

By the way, the new NPCs are nice targets for Simulacrum now. They have great at-will abilities, and even though the number of uses is more limited now, with the changes in their spellcasting they don't have spell slots, so the "can't regain spell slots" clause of Simulacrum is not an issue.

Same with Magic Jar. Ironically, despite the (completely pointless) "cleric" in the creature type, it's now harder to argue War Priest's spellcasting trait is a class ability you wouldn't get when you possess them, as it does not refer to a class anymore, and the stat block does not bear any resemblance to actual clerics.

Yep, it’s one of at least a hundred cases of the new creatures interacting poorly with existing rules.

“Did Ludic say at least a hundred?”

I didn’t stutter. An awful lot of stuff interacts with the various bits and bobs of the Spellcasting system.

[Unoriginal]

Yep, it’s one of at least a hundred cases of the new creatures interacting poorly with existing rules.

“Did Ludic say at least a hundred?”

I didn’t stutter.

Would you mind expanding on that point? Having only done a casual reading of the new statblocks, and not all of them at that, I can't say I noticed something like that, but it sounds like you did the in-depht reading and the noticing.

[Aalbatr0ss]

In my games, is the DM wants a crunchy spellcaster antagonist they usually end up making a PC. I expect this will be a more appealing option to experienced DM’s. Having the simplified stat blocks works well for random encounters or sandbox-y type maps

[Unoriginal]

In my games, is the DM wants a crunchy spellcaster antagonist they usually end up making a PC. I expect this will be a more appealing option to experienced DM’s. Having the simplified stat blocks works well for random encounters or sandbox-y type maps

PC-build NPCs are even more glass cannons than the old caster statblocks, and even more filled with features that are unwieldy for NPCs, though.

I would consider myself an experienced DM, and building PCs to serve as NPCs is not appealing to me at all.

[Segev]

...You're asking me to prove that the population of the GitP 5e subforum is a tiny fraction of the 50 million+ people playing D&D 5e?

I actually believe he's asking you to prove that your implication that the majority of those 50 million or more people playing D&D disagree with the majority of the gitp forum.

See, the thing is, your argument, as I can best judge it is being perceived, is that, because the gitp forum is not the majority of the D&D fanbase, the majority of the D&D fanbase must agree with Psyren, rather than others on the gitp forum. You seem to be trying to implicitly make the argument that the silent majority is with you, without QUITE coming out and saying it, by pointing out the fact that the gitp forum is not the majority of the D&D fanbase. This fact is necessary to prove that the majority of tye D&D fanbase agrees with your position rather than the position against which you're arguing, but it is not sufficient to do so.

I think we can all agree that nobody here on this forum knows what the majority of players feel on the matter, and that probably not even WotC knows it (as much as they wish they could get that kind of in-depth analysis of their customer base).

What I believe people are arguing with you, Psyren, about is the sense that you are not merely arguing that "you guys don't know what the fanbase wants," but you're arguing as if this means the fanbase DOES want what you assert they do. If that is not your argument, you should state so very clearly, because it will likely put a stop to the back-and-forth that I am sure must be frustrating you by now.

[Eldariel]

PC-build NPCs are even more glass cannons than the old caster statblocks, and even more filled with features that are unwieldy for NPCs, though.

I would consider myself an experienced DM, and building PCs to serve as NPCs is not appealing to me at all.

I OTOH build all my NPCs that way and wouldn't have it any other way. That way I can essentially just play whatever PCs I want without having to find a DM and a game and the right level for them. With a lot of experience managing spell lists and class features, they're actually fairly easy to pilot to a sufficient degree that you have ready algorithms to use for them. And they're only glass cannons if you don't put resources into buffing their resources: particularly casters can be amazingly tanky if defensively built and doubly so if fighting defensively (in a location they've had time to prepare).

[Psyren]

I actually believe he's asking you to prove that your implication that the majority of those 50 million or more people playing D&D disagree with the majority of the gitp forum.

I didn't claim that, so I have no interest in proving it. My actual claim was that WotC shouldn't tailor their design to this forum. If they do so for the 50 million and it just so happens to line up with what most people here want*, that's fine and dandy, but targeting the forum for its own sake is bad business.

