Is counterspell about to become obsolete? Monsters of the Multiverse 5e

[@y.og.i]

So many creatures can cast spells "at will". I'm not sure who this Will guy is, but I feel pretty bad for him.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

Will gets picked on for sure.

[@wkpratt1992]

Adapt, evolve or counter. Options are limited and usually lead to harder fights.

[@greygramarye7872]

It irritates me that things which are plainly spells - a spellcaster is using magic to create a supernatural effect - get classified as generic attacks. That’s more confusing to new players, not less. If they’re fighting a Wizard and that Wizard attacks them with Arcane Burst or whatever, it’s not going to make sense that they can’t Counterspell it. I think keywords were the better system for this; just attach the keyword “spell” to certain abilities, “supernatural” to others which are magical but not spells (dragon breath, beholder eye beams), and “extraordinary” to abilities that are not magical but not available to most creatures (action surge, stunning strike, indomitable). With stuff like what we see in this video, it’s hard to divine any kind of unified design philosophy at all.

[@midshipman8654]

I have to agree. I can kinda see the reason why its changed on the micro scale, but on the macro it just seems to address smaller problem at the expense if overall cohesion between the fantasy and the mechanics.

[@joshuawinestock9998]

This is all compelling, BUT as DM I've gotta say looking up spell descriptions for monsters with 6+ spells in their arsenal was logistically impractical. Even if l had time to put them all on a sheet of paper and print it for my notes I still have to reread the description of these complex spell effects to not miss anything, and if I don't print them out, looking them up is absurdity slow for a DM's turn. Simplifying and putting the effect in the stat block is common sense. In that way MOTM kinda hasn't changed enough...

[@ComradeFurious]

@@joshuawinestock9998 I think my biggest gripe with theses changes is that the monsters seem to be losing utility in favor of more damage. This makes spellcasters so much less interesting tactically, its like they've just all been given Eldritch Blast. They're moving towards just being "non-physical archers" who make attack rolls and deal damage to a single target on there turn rather then producing effects that martial characters couldn't. It feels very 4e actually.

[@joshuawinestock9998]

@@ComradeFurious that's very true. It would have been amazing if they'd given monsters more in-stat-block abilities that had control/debuff/buff/postioning, just a little more streamlined than standard spell text. Frankly the game has really wanted more of that that from the start (and for the record, OP is right about it being confusing for new players). I feel like rather than "to spell or not to spell", the discussion should be about creating interesting and varied monsters with streamlined mechanics, regardless of how it's done.

[@jettlucashayes8508]

@@ComradeFurious nope only the warlock is eldritch blast everyone else is fucking stupid if they just use cantrips because it does awful damage (half dice dived by a hundred multiply by chance to hit = damage)

[@Elvenbane1520]

Seems like with more damage shifting away from spells to spell-like attacks, Oath of the Ancients Paladin's Aura of Warding is losing more value than counterspell with these changes.

[@sixofone8663]

Similar to how Spell Resistance for Yuan-ti and Satyr no longer provides advantage on saves vs magical effects, now it is only against spells. So in the same book, the two races lose their defence against magical effects while more magical effects are being inflicted by enemies.

[@Mastikator]

@@sixofone8663 a nerf most richly deserved

[@pranakhan]

Some of the mid-late game synergies of the War Mage are also affected here. Not a fan, especially if the argument is that its "too much for the DM to keep track of all of those spells." As a DM, I don't need to nerf the abilities & strategies of my players to challenge them.

[@virplexer1428]

@@pranakhan don't forget abjuration wizard too, they get a whole ability that buffs counterspell and dispel magic which is now way less useful

[@agilemind6241]

@@Mastikator Not only that, but it will save so many arguments about whether X creature ability is technically a "magical effect" or not.

[@UncleBBQ]

Honestly, as a DM I'm just not gonna run the "updated" version of the stat blocks even though I have the book. The fact that you can no longer upcast certain spells with the new 1/day stat blocks. Some of these monsters won't last more than a round against the players in an encounter, so sometimes an upcast damage spell rather than a concentration area of control was just more useful.

[@briantjokroadiguno4566]

The problem is they can just be counterspelled and basically skips a turn. Now they can attack twice with good attack options against low AC ranged characters and still cast a spell.

[@UncleBBQ]

@@briantjokroadiguno4566 Enemies still have decent movement that they can use before they cast their spell to get out of the range. Unless the players got the jump on them, I probably wouldn't have a caster start in close proximity of the players anyway. Sure it's all possible, but if not Counterspell, players can still use Shield and Absorb Elements to great affect against those attack rolls.

[@briantjokroadiguno4566]

@@UncleBBQ 60ft isnt really that close, unless it's outdoor fight. But I agree initial spell probably would be outside the reach of counterspell. Indeed, and it's even better if they use shield/absorb elements then there's no reaction for counterspell anymore.

[@jettlucashayes8508]

@@UncleBBQ not getting out of ranged attackers which is pretty much every competent character who is not a paladin or barb. Most enemies can’t attack at range so you can just zone them out

[@thehikingviking2049]

I feel like the obvious solution is to keep spellcasting from the old statblocks, but include something like those spell-like-actions that are more thematically interesting and less pew pew damage

[@jeffersonian000]

It’s just Spell-Like-Abilities, all over again, but this time with 4e action economy. As a DM, this does appear to make prep work easier if I wanted to run any of these monsters.

[@ThePlatinumMagnum]

Without having read the stat blocks, I feel like this would help newer DMs be able to run combat quicker and more smoothly. No more (or to a lesser extent) flipping through pages or searching up spell effects.

[@zeeeej]

Agreed. And not just newer ones I think!

[@nilsjonsson4446]

@@zeeeej Yes. This seems so much easier to run! Look at the original Alhoon spells! Why does it have 20 action-cast spells available in addition to its other action abilities, and why does it have 16 spell slots when it will live about three rounds (or rather one round with 120 hp at CR 10)? There is no reason that monsters should have the same spell slot progression as players. This is just a pain in the ass to run compared to the new ones. As a player I don't mind, but as a DM I am happy they're changing it.

[@daltondavidson7997]

But why would a newer DM run such high level monsters without being prepared?

[@nilsjonsson4446]

@@daltondavidson7997 It's not about new DMs it's about all DMs. And it's not about being prepared or not, it's about how much effort and focus is needed. It looks very easy from a player perspective because a player can have 30 abilities and still not be a problem to run because you're focusing on one character and you're used to it. The DM needs to learn new monsters almost every combat and need to focus on so much more. First of all you have about four different monsters with different abilities, initiatives and hit points, but that's not half of what you need to do. The DM also needs to control pacing, descriptions, motivations of all monsters, when and if monsters flee, whom to attack to be fair and realistic but not too hard, the environment, rulings, judging if the battle needs to be adjusted because it's too hard or too easy, etc etc etc... Everything that makes a monster more complicated to run, makes the DM have to focus less on those other things.

[@daltondavidson7997]

@@nilsjonsson4446 I would agree if we were talking about every run of the mill monster and minion you run into. But when I run my BBEG, I want options and I want my players to have to think hard of how to win that encounter. I don’t want to just attack with a demon staff twice a turn. What if the encounter stretches out over multiple battles if the villain escapes? Now I’m running out of spells quicker than my players are!

[@jcmadcat82]

I really don't think d&d needs to get easier for player characters. High level in 5e is already pretty bad so losing options seems counter intuitive.

