Showerthought: Most NPC Archmages are undeserving of their titles [Archive]

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 02:51 AM

JellyPooga

2021-04-03, 03:03 AM

JonBeowulf

2021-04-03, 03:06 AM

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 03:10 AM

"Why of course, young apprentice. Do you have a spare ten years or so to fully grasp the principles required to understand how, exactly, to squeeze a few extra seconds out of Time Stop? No? Shame. Come back when you're ready to really learn."

That is one of the possible handwaves - the creation of entirely new spells as unique signature effects or combinations or homebrew editing of existing spells as the 'edge' of the truly learned. However, it is still a circular argument.

You don't have the time or expertise to modify a 9th level spell or add a completely unique custom one to your spellbook, true enough. But that still begs the question - why can't he teach you to make the most of the spells that you do have and combining their basic forms? Why can't he have a similar doctrine to this (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?539861-The-Arcane-Programmer-Guide-(-Official-Rules-Technique-))?

A master should know the basics better than everyone. 10 ways to cook an egg and all that.

Sandeman

2021-04-03, 03:26 AM

Its a bit weak, but the wizard subclass powers might be considered high level "secrets".
Also, a high skill in Arcana might allow for creating certain magic items.

Rynjin

2021-04-03, 03:34 AM

MoiMagnus

2021-04-03, 03:49 AM

But that still begs the question - why can't he teach you to make the most of the spells that you do have and combining their basic forms?

(1) It is assumed they already did, and that the level of spell mastery mechanically granted by the class is partly in-universe granted by encounters with such NPCs.
For example, in our current campaign, our GM decided that most NPCs have just worst spellcasting capacities than archmages (and PCs). A regular civilian mage would probably take one full round to clear his mind before being able casting any spell in the middle of a battle, etc.

(2) "Sure, I should have a book that would help you. Please ask my assistant, Mr Google, he will retrieve one of my books from the library."

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 03:51 AM

Maybe he does. The question is, why would he tell you? What would be the incentive to tell a potential future rival all your hard earned knowledge?

Knowledge is freely shared in the current age because we have the luxury of doing so. Niche protection isn't as big of a thing in a global economy, so you get stuff like celebrity chefs who take requests on Twitter or whatever to go over "10 ways to cook an egg and all that".

But back in the day when the master/apprentice relationship was the norm for specialized trades...why would the Archmage just tell you anything? Whether you paid him or not, mind you. Masters are not in the habit of training rivals, they train successors. If you're not willing to be their apprentice and become essentially little mini-mes so their specific method of performing the craft is preserved for all time, what's the point of you?

Its a valid personality trait or roleplaying decision based on relationship with the player, but it is non-sequitur for the general issue, since it can just as equally be a motivation not to impart higher level spells as they are and so on. But the issue will still come up in other scenarios - What if the DM established the mage as one of those altruistic goody-two shoes type granting their aid in your final quest to save the world and he goes "Here is all I know that can help, I'll do anything in my power!", and its confirmed to be honest, and then you ask him to impart some tricks?

What if yoir background is that you are some mage's mini-me apprentice? What if the mage is not friend, but foe? Whennthey're fighting for their survival, will they actually have optimized combos or tricks to use against me? Will any NPC with class levels? If not, then the cover is busted as well.

(1) It is assumed they already did, and that the level of spell mastery mechanically granted by the class is partly in-universe granted by encounters with such NPCs.
For example, in our current campaign, our GM decided that most NPCs have just worst spellcasting capacities than archmages (and PCs). A regular civilian mage would probably take one full round to clear his mind before being able casting any spell in the middle of a battle, etc.

(2) "Sure, I should have a book that would help you. Please ask my assistant, Mr Google, he will retrieve one of my books from the library."

1. I addressed that, but the fact that arcane knowledge is translated in-universe to merely being able to learn the spells in the first place is not mutually exclusive to supposedly highly intelligent mages also being able to practically channel them on the field in creative or powerfulmways that synergize with other spells, certainly not if players know how.

2. This actually works. It would be pretty cool if we had, just like we have the PHB or books for spell names and abilities or lore, a compendium of magical tricks and combos neatly categorized by components and functions. Sure there are some individual archives but some of the best ones never make it to those.

JellyPooga

2021-04-03, 03:51 AM

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 04:05 AM

I can tell you how to cook a perfect omelette, but you won't be able to do it until you've put in the time and effort to actually perfect your technique. Yes, an Archmage could explain some basics to you, but without the dedicated time of study and practice, you're just some jumped up yahoo of an adventurer with more power at his disposal than he really comprehends, like a child with a rocket launcher.

Even for the basics. No...especially for the basics, there's a difference between knowing the principles and truly understanding them and putting them into practice.

Ah, but here lies the beauty of a non-abstracted game mechanics. We're not talking about imaginary actions, metrics and difficulty. We're talking about mechanics we have access to. The time and understanding you need to learn a combo in your spell list or some cool deconstruction of one specific spell to all its uses is precisely the time and understanding that you'd need to open up a thread on Gianttip detailing one and then utilize it.

Of course, that's true for you, your character might be an idiot, but thankfully that's not a burden which the INT score of most Wizards must bear.

MoiMagnus

2021-04-03, 04:08 AM

1. I addressed that, but the fact that arcane knowledge is translated in-universe to merely being able to learn the spells in the first place is not mutually exclusive to supposedly highly intelligent mages also being able to practically channel them on the field in creative or powerfulmways that synergize with other spells, certainly not if players know how.

I was more referring to the other class features, so arcane recovery, the feature of your arcane tradition, feats like spellsniper, etc.

(And why does the Archmage NPC stat block doesn't have them? Because that's a mechanical overload for the GM, dealing with NPC spell slots is already complex enough, those NPCs can't have abilities that interact with spells or custom spells without exceeding the bar of "how complex a monster from the monster manual should be to run as a GM")

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 04:15 AM

I was more referring to the other class features, so arcane recovery, the feature of your arcane tradition, feats like spellsniper, etc.

(And why does the Archmage NPC stat block doesn't have them? Because that's a mechanical overload for the GM, dealing with NPC spell slots is already complex enough, those NPCs can't have abilities that interact with spells or custom spells without exceeding the bar of "how complex a monster should be to GM")

Well even as far as class abilities are concerned, I'd say that assessment is highly individual. I've certainly controlled and played against 'Character NPC's' not only with full class abilities but with the most elaborate builds and routines around, its not very different from doing it as a player so long as you can focus on it. Adding a bunch of monsters with less effects is a good idea most of the time.

The point where it starts getting overwhelming is if you have like 2 or 3 full-blown Character NPC builds at the same time, then its pretty hard.

Dr. Cliché

2021-04-03, 04:43 AM

To be honest, I think this is more of a failure with the magic system being so rigid than anything else.

5e is a bit more flexible in terms of spell slots but in terms of the actual spells we're still stuck with Vancian Magic, which doesn't exactly leave much room for creativity outside of maybe some Illusion spells.

Yeah, that's a big part of why I start to lose interest in the middle of tier 2. It becomes Skyrim and I'm left wondering why I'm taking orders from these inept fools with fancy titles who can't stand up to me in any contest.

Just on this note, from a narrative perspective I really don't like the way in which characters advance in D&D. I wish it was less logarithmic, if that makes sense.

It makes it very awkward when you have to make it that every NPC is either incompetent or lazy, or else that the players are godlike beings far beyond the power even of kings and royal archmages.

I'm sure some people like this but I can't say it appeals to me.

Cazero

2021-04-03, 04:52 AM

The premise of the thread is that magic is easy enough for anyone to learn to cast a cantrip in a week when the game as written imply that it takes years to reach that starting point. Kind of an obvious disconnect there so let's adress that.

Within the game world, magic is not easy, or solved, or codified in a way that makes sense. Archmages don't have a player handbook to pick spells from, and neither does your PC when they gain levels.
Spells are codified in a book for the benefit of the players. In the reality of the typical medieval fantasy world, researchers already face massive logistic difficulties simply to share discoveries, wich is made only worse when said discovery is a magical incantation that simply doesn't work when uttered by someone who doesn't have the same voice pitch.

So DnD Wizards make their own spells, in a cave, with a box of scrap. Because they have to. Archmage NPCs are no different in that respect. That "generic" Time Stop? They made it from scratch. Their Lightning Bolt spell? Actualy a modified version of the Shocking Grasp cantrip. From the inworld perspective, most of their spells are the result of study that wouldn't be possible if they weren't worthy of the title of Archmage.

DwarfFighter

2021-04-03, 05:45 AM

"An amateur cook knows how to break an egg, roast a steak, and prepare a fancy dessert. But a great Chef must first know how to cook the egg in 10 different ways, and make a better, more unique dish on its basis than a cook with some expensive ingredients does".

I assume this is to illustrate how a true arch mage can cast fireball in 10 different ways, killing orcs in 10 different flavours. From a rules perspective, an archmage can cast 7 distinctly different fireballs by using slots 3 through 9. From a narrative perspective I don't see how you can't do this without the statblock telling you you can do this (fireball is shaped like a skull, or mushroom cloud, or whatever - change the colors, smell and sound). And as the GM, you can rule that NPCs can do stuff that is outside the scope of the rules and spells available to PCs. You have NPCs running kingdoms, magical towers, dungeons and all manner of enterprises, the rules for which don't appear in the player guide. An NPC wizard can create a floating tower even if your PCs cannot.

It occurs to me that in most games likely taking place right now, modules or custom campaigns alike, most of those NPC's who will be presented to players as 'Archmages' or even as trained mages or apprentices rather than mere novices, supposedly individuals who have spent lifetimes or years studying and perfecting the magical arts or learning by experience and duty, and that goes for any class of spellcasters really, in fact tend to be terribly incompetent at their craft.

Incompetent? In what capacity? As an adventurer or murder-hobo, sure! But that isn't his role, is it?

For the most part, other than being played as generally more capable in their respective mental attributes and more worldly knowledge or status, when it comes to their magical talents themselves, that which makes them a Master mage or legendary sorcerer as opposed to just a wise advisor or witty librarian, it comes down to the fact that they can cast higher level spells, and that's about it.