*And to reiterate yet again, the folks decrying simplified statblocks haven't even proven they're a majority of this tiny forum, much less that they represent the larger base of the game. Maybe clear that bar first before making demands.

See, the thing is, your argument, as I can best judge it is being perceived, is that, because the gitp forum is not the majority of the D&D fanbase, the majority of the D&D fanbase must agree with Psyren, rather than others on the gitp forum.

Also not what I said. Targeting what Psyren wants because Psyren wants it would be just as bad a move for them as targeting what Psyren's opponents in this thread want because they want it. Rather, what I'm saying is that I agree with WotC's design direction, and that it's perfectly logical to conclude that they are seeing and responding to a critical mass of negative feedback around the current statblocks that we on the outside are not privy to. That I happen to find such feedback reasonable doesn't mean it came from me.

I think we can all agree that nobody here on this forum knows what the majority of players feel on the matter, and that probably not even WotC knows it (as much as they wish they could get that kind of in-depth analysis of their customer base).

Even if I agreed with the second part (to be clear, I don't, but anyway), the data they have is as close as we're going to get. So when JC goes into an interview and says "according to the data we've collected, this is a problem, so we're going to try solving it" - saying "JC is wrong because I want him to be wrong, nyeh" is not a rebuttal, and certainly it's not a reason for WotC to take the desire to go back to the old statblocks, or to blow resources on designing both ways in parallel, seriously.

If that is not your argument, you should state so very clearly, because it will likely put a stop to the back-and-forth that I am sure must be frustrating you by now.

1) Hopefully above is clearer.
2) I'm not sure what basis your certainty has, but I promise you the closest emotion I have to this exchange is amusement.

[Segev]

1) Hopefully above is clearer.

Hopefully!

2) I'm not sure what basis your certainty has, but I promise you the closest emotion I have to this exchange is amusement.

Tone is hard to convey and harder to read on the internet, and your posts "sounded" frustrated to me. Glad you're more amused than annoyed. :)


Sadly, I have less faith in both the honesty of publicly-facing claims and the capability of analyzing feedback accurately that WotC has. They're making this move because the designers think it's a good idea, and of course they'll tell us that it's in response to feedback. Whatever they do will be said to be in response to feedback. It may be true! But sadly, corporate PR-speak is such that it's impossible to tell. We can only hope they're right about it making a better product. (In this case, I happen to disagree, as I have with a NUMBER of decisions made in the last 3-4 years, probably starting with TCE's racial modifiers being destroyed. No, not trying to start that argument up again; yes, many think that's a great move. I'm only saying where I think I first saw a trend of decisions I, personally, think were bad for 5e started being made.)

Part of the reason I have limited faith in their ability to analyze their audience's feedback in the face of getting excited about some change they choose to make is that they made 4e allegedly with heavy focus on feedback from the audience. Pathfinder 1e's success story is all the proof I need of how big a failure that was at responding to feedback that represented the majority of their audience.

[Psyren]

RE "PR-speak": I mean, frankly, if you truly believe that the designers are willing to openly lie about feedback in order to just do what they feel like doing then I don't think there's really anything any of us can do with that level of cynicism. Certainly if they're willing to do that publicly then no amount of feedback threads will make any kind of difference either.

RE 4e: See, I view 4e as the opposite problem - they weighted optimization forums far too heavily for that one, resulting in a belief that martial-caster imbalance was 3.5's greatest evil, and sanded off nearly every source of class disparity the game had - amputating most of the game's texture with it. I view that as the ultimate cautionary tale for prioritizing what message boards say they want over the needs of actual players.

[strangebloke]

RE "PR-speak": I mean, frankly, if you truly believe that the designers are willing to openly lie about feedback in order to just do what they feel like doing then I don't think there's really anything any of us can do with that level of cynicism. Certainly if they're willing to do that publicly then no amount of feedback threads will make any kind of difference either.

RE 4e: See, I view 4e as the opposite problem - they weighted optimization forums far too heavily for that one, resulting in a belief that martial-caster imbalance was 3.5's greatest evil, and sanded off nearly every source of class disparity the game had - amputating most of the game's texture with it. I view that as the ultimate cautionary tale for prioritizing what message boards say they want over the needs of actual players.