[@tantalus_complex]

I think the motivation was to make it easier to DM, particularly for beginners and those who can't afford every book containing spell descriptions. The game has a far harder problem attracting and keeping DMs than players. Experienced DMs can always increase the challenge of an encounter if they feel a monster isn't challenging the table enough, so I don't think some circumstantial decreases in monster power is a problem of significance.

[@gray007nl]

@@tantalus_complex Yeah but then why edit like CR 20 monsters, if you've gotten to the point where CR 20 creatures are okay to fight the party with, nobody involved is going to be a rookie anymore, just from how long it would take to get high enough level.

[@jcmadcat82]

@@tantalus_complex an experienced dm most definitely can and should modify things as they see fit. However, its nice to have complex challenging monsters right out of the box. As a dm, sometimes I'll see a monster with a cool ability set and design an encounter just because of it. Nobody looks at a horned devil and thinks now thats a cool boss encounter lol

[@tantalus_complex]

I just think they're standardizing the changes, meaning that higher CR monsters get the treatment to begin to make things more consistent. There is also a chance that a new high level campaign book is in the works. There are probably also a few changes to monster stat blocks that have been on the backlog for years that are only now hitting print due to the editorial sweep done for this release.

[@tantalus_complex]

I would actually like to see tiered versions of monsters. Maybe even just two tiers: the standard stat block and an "epic" stat block.

[@thebitterfig9903]

I can see a point to a Tentacle Rod--it can be a great tool for a sequence of rising dread. Roll once. It hits. Roll twice. It hits. Roll the third time... and it's an exciting moment. Damage could be better, but it reminds me of the "Spells I hate as a player but love as a DM" use of True Strike. A great thing to do when the players are seriously under-leveled going up against the Matron Mother early in a campaign, before she escapes to further plague the party.

[@gray007nl]

I think they actually changed it to match the Tentacle Rod magic item, which works exactly like that.

[@lord6617]

I think maybe their emphasis was more on making spells other than counterspell more tempting, where the bump in durability of creatures then makes sense - they eat an extra fireball since you cast that instead of saving a counterspell slot. Also I think party variety means lower attack bonuses on some creatures is less important - sure the smiling one might have trouble hitting your high AC paladin or something, but instead it is hitting your sorcerer or warlock or bard or... etc. twice with its multi-attack. As part of a varied creature encounter, that's suddenly a lot more scary?

[@adriangoetz5108]

I've had some players that get bothered when an NPC that's fashioned after a player class (Abjurer, Assassin, etc) have access to abilities that they as players can't. Do you have an opinion on whether you like being able to see what an NPC is doing and realize what "Class" they are vs. wanting player and NPC mechanics to be separate? They seem to be going in the direction of keeping mechanics separate. Does it bother you that you don't get an obvious complete list of the spells a wizard-like NPC would have in their spellbook for Wizard loot?

[@caplorunnin]

Sorry to chime in without being asked, but let me put forward the following point, which I first heard from Matt Colville. Im not quoting, but this is the gist. Npcs must have access to classes the players don't. After all, no player has access to abilities that can create vampires, or mummy lords. The best they can do is probably a Ghast, or something similar. But someone is creating mummy lords. And a necromancer with an undead army is probably not concentrating on Animate Dead in order to control all those zombies.

[@jasonfurumetarualkemisto5917]

@@caplorunnin Well before 4e the first two weren't really impossible. The last one is entirely possible in base 5e though. It just takes a really long time.

[@O4C209]

Well, I mean you're not all going to the same school and taking the same lessons in what your class and sub class can do. It's completely reasonable for a wizard that is learning (gaining experience) from adventuring to wind up with a completely different skill set and/ or spell list from some other wizard of the same "school" of magic.

[@norandomnumbers]

I bet your players aren't upset that NPCs can't action surge, or trade attacks for grapples, or generally don't have bonus actions, or have much worse AC than a PC of the same level probably would have, or that the GM can run the game much quicker with streamlined NPCs than if they were running full PCs in combat.

[@PerditiousSooth]

I sort of understand this and it's kind of 50/50 for me. Monster mechanics are for monsters and to a certain extent they need to be less complex than PC abilities, while also still being potent enough to challenge PCs. The mechanics are there to achieve a goal and NPC statblocks and class levels have entirely different functions. So yes I would absolutely expect monsters/NPCs in general, to have abilities that function differently than what PCs can do. That said, it's valid to expect the world to behave in a certain way (like how magic or martial abilities behave) and to see *some* consistency with that. So if a PC Abjurer is using spells and they expect an NPC Abjurer to be using spells, I think that expectation is reasonable unless there is some in-world foundation for why the NPC Abjurer's abilities work very differently. Abstract as these mechanics are, presumably they are representing things that are real in the game fiction.

[@salton56]

We will probably see people use a combination of the Stat blocks from multiverse and the older ones depending on what the dm prefers

[@marc0s158]

this feels like an unintentional side effect of their streamlining. I intend to use common sense on wether a spell can be countered for my players who enjoy that.

[@collin6691]

this feels like the only reasonable response for anyone not treating dnd like some kind of legal game meets mmo

[@8Smoker8]

Streamlining is BAD.

[@SpikeRosered]

I am shocked that they would lower any monsters AC. Monster ACs are pathetic. Once you're in tier 2 it feels like the PCs can never miss. Also since I play with optimizers their characters always have ACs thst are 20 or close to it. Sending more attacks at them is no sweat. In fact Saves was the on area of 5e where it was hard to optimize and cover all your bases.

[@theaspie3121]

I believe that change was due to the shield. Archdruid used to have a scimitar and shield, it now has a staff which it can hold in two hands

[@Schmeethe88]

@@theaspie3121 So why not give the archdruid some lizard-scale armor with a base AC of 14+dex, max of 2? It'd be exactly the same.

[@theaspie3121]

@@Schmeethe88 That would work perfectly fine. WotC just decided to stick with the same armor, I guess. I never said it was smart for the AC to be lowered, just pointing out the reason why

[@davewilson13]

Agreed all monsters need MORE AC and HP.

[@8Smoker8]

it's just more and more handholding. I'm starting to miss 3.5...

[@tukenuke9063]

Counterspell isn't quite as amazing in my group as it may be in others regardless of whether enemies cast spells or use spell like abilities; We first declare we are casting a spell without naming it, and if no-one counterspells, then we continue. In one game there were lots of encounters with identical spellcasters from a hive mind, all of which had counterspell, and it was satisfying to (as an artificer) use my bonus action to bait counterspells with magic stone.

[@Zaword]

Ok, but you can only cast cantrip after you use your bonus action to cast magic stone

[@tukenuke9063]

@@Zaword I was mostly using my action to attack since I was a battlesmith and (In our inexperience) I had been given a railgun of a magic hand-crossbow (reflavoured into a flintlock) that did an extra 2d6 force damage.

[@RobertJazo]

I'm annoyed at what this does to my Oath of the Ancients Paladin's Aura of Warding ability "Beginning at 7th level, ancient magic lies so heavily upon you that it forms an eldritch ward. You and friendly creatures within 10 feet of you have resistance to damage from spells."

[@seankeaney823]

I have been thinking the same… definitely debating a house rule that “innate spells” are spells

[@colinlove4659]

It is quite possible it will have adjusted wording in the new PHB. That's my main hope for fixing it

[@nickm9102]

@@colinlove4659 don't count on it.