Well, higher spell slots = more power, so... Why are we supposed to discount that?

"Without your ability to cast Power Word Kill upon us, you are nothing but a glorified librarian!"

Also, if the GM really wants to he can have the NPC arch mage turn your character into a frog, permanently, with no save and no recourse. Does this sound like the sort of power level you would expect from someone going by the title arch mage?

In how many tables would a conversation with such an NPC play out like this:

Not many, I wager.

Player: So, Great Archmage, could you teach me something of what you know or demonstrate an arcane principle?
NPC: Certainly, should you [ Fulfill X terms ] I have these incantations here that through a careful manipulation of the Weave.. [ Insert Arcane Gibberish ] will allow you to produce an effect.. [ Insert Specific spell ]
Player: Ahem, Actually I'm not interested in adding new formulas right now, I was leaning more into refining existing ones. New tactics, inventive applications of multiple characteristics, combinations with each other and with each School's expertise. You spent years studying and practicing them, you must have hundreds of tricks up your sleeve.
NPC: [ Blank stare ], err.. X type of damage is effective against Y creatures? Caste Haste on the Paladin, summon Pixies with Conjure Woodland Beings....?
Player: Yeah but I mean, what about some secrets that haven't been widely displayed before? Your signature combos and theses.
NPC: .....

What we have here is a player that is oblivious to the limits of their GM's capabilities, or he doesn't care. I don't know what's worse, the assumption that the GM is a complete buffoon or that the player would want to run a conversation like that in a game with friends.

Naturally what comes afterwards heavily depends on the DM, which is a big part of why steering the topic toward that direction with Arcanists can take an awkward turn, because you are challenging the DM's knowledge by proxy - and its a fascinating dynamic to examine, because magic, by virtue of being absent from our world ( Allegedly ) yet present in DND is one of, if not the only field in the game that can't simply be abstracted while retaining value.

Virtually every field is abstracted in role playing games: Physics, economics, politics, evolution...

And what sort of argument is that anyway? Spells are to a varying degree abstractions. A fireball has a very brief description of how it manifests, and then a list of rules that describe how the magical effect interact with the rules for characters and objects. Those rules are the abstractions. The end result of their application is the value retained.

What do I mean, well if someone asks your NPC about medical procedures or alchemy or botanism or performing, you can say they give a detailed explanation so that next time you make a skill check related to it, you implement all you have learned. Some aspects are more difficult to abstract away like History or Arcana, you'd need some actual clues or info to utilize it in the game as a player, but its the DM's world or chosen setting, so they can always look it up, or make it up, or tailor it to their liking. Even if you ask a rogue for spying or sneaking tips, worst case scenario we could abstract away whole sequences and say you accomplished a goal with a bunch of rolls and stunts.

But its much harder with game mechanics, hence why they're called mechanics, and likely none harder than magic as there is only so much you can teach about flanking, moving, cover, shooting or stabhing, though to be fair many NPC Battlemasters aren't all they're cranked up to be either. But in order to make use of a a spell's tricks or clever combos in the game....you'll need to actually understand and learn it in reality.

So needless to say, we have many people in communities like these and elsewhere who actually studied magic, as in spent years scrutinizing spell descriptions and class abilities to collect dozens and hundreds of original revelations and tidbits and share them with fellow students in a bona fide 'Arcane Academy' of sorts and would be worthy of magical rank for their contributions, as opppsed to NPC's who "Studied magic" in a make-believe fashion.

Uhm what? Do you think the player needs to learn fireball as an in-this-world spell in order for his character to properly use it in the game? If I read that right, then your casual reference to magic being "allegedly absent" from our world seems to fit. It also makes this post of your really weird...

So needless to say, we have many people in communities like these and elsewhere who actually studied magic, as in spent years scrutinizing spell descriptions and class abilities to collect dozens and hundreds of original revelations and tidbits and share them with fellow students in a bona fide 'Arcane Academy' of sorts and would be worthy of magical rank for their contributions, as opppsed to NPC's who "Studied magic" in a make-believe fashion.

Uh... What?

In my game I would perhaps introduce an arch mage NPC with a made-up back-story of them being the prime practitioners of magic and having achieved that distinction through years of study, training and practical application. This back-story is of course make-believe from the perspective of the GM and players, but in the game world it is actual. An NPC presenting himself as an arch-mage whose back-story is that he is only pretending to be one because his studies were only make-believe would certainly make for an interesting character.

But what you are talking about is that the NPC's made-up story is in contrast to real people studying magic for real.

Now if the DM is one of those, then they can turn make believe into reality should a player inquire and go "Why yes, let me check my old notes.. 47 super powerful methods on how to employ your abilities to accomplish X, Y and Z. Finish the quest or spend some downtime and the Archmage will teach you a few, I'll send you a text if necessary when we're done". But I wager to say that it likely isn't the case in most tables, since extensive magic mechanic exploitation is kind of a niche hobby which takes up lots of time, its a very specific subject even in here.

...If the DM was an actual wizard!

And again, for sure there is a lore associated with the learning and casting of any spell by itself, though to some degree it is still an imitation of the mages after whom some of those spells have been named for eons or the spell scroll or spellbook it was copied from, and makes you wonder all the more - with such a high intelligence or wisdom or charisma, why shouldn't they have some creative uses and combinations too?

You want to make new spells? Go ahead. The DM will check them and evaluate them from a game-balance perspective.

I know it will always be a stretch, because it is one of the only non-abstractable skills in the game and therefore heavily DM dependent, but I'm intrigued by the notion of changing the way in which NPC's who are meant to be paragons of their mechanical class are portrayed and interacted with at tables, from chatacters that just have higher level stuff to ones that can actually inspire genuine wonder or eagerness in their ability to hone your own mechanical mastery.

Spells are abstractions.

If you want the DM to better portray arch-mages, find a DM that does that. It's not something you will find in the archmage stat block.

And on the inverse, I see potential incorporating the knowledge of resourceful players into the overall narrative. Those who can demonstrate their discoveries and techniques might be admitted as prodigies to various Arcane institutions and rise meteorically through the ranks even at lower levels, or asked after by rulers as royal inventors/researchers ( Like Leonardo Da Vinci ), or use their knowledge as an advantage on intimidating or impressing other mages and so forth.

If you want the players to better portray magic users, find players that do that. I am sure the DM will take their role-play into account when setting the DC for their Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion checks.

Parting thoughts: Verbose adjective - using or expressed in more words than are needed.

-DF

P.S.: Let's know when your magical abilities kick in.

DwarfFighter

2021-04-03, 05:58 AM

Ah, but here lies the beauty of a non-abstracted game mechanics. We're not talking about imaginary actions, metrics and difficulty. We're talking about mechanics we have access to. The time and understanding you need to learn a combo in your spell list or some cool deconstruction of one specific spell to all its uses is precisely the time and understanding that you'd need to open up a thread on Gianttip detailing one and then utilize it.

Of course, that's true for you, your character might be an idiot, but thankfully that's not a burden which the INT score of most Wizards must bear.

GM: Welcome adventurer! As you head off to face the Evil Galvmacor in his lair, I wish to teach you a trick. I discovered it by chance as I was experimenting.

Wizard: Sure, lay it on me bro!

GM: You have already mastered the magic that is so commonly classified as Fireball?

Wizard: Most def! They don't call me Fireball Harry for nothing, you know!

GM: There is is a trick, it doesn't require years of study or practice. You just have to know that you can do it and have enough power in your reservoir of magic.

Wizard: I am listening!

GM: Upcast it!

-DF

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 06:03 AM

"An amateur cook knows how to break an egg, roast a steak, and prepare a fancy dessert. But a great Chef must first know how to cook the egg in 10 different ways, and make a better, more unique dish on its basis than a cook with some expensive ingredients does".

Where is that quote from?

It occurs to me that in most games likely taking place right now, modules or custom campaigns alike, most of those NPC's who will be presented to players as 'Archmages' or even as trained mages or apprentices rather than mere novices, supposedly individuals who have spent lifetimes or years studying and perfecting the magical arts or learning by experience and duty, and that goes for any class of spellcasters really, in fact tend to be terribly incompetent at their craft.

For the most part, other than being played as generally more capable in their respective mental attributes and more worldly knowledge or status, when it comes to their magical talents themselves, that which makes them a Master mage or legendary sorcerer as opposed to just a wise advisor or witty librarian, it comes down to the fact that they can cast higher level spells, and that's about it.

In how many tables would a conversation with such an NPC play out like this:

Player: So, Great Archmage, could you teach me something of what you know or demonstrate an arcane principle?
NPC: Certainly, should you [ Fulfill X terms ] I have these incantations here that through a careful manipulation of the Weave.. [ Insert Arcane Gibberish ] will allow you to produce an effect.. [ Insert Specific spell ]
Player: Ahem, Actually I'm not interested in adding new formulas right now, I was leaning more into refining existing ones. New tactics, inventive applications of multiple characteristics, combinations with each other and with each School's expertise. You spent years studying and practicing them, you must have hundreds of tricks up your sleeve.
NPC: [ Blank stare ], err.. X type of damage is effective against Y creatures? Caste Haste on the Paladin, summon Pixies with Conjure Woodland Beings....?
Player: Yeah but I mean, what about some secrets that haven't been widely displayed before? Your signature combos and theses.
NPC: .....

Naturally what comes afterwards heavily depends on the DM, which is a big part of why steering the topic toward that direction with Arcanists can take an awkward turn, because you are challenging the DM's knowledge by proxy - and its a fascinating dynamic to examine, because magic, by virtue of being absent from our world ( Allegedly ) yet present in DND is one of, if not the only field in the game that can't simply be abstracted while retaining value.

What do I mean, well if someone asks your NPC about medical procedures or alchemy or botanism or performing, you can say they give a detailed explanation so that next time you make a skill check related to it, you implement all you have learned. Some aspects are more difficult to abstract away like History or Arcana, you'd need some actual clues or info to utilize it in the game as a player, but its the DM's world or chosen setting, so they can always look it up, or make it up, or tailor it to their liking. Even if you ask a rogue for spying or sneaking tips, worst case scenario we could abstract away whole sequences and say you accomplished a goal with a bunch of rolls and stunts.

