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

[LudicSavant]

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.

I did indeed. Though actually writing out a hundred-item list is beyond what I have time for just this second. But just as a simple example:

One of the main abilities of the "Abjurer Wizard" monster is "Force Blast." This ability looks in all respects like a spell cast by a spellcaster, buuuuut... Counterspell will fail. Magic resistance will fail. Spell resistance will fail. Silence will fail. Temporal Shunt (which triggers off a spell cast) will fail. Trying to run them out of slots will fail. An antimagic field will fail. They'll just keep right on using their force damage AoE blast "spell."

It doesn't interact with anything you'd expect it to interact with. And, as it turns out, there are a lot of mechanics designed to interact with the magic system.

Basically the only way for players to learn this is if I tell them that mechanical information outright, or if they try to use those anti-spell resources and they fail/get wasted. And I don't even know what to say in the knowledge check result, because I have no satisfying explanation for why this doesn't respond to an antimagic field.

And it's not even just those abilities that run up against issues. Styles of play other than "the old school JRPG does a swirl wipe every 30 steps and plays battle music for 3 rounds" can make the monsters really show the seams. Scouting, divination, non-combat interaction abilities, charms that make them hang out with the party ("Huh, this priest can give us infinite healing I guess?"), other posters above mentioning Magic Jar or Simulacrum or the like, combat as war playstyles in general, diplomacy, having monsters on your side occasionally, these things all swiftly make it clear that we're dealing with something that... doesn't really seem like an actual character in the world, but instead a poorly programmed videogamey kludge that got taken off of its intended behavioral track. Actually, that's unfair to videogames, because many of those put significantly more effort than this into making their monsters feel like part of the world they live in these days.

And I think that does a disservice. TTRPG monsters should be able to handle situations a little farther off an 'intended behavioral track' than that.

Note that this design goes well beyond "monsters aren't built like PCs" (something that has always existed in the game). It's more like a playtester above said: that it's now "actively hostile" to interactability with the world they live in and rational expectations of the players (who might expect things with names like "Enchanter Wizard" to maybe care if they are thrown in an area of Silence, or maybe have abilities that feel Wizard-y instead of psychic archer-y). Treating these "wizards" as much of anything besides 18-second autoattack machines kinda makes them go "ERROR! ERROR!" and explode.



And the reason it goes beyond mere streamlining is because streamlining isn't necessarily the main goal (in fact, they seem to be willing to make things harder to understand if they feel it conflicts with their goal). What's the goal? It's that thing JC said in the video about how he wants the DM's decisions to make as little a difference as possible in how the monster performs.

Essentially what we're doing is we're making it so that it is harder for a DM to make a series of choices that will cause a monster to drop out of its challenge rating.

[Psyren]

And the reason it goes beyond mere streamlining is because streamlining isn't necessarily the goal (in fact, they seem to be willing to make things harder to understand if they feel it conflicts with their goal). What's the goal? It's that thing JC said in the video about how he wants the DM's decisions to make as little a difference as possible in how the monster performs.

I don't see why this is bad, nor do I see streamlining the statblocks and tightening the difficulty space for a given monster as mutually exclusive. Indeed, Jeremy does mention the possibility that DMs could in some cases accidentally cause a creature to punch above their CR too; it's just a lot rarer since CR is already supposed to be taking those "most dangerous abilities/sequences" into account, so the most common result when a DM picks the "wrong" actions for a monster is that it feels weaker than it should rather than harder than it should. But it didn't mean that the opposite result was completely impossible nor more desirable either.

Here's the more detailed context preceding the quote you provided:

Previously, when we would determine "what is a monster's challenge rating?" what we were doing, is we were looking at "what are the most optimal, meaning, the most dangerous things this monster could do round-by-round," and it was that set of optimal or again, most deadly choices that would justify the creature's CR. And so that's why I've even publicly talked about before, a monster might have seemed to hit below it's CR, but then if you chose a different set of actions from the statblock, suddenly it's hitting at, or sometimes it might even feel like it's hitting above its CR. And that was not a surprise to us because again, before, CR was just a snapshot of the most deadly options in the monster. Well what we realized getting this feedback over and over is that a monster would, most often at high levels, feel like its hitting below its CR; we realized it was too easy for DMs to pick a sequence of things that was not that set of most optimal options.