[@Sulicius]

Yeah, as a DM I would allow that feature to work against all the new arcane blasts.

[@Xenneth0102]

@@seankeaney823 Good, because the "innate spellcasting" feature, as well as any feature that says "cast _____ (as a ____ level spell)" is a spell.

[@maltheopia]

In the end, all roads lead to 4th Edition D&D. That edition was the logical limit of the philosophy around MotM, and, well, everyone hated it for reasons I don't quite understand.

[@justicebrewing9449]

4e was a fantasy superhero game designed for people who like CRPGs. Powers that are reliable and not spells. Definable roles. Everything people want, but want it hidden so they think there’s chance or randomness involved. 5e is similar but with a better skin. All players optimize their characters somewhat, even if they deny it openly. Humans are drawn towards stability on The whole. 4e is stable, like mid continental shelf stable, but it’s too obvious. 5e gives you ‘options’ like feats that stabilize your characters making the thing they do reliable. Same effect, different illusion.

[@rayzerot]

@@justicebrewing9449 It's nice to see someone that understands that.

[@DatcleanMochaJo]

@@justicebrewing9449 Your first comment is just opinion. 5e is also a fantasy superhero game considering the heat the players can pack in the action economy and how they can outdo NPCs. Monsters of the Multiverse has lowered various monsters AC as this video shown and we know monsters got nerfed. Regular 5e prior to MotM demons still do not have teleport as a spell and the displacer beast has no bite attack. The heat I was referring to: the amount of classes that have access to spells that solve so many problems and how easy it is to get healing and spells back from resting. Players can also get minions and mounts/pets. 5e is a different "superhero" illusion.

[@justicebrewing9449]

@@DatcleanMochaJo yup it is opinion, that’s all we have and espouse here. I pointed out that 5e just had a better skin hiding the superhero game. 4e was blatantly shoving it out there. D&D 5.1 (I’m calling it) is watering down the system for low education levels to jump In With little to no idea what they are doing. Which is a good goal to expand the hobby, but it does have the effect of, well watering down the system. This steadily removes the flavor. I expect system 6 to have no races, no differences between classes and a choose your own snowflake approach to building a character. So no one can be righteously offended and it’s ‘open to all’. Character death may also be a thing of the past, because who wants adversity? It doesn’t sell as well as a participation trophy. Total opinion, of course. But opinion backed with experience, so YMMV.

[@8Smoker8]

@@justicebrewing9449 100% on the spot. HANDHOLDING is the word, God forbid there's any actual challenge involved and the beloved characters/projections are in any kind of even remote danger.

[@reygunpocket]

Honestly I hate these changes as a DM. Maybe since I use roll 20, the whole finding of spells is not an issue for me. Removing/changing the spell for some of these monsters seems Annoying and kind of destroy the theme and interesting qualities of the monster. But that's just my two cents.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

You can always use the old versions if you prefer, or, if you're like me, make any homebrew changes to monsters you feel are appropriate and fun. I use Roll20 too, and it's pretty user friendly for altering monster blocks.

[@YouAreLyingJane]

There were two things I was warried about with the rumors about Monsters of the Multiverse. First was that NPCs like abjurer, archdruid or war priest would get access to uncounterspellable versions of abilities that are avalible for the PCs of the same "class" (wizards, druids or clerics), creating a narrative problem and making players feel bad when they can't counterspell a magical effect used by their opponents "because of reasons". It was the case with a sorcerer's stat block in "The wild beyond the Witchlight" and it is the case with drow matron and her version of flamestrike. It doesn't seem like there are a lot of significant situations like that, although there is surely more in Monsters of the Multiverse than in previous books, which isn't a benefit. Second thing was that monsters would be left with fewer options and simplified by limiting the number of effects they would be able to create, because I didn't expect that every spell monsters had access to will be replaced with a spell-like ability. Sadly, it seems to be the case. Sure, it makes monsters easier to run, but it also limits the options DM has while running them, which is hardly a good thing. The result is that most of the time I would prefer to use the original version of the monsters. Maybe it's a niche opinion, but was NPC spell casters really so hard to run, that they had to be made less interesting for the sake of simplicity?

[@jsamue12]

at least the sorcerer makes sense because pc sorcerers have access to subtle spell

[@YouAreLyingJane]

@@jsamue12 Yea, kind of. The problem is that nowhere on the stat block it is mentioned that the sorcerer has any number of sorcery points or access to any kind of metamagic options, so the fact that in this particular scenario DM has an easy access to a believable explanation why the magical effect cannot be countered, it doesn't make the general problem any less bad. I agree with you that using subtle spell to make sense of the sorcerer's uncounterspellable spell-like ability is a good way of justifying it in-game.

[@Xenneth0102]

@@YouAreLyingJane for the martial artist it never mention and ki point usage for stunning strike or flurry of blows, but it still have some form of those abilities because that'd be for more trouble than it is worth for the dm to track

[@tibot4228]

@@jsamue12 With Tasha, every class can access subtle spell through metamagic adept.

[@tibot4228]

@@YouAreLyingJane It does make things more straight-forward, though. It sacrifices the flexibility of using subtle spell on any spell you like in return for giving you a larger usage pool.

[@relzyn5545]

I like MCDM's implementstion of spell like abilities, declaring that they can be affected as though they were a spell of X level

[@HammerheadStarcraft]

In my custom monsters I’ve designed, I use a “Spell” tag that means that special actions can be counterspelled or similar.

[@JuckiCZ]

Similar impacts are made on Invisibility spell. When you cast a spell, or attack, Invisibility ends. But if you have action, that isn't named a spell (f.i. Enchanter's lvl 2 feature - Hypnotic Gaze, Nagpa's Paralysis, Devour Intelect feature,...), Invisibility stays on.

[@joshuapicaro8726]

@31:32 you mentioned the monster can still attack even if Wall of Force is countered. I would suggest the real danger is forcing a caster to use their reaction with shield and preventing them from counter spelling the wall of force.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

True!

[@PiroMunkie]

Overall it just seems like Counterspell is more likely to hit something good (if your DM doesnt announce the spell being cast) since they removed a lot of fluff, and AC is even more important now.

[@Zombiesbum]

Tbh DM's not announcing spells is really degenerate gameplay as it only ever devolves into the players doing the same thing.

[@nickm9102]

I don't mind the spell thing. It allows for a valid strategy of baiting with a good spell and then draw out the counter with Cantrips which in some cases is a necessity. In Adventures League there is a CoS module where the BBEG has 5th lvl casting and you are expected to be lvl 5 in the encounter. There are also multiple creatures that their only purpose is to counter you at the same time. If I can burn a 3rd lvl slot on a Cantrip I cast it is always a good thing and most DMs wouldn't counter a Cantrip if they know that is the cast.

[@PerditiousSooth]

@@Zombiesbum Having played at multiple tables that run this way and also having (sort of) ran this way (I describe what the players see when the monster starts casting which can give clues as to what's being cast, like the temperature might briefly rise or hairs might stand on end for a fire/lightning spell), I've never seen this problem. Maybe if the player has bad experiences with adversarial DMs or otherwise doesn't trust the DM, sure, but most people are mature enough to know that the DM is gonna have more meta knowledge at their disposal and they just have to be trusted to use that fairly. Of course DMs can make mistakes, and if a player is only ever getting their high level spells countered and not things like Magic Missile, etc, they have a right to bring up their concerns / call shenanigans on it.