But its much harder with game mechanics, hence why they're called mechanics, and likely none harder than magic as there is only so much you can teach about flanking, moving, cover, shooting or stabhing, though to be fair many NPC Battlemasters aren't all they're cranked up to be either. But in order to make use of a a spell's tricks or clever combos in the game....you'll need to actually understand and learn it in reality.

So needless to say, we have many people in communities like these and elsewhere who actually studied magic, as in spent years scrutinizing spell descriptions and class abilities to collect dozens and hundreds of original revelations and tidbits and share them with fellow students in a bona fide 'Arcane Academy' of sorts and would be worthy of magical rank for their contributions, as opppsed to NPC's who "Studied magic" in a make-believe fashion.

Now if the DM is one of those, then they can turn make believe into reality should a player inquire and go "Why yes, let me check my old notes.. 47 super powerful methods on how to employ your abilities to accomplish X, Y and Z. Finish the quest or spend some downtime and the Archmage will teach you a few, I'll send you a text if necessary when we're done". But I wager to say that it likely isn't the case in most tables, since extensive magic mechanic exploitation is kind of a niche hobby which takes up lots of time, its a very specific subject even in here.

And again, for sure there is a lore associated with the learning and casting of any spell by itself, though to some degree it is still an imitation of the mages after whom some of those spells have been named for eons or the spell scroll or spellbook it was copied from, and makes you wonder all the more - with such a high intelligence or wisdom or charisma, why shouldn't they have some creative uses and combinations too?

I know it will always be a stretch, because it is one of the only non-abstractable skills in the game and therefore heavily DM dependent, but I'm intrigued by the notion of changing the way in which NPC's who are meant to be paragons of their mechanical class are portrayed and interacted with at tables, from chatacters that just have higher level stuff to ones that can actually inspire genuine wonder or eagerness in their ability to hone your own mechanical mastery.

That is an EXTREMELY narrow way of defining what makes one good at something.

Do all expert brain surgeons have 20 variations on how to open a living skull that no other brain surgeon knows?

Do all expert engineers have their own steel they carefully researched through their career.

Do all expert geologists know secrets about metamorphic stones they've built their reputation on?

Those who can demonstrate their discoveries and techniques might be admitted as prodigies to various Arcane institutions and rise meteorically through the ranks even at lower levels, or asked after by rulers as royal inventors/researchers ( Like Leonardo Da Vinci ), or use their knowledge as an advantage on intimidating or impressing other mages and so forth.

Leonardo's career was as a painter and sometime as a musician. The rest was his hobbies. He was friends with important people, not an advisor (which was probably for the best, given he was known for being unreasonable in many ways, including taking his patrons' money then selling the artwork to someone else).

The premise of the thread is that magic is easy enough for anyone to learn to cast a cantrip in a week when the game as written imply that it takes years to reach that starting point. Kind of an obvious disconnect there so let's adress that.

Within the game world, magic is not easy, or solved, or codified in a way that makes sense. Archmages don't have a player handbook to pick spells from, and neither does your PC when they gain levels.
Spells are codified in a book for the benefit of the players. In the reality of the typical medieval fantasy world, researchers already face massive logistic difficulties simply to share discoveries, wich is made only worse when said discovery is a magical incantation that simply doesn't work when uttered by someone who doesn't have the same voice pitch.

So DnD Wizards make their own spells, in a cave, with a box of scrap. Because they have to. Archmage NPCs are no different in that respect. That "generic" Time Stop? They made it from scratch. Their Lightning Bolt spell? Actualy a modified version of the Shocking Grasp cantrip. From the inworld perspective, most of their spells are the result of study that wouldn't be possible if they weren't worthy of the title of Archmage.

This is true.

noob

2021-04-03, 06:08 AM

A real npc archmage would explain for hours how to make a spell that brews tea and the varied complication that can go with it because it is more pertinent to what they do in their life than any battlefield trick.
They would also explain how to make a circle attuned to your magic that protects you against your own magical experiments and varied other safety rules for magical research which you disregard because you always do on the field research because you are an adventurer.
They could also explain you which kind of people can reliably get you rare books for magical research and arcane theory and the best libraries to buy books in but you would not care because those books contains no spells useful for adventuring.
They could also explain you a nice trick to always have page marks for your precious books and possibly teach you a spell that makes books return to their own shelves and tell you where you can buy high quality ink that have vibrant colours and lasts long but you would disregard it because you will probably reach level 20 and retire while the ink you used for writing your first spell is still fresh and you carry all the books you care about on yourself and have copies in the backpack of the cleric.
I mean you do not get to learn a lot of magic and to be very knowledgeable and to understand the theory of magic in depth when you go fight opponents: you generally tend to end up dead unless you are a player character.

Rynjin

2021-04-03, 06:29 AM

I was more referring to the other class features, so arcane recovery, the feature of your arcane tradition, feats like spellsniper, etc.

(And why does the Archmage NPC stat block doesn't have them? Because that's a mechanical overload for the GM, dealing with NPC spell slots is already complex enough, those NPCs can't have abilities that interact with spells or custom spells without exceeding the bar of "how complex a monster from the monster manual should be to run as a GM")

I don't see why this would be an issue. It works for every other edition. Eg, the Archmage statblock for Pathfinder. (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npcs-cr-19/archmage-elf-wizard-20/)

Note "Hand of the Apprentice" and "Metamagic Mastery" abilities, clearly labeled and upfront; the hallmarks of the Universalist (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/arcane-schools/paizo-arcane-schools/classic-arcane-schools/universalist/) Arcane School.

I think you have a pretty low bar for what constitutes "mechanical overload". All of the information is provided there for you to use, same as any other statblock. Adding extra detail doesn't really change anything, because it's right there. You don't need to memorize it, it's written down.

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 06:37 AM

Also worth noting: what does "Archmage" mean, as a title?

All the NPCs described as Archmage can cast 9th level spells, which is far beyond the scope of not only most mortals in the setting, but also of most immortals.

Does that imply knowing magical theory beyond the normal? Formally, it doesn't. You can cast 9th level spells without proficiency in Arcana. Nevertheless, the regular Archmage NPC has +13 to INT (Arcana) checks, which can only be surpassed by a PC with Expertise in Arcana.

The Archmage Manshoon, who DID develop his own variations on the Simulacrum and Clone spells, has +11. Laeral Silverhand has +17. Your typical Lich has +19. Halaster Blackcloak has +21. Acererak has +22.

As for what unique things an Archmage can do?

The typical Archmage NPC statblock not only has Magic Resistance, meaning that they have an easier time resisting all spells, they also have resistance to all spell-generated damage.

The Archmage NPC statblock know a way to half ALL damage coming from spells.

And that's just the regular, MM statblock.

I don't see why this would be an issue. It works for every other edition. Eg, the Archmage statblock for Pathfinder. (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npcs-cr-19/archmage-elf-wizard-20/)

It "works" for 3.X and 3.X inspired systems, by making a big impractical statblock that is mostly irrelevant to a DM.

5e doesn't have for expectation the humanoid NPCs are built like PCs, and I'm ever-grateful for that.

Chronic

2021-04-03, 06:40 AM

To me, arch mages are beyond level 20 spellcasters. They are excedingly rare, rarely concerned by mortal affairs and will probably ignore the players because even if you like ants, you don't spend time speaking to them, it's a waste of time. All of them are beyond good and evil in the Nietzschian sense of the expression, and none of them will concede any knowledge except when it serve their interest. In terms of magical abilities they have superior version of every spells, with added effects and damage, and all of them have access to metamagic no matter their class. Funny enough, while I have extensive profil and spell lists for them, I don't think I really demonstrated that to my players, since they so rarely interfere in mortals affairs and my players behave in the presence of one despite being high level themselves.

Silly Name

2021-04-03, 06:42 AM

Most NPC "master strategists" wouldn't be able to devise effective and novel tactics on the battlefield. Most NPC "master thieves" wouldn't be able to improvise complex and foolproof heist plans. Most NPC "rulers" don't know jack about running a credible polity in the game world.

This is because they're, on average, played by someone who doesn't have a lot of expertise on those topics. While it's always a bonus if the GM has a greater-than-average understanding of certain topics, it's hardly a required skill. The main duty of a GM is to provide an engaging game world and encounters, not to be a Renaissance man of every in-game topic so that they can properly roleplay wise oracles and inhumanly intelligent mages.

The snippet of theoretical conversation you've posted, to me, sounds like a player being a jerk and trying to "gotcha" the GM by asking increasingly specific questions the GM probably wasn't prepared for, and may even be able to answer if given time, but can't do so on the spot. This is particularly true when a player is asking to be taught something with mechanical effects (a spell, a feat, a battlemaster maneuver...) - while there are rules for these, the GM probably can't recall them on a whim, and is taking in consideration game balance. Why, yes, the archmage could teach you how to cast a certain spell to maximum power - fundamentally the same as the Sorcerer's "Empowered Spell" metamagic -, but how would this affect encounters? If you're not a Sorcerer, how do you balance such a power?

There's also the issue that the basic D&D assumption is that Magic A is Magic A - a fireball is a fireball no matter who is casting it and how they learnt to do it. It always has the same requirements and produces the same mechanical effects. The idea of modifying spells is restricted to a handful of specific class features, and even they don't dramatically alter the functionality of a spell. Asking a DM to come up on the spot with something of the sort is equivalent to asking them to homebrew a new spell on the spot.

fbelanger

2021-04-03, 06:48 AM

In DnD it is the PC that run the show.
an archmage is at best a wingman.

Sorinth

2021-04-03, 08:21 AM

Why is the X damage against Y creature very effective, or haste on paladin, summon pixies considered widely known/displayed?

I mean just because you the player have access to google doesn't mean your character would know all these tactics. Furthermore even if there were a list of tactics or inventive applications (Like Haste on Rogue and Ready action to get double sneak attacks), what's to stop you the player from simply lumping them in with the above?