[LudicSavant]

But it didn't mean that the opposite result was completely impossible nor more desirable either.

Right. Their goal is to minimalize the impact of the DM's decisions on the monster's performance, whether that makes the monster's performance go up or down.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't see why this is bad, nor do I see streamlining the statblocks and tightening the difficulty space for a given monster as mutually exclusive. Indeed, Jeremy does mention the possibility that DMs could in some cases accidentally cause a creature to punch above their CR too; it's just a lot rarer since CR is already supposed to be taking those "most dangerous abilities/sequences" into account, so the most common result when a DM picks the "wrong" actions for a monster is that it feels weaker than it should rather than harder than it should. But it didn't mean that the opposite result was completely impossible nor more desirable either.

Problem is that it not only creates "one correct way to use the monster", as overrelying on CR would, but "the only way you CAN use the monster".

[pwykersotz]

What's the goal? It's that thing JC said in the video about how he wants the DM's decisions to make as little a difference as possible in how the monster performs.

Which for some people is a good thing. Like me. I like the changes overall.

Having been on the opposite side of "liking recent changes" though, I can say three things that are true in my opinion.

1) GM's can still run their games how they choose, and can still block annoying forum users who gloat too much about how "it's better this way" and "your fun is wrong because I like this, so nyah".
2) They didn't burn all the old books, so the old necromancer and archmage still exist.
3) This was a course correction, but it would behoove them to not make this the one true new way. There is room for complex monsters and simple monsters of equal power scaling. I hope they continue to publish under both paradigms. They might not for a time, but game design is often a pendulum. Things will undoubtedly come back around. And if they don't, I hope 2024 brings some solid overhauls to account for these changes, because otherwise they are going to disenfranchise a non-zero number of their playerbase, which always sucks.

[Psyren]

Right. Their goal is to minimalize the impact of the DM's decisions on the monster's performance, whether that makes the monster's performance go up or down.

Problem is that it not only creates "one correct way to use the monster", as overrelying on CR would, but "the only way you CAN use the monster".

Their choices within the statblock, yes. You can still choose to have the monster do less dangerous actions from the "normal" set (like Disengaging or Using an Item) if you want the monster to be less dangerous on a given round, and that choice does matter. Again, not really seeing the issue.

[LudicSavant]

Which for some people is a good thing.

but it would behoove them to not make this the one true new way. There is room for complex monsters and simple monsters of equal power scaling.

I think we're in agreement on both points.

[JackPhoenix]

Their choices within the statblock, yes. You can still choose to have the monster do less dangerous actions from the "normal" set (like Disengaging or Using an Item) if you want the monster to be less dangerous on a given round, and that choice does matter. Again, not really seeing the issue.

Are you suggesting the damage output is the only thing that matters for any given creature?

[Psyren]

Are you suggesting the damage output is the only thing that matters for any given creature?

No, of course not. I'm saying that a creature's CR is based on its most dangerous actions, and their goal of making that CR less variable depending on DM whim/attention span is a good one.

Streamlining the statblocks makes those most dangerous actions harder to miss or misuse.

(Note that "most dangerous actions" don't have to be related to damage output at all. The scariest ability of, say, a Siren or a Dryad isn't its damage.)

[JackPhoenix]

No, of course not. I'm saying that a creature's CR is based on its most dangerous actions, and their goal of making that CR less variable depending on DM whim/attention span is a good one.

Streamlining the statblocks makes those most dangerous actions harder to miss or misuse.

The issue is that "streamlining" seems to translate into "remove anything that doesn't directly contribute to your individual damage output and/or durability". Because that's what CR is for, and these changes seems to be focused on turning CR into the only thing that matters.
For all its faults, at least 4e had the right idea with establishing distinct roles for enemies.

(Note that "most dangerous actions" don't have to be related to damage output at all. The scariest ability of, say, a Siren or a Dryad isn't its damage.)

Do you have an advance copy of the 5.5e MM that shows how Sirens or Dryads were changed? Can you share this info?