[@davescrams]

One of my fellow DMs rolls a die to determine if an NPC counterspells. It's an interesting way to mitigate the unintended overuse of DM knowledge. I think a DM could also adopt specific counterspelling strategies for some NPCs such as "counterspell the first spell each round" or "always counterspell the PC with the holy symbol" (which might, unfortunately, look like targeted player abuse). I really like the narrative-driven approach you suggest,@@PerditiousSooth.

[@Zombiesbum]

@@PerditiousSooth Well assuming you (and the DMs you play with) aren't using that descriptive language to be deceptive, then that doesn't fall into the same category of; "I'm casting a spell" and waiting for a response. Obviously when I say a spell should be announced, I mean it can be something as describing it's apparent danger or power. It doesn't have to be "The creature is casting X spell". However, the moment a DM builds up a description of a spell and it turns out that spell was a cantrip for the sole purpose of baiting counterspell, then I would say there are issues with the way the game is being played.

[@prophetisaiah08]

A little note: The cloud giant's control weather spell isn't with the Spellcasting because Spellcasting isn't a feature in monster stat blocks any more, it's an Action. The only spells that should be in the Spellcasting section now are ones with a casting time of 1 action. Other spells should be in other parts of the stat block based on their casting time. Misty step would be under the stat block's Bonus Actions section, for example.

[@nicolrb2210]

A boss whose quirk is copying abilities once tried to copy my necromancer’s vampiric touch spell, but as he tried to use my spell against me, i pulled out the counterspell and let me tell you, the sheer confusion of the boss when the spell he mimicked perfectly did nothing was beautiful, oh the delicious terror

[@Grayhammer]

We as Dms can combine if you want to, you are not forced to use one or the other

[@WoollyLuke]

New to the channel. I watched the intro & then jumped straight to the conclusion cause I feel like that was all I’d need. You did not disappoint. Thank you for your conclusions!

[@alexandergarber7521]

Thank you David for lending Chris your copy of Monsters of the Multiverse! And thank you Chris for continuing to create the best D&D content on KZbin!

[@Psychoveliatonet]

Shout-out to that patron donor, whoever they are. They're a real one.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

His name is David, and he's a champ.

[@paytonmiller768]

Could you do another in depth shapechange video that incorporates Monsters of the Multiverse? I would be interested to see if there are some new optimal picks, and if things like certain monsters’ ability to replace attacks with spells would stack with a bladesinger’s ability to replace one with a cantrip. Like if you shapechange into a creature that can make 3 attacks, can you replace one with a leveled spell and one with a cantrip?

[@NZDND]

In my games, counterspell action tends to be very popular. As DM, i get to decide how often it happens as I don't have to use it. If it is too powerful in its use by players, there are plenty of DM options to keep the action hot. Without thinking very deeply about it, I feel I'd have a counterspell-like anti-magic ray so that no one loses something they enjoy. That way, there'd probably be more variation, which tends to be a plus.

[@yogsothoth7594]

In some ways i think it makes sense that you slim down the size of certain monsters' sheet a little to focus on the big spells they're likely to use the most. The DM should be encouraged to understand that the CR of a monster who's power is in their spell casting ability is indicative of their highest level spells they can cast, where a DM who's previously mostly handled player characters tend to conserve monster's highest level slots leading to easier than intended encounters. But at the same time i think it should definitely be clear that any spell like ability these monsters have should be considered a spell for the purpose of things like counter spell and the ability be treated as being of equivalent level to the spell for such purposes.

[@rogerwilco2]

I don't really think this slims down the monster stat blocks, if now they have to print the entire effect and mechanics of "spell-like abilities" that function like spells, which you could have just looked up in the PHB before.

[@Mario.1997]

So I want to point something out about how it works now with the updates. You can counterspell a pit fiends fireball but not a Baylor's teleport.

[@corymerritt9100]

we've been referring to them as 'spell-like abilities' or replacing spells with abilities. Doesn't have the same confusion with the word 'action', and could encompass bonus action and reaction 'abilities'.

[@muddlewait8844]

Wow, that massive Shapechange nerf!! Next, I hope you cover the effects of these changes on magic resistance, dispel magic, and antimagic field.

[@brannenpfister2579]

Personally, I think this is fine. All of these are just options we can use. I know for a lot of people, RAW is very important, but a lot of DMs (myself included) just homebrew a lot of stat blocks anyways, and I think we will continue to do so. It’s nice to see other options though! This book mainly appeals to new DMs, which is probably a better marketing move as they want to get more and more people into the game. I like this direction. Make it as easy as possible to get into, and then the DM and players and session 0 it out for other optional/additional rules to add, that would enhance everyone’s experience.

[@masternemo2366]

They actually already gave a monster a non spell version of fireball. It a wizard called Kelek from Wild Beyond The Witchlight. Same range, radius a little more damage but its on a recharge of 4-6 like a dragon breath.

[@bravghede]

Honestly as a DM *and* a player I'm not fond of Counterspell. I hate using it as a DM - it's a fun killer - but as a player too it feels, at least, like a spell tax. I'm happy to see its importance being dialled down.

[@BriConRPG]

It's really difficult to enforce (and comply with) as a DM, but an overlooked aspect of counterspell is that, rules as written, the counterspell caster shouldn't know what spell they are countering, only that there is *some* spell being cast and they have an opportunity to counter it

[@caster-]

yeah, i love playing casters, but i never pick the spell. It's a great spell and it's awesome to pull off, but i don't enjoy seeing it into play

[@TheGaboom]

I also feel Counterspell covers too much of what abjurers are capable of, in terms of interacting with other magical effects I've got a set of homebrew spells that tie to the Upcasting mechanic that 5e has; so instead of Counterspell its more of a Dampen Spell effect which 'downcasts' spells until they can't be downcasted anymore and then negates them (Instead of the all or nothing ability check)

[@caster-]

@Know Dice ooh i like that

[@josephjackson140]

We removed counterspell from our games for that reason. It's not missed.

[@davidedgar5923]

Yeah! I finally got a shout out! I feel like a real boy now!. Great vid Tree.

[@danielbeshers1689]

Changes in the stat block make no difference to DMs who are confident at the table

[@salton56]

The drow matron mother is just an angry grandma now

[@E793]

The alhoon's innate spellcasting doesn't require any components. Would you be able to counterspell if they don't have verbal or somatic components? Isn't this like always having subtle spell?

[@TreantmonksTemple]

Looks like this version requires S and V components to cast their spells, so it should be OK.

[@E793]

@@TreantmonksTemple sweet. thank you!

[@tomgymer7719]

Great video! I'm also waiting till the book is more available, but I have to say I'm pretty disappointed with these creature changes so far. Easier to use, sure, but less interesting.

[@JakeConrad666]

The tentacle rod attack was always an extra effect after being hit 3 times. That wasn't changed

[@evannewell7985]

I hope Counterspell at least becomes less of a “must-have.” I don’t find it fun - not for me and definitely not for my DM - and I don’t like feeling the pressure to take it to make a strong caster.

[@8Smoker8]

it's never been a must-have in 5e.

[@Milenos]

Does it mean Monk can now deflect Arcane bolt attack? since its not a spell, but a ranged attack?

[@normal6483]

Technically Deflect Missiles doesn't say it works on ranged attacks, but "missiles" that come from "ranged weapon attacks." I believe it counts as a ranged weapon attack, but it still depends on whether an arcane bolt counts as a missile or not.