If as a DM you want to give out "magic knowledge" as a reward for helping an archmage then the easiest is to hand out the opportunity for training that could gives a feat. Take some downtime and the Archmage teaches you spell sniper as an example seems to fit well within what your asking for no?

Ashe

2021-04-03, 08:26 AM

It makes it very awkward when you have to make it that every NPC is either incompetent or lazy, or else that the players are godlike beings far beyond the power even of kings and royal archmages.

If those are the only two reasons you can come up with for NPCs to not solve the PCs problems for them, you're not thinking hard enough.

DwarfFighter

2021-04-03, 08:39 AM

And what is it that the OP actually wants? I'd ask him, but like every NPC on Critical Role he's hard to read.

Does he want the DM to look at the arch mage's stat block and use that as the basis for a conversation about the nature of magic?

Does he want new spells?

Does he want changes to the existing spells? E.g.: "I learned a way to use garlic to replace the somatic component of this spell with a material component!"

Does he want new ways to combine spells? There are already very limited synergies, e.g.: casting Fireball or other spells requiring saves at an enemy that is already affected by Bane. There are no spell merge mechanics, like casting Fireball and Silence together for a silent explosion. Does he want the DM to read his mind an invent that?

-DF

DwarfFighter

2021-04-03, 09:07 AM

Yeah, that's a big part of why I start to lose interest in the middle of tier 2. It becomes Skyrim and I'm left wondering why I'm taking orders from these inept fools with fancy titles who can't stand up to me in any contest.

What a weird sentiment.

First off, I don't think it is fair to measure an NPCs level of competence based on whether or not a player character could take them on.

And I don't think there is a shift in the NPCs ability that turns him "inept" the moment a player character's ability surpasses his. The reason the Captain of the Guard is sending you group to clear out Smugglers Cove is that you are good at exactly that sort of thing. The reason he is ordering you to do it is because he presumably has story reasons that puts him in a position of authority over you. He isn't a lolling idiot wearing his uniform inside out and upside down just because he happens to send a very qualified group of experts to deal with a situation.

And what does "any contest" mean, except where your player character has extremely specialized skills? Would your barbarian be ready for the task of sifting through the kings ledgers to find who has been embezzling his funds, or should we assume that the king's accountant is more capable?

-DF

Eurus

2021-04-03, 09:45 AM

That is one of the possible handwaves - the creation of entirely new spells as unique signature effects or combinations or homebrew editing of existing spells as the 'edge' of the truly learned. However, it is still a circular argument.

You don't have the time or expertise to modify a 9th level spell or add a completely unique custom one to your spellbook, true enough. But that still begs the question - why can't he teach you to make the most of the spells that you do have and combining their basic forms? Why can't he have a similar doctrine to this?

A master should know the basics better than everyone. 10 ways to cook an egg and all that.

1. I addressed that, but the fact that arcane knowledge is translated in-universe to merely being able to learn the spells in the first place is not mutually exclusive to supposedly highly intelligent mages also being able to practically channel them on the field in creative or powerfulmways that synergize with other spells, certainly not if players know how.

Okay, it sounds like your complaint here is that 5e D&D is not good at giving you things to do with magic that aren't discrete, self-contained spells. And I agree! That's a pity, it would be nice if there were more guidelines in the rulebook for creative uses of magic. It's a bit of a weird consequence of the fact that so much of 5e's ruleset is devoted to precise combat rules, and magic (like feats, and classes, and most content) is sharply slanted toward that. I think that when you have a problem like this, there are two main ways forward: you can come up with a justification for why things are the way they are, or you can write homebrew to fix it.

So, if you want a justification, here's a possible one: magic is unstable and dangerous, and the spells as we know them are the product of thousands of years of invention, refinement, and standardization. Ages ago there were a dozen different Fireball spells, until some Archmage spent a decade hashing out the ideal combination of reliability and efficiency to produce the Fireball we know and love today. Because raw magic is so unstable, experimentation is dangerous and slow, and because spells are so optimized, there's not a lot of room for improvement -- if you want the best solution to a problem, you either find the right spell that someone's already written, or you spend a decade refining a new formula.

If you want a homebrew system that lets you combine and modify magic in arbitrary ways... that's going to be a big project, and I wish you luck on it. :smallamused:

RickAllison

2021-04-03, 10:51 AM

This is why I like the ritual system in Pathfinder 2e. Standard spells are like useful tools, you always have them available, they are fully refined, and other than DC or subclass effects, the results are the same from caster to caster. Ritual magic, meanwhile, is difficult to learn, requires lots of skill expertise to pull off, Secondary casters who are skilled on their own, perhaps certain criteria to even attempt it (planets aligning, full moon, eclipse, specific location, etc), and so on. This is the type of magic that should distinguish an archmage, things that cannot simply be written down in a spellbook, but require real study.

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 10:55 AM

Spells are only a small part of magic in 5e, also.

Rituals can be used even by non-spellcasters to create powerful magical effects. Many published adventures show that fact.

Thing is, that kind of "let's sacrifice X ammount of enemies over a month-long period" or the like isn't an adventurer's domain. And it's certainly not the kind of thing that depends on levels or other numbers.

An Archmage could know dozens of such rituals, or be in the middle of creating new ones. It's just not the kind that shows up on a statblock.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-04-03, 10:58 AM

D&D spells are black boxes. Packaged "hacks" to upload to the universe. They're discovered by either brute-force searches through an enormous parameter space or by happy accident. Unlike real-world physics, there is no underlying theoretics--the nature of these spells is entirely dependent on the whim of the god of magic. And they're not very customizable--if you want a blue fireball, it's a completely different spell than a red fireball and has to be discovered entirely independently. What you learn from one spell doesn't help with another. Once discovered, they're learned by rote. Most wizards, even powerful ones, have never discovered a new spell in their lifetimes.

Basically, wizards are script kiddies. That's why they hunt through ancient relics--to find spells that were discovered and then lost. And then they aggressively hoard them.

Or another way of putting it--wizardry is mostly like bug collecting. You don't make new bugs, all you do is catalogue the variety that exists.

As a side note, wizardry is not just a matter of knowing the right motions/words/etc. Because otherwise you wouldn't need spell slots. You can be the world's foremost expert on arcana and completely unable to cast a spell (20-INT thief rogue with expertise in Arcana). Or, you can be relatively uneducated (8-INT wizard without proficiency in Arcana) and cast 9th level spells (poorly, but any time stop is just as good as any other time stop).

And no wizard, no matter how powerful, can cast cure wounds. Because after all, wizardry isn't universal. Its tools and techniques really only apply well to gross manipulation of forces and matter. Sure, you can blow things up effectively. Yay.

----------
My headcanon is that magic requires two things. Access to patterns embedded in the universe (spells) and inner strength (spell slots) that can only[1] come through meditation, practice, and long experience with manipulating magic. The spell slots are universal--someone who knows a pattern via wizardry can cast it out of a spell slot gained while being a cleric (if multiclassed/trained in both).

Simply learning spells isn't enough. Adventurers are weird in that they can grow real fast--that's not normal. Most people take decades of consistent meditation, practice, and struggle to open their first spell slot and rarely get beyond that. 5th level spells are the pinnacle of "normal" life. 6+ are legendary.

Archmages have legendary levels of power. They have access to both the highest rank of patterns and the inner strength to actually manifest them. You might have (except in FR, which is a completely incoherent setting by any measure) a small handful per continent. Like...3. 4.

Edit: adding missing footnote
[1] warlocks are the exception. Their spell slots aren't opened by their own effort, but ripped/coaxed/etc open as a consequence of dealing with powerful beings. That's the primary service the patron provides, and the thing that differentiates a warlock from a wizard or a sorcerer--their casting isn't natural to them at all. It's artificially induced. And their higher level spells aren't even theirs at all.

noob

2021-04-03, 12:09 PM

D&D spells are black boxes. Packaged "hacks" to upload to the universe. They're discovered by either brute-force searches through an enormous parameter space or by happy accident. Unlike real-world physics, there is no underlying theoretics--the nature of these spells is entirely dependent on the whim of the god of magic. And they're not very customizable--if you want a blue fireball, it's a completely different spell than a red fireball and has to be discovered entirely independently. What you learn from one spell doesn't help with another. Once discovered, they're learned by rote. Most wizards, even powerful ones, have never discovered a new spell in their lifetimes.

Basically, wizards are script kiddies. That's why they hunt through ancient relics--to find spells that were discovered and then lost. And then they aggressively hoard them.

Or another way of putting it--wizardry is mostly like bug collecting. You don't make new bugs, all you do is catalogue the variety that exists.

As a side note, wizardry is not just a matter of knowing the right motions/words/etc. Because otherwise you wouldn't need spell slots. You can be the world's foremost expert on arcana and completely unable to cast a spell (20-INT thief rogue with expertise in Arcana). Or, you can be relatively uneducated (8-INT wizard without proficiency in Arcana) and cast 9th level spells (poorly, but any time stop is just as good as any other time stop).

And no wizard, no matter how powerful, can cast cure wounds. Because after all, wizardry isn't universal. Its tools and techniques really only apply well to gross manipulation of forces and matter. Sure, you can blow things up effectively. Yay.

----------
My headcanon is that magic requires two things. Access to patterns embedded in the universe (spells) and inner strength (spell slots) that can only[1] come through meditation, practice, and long experience with manipulating magic. The spell slots are universal--someone who knows a pattern via wizardry can cast it out of a spell slot gained while being a cleric (if multiclassed/trained in both).

Simply learning spells isn't enough. Adventurers are weird in that they can grow real fast--that's not normal. Most people take decades of consistent meditation, practice, and struggle to open their first spell slot and rarely get beyond that. 5th level spells are the pinnacle of "normal" life. 6+ are legendary.

Archmages have legendary levels of power. They have access to both the highest rank of patterns and the inner strength to actually manifest them. You might have (except in FR, which is a completely incoherent setting by any measure) a small handful per continent. Like...3. 4.