[Unoriginal]

(Note that "most dangerous actions" don't have to be related to damage output at all. The scariest ability of, say, a Siren or a Dryad isn't its damage.)

The scariest ability of a Siren or a Dryad isn't its damage for now.

[LudicSavant]

(Note that "most dangerous actions" don't have to be related to damage output at all. The scariest ability of, say, a Siren or a Dryad isn't its damage.)

Sirens and Dryads weren't reprinted.

For the ones that have been reprinted, old monsters that had non-damage things as their primary threat often don't anymore. For example, the old Enchanter Wizard had extraordinarily dangerous non-damage abilities. New Enchanter does not.

They didn't make those abilities harder to miss. They removed them and put in a direct damage attack.

The scariest ability of a Siren or a Dryad isn't its damage for now.

Yeah.

[Psyren]

Do you have an advance copy of the 5.5e MM that shows how Sirens or Dryads were changed? Can you share this info?

I'm not the one complaining about the new design, even if we do think it'll be different for those creatures somehow.

The issue is that "streamlining" seems to translate into "remove anything that doesn't directly contribute to your individual damage output and/or durability". Because that's what CR is for, and these changes seems to be focused on turning CR into the only thing that matters.

The scariest ability of a Siren or a Dryad isn't its damage for now.

While danger and damage often correlate, it's simplistic to believe that's what makes every monster most dangerous. A vampire's damage is formidable for example, but if you removed their domination gaze and left their damage the same, their CR would drop. And if you removed a Siren's song or a Dryad's charm without changing their damage, their CR would drop too, perhaps even moreso since their damage output is relatively weaker.

[JackPhoenix]

While danger and damage often correlate, it's simplistic to believe that's what makes every monster most dangerous. A vampire's damage is formidable for example, but if you removed their domination gaze and left their damage the same, their CR would drop. And if you removed a Siren's song or a Dryad's charm without changing their damage, their CR would drop too, perhaps even moreso since their damage output is relatively weaker.

What's funny about this claim is that charm (with a vampire as an example monster with that ability) is specifically listed in the DMG as an feature that does not influence creature's CR.

[Unoriginal]

While danger and damage often correlate, it's simplistic to believe that's what makes every monster most dangerous. A vampire's damage is formidable for example, but if you removed their domination gaze and left their damage the same, their CR would drop. And if you removed a Siren's song or a Dryad's charm without changing their damage, their CR would drop too, perhaps even moreso since their damage output is relatively weaker.

Indeed. It is simplistic to believe that what makes every monster most dangerous is damage.

Which is why it is absolutely true that for now damage output is not the scariest part of the Siren and the Dryad.

And it is also absolutely true that if the song or the charm was removed without changing their damage, their CR would drop.

Which means we have three facts here:

1: the design goal is to keep monsters within the CR they already have and to make that CR less dependent on abilities that relies on DMs' choices and tactics, to make the CR more out-of-the-boxly reliable.

2: as you said, if the song or the charm was removed, the Siren's or Dryad's damage output would need to be increased for them to keep the CR.

3: we already have seen design changes for monsters whose damage output wasn't the scariest part, and how the new version of those monsters tend to no longer have what was their scariest part, with damage output being their new scariest part.


So, combining those three facts... do you think that the charm and the song will *stay* the scariest parts of the Dryad and the Siren?

[Segev]

Indeed. It is simplistic to believe that what makes every monster most dangerous is damage.

Which is why it is absolutely true that for now damage output is not the scariest part of the Siren and the Dryad.

And it is also absolutely true that if the song or the charm was removed without changing their damage, their CR would drop.

Which means we have three facts here:

1: the design goal is to keep monsters within the CR they already have and to make that CR less dependent on abilities that relies on DMs' choices and tactics, to make the CR more out-of-the-boxly reliable.

2: as you said, if the song or the charm was removed, the Siren's or Dryad's damage output would need to be increased for them to keep the CR.

3: we already have seen design changes for monsters whose damage output wasn't the scariest part, and how the new version of those monsters tend to no longer have what was their scariest part, with damage output being their new scariest part.


So, combining those three facts... do you think that the charm and the song will *stay* the scariest parts of the Dryad and the Siren?