Really weird argument, considering that the critique here is that the new options are sandblasting uniqueness and disparity between monsters and characters, AKA the exact same thing the you're criticizing 4e for.

As for feedback - honestly players don't know what they want. Following test group data gives you dime-a-dozen Ubisoft sandboxes, which are inoffensive but unexciting and unmemorable. Committing to a specific idea gives you Dark Souls, or Cuphead, or even Kirby and the Forgotten Kingdom. In many cases players will react to something negatively in the moment, but look back on the memory fondly. In this case, yes, I run caster bosses as annoying cowards who run away constantly, but this makes it really satisfying for my players when they finally pin the baddie down.

[Segev]

I run caster bosses as annoying cowards who run away constantly, but this makes it really satisfying for my players when they finally pin the baddie down.

I often PLAY caster PCs as annoying cowards who run away constantly! Not very far if my allies are still up and fighting, mind, but definitely escaping to come back from a different angle (literally or metaphorically) rather than staying where they can get hit.

[Psyren]

Really weird argument, considering that the critique here is that the new options are sandblasting uniqueness and disparity between monsters and characters, AKA the exact same thing the you're criticizing 4e for.

Really? Because what I'm seeing most commonly are complaints that the new monsters and NPCs don't follow PC rules, which is the biggest source of the disparity you mention. So I turn the "weirdness" observation right back to your take.

As for feedback - honestly players don't know what they want. Following test group data gives you dime-a-dozen Ubisoft sandboxes, which are inoffensive but unexciting and unmemorable. Committing to a specific idea gives you Dark Souls, or Cuphead, or even Kirby and the Forgotten Kingdom. In many cases players will react to something negatively in the moment, but look back on the memory fondly. In this case, yes, I run caster bosses as annoying cowards who run away constantly, but this makes it really satisfying for my players when they finally pin the baddie down.

This is a bad analogy because we're talking about designing individual monsters and combat encounters, not whole games. Mass produceability and simplicity of play aren't virtues when you're talking about something like Dark Souls/Elden Ring, I agree with that, but for a random war cleric that is going to last 3-4 rounds, it absolutely is. DMs, especially less experienced ones, have way too much on their plate for every fight to become Cuphead. If you want an involved creation to serve as a recurring foe or ally to the party, you can still do that, but the standard statblocks are not the way to enable that.

[strangebloke]

Really? Because what I'm seeing most commonly are complaints that the new monsters and NPCs don't follow PC rules, which is the biggest source of the disparity you mention. So I turn the "weirdness" observation right back to your take.

NPCs are made less different from each other, PCs are made less different from each other.

[Psyren]

NPCs are made less different from each other, PCs are made less different from each other.

I fail to see how going from "every NPC caster uses spell slots" to "every NPC caster uses slotless spell uses" reduces their difference from each other. I can certainly see how the latter is easier to run and track however.

[Segev]

I fail to see how going from "every NPC caster uses spell slots" to "every NPC caster uses slotless spell uses" reduces their difference from each other. I can certainly see how the latter is easier to run and track however.

Do they use spells? Part of the issue I have been hearing is that they now have "special abilities" that resemble spells without explicitly BEING spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

RE "PR-speak": I mean, frankly, if you truly believe that the designers are willing to openly lie about feedback

I get the impression that the current team is right out of a Paul Simon lyric.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...

[Psyren]

Do they use spells? Part of the issue I have been hearing is that they now have "special abilities" that resemble spells without explicitly BEING spells.

But there are instances of the new ones doing that (using spells instead of prior "SLAs") now too. Compare the VGtM Drow Shadowblade to the MPMM one for example, where the new one uses the darkness spell during its attack sequence instead of the weird nondescript darkness cube it had originally. So I think this concern is going to come down to the specific statblock(s) you have a grievance with.

I get the impression that the current team is right out of a Paul Simon lyric.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...

Again, if you subscribe to that level of cynicism there isn't really much else to say in response. I personally don't find it useful or productive to assume the designers are acting in bad faith.