That is one way to see things but it contradicts the rules about wizards reinventing over and over the same spells even when isolated from others.
Basically it is a valid way to make a setting but it is not what is described in the PHB.
A lore that would make more sense with what is observed would be a variation of the diskworld words view: some words have power and wants to be known by a select few but also might fight other words in the head of the same person.
A wizard would be able to sometimes get a word to come in their head when it considers the wizard worthy of it and then the wizard tries to trap the word in written text so that they can use it repeatedly but it costs them to use such words.
You can not put all the words you wrote in your book in your head at once due to the infighting(thus explaining the spell preparation limit).
Advanced research is trying to find an elusive word or to create a new word(the latter can be impossible in the setting).

PhoenixPhyre

2021-04-03, 12:54 PM

That is one way to see things but it contradicts the rules about wizards reinventing over and over the same spells even when isolated from others.

That's not from the PHB at all. "They learn new spells as they experiment and grow in experience". "Many wizards believe that their counterparts in ancient civilizations knew secrets of magic that have been lost to the ages [and they adventure to discover these secrets]." That's what the PHB says about wizards.

Basically it is a valid way to make a setting but it is not what is described in the PHB.
A lore that would make more sense with what is observed would be a variation of the diskworld words view: some words have power and wants to be known by a select few but also might fight other words in the head of the same person.
A wizard would be able to sometimes get a word to come in their head when it considers the wizard worthy of it and then the wizard tries to trap the word in written text so that they can use it repeatedly but it costs them to use such words.
You can not put all the words you wrote in your book in your head at once due to the infighting(thus explaining the spell preparation limit).
Advanced research is trying to find an elusive word or to create a new word(the latter can be impossible in the setting).

That doesn't fit D&D at all. That kind of "struggling with the words" thing would fit a sorcerer (or other CHA caster better). Spells are patterns. Spell slots provide energy. That description fits the D&D 5e magic system better than any other explanation I've ever seen. Otherwise, you can't explain why a sorcerer spell slot, a wizard spell slot, and a cleric spell slot are identical and can be used interchangeably. There is only one form of magic, people just access it differently and can deal (based on their approach) with different subsets.

MoiMagnus

2021-04-03, 01:00 PM

Relevant posts from another thread (emphases is mine):

I decided that in my worlds, spells aren't just a rote effect: they're hardcoded into the structure of the multiverse. That's why a fireball on Eberron and a fireball on Oerth are the exact same mechanical fireball, requiring the same components, casting times, and ranges. Notably, this is also why names like Mordenkainen are known on places Mordenkainen has no record of visiting: He literally signed his name into the structure of Reality. Mages in Wildemount see the same spellcraft as the ones in Faerun, literally saying, "Mordenkainen came up with this spell." Ergo, someone has to embed this structure into the Weave of magic itself, threading it throughout the cosmos. That sounds like a task that would require a whole bunch of mystical energy, and could piss off a large number of entities (which is why Mordenkainen didn't try it until he was an archmage).

That's actually how it works canonically. Just with the added detail about how planar and divine influences affecting the world's Crystal Sphere sometime affect spells too. And how while some deities could be piss off with it it's somewhat safer than you're saying here (Mordenkainen didn't wait to be an archmage to do it, for example). You're basically writing your name in the wet concrete of the Weave's fabric.

One of the devs even said that Mordenkainen sometime introduced himself to worlds he never visited by going "hello, I'm Mordenkainen. Yes, the guy who made X and Y spells".

I'm not sure from which books this canon comes from, as the PHB is not that precise about how the weaves works.

Silly Name

2021-04-03, 01:26 PM

I'm not sure from which books this canon comes from, as the PHB is not that precise about how the weaves works.

The Weave is a specific and unique feature of the Forgotten Realms. Oerth does not have a Weave, nor does Krynn or Eberron. Yet magic works on those worlds all the same.

The Weave is, specifically, a creation of Mystryl, maintained by her and her successors, serving to allow mortals to interface with magic safely - this is why Mystryl and the first Mystra's death sent mortal magic belly-up, but didn't affect inherently magical creatures. Those beings don't rely on the Weave, but wizards did, and with the goddess' death they couldn't do their spells anymore.

Krynn's arcane magic is under the purview of the three god of the moons, and is influenced by the moons' phases. There are other things, including the Curse of the Magi resulting in spells physically draining the caster, and the rather hazy nature of the relationship between the moons and magic, whether they were simply patrons of magic like Boccob, or were in full control of magic like Mystra, since there exists a "ambient magic" on Krynn that can be channeled without devoting yourselves to one of the three moons.

On Oerth, the two main gods of magic, Boccob and Wee Jas, are explicitly not in control of arcane magic. It exists independent of them, and their hypothetical death would not harm the casters of Greyhawk any more than any other god's demise. Boccob's entire raison d'etre is learning about the deepest secrets of magic, and he is so absorbed by his quest for knowledge he's known as the Uncaring God.

Sigreid

2021-04-03, 01:27 PM

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 01:31 PM

I'm not sure from which books this canon comes from, as the PHB is not that precise about how the weaves works.

This video explains quite a bit:

https://youtu.be/USqR_-pcXAw

I can't find the video where they specifically talk about the spells that bear their creators' names yet but I'm searching.

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 01:56 PM

This video explains quite a bit:

I can't find the video where they specifically talk about the spells that bear their creators' names yet but I'm searching.

I found it:

https://youtu.be/WGZPpDrkaKU?t=307

Discussion about the spells start at 5:06

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 02:08 PM

Well it seems like my OP warrants some more clarification, especially aimed toward DF and his signed posts who has been asking a lot of questions while I was asleep and thus 'harder to read' by nature, but also as a reply to other posts I am unable to addresss on a word-for-word basis without being bogged diwn in 10 separate dicussions mostly about the same points.

The premise of the thread, which from my perspective I figured would be apparent enough from the comparison to Optimization posts made by Gianttip users or other players in their online communities and blogs as 'real-life students of the Arcane mechanics', is not to the metamagic behind DND magic and how it works, I'm not asking for new spells or modified versions or a more versatile magic system or lore about the creation of Tea brewing homebrewed spells.

I'm talking about official spells and the know-how of maximizing their utility in given situations or inncombination with each other. Magic Mouth, Shape Water, Demiplane, Glyph of Warding, Conjure Minor Elementals, whatever. You know all those threads posted over the years about 'Here's how to make Magic Mouth a programming language', or chaining combos for massive damage or record-breaking defense, or using Prest with Shape Water to mask a glass of merury poison, using plant growth on Saffron to get rich, casting Drawmij's Instant Summons on Magic Jar and handing the gem to a familiar on the other side of the world with a Sending Contingency, 8 CR 1/8 elementals with an Alchemist's Fire bag, Spike Growth plus pushing mechanics, Moonbeam shenanigans, etc

Actual tricks and combos developed by players over time, of which there are probably thousands around, some more popularly wideapread than others, some more or less 'broken'. And to a lesser extent optimized spellcaster builds as well of the kind you might see in the Eclectic collection right now, which capitalize on class abilities, since a 'Mage' or 'Archmage' can be an NPC with a chatacter sheet, not just a monster on the MM.

What they all share in common is the dedicated work of individuals who sat down with a single spell, or a concept in mind, and said to themselves "Instead of just casting it exactly for the most straightforward, boring, bland purpose humanly conceivable exactly as prescribed by the intent, what if this spell contains a function that can be exploited in elaborate ways? What if picking effects from 2, 3, 4 different spells can produce a magnificent sequence with greater worth than the sum of its parts? What if this weird utility spell is actually a combat strategy in disguise?", and just run with it.

As I said, maybe the field of mechanical dabbling in that manner is enough of a niche 'hobby' even on those forums that some people can't even understand it legitimately exists, or just how far you can go just by going word by word over the lowest of cantrips or 2nd-levels and asking 'How can I use this with the environment/other spells in a way that benefits me more than the obvious application would?'.

And because blatant language has been called for, I'd say DF's illustration of the Fireball interaction is everything wrong with the mindset of Arcanists portrayed by DMs who may not be aware of the richness encompasseed within the pages of a Wizard's book, which can be utilizied as diversely as an enginneer makes contraptions: "Spells can do exactly one thing and always cast in isolation. My best spell applocation is fireball, fire goes face. Boom! Big damage! Wanna know why I have an INT of 20? Upcast the Fireball! More fire to face! More damage!"

I'm sorry, I don't see why an Archmage should have less creativity than a 10-year old in his first school campaign. Sure, some spells that can only mechanically deal damage to creature lend themselves less to creativity, but plenty of other more generalized spells do. Magic Mouth, Tenser's Floating Disk ( Remember this (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=15724.0)? There's a 5E guide for it somehwere ), Arcane Gate perpetual motion cannons, whatever.

You know what? Even something as mundane as a Mage offering a lesson to a new player or his NPC novices about casting Web ona group of enemies and restraining them before then casting the Fireball for that extra 2d4 fire damage to those caught inside. An actual lesson/combo that'd probably be taught to apprentices over at magic school in tactical thinking using common spells. I'd be satisfied with that.

----------------------‐-----

On another point of contention raised by some posters, I fully recognize that lore-wise, metamagic-wise, just learning a spell is a momentous task, and I emphasized that in my OP. They don't have a PHB lying around and took years to discover, practice, etc their coveted spellbook and are super smart in-game for doing so. But that explains even less why I, the lazy player who earned his knowledge Deus Ex Machina, can put two and two together in a couple of hours of research and realize that "Hey, Spell 2 + Spell 7 = Incredible combo", but the genius mage never realizes the potential after having already invented, learned and daily using borh spells individually. An Archmage would know every spell they can actually cast like the back of their hand and every other spell it combos with.

There's no way to sugarcoat it, if a DM is proficient at 'munchkinry' and combos, then the mage NPC's will know them, but if they arenn't, they won't. Someone said a DM won't always know how to portray a competent strategist or ruler either despite the fact they're meant to be ones, and innsome respects that's true, especially with combat strategizing, but less so with concepts like 'ruling' than outright game mechanics.

I can say 'Having learned from the best ruler, your plotting rallies a 100 loyalists to your name, makes X join your claim, your tax revenues increase, just give me a bunch of skill checks'. But what if I, and I'm using a completely hypothetical on-the-nose example here for the sake of simplicity, know a bunch of insta-kill combos but the NPC with the same spells is a filthy casual and doesn't know them?