Given that pattern, I am unsure the charm and the song will stay, period.

[Psyren]

What's funny about this claim is that charm (with a vampire as an example monster with that ability) is specifically listed in the DMG as an feature that does not influence creature's CR.

That table is a guideline for building a custom monster from scratch. It's not telling you that MM Vampires were built without their charm ability taken into account.

So, combining those three facts... do you think that the charm and the song will *stay* the scariest parts of the Dryad and the Siren?

That depends on what they remove (or if they even feel anything needs to be removed), neither of which we know yet.

Note also that there is a third option besides the ones you describe - not buffing a non-spell ability but changing its "speed", e.g. packaging it into their Multiattack sequence or making it a bonus action.

[JackPhoenix]

That table is a guideline for building a custom monster from scratch. It's not telling you that MM Vampires were built without their charm ability taken into account.

Then why are you sure removing the charm ability would lower creature's CR? I think it's much safer to assume that with a table that list creature features and how they influence creature's CR, the CR of the example creature in that very table would take the relevant ability into account. Why would presence or absence of Charm ability on a given creature influence the creature's CR if the table lists charm as an ability that does not impact the creature's CR?

[Psyren]

Then why are you sure removing the charm ability would lower creature's CR? I think it's much safer to assume that with a table that list creature features and how they influence creature's CR, the CR of the example creature in that very table would take the relevant ability into account. Why would presence or absence of Charm ability on a given creature influence the creature's CR if the table lists charm as an ability that does not impact the creature's CR?

The idea is for you not to double-count such an ability. You should have already factored it in under Step 12 ("Save DC Traits") before you got to Step 13 ("Special Traits, Actions and Reactions.") Charm is a zero under Step 13 because you were supposed to have accounted for it in Step 12 already.

[Sulicius]

I think the argument that monsters are now "just for combat" is clearly not true. Though many non-combat spells are taken out, they are not all of them taken out. I'd say that in many cases, combat spells have been stripped off the list in more cases.

Let's take the War Priest. It lost 16 of its 27 spells. That feels like lobotomizing the character right? Let's see what it lost. All spells in BOLD are primarily for combat.

Cantrips: Mending - A spell I think we can agree don't make or break the concept of a war priest.

1st level: Divine Favor - A concentration based melee weapon buff that gave 1d4 extra damage. Buffing weapon damage fits a war priest, but now they always deal additional radiant damage, so that sorta evens it out. Bad concentration spells are dime a dozen for many NPC spellcasters, and I am happy to see them gone. These are the primary example of trap choices for DM's who think this is how a War Priest should be ran.

Guiding Bolt - A signature cleric spell, but it takes a whole action to cast, which can be a trap as well. The new War Priest can now use Holy Fire, a non-spell ability that can't be counterspelled, oh dear. It can be used while making weapon attacks on the same turn. This allows the war priest to do more things with a turn.

Healing Word - Replaced by Healing Light, another non-spell. Similar to Guiding Bolt, is now built into the character.

Shield of Faith - A solid combat buff that required concentration. Could be cast as a bonus action. Will be missed

2nd level: magic weapon - see divine favor, similar problem. We're not gonna miss the flexibility of casting two different subpar combat buffs.

prayer of healing - out of combat efficient healing, replaced by Healing Light as well. I really don't like Healing Light being limitless and I hope they never use that again.

silence - on of my favorite controlling spells, it can help with setting up ambushes, silence alarm callers, stop enemy spellcasting. It would be fitting for a war priest to cast this spell, but I guess there are spells that deserve its concentration even more. Will be missed.

spiritual weapon - another signature cleric spell. It's bonus to damage has been worked into the base attacks and the Holy Fire attack. Will probably be missed for style, rather than for its effect.

3rd level: beacon of hope - a great, fitting spell for a war priest. But guess what? It is another concentration combat spell!

crusader's mantle - great flavor, fitting for a war priest, but again a concentration combat spell!

spirit guardians - the big one. Another signature spell that offers a cleric control and damage. It was especially potent while upcast, but I want to bet less than 1 in 10 DM's used it. Another concentration combat spell.

water walk - genuine lost utility. Feels more like a spell for a non-combat NPC for religious reasons.