[da newt]

Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
I get the impression that the current team is right out of a Paul Simon lyric.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...


Again, if you subscribe to that level of cynicism there isn't really much else to say in response. I personally don't find it useful or productive to assume the designers are acting in bad faith.

- It's not bad faith (at least not consciously), it's simple human nature - it's just vanilla every day average old 'conformation bias.'

[strangebloke]

Let me tell you a story.

A 17th level party is fighting Vecna in a climactic battle that lasts for hours. The boss has loads of HP, minions, ablative defenses, and is all around a full bastard. The party is large,with a lot of high-level PCs, but the fight is a slog anyway, and many of them go down to zero at various points. The monster casts twinned banishment early on, but the paladin is able to break Vecna's concentration with a powerful smite, bringing his friends back to the field. Then, just when Vecna is getting low on HP, something horrible happens. He uses a special ability to cast teleport, and the party is suddenly crestfallen. He's going to get away, they're going to have to fight him again.

The bard sighs, and looks to his friend. "Is it worth it?" He asks, and his friend nods. Then the bard casts counterspell at 9th level, ensuring that Vecna (who had already used his 9th level spell slots) would not be able to counterspell the counterspell. The party then finished off Vecna, ending the campaign weeks earlier than might have happened. But the player of the bard is crying. Why? Well, immediately after the fight, a different god appears to take the soul of one of the party members. It had been a pact forged long before the battle, and this was the end of that PC's character arc. The bard had been saving the 9th level slot to cast Wish and hopefully break his friend's pact with the god, and he was crying because he'd really wanted to save the life of his friend's PC.

What a great moment! How memorable! How completely impossible under the current design paradigm.

But, some of you will say, clearly this is not reflective of how casuals play the game. Most players don't use counterspell. They don't fight against complex, powerful, boss monsters who try to run away mid-fight, instead most spellcasting enemies just die quickly within three rounds. They find all these features really fiddly and troublesome, and are very distressed by complexity. They aren't even aware of things like upcasting counterspell, and certainly not the implicit threat of a counterspell getting counterspelled. This kind of interesting interaction between boss and player is abnormal; most bards probably don't even take counterspell.

yeah, about that.

This game took place in 2017, two years after the release of 5e, and the player of the bard was the newest to TTRPGS of anyone at the table, having played pathfinder for the first time in 2014 at his friend's birthday party. He was a middle-aged guy who played a gnome bard because he was told "that's the most annoying thing imaginable." He was not a serious, optimal player. He was if anything exceedingly casual, and in this specific battle was drunk to the point of slurring his speech. He spent most of his time in the campaign making lewd gestures with bigby's hand. Or as he called, scanlan's hand.

Yes. Scanlan. That Scanlan. Critical Role's Scanlan. You know, the group that people on this forum continually call 'scrubby' and 'bad at the game?' This was the final fight against Vecna, which as of right now has 2.2 million views on youtube. A massive segment of the DND playerbase had their perception of the bard class framed by that exact moment, and a lot of those players are going to be passing those views around throughout the community. As for CR itself, their numbers just keep going up, and they've released an amazon prime exclusive animated show in which - you guessed it - they teased an eventual fight against Vecna. Tons of people who never heard of critical role before watched that show, with every episode getting well over a million views. Maybe CR is 'bad at the game' and maybe their fans are 'casuals' but they can handle DND spellcasting. It's not that hard. You only think it's hard because of... I don't know, why do you think its hard, actually? Because of elitism?

Regular people who are relatively new to the game are aware of these layers of nuance and know how to play with them. They are aspects of fun that should be present in the game. And by the way, I don't really care that Vecna was Matt Mercer's homebrewed monster. Moments like the above should be supported for DND going forward.

[Chaos Jackal]

Reiteration. For the last time on my side, because I can only post variations of the same thing so much until I decide it's not worth repeating.

It's not about majority and minority. It's about there being a significant number of players that can enjoy some additional nuance, whether from the DM or the player side of the screen. And there are. Not here in the forums alone. On Reddit. On other forums. In the damn CR fandom. Among you. People who might enjoy simplicity, but can still handle and enjoy a bit of complexity. They don't require everything fed to them with a silver spoon. They can think for themselves, and they can actually have fun doing it.