We enter combat, he puts up some resisance, but is crushed like an ant. Or we fight a big bad as allies, and he's almost useless next to optimized players who are of a much lower level and in-game experience. What are we going to do, abstract away the combat to make him look better? Abstracting game mechanics is harder than abstracting rulership.

-----------------------------

Lastly, I reject some of the axiomatic statements about how spells are always independent discoveries - many spells, according to official settings, at least, are explicitly the signature spells of famous mages and used by all the mages who follow with the exact same fundamental spell mechanics in the description. In most settings, unnamed spells are likewise copied en-masse in spell scrolls and spellbook correspondences and magical academies exist to teach them in precise order and level of difficulty. Only the highest levels are considered unique.

Likewise, mages aren't rare in a lot of settings. There are settings with entire armies of 10th level warmages, whole library orders, and cities with thousands of named mages alone, especially in FR. But then again, someone called FR, the default setting, a 'nonsensical' setting. So how well-known magic is and magical deliberations by proxy is completely up to your setting and world.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-04-03, 02:13 PM

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 02:21 PM

Those "combos" only exist in the meta because they're meta creations. They can only exist because we have the exact, mechanical wording and it always does exactly and only that. They're artifacts of the translation between in-universe and player levels. They're UI glitches.

I disagree. Maybe as much as 1% or 5% of combos and tricks that are downright cheesy abuse of RAW and rely exclusively on semantics in stark defiance of RAI and all logic behave like that, the rest all have logical foundations aand in-game fluff.

Why is casting the Web, then burning your stuck enemies while the flaming silk continues to singe their bodies even further a UI glitch? Why is magically making yourself the fastest man alive and then proceeding to drag your victims over spikes which shred them a UI glitch? Or using your invincible force field disk to protect your person creatively? Or using the metamagic of linked teleportation portals for machines and projectile acceleration?

These are all arcane physics and 'patents'.

Pex

2021-04-03, 02:27 PM

The secret mysterious archmage powers are the normal high level spells and particular school special abilities. The difference is archmages learn by years of study. PCs are unique in that they don't need years of study. They get their power by influencing the world. They have direct control over the events that happen, sometimes stopping events from happening. They reshape the world into their image. Through that cosmic power they grow in power themselves and learn in one year what took 10 years for the archmage to learn. The advantage the archmage has is he started his studies before the PC was born, or came of age in the PC elf's case and the like.

Sorinth

2021-04-03, 02:37 PM

I'm sorry, I don't see why an Archmage should have less creativity than a 10-year old in his first school campaign. Sure, some spells that can only mechanically deal damage to creature lend themselves less to creativity, but plenty of other more generalized spells do. Magic Mouth, Tenser's Floating Disk ( Remember this (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=15724.0)? There's a 5E guide for it somehwere ), Arcane Gate perpetual motion cannons, whatever.

You know what? Even something as mundane as a Mage offering a lesson to a new player or his NPC novices about casting Web ona group of enemies and restraining them before then casting the Fireball for that extra 2d4 fire damage to those caught inside. An actual lesson/combo that'd probably be taught to apprentices over at magic school in tactical thinking using common spells. I'd be satisfied with that.

Where does it say the Archmage doesn't know any of those things?

Everything you listed seems to be in the purview of the DM ropleplaying the Archmage so what is WotC supposed to do?

Silly Name

2021-04-03, 02:39 PM

Problem 1: Players have theoretical easy access to every single spell, class, race and feat. In-game, an archmage may have never ever come across a scroll of, I don't know, Resilient Sphere. They may know the spell exists, but they didn't get the chance to study it in-depth. And exactly how much knowledge is shared across the various practicioners of the arcane art is a very big variable: a setting with a "magical university" probably has more advanced magic, whereas settings were population is sparse and civilisation scarce are less likely to feature optimised wizards. It gets even worse when you realise that concepts such as feats and classes are purely abstractions of the game, so you can forget about any form of optimisation that relies on those.

In short: not only do we have the luxury of being able to consult what equates an universal, detailed library of spell, we also have the advantage of a wide community that can communicate instantly and preserve exact, easy-to-find copies of all those communications for future reference.

Problem 2: Columbus' egg. Taking the example of "magic mouth to create coding", that may look like a relatively intuitive idea to someone who's experienced in coding, but in a world where computer coding is a bunch of gibberish sound, it's highly unlikely even the most inventive archmage would spend a bunch of time trying to create Magic Mouth code. What happened years ago on various web forums is that some geeks decided to reverse engineer something they were already knowledgeable about using D&D mechanics. It's infinitely easier to get around to that in this way than invent something wholesale all by yourself.

Perhaps some archmages did spend months casting Magic Mouths spells and setting them to give commands to each other. But that would be more likely than not be seen as some fancy trick the archmage wanted to pull off, or a sign of his deteriorating mental health. Why would anyone waste so much time on such a pointless endeavour? Obviously it's mad wizard bullcrap.

Problem 3: Language. In-game, nobody thinks their fireball does 8d6 fire damage, dexterity saving throw halves, and that upcasting increases damage by 1d6 per slot level.

No, what they know is that the fireball spell generates a powerful, fiery explosion, which can be made even more lethal by pouring more energy into it, but you may have some chances of dodging away and not get hit as hard. Game terminology works a long way towards making optimisation possible, because we have a standardised, usually-clear language that makes such interactions possible and workable at least by RAW. In the game world, this doesn't happen. Wizards record their spells in increasingly complex and obscure formulas that need to be decoded even by fellow wizards because those madmen are intensely paranoid and are afraid everyone's out to get their precious spells. It's an huge hassle.

But what about other classes? Good luck getting anything of value out of them! Clerics ask their gods pretty please for their spells every morning, warlocks get knowledge implanted in their minds by otherworldly patrons and they likely don't fully comprehend what they toy with, and sorcerers - don't get me started on sorcerers! - they know nothing of studying and working hard to earn your spells. They just find out they have them, because their grandaddy hooked up with a dragon or something else. Bah! Artificers are the only ones remotely close to the wizards' concept of study and knowledge, and they spend most of their time tinkering with their hellish machines.

You just try to get anything resembling forums of mechanically-minded optimisers out of this mess!

Rukelnikov

2021-04-03, 02:42 PM

snip

I think you are falling into a trap of your own creation. You consider applicable understanding to be superior to theoretical understanding.

You claim that if someone knows Magic Mouth and is an archmage who has studied magic for long enough, he should know the ins and outs of it and the possible applications of the spell. This, however, is not necessarily true. I studied pure maths and a bit of computering science in university for 5 years (didn't get my degree but did more than half the career). For instance, I had to study wave equations a bit, I used to understand the theory behind them (why the math worked). However, I did not HAVE to study the applications for them in say the way a physicist would. But I likely did understand the theory behind them better. So who understands the equations better? The one who knows how to maximize their use or the one who understands why they work that way better?

The answer is, they are both good at different aspects. To keep the comparison with current day science, what you are claiming is that a physicist, or maybe an engineer, is a better mathematician than an actual mathematician because they know how to apply the knowledge better than them, even when the former may not be interested in the applications at all (my case for example, and of many of the most important mathematicians in history), and only interested in the theory behind how things work.

Willowhelm

2021-04-03, 02:45 PM

Well it seems like my OP warrants some more clarification,

More words does not mean more clarity.

In your opinion, to be deserving of the title archmage, an archmage should...what?

What are your criteria?

Then you can say if a given NPC meets those criteria or not, and why that is the case (from an in and out of game perspective), and whether that “makes sense”.

I also think you have a wildly inaccurate idea of how research and development, teaching and practice all actually work in the real world.

I don’t know why you would believe that an archmage’s goals, incentives, and actions would align with yours. People are different.

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 03:04 PM

who has been asking a lot of questions while I was asleep and thus 'harder to read' by nature

The writer being asleep does not change how hard to read anyone's already existing posts are.

The premise of the thread, which from my perspective I figured would be apparent enough from the comparison to Optimization posts made by Gianttip users or other players in their online communities and blogs as 'real-life students of the Arcane mechanics', is not to the metamagic behind DND magic and how it works, I'm not asking for new spells or modified versions or a more versatile magic system or lore about the creation of Tea brewing homebrewed spells.

I'm talking about official spells and the know-how of maximizing their utility in given situations or inncombination with each other. Magic Mouth, Shape Water, Demiplane, Glyph of Warding, Conjure Minor Elementals, whatever. You know all those threads posted over the years about 'Here's how to make Magic Mouth a programming language', or chaining combos for massive damage or record-breaking defense, or using Prest with Shape Water to mask a glass of merury poison, using plant growth on Saffron to get rich, casting Drawmij's Instant Summons on Magic Jar and handing the gem to a familiar on the other side of the world with a Sending Contingency, 8 CR 1/8 elementals with an Alchemist's Fire bag, Spike Growth plus pushing mechanics, Moonbeam shenanigans, etc

Actual tricks and combos developed by players over time, of which there are probably thousands around, some more popularly wideapread than others, some more or less 'broken'. And to a lesser extent optimized spellcaster builds as well of the kind you might see in the Eclectic collection right now, which capitalize on class abilities, since a 'Mage' or 'Archmage' can be an NPC with a chatacter sheet, not just a monster on the MM.

But you say it yourself: those things are developed by *players*. Players, who have a bird's eye view of the entire content of D&D 5e AND are not bound by the actual in-setting conditions and context.

What they all share in common is the dedicated work of individuals who sat down with a single spell, or a concept in mind, and said to themselves "Instead of just casting it exactly for the most straightforward, boring, bland purpose humanly conceivable exactly as prescribed by the intent, what if this spell contains a function that can be exploited in elaborate ways? What if picking effects from 2, 3, 4 different spells can produce a magnificent sequence with greater worth than the sum of its parts? What if this weird utility spell is actually a combat strategy in disguise?", and just run with it.

Again, players can just sit and ponder the wording of a spell over and over and over until they get an idea to exploit it.

Characters who actually live in the campaign setting and are bound both by the fact they have lives to lives AND can't ask the DM "can I do this with this spell?" ? Not so much.

or just how far you can go just by going word by word over the lowest of cantrips or 2nd-levels and asking

Something the people in-universe cannot do.