[@theaspie3121]

The Arcane Bolt is a “ranged spell attack”. As Normal said, Monks can deflect “ranged weapon attacks”. So no, Arcane Bolt cannot be deflected by the Monk’s Deflect Missiles

[@PH03NIX96]

@@theaspie3121 But its a 'spell' attack so counterspell ;) WoTC is dumb af I won't be buying this book.

[@CooperAATE]

@@PH03NIX96 it isn't a spell, it's a spell attack. There are only 2 types of attacks: weapon attack and spell attack. Is the same as an unarmed strike being a melee weapon attack, but not an attack with a melee weapon.

[@kainthedragon1]

I suspect the intent was to make these monsters easier to run for DMs. Having less complexity and more easily parsed stat blocks. For seasoned DMs it seems less challenging (rightfully so due to less flexibility), but you'll see more use of these monsters in less optimized tables, and DMs who were too intimidated to run these may run these now, meaning these monsters may show up in the general play sphere as a whole. I think that is what WOTC is banking on to make things feel deadlier... Because 0.5 is bigger than 0 (a monster never seeing play isn't a challenge compared to a robbed down version that does).

[@TreantmonksTemple]

I agree, simplicity in running for the DM was definitely a priority, and in that regard, I think they did a good job.

[@rogerwilco2]

I don't like how much some of these monsters got dumbed down, especially the Drow.

[@hopeforescape884]

Aren't innate spells unable to be counter spelled since they say "requiring no components"? doesn't that usually mean no components at all? if it was just material it would say "requiring no material components" If a spell is cast without components you can't counter it since you can't see them casting the spell.

[@fabian268]

That’s not a universal trait of innate spell casting. Look at graz’zt, iggwilv, drow arachnomancer, drow mage, yuan-ti abomination and others. They all specify that no *material* components are needed. But then look at mind flayers, their innate spell casting says no components period. So no thats not a thing for innate spell casting as a whole

[@sovest555]

@@fabian268 the no components at all thing is mostly reserved for the psionic-type innate spellcasting, since it makes sense due to the nature of psionics. Usually magical innate spellcasting will just be no material components, but will still require somatic and/or verbal components. Hence that makes magic counterable, but psionics uncounterable.

[@TheRavenofSin]

For me, it's not even just the affecting of counterspell. I have frequently had effects work with spell slots on monsters. Removing that is annoying to me and doesn't simplify it. And turning LITERAL SPELLCASTERS into things that barely cast spells upsets me as a dm. And it makes me upset for players because not only does that type of thing nerf counterspell, but also ancients paladin and abjuration wizards resisting spell damage at later levels. Or hell, in the same book they nerf gnomes and yuan-ti to only get advantage against spells. One place outside of this book that has a good example of this happening is in Witchlight with fiery blast which is a slightly nerfed fireball by 2d6 on a recharge. I just don't like the direction they are going with this edition.

[@kafka6666]

I'm confused... Drow Matron Mother HAD multiattack and retained it from what I can tell? And the Tentacle Rod still had the condition that it had to hit 3 times in a turn for the effect to be active. Like, it's literally unchanged I think? Maybe the fact that Treantmonk even NOTICED multiattack and the tentacle rod condition is a testament to how much more readable the new statblocks are 😜

[@JakeConrad666]

Right? He even displayed it right there on screen

[@th3phoenix]

Those Innate Spellcasting (Psionics) traits, like on the Elder Brain, weren't Counterspell-able anyway, due to requiring no components.

[@RasAlCool]

Yeah I was going to mention that then I found your comment :P

[@janvernw]

Or.. straight up being not magic, but literally using the power of the mind. That’s how I see it… and this StatBlock’s only change I like is the addition of modify memory. So yes, +1 one point for this book. My rating for this book? -99, because this book is a piece of shit that shall be put in the deepest part of the 9th layer of the bible from how much it is not only a fraud, but a treachery to any DM and players alike.

[@jamesshuttlesworth]

So basically if you're a table of optimizers then just stay away from all the new changes (nerfs) to monsters and PC races?

[@MZero8099]

I definitely like the idea of making some of these monsters less complicated to run. You can always homebrew monsters if you want, but making these more focused with how they behave and deal damage just makes things easier. If you want to add more different kinds of enemies, create a more complex battle environment, or work a narrative into a fight, we'll have a little more mental overhead to use on those things.

[@SuperGoose42]

I'm the opposite. I like a lot of monsters in theory, I wish they'd include a "combat tactics" section to tell how how they act in combat, what abilities they use most often, do they charge in or wait for an ambush, fight to the death or flee, etc etc. Removing abilities doesn't solve that problem

[@thiefswipe]

I can't wait to be the DM who says "You can't counterspell this fireball. It is identical to fireball in all ways except that it isn't a spell for the express purpose of you being unable to counterspell it." It makes DMs look like the pettiest type of arbitrary, adversarial DMs. Why are they wasting time with these soft nerfs rather than just directly patching the problem itself?

[@chopcooey]

because they don't want to admit that their rules are not perfect and that mistakes were made

[@nicolocorbellani9807]

Look i wouldn't even call counterspell a problem, sure it wasn't the most fun spell in the game however it had its place in the game.

[@nickm9102]

Counter spell really isn't a problem. Think about it, how often do you play in a campaign where all your enemies are casters? It seems so bad because when you counter it stops the Earthquake that will take your party or the Disintegrate that targeted your Cleric in the big fight. How often do you hear "that counter on the BBEG casting guidance was clutch." It is basically the argument that if I do something right no one remembers. If I do something wrong no one forgets. Every caster I have ever played that could get it has counter spell which is really a waste because I am lucky to use it once a campaign. But that one time I get to use it is always a game changer. You are Banking on the hope that your one maybe two uses are worth the spell prep all campaign. I really didn't think much about the rework I started with Adventures League and they seem to only use creatures that couldn't be countered.

[@louiesatterwhite3885]

@@nickm9102 it really depends on what you will be fighting. I am a player in a campaign that had a story arc centered around hags. Counterspell was critical during that, as I could stop things like lightning bolt from shredding the party. The most clutch play I pulled during that time was using a scroll of beacon of hope against a coven and trivializing the encounter completely.

[@nickm9102]

@@louiesatterwhite3885 you made my point with your story. Yes Counter spell was useful but the event that stood out most wasn't Counter spell it was Beacon of Hope. If you know how to use your spells and can find creative uses for them you can be more dangerous than if you rely on counter spell to deal with problems. Example from one of the Campaigns I'm playing a Sorcerer and we were in a situation where we were tiny creatures in a normal sized room and we needed to collect several hundred Items that were the same size as us. So I used Demiplane to create a doorway big enough for a medium creature on the floor causing a lot of the items to fall in and we could push the rest in it also gave us a way to pickup a magic Item that we were to small to take right then. Had the spell not specifically said the door was for a medium creature it would have been tiny and far less useful as we were pressed for time also.

[@tibot4228]

Both you and some commenters have made some very interesting points. I have a question about your verbiage, though. You say "a spell I want to Counterspell". However, aren't you supposed not to know what spell is being cast when you counterspell it? Or did you simply assume that, if a monster is casting a spell in battle, it's probably one worth counterspelling?

[@TreantmonksTemple]

In theory you shouldn't know beforehand. I find different DM's run it different ways, but even if I don't know beforehand, it's an advantage for a creature to have fewer spells with a higher percentage that I want to counter, as it increases the chance that countering was a good move.