4th level: freedom of movement, - another genuine buff that is useful outside of combat! It is mostly for in combat, though.

stoneskin - I don't want to talk about it. Concentration for combat, and probably useless against any party from lvl5 onwards.

5th level: mass cure wounds - similar to Prayer of Healing, but even more for in combat.



So what is your conclusion from this list? Do we need a dozen spells that this war priest can only use one of at a time? Is a WAR priest not unfit to do anything outside of combat?

I think we can agree that from this example, it seems like they removed a ton of in-combat spells or spells that had their main uses for combat. This means that many who use the War Priest as an argument for WotC reducing stat blocks to only fighting stat blocks doesn't seem right to me.

What are your thoughts?

I might do the same for the Necromancer if this produces interesting discussion. Please tell me how wrong I am!

[LudicSavant]

Let's take the War Priest. It lost 16 of its 27 spells. That feels like lobotomizing the character right?

Oh they lost way more than that. Heck, let's even look at the spells they "kept" like Banishment, Command, Dispel Magic, and Hold Person.

- The old War Priest would upcast these spells to affect multiple targets, or be more reliable (in the case of Dispel Magic). The new War Priest can't. As a result, the New War Priest's actual spells are way less potent than they used to be.

- The old War Priest could use these spells repeatedly if they suited the situation. The new War Priest can only use them 1/day each, so even if it's in the perfect situation for Lesser Restoration, it can't use Lesser Restoration twice. Doesn't matter if it has a ton of higher level "spell slots," it just has the one Lesser Restoration. "Mwahahahahhahahahaha, I can counter your status effect, heroes! And I have tons of magic left today!" "...So if I just did the exact same move again, you'd be able to adapt to it, right?" "Wait wha--" *monster loses combat.*

___

Meanwhile, while they're losing valuable tools that they shouldn't have lost, they gained stuff they shouldn't have gained, like the ability to heal infinitely out of combat, or the ability to sling Holy Fire in an antimagic field while bound and gagged.

___

So at the end of the day, the new War Priest is a much weaker spellcaster, but got new non-spell stuff that kind of looks like spells but only if you don't try to interact with them like they're spells.

[Nefariis]

I would like to make a guess as to how JC came to his conclusion -

He created a short 2 hour adventure, and over the course of a month, he invited 75 volunteer DM's (all of whom considered themselves above average DMs) to run the adventure while he sat and watched - and after watching the same adventure, 3 times a day for 25 days that month, he came to the conclusion that we are all f***ing up his game.

My personal opinion - I don't see any issues with this new design at all.

I feel like most of us customize the monster's stat blocks to fit our campaign or narrative anyways - I wouldn't expect this new monster design to handcuff any of us in any way, shape, or form (especially someone as knowledgeable as @Ludic). However, I do see this being extremely helpful to the majority of DM's (even those who might think they are advanced) in making better decisions for their monsters and increasing the pace of combat. If a "streamlined" stat blocks lowers the standard deviation of a monster's CR AND makes DMing easy enough for more people to ACTUALLY want to do it - well then I am for it. I imagine more people are going to get something positive from this new system than negative.

[Tanarii]

Unless WotC is planning to add guidance that the revised statblocks are only intended to be used for combat encounters, and should be fleshed out by the DM for non-combat encounters, I don't think your claim that statblocks are strictly tools for combat is justified. In their current incarnation, my understanding is that statblocks are intended to be usable as-is, comprising a complete list of the NPCs' default mechanical abilities. If WotC intends the new statblocks to be deliberately incomplete, representing only combat-relevant mechanical abilities, they really should make that change explicit.

But I don't think they intend such a change, as giving DMs deliberately incomplete statblocks goes completely against the stated purpose of making NPCs easier to run, particularly for DMs with less system mastery.

What change? They're already combat-relevant stat blocks. It's just that the caster ones are poorly designed.

[Sparky McDibben]

Are you suggesting the damage output is the only thing that matters for any given creature?

I would certainly suggest that WotC thinks it is the only thing that matters for any given creature.

[Anymage]

Oh they lost way more than that. Heck, let's even look at the spells they "kept" like Banishment, Command, Dispel Magic, and Hold Person.