I'm sorry, I don't see why an Archmage should have less creativity than a 10-year old in his first school campaign.

Your condescension is noted, but it's not going to make spells work differently.

You know what? Even something as mundane as a Mage offering a lesson to a new player or his NPC novices about casting Web ona group of enemies and restraining them before then casting the Fireball for that extra 2d4 fire damage to those caught inside. An actual lesson/combo that'd probably be taught to apprentices over at magic school in tactical thinking using common spells. I'd be satisfied with that.

And you're assuming it doesn't happen because...?

On another point of contention raised by some posters, I fully recognize that lore-wise, metamagic-wise, just learning a spell is a momentous task, and I emphasized that in my OP. They don't have a PHB lying around and took years to discover, practice, etc their coveted spellbook and are super smart in-game for doing so. But that explains even less why I, the lazy player who earned his knowledge Deus Ex Machina, can put two and two together in a couple of hours of research and realize that "Hey, Spell 2 + Spell 7 = Incredible combo", but the genius mage never realizes the potential after having already invented, learned and daily using borh spells individually. An Archmage would know every spell they can actually cast like the back of their hand and every other spell it combos with.

The explanation why you can is because as someone who can just read the PHB, you are the one who has it easy.

D&D 5e combat is an abstraction. D&D 5e spellcasting is an abstraction. You have access to all the informations about those abstractions, and such have both an easier-to-understand context than the people in-universe, you also are in the position of an omniscient interactor.

Imagine you came up with a combo that, if successful, can let a lvl 3 Druid one-shot the typical MM Troll. You have access to the knowledge of what a typical Troll is, with mathematical, objective data. And you have the omniscient interactor's knowledge of the Druid's percentages of chances to succeed each of the actions in the combo, as well as knowing how likely the Druid is to survive a typical Troll's attacks.

The person in the game world represented by a lvl 3 Druid? They don't have this knowledge. They may guess how powerful this specific troll is, based on their experience and data-gathering, but they'll never know "yes, this Giant-type enemy has 84 HPs and can regenerate 10 per turn unless stopped".

I can say 'Having learned from the best ruler, your plotting rallies a 100 loyalists to your name, makes X join your claim, your tax revenues increase, just give me a bunch of skillmchecks'. But what if I, and I'm using a completely hypothetical on-the-nose example here for the sake of simplicity, I know a bunch of insta-kill combos but the NPC with the same spells is a filthy casual and doesn't know them?

We enter combat, he puts up some resisance, but is crushed like an ant. Or we fight a big bad as allies, and he's almost useless next to optimized players who are of a much lower level and in-game experience. What are we going to do, abstract away the combat to make him look better? Abstracting game mechanics is harder than abstracting rulership.

One, it isn't, for many people.

Two, if you think this specific spellcaster should know X, then they know X. There's no reason beating over the bush.

If you DON'T want them to know X, however, they don't know X. That's it.

The DM is the one in control, not the game mechanics.

In most settings, unnamed spells are likewise copied en-masse in spell scrolls and spellbook correspondences and magical academies exist to teach them in precise order and level of difficulty. Only the highest levels are considered unique

Even the simplest spell costs a pretty penny to write down. And each wizard will have to write it down personally, in their personal book.

And in the process, they will modify the spell enough that even the person who wrote down the spell they copied AND who taught them magical theory would have difficulties identifying the spell if it was shown to them in written form.

And if two wizards who learned the same spell from the same teacher were to cast it in front of each other, there would still be a chance that said wizards would be unable to identify which spell the other is casting while it's being cast.

----------------------

Also, frankly, most of those so called "amazing combos"/"creative ideas" just don't work unless several assumptions are followed without question

Assumption 1: "You can exact-word your way into power"

No, you can't, not with game mechanics at least. Spells do what they say they do, as arbitrated by the DM. No amount of examination of the wording will change that.

Assumption 2: "Knowledge from another world"

Innovation happens in a given context. It's absurd to argue that D&D wizards would use Magic Mouth as a programming language because a) there is no reason why wizards would use a programming language in a vacuum b) IF they had an use for one they would develop a new one from scratch and probably use something more practical than Magic Mouth

Assumption 3: "You're the first one who thinks about it, threrefore it is valuable"

There is no reason people in the world don't know your "tricks", if they work. But that means that if it's a known and replicated thing, your "trick" isn't going to be exceptional anymore.

As an example: you can't get rich by making plants grow then collecting the Safran. Safran's value is based on its rarity, so if it's easier to collect far less valuable.

Same way, if all wizards in the academy are taught to use Web then Fireball since it's such an efficient combo, everyone will expect it and devise counters. You get Webbed? Since the Fireball is expected, some would use Counterspell, others Absorb Element, others Darkness or Fog Cloud to break the line of sight, etc.

Either you want a world where your combos and ideas are atypical, or you want a world where all mages have figured out how to metagame their spell selections and know how to combine effect X and Y the same way you do, but in that case both you and them are just average casters.

DwarfFighter

2021-04-03, 03:09 PM

I still don't get the why of the title of this thread. What makes arch mages in general undeserving of their title, and what makes some of them worthy?

I broke down the OP to for a series of questions, and if there was an answer to any of them they're lost on me. Though OP seems to have picked up on the "Upcast it!" joke, which is cool.

Sorry, I mean "an experience of gratification that elevated my self-esteem as a master of the nuances of written comedy".

Signed, with letters,
-DF

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 03:14 PM

snip

snip

Excellent posts right here.

Why is casting the Web, then burning your stuck enemies while the flaming silk continues to singe their bodies even further a UI glitch?

It's not an UI glitch, but it's not an amazing combo either. And if it's a known combo then there is many ways to counter it, as I said above.

Why is magically making yourself the fastest man alive and then proceeding to drag your victims over spikes which shred them a UI glitch?

Wizardry can't do the "fastest man alive" thing by itself, but "there is a bunch of spikes, let's throw/drag someone over them" does not demand particular imagination. Nor is it especially impressive results.

Or using your invincible force field disk to protect your person creatively?

Trying to use Tenser's Floating Disk in ways that it can't be used isn't creativity.

Or using the metamagic of linked teleportation portals for machines and projectile acceleration?

That's assuming D&D magic follows real world physics, saying that it produces the effect you want, then arguing that by D&D rules it should give you X mechanical results.

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 03:33 PM

Where does it say the Archmage doesn't know any of those things?

Everything you listed seems to be in the purview of the DM ropleplaying the Archmage so what is WotC supposed to do?

It doesn't say so, and it is the purview of the DM rather than WOTC ( Although if WOC wanted to include interesting thematic combos used by mages in some modules, like DoTMM, I guess they could ), and this is what the thread contemplates - most DM's out there, also partially evidenced by the intuitive misunderstandings ITT, don't know any of those things except for perhaps some trick or two a friend showed them and find the idea of geeking about them for hours in real life alien.

They see a spell, they spend 20 seconds reading the description, say "Oh, it does X, cool" and mentally file it away. They don't spend 8 hours poring over it searching for all the possible combos or how to build elabirate contraptions or catalogueing all the stunts that can be performed with it.

And when someone who does, like any poster on this forum with dozens of threads of that type to their credit joins such a game, it leads to the curious dynamic of a player who understands practical creative magic much better than the Atchmage does, and and could school him on a bunch of applications that are far more impressive than just throwing fireball or just releasing true polymorph.

Problem 1: Players have theoretical easy access to every single spell, class, race and feat. In-game, an archmage may have never ever come across a scroll of, I don't know, Resilient Sphere. They may know the spell exists, but they didn't get the chance to study it in-depth. And exactly how much knowledge is shared across the various practicioners of the arcane art is a very big variable: a setting with a "magical university" probably has more advanced magic, whereas settings were population is sparse and civilisation scarce are less likely to feature optimised wizards. It gets even worse when you realise that concepts such as feats and classes are purely abstractions of the game, so you can forget about any form of optimisation that relies on those.

In short: not only do we have the luxury of being able to consult what equates an universal, detailed library of spell, we also have the advantage of a wide community that can communicate instantly and preserve exact, easy-to-find copies of all those communications for future reference.

Problem 2: Columbus' egg. Taking the example of "magic mouth to create coding", that may look like a relatively intuitive idea to someone who's experienced in coding, but in a world where computer coding is a bunch of gibberish sound, it's highly unlikely even the most inventive archmage would spend a bunch of time trying to create Magic Mouth code. What happened years ago on various web forums is that some geeks decided to reverse engineer something they were already knowledgeable about using D&D mechanics. It's infinitely easier to get around to that in this way than invent something wholesale all by yourself.

Perhaps some archmages did spend months casting Magic Mouths spells and setting them to give commands to each other. But that would be more likely than not be seen as some fancy trick the archmage wanted to pull off, or a sign of his deteriorating mental health. Why would anyone waste so much time on such a pointless endeavour? Obviously it's mad wizard bullcrap.

Problem 3: Language. In-game, nobody thinks their fireball does 8d6 fire damage, dexterity saving throw halves, and that upcasting increases damage by 1d6 per slot level.

No, what they know is that the fireball spell generates a powerful, fiery explosion, which can be made even more lethal by pouring more energy into it, but you may have some chances of dodging away and not get hit as hard. Game terminology works a long way towards making optimisation possible, because we have a standardised, usually-clear language that makes such interactions possible and workable at least by RAW. In the game world, this doesn't happen. Wizards record their spells in increasingly complex and obscure formulas that need to be decoded even by fellow wizards because those madmen are intensely paranoid and are afraid everyone's out to get their precious spells. It's an huge hassle.

But what about other classes? Good luck getting anything of value out of them! Clerics ask their gods pretty please for their spells every morning, warlocks get knowledge implanted in their minds by otherworldly patrons and they likely don't fully comprehend what they toy with, and sorcerers - don't get me started on sorcerers! - they know nothing of studying and working hard to earn your spells. They just find out they have them, because their grandaddy hooked up with a dragon or something else. Bah! Artificers are the only ones remotely close to the wizards' concept of study and knowledge, and they spend most of their time tinkering with their hellish machines.