[@tibot4228]

@@TreantmonksTemple Thank you, I was trying to figure out what was the RAI behind your statements :-P

[@ADT1995]

If I was a new DM I'd probably be really excited about the changes to some spellcasters because it does make them easier to run But I'm not a new DM and I primarily play wizards and bards when I'm a player (and sometimes ranger/druids, paladin/bards and clerics) I spend about 30 minutes before session reading my spell list as a player, and about 20 percent of my time on other players turns planning my next move and 80 percent reading over my spell list in case the situation changes and I need to come up with a plan B really quick, and I put a self imposed limitation on myself that if I haven't declared my turn within 30 seconds of my turn I take the dodge action (I may not be the best wizard, but I'm probably the most efficient wizard you'll ever see... Except treantmonk in his game with the Dungeon Dudes, making that many attacks at once so quickly was just insane and I tip my pointy hat to you sir) Point being: I actually know what most of the spells do, so running spellcasters to me isn't a slog for me as a DM, while I don't think the new mechanics for spellcasters are necessarily bad, I prefer the old method and will probably still use the statblocks in VGM and MTF more often than not

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

Seems like it’s gonna be for wizard duels where people train in the same classes instead of muting spell-like abilities. It looks like counterspell will still counter a spell cast in a way that another trained professionally in the casting of that same spell would recognize.

[@arsov9885]

Also I think you can't counterspell when you don't see a spell being casted, so this issue apply to "requiring no components" spells. I consider Alhoon's psionic as effect happening suddenly and without notice. But in case of existing normal spells in game, that might be important and players should known that before the campaign starts. That might be helpful for DM without help tools but it is a game changer.

[@SamFinklestein]

EDIT: This was covered in the last two minutes of the video; that's on me for not watching to the end before commenting. Unrelated to counterspell, but a (probably unintended) side effect of mashing together Innate Spellcasting and Spellcasting and calling it the latter is how it interacts with Shapechange. Shapechange allows you to inherit the Innate Spellcasting trait of the creature you turn into, but not the Spellcasting trait. So you lose out on some of the options you would have had with creatures like mind flayers and giants. However, with some of the new attack options, Shapechanging with a class that has Extra Attack like a bladesinger or a swords/valor bard might give some really wild options instead, although most of the stat blocks with big attacks seem to have Multiattack anyway.

[@SamFinklestein]

In addition, the "cast a spell as part of multiattack" is also going to be bonkers on a Shapechanged caster.

[@davidrobert2179]

As long you have legit reason for casting spell on someone you should do it without fear and also with the right spell caster like *Dr Ikenga* his spell has no negative affect

[@JustJaredThings]

What is the range on the Negate Spell ability? It is nice that it only works on 3rd or lower, but if you only have one caster with Counter Spell it looks like they have enough uses to counter your completely. Counter Spell wars possibly a better option to me.

[@acetraker1988]

The same plane RAW LUL...

[@bws0709]

So mageslayer kinda becomes obsolete right? Since most Battle Spell are becoming Innate Spell Actions

[@TreantmonksTemple]

mage slayer can't become obsolete since that would imply it was relevant before.

[@bws0709]

Lol

[@djaevlenselv]

I don't know if someone else pointed this out already, but you made a small mistake regarding the Drwo Matron Mother's attack actions: Tentacle Rod has not been nerfed. It works exactly the same now as it did in MTF. It's always required you to hit the same target 3 times in one round to trigger its debuffs. In fact, the Matron Mother's multiattack has actually been _slightly_ improved! In MTF she could make either 2 Demon Staff attacks *or* 3 Tentacle Rod attacks. In MotM she can make either 2 Demon Staff attacks *or* 1 Demon Staff _and_ 3 Tentacle Rod attacks. This means that Tentacle Rod has actually been indirectly buffed, because it now only replaces one Demon Staff attack instead of both of them.

[@DrAndrewJBlack]

Such an interesting dynamic for the future

[@Gwalothel]

It‘s the same with Oath of the Ancients‘ Aura of Warding that becomes less useful when creatures use „abilities“ instead of spells.

[@nonnayerbusiness7704]

I do think it is unfortunate that the new actions don't have a keyword identifying it as a spell. However, I have allowed counterspell to counter any obviously magic actions, and I am surprised other DM's didn't. To my interpretation, of course you can counterspell a wall of ice from an ice devil.

[@imakuniaw]

Side note: Yuan-Ti is balanced now. Advantage on saves VS spells is useless if there are no spells anymore.

[@nathansmith9597]

"Magic Resistance. You have advantage on saving throws against spells **and other magical effects**" What counts as a magical effect can be a bit unclear but it is definitely a much wider net than spells. If magic resistance only applied to saving throws against spells, in the first place, I don't think it would be OP. It would be really good in some campaigns and only situationally useful in others. It is the "other magical effects" clause that _really_ pushes it over the line, and I'd bet that >95% of the "spell-like abilities" are going to still be "magical effects" by any reasonable standard. So, magic resistance is largely unaffected.

[@imakuniaw]

@@nathansmith9597 It got updated in MoM. The "other magical effects" part is gone.

[@nathansmith9597]

@@imakuniaw Ah, didn't know that. That does help make it more balanced, in general. After watching the video, it appears that the most powerful thing that most spellcasting monsters can do is still going to be casting spells. So Yuan-Ti will become more balanced by losing the "other magical effects" clause, but advantage against saving throws against spells will still be good (and largely unaffected by the other changes to monsters). That sounds fine to me.

[@elliotbryant3459]

didn't they change their poison immunity into resistance as well?

[@TreantmonksTemple]

The video was to show that monsters still have lots of combat spells, so I'm not sure I get the point you're making.

[@TheBucketOfTruth]

Why not just use the word "ability" or something similar in lieu of "action" to refer to a spell-like action? Or does that already mean something else in 5e?

[@supersmily5811]

You very clearly don't get the problem here. As a caster player, I'd want to Counterspell ANYTHING the opponent does. Most games, you can't tell what the spell the enemy's casting is, so you have to blindly choose your Counters. BUT, no matter what spell it is, it's definitely taking action economy. No matter what, you're taking that away. Now you can't reliably do that.

[@richardreumerman5449]

I'd say a creature that can cast hold person or banishment and also make one or two attacks on the same turn is certainly more dangerous. It seems they attempted to address issues with action economy. I'd have to play in a session with these new creatures to really know how worked out, but just looking at these start blocks they may perhaps feel more dangerous?

[@CooperAATE]

"But I needed those 17 spell slots to make the monsters interesting" - a shockingly large chunk of the community, apparently

[@ShadowGeek12]

I realy hated the changes they made to the limited spell resistances, that work only on spells now i understand limiting it on a yuan ti, but not someone like a gnome who does not even get the resistance on all ability scores, if that was the only change it wouldnt be so bad but now they also made that same resistance absolete by making monsters use abilities instead of spells, but it actualy seems pretty bad that they are removing spells outright

[@muddlewait8844]

Yeah, not a fan of gnomes getting their save advantage against stuff like fey charms and Mind Flayer Blasts removed. But I guess they got 5’ more movement. *sigh*

[@TheodoreManthovani]

Elder Brain's innate spells aren't counterable since it has no components required. We can't know if it's casting them.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

You're right, didn't think about that when I recorded the video.

[@ErasMcras]

It seems that it's there to give monsters options against flyers

[@Sulicius]

Nothing changed with the Elder Brain. You can’t counterspell spells that you can’t see being cast. C’mon Treantmonk, you know this.