The argument isn't for the abolition of the new design paradigm either. It's for the maintenance of the old one, for the sake of the game's health, its complexity, options, depth and yes, even function (as has been pointed out, there's a lot of things that break if spells aren't actually spells anymore). It doesn't have to be the primary design, the forefront. But its existence isn't bad for the game and those who have fun with it aren't some lone individuals in a sea of people exasperated at the prospect of spell slots included in a monster's statblock.

The counterargument to this for the past couple pages has been that the complete removal of a design philosophy is correct because, according to the designers, the majority would enjoy a new one better, based on dubious feedback not accompanied by anything like numbers, percentages and whatnot. Effectively, something should be axed solely because it's not representative of the majority. Not because it's bad. Not because people hate it. Not because its fans are borderline negligible. Just because it seems like the majority would enjoy something different, we completely axe the old version. Just because the spicy dishes aren't for everyone we remove all the spicy dishes from the menu completely. And we're not even sure what that "aren't for everyone" actually means.

Why axing slot-based spellcasting completely in favor of the new approach could have negative implications has been explained. Why people who enjoy it or could enjoy it aren't some rare breed has also been explained. Why the supposed feedback can't be completely trusted has been laid out . If all you have is that the company said it, one number is bigger than the other and nothing else matters, neither the company's judgment ability nor the actual difference between the two numbers... well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's a pretty insubstantial argument.

"Company says so, and their side is bigger" isn't grounds for completely removing something from the game. It's overcorrection, indifference and gullibility.

[Veldrenor]

Let me tell you a story.

I love the climax of campaign 1 of Critical Role. The 9th level counterspell and Sam Riegel’s breakdown and everything around that moment are phenomenal. It’s one of the best moments in Critical Role. But none of this:

But, some of you will say, clearly this is not reflective of how casuals play the game. Most players don't use counterspell. They don't fight against complex, powerful, boss monsters who try to run away mid-fight, instead most spellcasting enemies just die quickly within three rounds. They find all these features really fiddly and troublesome, and are very distressed by complexity. They aren't even aware of things like upcasting counterspell, and certainly not the implicit threat of a counterspell getting counterspelled. This kind of interesting interaction between boss and player is abnormal; most bards probably don't even take counterspell.

the player of the bard was the newest to TTRPGS of anyone at the table, having played pathfinder for the first time in 2014 at his friend's birthday party. He was a middle-aged guy who played a gnome bard because he was told "that's the most annoying thing imaginable." He was not a serious, optimal player. He was if anything exceedingly casual, and in this specific battle was drunk to the point of slurring his speech.

Regular people who are relatively new to the game are aware of these layers of nuance and know how to play with them. They are aspects of fun that should be present in the game.

matters in the least to the conversation at hand. We’re talking about WotC simplifying monsters so that they’re easier for DMs to run. This conversation isn’t about the player experience, it’s about the DM experience. Because players only have to manage one stat block at a time (maybe two if they use summoning magic), while the DM may have to manage half-a-dozen or more. The only way in which your post relates to the paradigm shift at all is that the new paradigm doesn’t currently interact with Dispel Magic/Counterspell the way the old paradigm did. A criticism that most, if not all, of the people in this thread defending the change agree with, and one that WotC can fix in iteration if they find it to be a problem.

And this?

Maybe CR is 'bad at the game' and maybe their fans are 'casuals' but they can handle DND spellcasting. It's not that hard. You only think it's hard because of... I don't know, why do you think its hard, actually? Because of elitism?

You reframed the argument from being about DMs to being about players, and then used that reframing to take a shot at the people who disagree with you. That’s quite uncalled for.

[Segev]

"Company says so, and their side is bigger" isn't grounds for completely removing something from the game. It's overcorrection, indifference and gullibility.

Well, I mean, in purely pragmatic, hard-reality terms, "Company says so" is exactly and the only grounds necessary for making any alteration to what the company will produce for the game going forward. For good or ill. (Ill, I think, in this case.)