- The old War Priest would upcast these spells to affect multiple targets, or be more reliable (in the case of Dispel Magic). The new War Priest can't. As a result, the New War Priest's actual spells are way less potent than they used to be.

- The old War Priest could use these spells repeatedly if they suited the situation. The new War Priest can only use them 1/day each, so even if it's in the perfect situation for Lesser Restoration, it can't use Lesser Restoration twice. Doesn't matter if it has a ton of higher level "spell slots," it just has the one Lesser Restoration. "Mwahahahahhahahahaha, I can counter your status effect, heroes! And I have tons of magic left today!" "...So if I just did the exact same move again, you'd be able to adapt to it, right?" "Wait wha--" *monster loses combat.*

Requiring the DM to be familiar with the full spell list of this one creature in combat, including the upcasting potential thereof. If the options are between increasing the DM's mental load and cutting down the stat blocks of creatures that are meant to be encountered as part of a group, that's a good case for cutting things down.

Meanwhile, while they're losing valuable tools that they shouldn't have lost, they gained stuff they shouldn't have gained, like the ability to heal infinitely out of combat, or the ability to sling Holy Fire in an antimagic field while bound and gagged.

___

So at the end of the day, the new War Priest is a much weaker spellcaster, but got new non-spell stuff that kind of looks like spells but only if you don't try to interact with them like they're spells.

Would you feel better if these abilities had little (sp) or (su) tags so you could know how to treat them? I agree that it's a silly oversight in the book, but it's the sort that seems like a clear oversight rather than a stealth change. I just think it's possible to have spell like abilities that can be engaged with as if they were spells, without all the extra overhead inherent in making them fully slot based casters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Would you feel better if these abilities had little (sp) or (su) tags so you could know how to treat them? I agree that it's a silly oversight in the book, but it's the sort that seems like a clear oversight rather than a stealth change. I just think it's possible to have spell like abilities that can be engaged with as if they were spells, without all the extra overhead inherent in making them fully slot based casters.

I agree that this (or more verbose "counts as casting a spell of level X") would be an improvement.

[LudicSavant]

If the options are between increasing the DM's mental load and cutting down the stat blocks of creatures that are meant to be encountered as part of a group.

That's not what the options are between, though.

There are a hundred other ways to make an Enchanter easier for DMs to use.

The one they chose was to make it about being a non-spell-based archer that happens to do Psychic damage, rather than about enchanting people with spells. Which feels to me less like a simplification of the same concept, and more like a replacement of it with a creature that fills a completely different role (it's basically a generic single target damage monster now).

Edit
Ironically, having it actually cast its spells now is a good way to make it "fall below its CR" because things like a single target Charm Person are not an efficient use of its action (whereas the multi-target charm on the old one was a worthwhile uses of its action). The best use of its action is usually just to use Arcane Burst.

[strangebloke]

I can't believe that in 2022, people are talking about bringing back (su) and (ex) as a way of simplifying the game.

[Xetheral]

What change? They're already combat-relevant stat blocks. It's just that the caster ones are poorly designed.

At the moment stat blocks are (to my understanding) intended to be complete and usable as-is, in or out of combat. Sure, most of them are pretty anemic in the out-of-combat area, but there is no implicit or express presumption that the current statblocks are deliberately incomplete. They represent all of an NPC's mechanical abilities.

So if the revised statblocks are, as you've claimed, intended to instead be incomplete statblocks that only cover combat, with the expectation that DMs will add any necessary out-of-combat abilities, I think WotC needs to make that change in intention and expectation explicit.

Personally, rather than switching to deliberately incomplete statblocks (which would make things harder for inexperienced DMs, rather than easier) I think it's more likely that the revised statblocks are intended to simply pare down NPCs' out-of-combat abilities even below the existing baseline. I can understand why they're doing that, but it certainly makes those statblocks even less useful to me.

[Tanarii]

At the moment stat blocks are (to my understanding) intended to be complete and usable as-is, in or out of combat.

Not my experience or understanding. They're combat stat blocks. Some few monsters have things like environmental effects around their lair that will affect non-combat, but they're always called out separately. Anything else is in the text.