[@benjaminwoodham6682]

I love counterspell and I'm not ashamed. I imagine it being cast as a wizard duel spell that perfect neutralizes the spell in a dazzling flash of light and nothing feels more awesome than taking away an entire turn for an enemy because I blocked their spell. Counterspell is awesome and if you don't like it, it's due to lack of imagination imo.

[@iang0th]

Or maybe you've had it used on you. It's not much fun being completely sidelined from an encounter because the enemies have more casters with Counterspell than your party does.

[@benjaminwoodham6682]

@@iang0th Solutions... run backwards 70 feet. Use fireball. Take an action to hide, cast invisibility. Have the barbarian grapple the caster. Say that you are trying to sneakily cast the spell and see if your dm allows a stealth roll. Cast counterspell to the counterspell cast on you at 4th level (enemies always cast at 3rd, that's how the mechanics work.) If counterspell sidelines your entire character, you lack imagination and the ability to think outside the box. You'd be equally stumped by an anti magic field from a beholder. That is a very iconic enemy that is one of the poster monsters for the game. That encounter is designed to sideline magic users. Not being able to use magic is a core puzzle built into DnDs DNA for magic users. This is why some people play with components, to balance out the sheer power spells provide. There's also some things designed to sideline a bunch of different characters from spell casting, like hold person, or grappling. If they enemies goal is to capture the party, they might employ those kinds of tactics. This is part of the game, you need to learn to deal with it. However, as a dm who has scoured most monster manuals, enemies who have counterspell are few and far between. If suddenly everything has counterspell, your dm is quite honestly, playing against you as if it is a competition instead of a cooperative game. That's a sign you need to sit down with your dm and tell them how not fun their custom spell lists for enemies are. Not all enemies you encounter should know counterspell unless you are crashing a red mage convention. Anyways - counterspell has a lot of exploitable weaknesses, Use them to your advantage instead letting it stump you so easily.

[@Kreadus005]

Oath of ancients paladin also nerfed big time then.

[@lukeholbrook204]

Interesting analysis, as always. Any comment on the removal of “magic” and “magical” from certain non-spell abilities? This seems like a real nerf for gnome cunning and magic resistance. Of course, the DMG does say it’s fine to make NPCs using the PC rules, so one is not locked into the new style of NPC spellcasters, even if you adopt MMotM.

[@JakeConrad666]

Matron mother always had multiattack, she already made two demon staff attacks or 3 tentacle rod attacks. That wasn't changed. They way I read the statblock from tome of foes is that she should use her tentacle rod (which was always 3 hits for the extra effect), and save her demon staff for her legendary action attacks.

[@eraz0rhead]

Did they already make some changes to the DnDBeyond Monsters? Because the version of the Drow Matron Mother that I see there (and I don't have the new book in my sources), has that same terrible Tentacle Rod action. And the DC is only 15. For CR 20 a DC 15 Con save isn't that hard. So she has to hit 3 times and then you get to save every round.

[@JakeConrad666]

Its the exact same, no change was ever made. Don't know why he says there was.

[@TheKilogram1000]

Seems "Spell Like Abilities" in Pathfinder. Is that right?

[@normal6483]

Technically that's what the old "innate spellcasting" was. And the new "spellcasting," I guess. But the new "spell-like actions" aren't like Spell-Like Abilities, more like Supernatural abilities that resemble spells.

[@simonfernandes6809]

Counterspell will not become useless - when you use it against your players! Which I do occasionally. My players hate it. I own Monsters of the Multiverse - I appreciate the fact that the more powerful monsters are powered up. The changes also make it easier for newer DMs to run the monsters more effectively and avoid PCs steam rolling them so often.

[@rogerwilco2]

These monsters seem less powerful to me?

[@cp1cupcake]

Was Elder Brain published before Modify Memory? Which was published first?

[@DvirPick]

Like you noted, having spellslots means the creature can upcast spells, unlike the x times per day system which they now include more of. Another upside to spellslots is being able to cast the same spell multiple times as opposed to once per day. I thought the main issue WotC was tackling with this change was giving more spellcasters things they can do that are uncounterable. So that monster spellcasters wouldn't feel helpless against counterspell and could still have an impact. But it seems the focus was more on simplifying the DM's job on how to run a monster, which in turn gives it less options than the spellslots version as to not overwhelm the possibly new DM. So it's made less powerful as a result. I think the solution would be to have different versions of the same monster, one less complicated, and the other would be the spellslot version. You already have a lot of optional rules so new DMs can ignore them. Do the same with monsters.

[@Sulicius]

They explicitly told us why they are doing this: monsters had their CR based on doing their optimal behavior on a turn. For spellcasters this meant picking the most powerful spell each turn. Now for most DM’s, this meant that they had to find that spell between 20 other spells. Often dungeon masters felt like the spellcasters were weak. Now, they made the list smaller, so it is easier to recognize good spells. Also, if you watched the video, a lot of them got high damage multiattacks, where some of them could replace 1 attack with a spell. That is a huge increase in power when it comes to the action economy. I have tried it, and it makes a spellcaster way more threatening. I might sorta miss the spell slot flexibility, but tbh, I have many combats to prepare. I like a monster doing what it says on the tin.

[@Xenneth0102]

For the last thing you said, we do have different versions of the monsters. The Old books are still available

[@Sulicius]

@@Xenneth0102 True! I'm probably gonna stick with the new ones.

[@myveryunprofessionalvideop5830]

For home games just make a homebrew spell to counter spell like effects Like "Interupt Affect" or something if you feel that you should be able to counter those things too? It will probably have the reverse affect to what was intended in this change as then it *and* counterspell would make the anti-mage mage unlike just counterspell But it is easy enough to do, though would be a discussion with the DM obviously

[@zevil_2469]

I feel love like it's better to use spells rather than spell like effects because the players and DMs will both be familiar with the individual mechanics so there is less room for error

[@79AlienFinger79]

As a less experienced DM, I think I'll mix and match stat blocks from the old and new books. If I'm running a combat with 3-4+ different creature types, I'll likely use the new ones. They'll let me run complex encounters without considering a million spells and spell slots, upcasting, etc. If I'm only running 1-3-ish creature types, depending on complexity, I'll pick the more interesting option for the combat. If that's the old or the new one, I don't know yet - I'll find out when the time comes.

[@nathantanner9433]

I know you consider all other books besides Player's Handbook, DMG, and Monster Manual as optional. That said, I personally believe most tables significantly overpowered Counterspell anyways so this slight nerf was kind of needed. Xanathar's Guide to Everything, page 85, has a section called Identifying a spell where a character would have to spend their action or reaction to identify a spell that is being cast (they have advantage if the spellcaster is of the same class as them, no one gains advantage vs innate spellcasting of monsters), for that reason, I never ask the players what spell they are going to cast until I have decided, as the DM, not to counterspell, just like I tell them the foe is casting a spell but won't say what it is until they announce if they will counterspell or use a reaction to try to figure out what the spell is. This bogs the game down a few seconds for each spell cast but it prevent counterspell from running the show... I also don't allow counterspelling counterspell because logistically it makes no sense.

[@denali1566]

I'm just guessing but I've got a pretty good feeling that the chatter you were hearing was about the actual wizards, abjurer wizard, evocation wizard, etc. I'd like to have the evocation wizard's shaped blast even without the shaping effect as a 5th ish level spell. Not even talking about the new "arcane burst" that seems like it's a cantrip based on it not being limited in usage, the way the damage scales through the cr range and the fact that even apprentice wizards can do it, feels like your missing a fundamental critique, if every wizard in the multiverse has these abilities why doesn't my wizard have the ability to acquire them?

[@leosciotti1389]

Personally I like the idea of having characters/creatures with speel like abilities that are just innate, but as a DM I also subscribe to the idea that if an enemy can do it so can the players, unless it's something that took ages to prepare or obtain, like the magic powers of basically immortal beings and gods, or rituals decades in the making. What i mean by this is that sometimes the obbligatory use of components in spellcasting runs counter to flavor/the rule of cool; the most obvoius example would be sorcerers. A sorcerer is someone with magic as a fundamental part of their being, like a jedi's connection to the force! The should always be able to cast spells by pure force of will without the need of non costly components because their whole body is a magical focus.

[@gavinerickson9392]

I think it's kind of funny that when they first talked about this book, they said they wanted to make creatures tougher and more representative of their challenge rating. Maybe their intention is just to have you play more creatures...

[@BriConRPG]

It feels like monsters are super nerfed now, and they've straight up lost access to some flavorful and creative spells. WotC is leaning even harder into the "easy-to-learn, easy-to-play" design paradigm I guess.

[@bleddynwolf8463]

my guess is that they've noticied how prolificly the community homebrews, and are focusing on getting people to play the game, reasoning the people will fix it themselves if they want more

[@probablythedm1669]

@@bleddynwolf8463 I mean, I've been homebrewing monster spells-lists since my third session as a DM so... yeah? Means I can encourage my players to read all the books they want. I think a good amount of people DM like me and just decide "I think this monster should cast these spells", then just give them a list that seems fun since odds are they'll get to cast 2--5 of them in a fight. So I mostly like the change. Seems easier to run, and I can still change the spells to modify the challenge of the encounter.

[@PlanetOfTheApes999]

Yeah, these changes are awful. They're going to make D&D a game that anyone can learn, but only children would want to play.

[@BriConRPG]

"Rocks fall...everyone's fine."

[@Miggy19779]

Yup we already have hilariously underpowered monsters and hilariously weak encounter levels (deadly++encounter? EZ Clap), now even more so. GG WotC!!

[@mke3053]

Maybe most of the people dont know what to do with the spells. So less spells equal easier to play.

[@TreantmonksTemple]

I think you have it

[@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112]

They said as much in interviews. During play testing, they’ve found that different GMs run spellcasters in dramatically different ways which made balancing them almost impossible. Their main stated goal was to give monsters clearer play styles, to make running them less of a puzzle and more of a tool.

[@zakpodo]

This feels more like "dumbing down" than simplifying. You lose a lot of potential depth and character this way. There's definitely room for spells and spell like abilities, they both have their place (and non spell actions can create unique effects, give unique tools, or describe abilities that are powered by things other than classic spells), but obviously the archdruid should have druid spellcasting. Besides, I don't see how this would even aid in accessibility, spells always were and still will be a huge part of the game but now some monsters are just less 3 dimensional. I understand people want different things out of the game, and I'm always a little wary of efforts to simplify or improve accessibility. Sometimes they seem to be well intentioned but I'll considered and go too far. Besides, why not just keep the spellcasting and add a new action or two. It's much easier to disregard the spells if you want a simpler monster than build it back from the ground.

[@nonnayerbusiness7704]

I would disagree. I think it is far easier to add spells on. A novice DM needs the powers in the stat block for guidance. An experienced DM who has largely memorized the spells can just scribble down a list of spells for reference for the NPC.

[@zakpodo]

@@nonnayerbusiness7704 it's easier to recreate an appropriate and flavorful spellblock than disregard one? That's why I suggested leaving the new attack, like deathly ray. Newer DMs can lean on that and still have options for a special encounter without having to make up abilities beyond their skill range. And DMs that have run a few sessions can have their choice. And no loss to depth and flavor. Edit. Besides even a lot of experienced dms play close to raw, this just just seems like losing depth for no gain

[@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112]

@@zakpodo There’s a definite benefit. They’re trading complexity for prep speed. That’s a big deal. I wish they’d added reference page numbers to all of the spells though (like Monte Cooke books). Frankly, that would’ve been more helpful. Google is still the only thing that makes 5e stat blocks useable.

[@zakpodo]

@@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112 i don't t see how it does much for prep speed, given the amount of time it takes to not use something is negligible. If it's a regular mook, you're in a hurry, or a brand new dm just disregard the spells, (or pick one or two.) You can lean on the new style of attacks like deathly beam and have a monster with as much depth as you care to. Going the other way from a neutered monster is more involved, and often won't be done at all as a lot of DMs prefer to run a pretty RAW game and wouldn't be stoked about re-engineering monsters to add abilities they logically should (and hpreciously have) had. Think about it there are already tons of monsters of all sorts that are pretty vanilla, simple and easy to run. No shortage at all of monsters that are already more or less compatible with the new trend. Do we need to have all of them like this? Let's leave the more complicated, and magically inclined options there to provide complexity and depth (at the option of the dm and at no real opportunity cost) where it's wanted.

[@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112]

@@zakpodo so I can only take WOTC at their word, but in the interviews where they discussed the book, the big problem is that almost no DM’s use monster’s with spell casting, because it’s not worth the prep time. More than that though, any relatively experienced GM can make stuff up on the fly. The purpose of resource books like the monster manuals is to reduce prep time. They’re supposed to be tools, but monsters with lengthy spell lists are puzzles. You have to figure out how to make them work well and that takes time. It’s much faster to take something simple with 2 strong default options and add to it as the story demands rather than to work backwards from something with dozens of weak options to try to find the one that is situationally useful.

[@simondiamond9628]

With all these spell-like abilities floating around, I'm surprised WOTC hasn't either printed "Stifle" as an official 5E spell yet, or created an item that does the same thing. (For reference, the word "Stifle" refers to the M:TG card named Stifle, which counters an activated or triggered ability.) If creating spell-like abilites is the intended direction they're going, hopefully they print such a spell, or make such an item, that does exactly that. That would be a welcomed boon for casters.

[@samholden5758]

Commenting without watching yet, because I'm stupid... As a DM I will certainly accept counter spell being nerfed for the simpler to run monster stat blocks and just be up front with that and let players know. All they needed to make it not matter at all for counter spell is to add one word to those actions - a spell level equivalent. Just one number would make it so you could treat them as spells for counter spell purposes.

[@gavinerickson9392]

Does this make Shapechange better or worse, that's been my question for months now.

[@sohkaswifteagle2604]

but why did they do those change? what was the point? why remove spellcasting from monster?

[@TreantmonksTemple]

I believe the intent was to make them more straight forward for a DM to run, even a DM with little experience.

[@JoaoVictor-ic3ht]

As a DM I would rule that if the action is the main creature action it isn't a spell, if it is an extra action the creature can do its a spell. So that way creatures main action cant be countered and tactical spells can be countered giving the tactical dilemma to the casters PCs. So for example, if it's a dragon his breath weapon shouldn't be a spell, but if it wants to cast Shield, Wall of Force, Sleep, it would be a spell. And I would make it clear for players via PC knowledge

[@tomgymer7719]

Got more twice in one of the lines at 29:07

[@declankonesky38]

I honestly forget how we handled 'spell-like abilities' in 3.5 with this scenario