You just try to get anything resembling forums of mechanically-minded optimisers out of this mess!

I think you are falling into a trap of your own creation. You consider applicable understanding to be superior to theoretical understanding.

You claim that if someone knows Magic Mouth and is an archmage who has studied magic for long enough, he should know the ins and outs of it and the possible applications of the spell. This, however, is not necessarily true. I studied pure maths and a bit of computering science in university for 5 years (didn't get my degree but did more than half the career). For instance, I had to study wave equations a bit, I used to understand the theory behind them (why the math worked). However, I did not HAVE to study the applications for them in say the way a physicist would. But I likely did understand the theory behind them better. So who understands the equations better? The one who knows how to maximize their use or the one who understands why they work that way better?

The answer is, they are both good at different aspects. To keep the comparison with current day science, what you are claiming is that a physicist, or maybe an engineer, is a better mathematician than an actual mathematician because they know how to apply the knowledge better than them, even when the former may not be interested in the applications at all (my case for example, and of many of the most important mathematicians in history), and only interested in the theory behind how things work.

1. We keep coming back to this point which was settled as early as OP and in the last post too - Yes, NPC's don't know about the existence of every single spell in DND. But what about the spells they do know? They already have those, and if they join my party as sidekicks, they'll sure as hell be using them to the best of the DM's ability, or know how to cast them to help me out with something if asked. Shouldn't they have some fun, exciting, refreshing combos and creative uses for those spells, having had them for so long?

2. I can tell you for a fact that at least the OP of that thread wasn't grounded in a background of coding, it was just a etaphor that was later expanded upon by posters with coding knowledge. The core of it however is just a clever mechanism arrived at through human logic. Like the wheel or the aqueducts or the mail system and plumbing, but with arcane design.

3. The language barrier between the Fourth Wall that separates player from chatacter is correct, but its only relevant to tricks and combos that minmax numbers or stats, which are the least creative of optimization techniques in my opinion. I referenced like 7 combos so far explicitly, none of which rely onnstats. They're all physical and environmental results that a character could experiment with in first person.

4. Theory versus practice is a valid distinction, but only hinders specific mage NPC archetypes. I can see why an archivist who just spends all his time memorizing the spells but never really ambitiously pursuing arcane power would have little interest in combos and so forth, but power hungry BBEG archetypes? Artificer archetypes? They should certainly know the ins and outs of practical magic like a physicist or architect would.

More words does not mean more clarity.

In your opinion, to be deserving of the title archmage, an archmage should...what?

What are your criteria?

Then you can say if a given NPC meets those criteria or not, and why that is the case (from an in and out of game perspective), and whether that Â“makes senseÂ”.

I also think you have a wildly inaccurate idea of how research and development, teaching and practice all actually work in the real world.

I donÂ’t know why you would believe that an archmageÂ’s goals, incentives, and actions would align with yours. People are different.

I would be happy if an experienced mage adventurer NPC or Archmage could teach, if not me then at least some less versed players, something about optimizing official spells or my class abilities that would'nt be blatantly obvious to me as a player. I'd like to be impressed by their mechanical aptitude beyond just having access to higher level slots.

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 04:03 PM

First:

I'd like to be impressed by their mechanical aptitude beyond just having access to higher level slots.

It is not mechanical aptitude for them.

Second:

I would be happy if an experienced mage adventurer NPC or Archmage could teach, if not me then at least some less versed players, something about optimizing official spells or my class abilities that would'nt be blatantly obvious to me as a player. I'd like to be impressed by their mechanical aptitude beyond just having access to higher level slots.

This means you want the Archmages to be the "going word by word over the lowest of cantrips or 2nd-levels and asking 'How can I use this with the environment/other spells in a way that benefits me more than the obvious application would?'" type of optimizers you were talking about earlier

Or to put in differently, you want the "going word by word over the lowest of cantrips or 2nd-levels and asking 'How can I use this with the environment/other spells in a way that benefits me more than the obvious application would?'" type of optimizers to be the Archmages.

Sorinth

2021-04-03, 04:16 PM

It doesn't say so, and it is the purview of the DM rather than WOTC ( Although if WOC wanted to include interesting thematic combos used by mages in some modules, like DoTMM, I guess they could ), and this is what the thread contemplates - most DM's out there, also partially evidenced by the intuitive misunderstandings ITT, don't know any of those things except for perhaps some trick or two a friend showed them and find the idea of geeking about them for hours in real life alien.

They see a spell, they spend 20 seconds reading the description, say "Oh, it does X, cool" and mentally file it away. They don't spend 8 hours poring over it searching for all the possible combos or how to build elabirate contraptions or catalogueing all the stunts that can be performed with it.

And when someone who does, like any poster on this forum with dozens of threads of that type to their credit joins such a game, it leads to the curious dynamic of a player who understands practical creative magic much better than the Atchmage does, and and could school him on a bunch of applications that are far more impressive than just throwing fireball or just releasing true polymorph.

There's nothing anyone can do to have DMs play Archmages (Or any high intelligence monster for that matter) smarter. So what's the point of this thread? Because it's starting to sound like you are just complaining that your DM isn't "good" enough for you.

Rukelnikov

2021-04-03, 04:23 PM

1. We keep coming back to this point which was settled as early as OP and in the last post too - Yes, NPC's don't know about the existence of every single spell in DND. But what about the spells they do know? They already have those, and if they join my party as sidekicks, they'llmsure as hell be using them to the best of the DM's ability, or know how to cast them to help me lut with something if asked. Shouldn't they have some fun, excitinf, refreshing combos and creative uses for those spells, having had them for so long?

2. I can tell you for a fact that at least the OP of that thread wasn't grounded in a background of coding, it was just a etaphor that was later expanded upon by ppsters with coding knowledge. The core of it however is just a clever mechanism arrived at through human logic. Like the wheel or the aqueducts or the mail system and plumbing, but with arcane design.

3. The language barrier between the Fourth Wall that separates player from chatacter is correct, but its only relevant to tricks and combos that minmax numbers or stats, which are the least creative of optimization techniques in my opinion. I referenced like 7 combos so far explicitly, none of which rely on stats. They're all physical and environmental results that a character could experiment with in first person.

4. Theory versus practice is a valid distinction, but only hinders specific mage NPC archetypes. I can see why an archivist who just spends all his time memorizing the spells but never really ambitiously pursuing arcane power would have little interest in combos and so forth, but power hungry BBEG archetypes? Artificer archetypes? They should certainly know the ins and outs of practical magic like a physicist or architect would.

Points 1, 2 and 3 are the same things that have been going on for the entire thread. Magic Mouth, your example, is like a mini contingency, with almost no limit to how many of them you can have available at a time, soon after taking this spell I realized the potential setting breaking repercussions of such a spell, but I did not care to dive deep into it to actually study it. I just made cards for each party member with mouth drawn on them that would warn "Someone is approaching!" if anyone except the party members came within 30 feet of the carrier without being seen by them, but only if the carrier has said "Alarm activated" and hasn't said "Alarm deactivated" since.

Also, you seem to not take into account that things like actually being able to cast high level spell as a wizard, in universe is in and of itself proof that someone's understanding of magic is exceptional. Its not "just copy paste that spell and use it", it requires a level of understanding outside that of most creatures.

What you claim is that most (if not all) individuals with access to such high level spells, SHOULD have knowledge on how to optimize their use, to which I say, no they actually SHOULDN'T have such knowledge, because if they did, then the setting would make no sense. For such a thing to be true, the setting should resemble something more like Tippyverse.

I haven't been very active as of 5e, but in the 3.5 era I was, and the stuff we did in the old wizards forum were absurd (literally crashing the moon into the earth with a single spell for example). Such a setting would have to be extremely different from every of the better known ones, and thus it stands to reason that in universe such knowledge is NOT widespread.

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 04:24 PM

The writer being asleep does not change how hard to read anyone's already existing posts are.

It does when you say that you'd ask a followup question on the existing posts but can't.

But you say it yourself: those things are developed by *players*. Players, who have a bird's eye view of the entire content of D&D 5e AND are not bound by the actual in-setting conditions and context...Again, players can just sit and ponder the wording of a spell over and over and over until they get an idea to exploit it.

I'm not in the business of crunching numbers and stats myself, as you well know. Your persistent unsound critiques, even when in the minority opinion aside, I prefer exploring in-world mechanics, range and size and motion and substances and target and so on when dissecting potential builds and combos. All of which are things that can be deduced by personal character experimentation.

The in-game explanation of why your character knows how to use a spell properly in combat or for outside utility is because they tested the range, the area of effect, the effective targets, the duration, the extent to which it can be controlled or altered according to description parameters, etc. You know, like how we got science.

Characters who actually live in the campaign setting and are bound both by the fact they have lives to lives AND can't ask the DM "can I do this with this spell?" ? Not so much.

Non-sequitur, if the combo is valid logically and by RAW, then the Archmage doesn't need to plead with an imaginary DM about it. The DM is co trolling the Archmage and decides how to interpret RAW and by extension in-game limitations.

Your condescension is noted, but it's not going to make spells work differently.

Your noting is noted, But I don't want spells to work differently.

And you're assuming it doesn't happen because...?

Because you're spending this entire post chastising me why it can't possibly happen? If you concur that DM's are in fact able to incorporate that knowledge into the mage's toolset and thereby make them as capable as a player, then let's pack our bags and go home.

The explanation why you can is because as someone who can just read the PHB, you are the one who has it easy.

D&D 5e combat is an abstraction. D&D 5e spellcasting is an abstraction. You have access to all the informations about those abstractions, and such have both an easier-to-understand context than the people in-universe, you also are in the position of an omniscient interactor.

In what sense are they abstractions? As a DM, when tou introduce a mage with access to say, Glyph of Warding, in what sense are they less awate of its function than I am?/B]

Imagine you came up with a combo that, if successful, can let a lvl 3 Druid one-shot the typical MM Troll. You have access to the knowledge of what a typical Troll is, with [B]mathematical, objective data. And you have the omniscient interactor's knowledge of the Druid's percentages of chances to succeed each of the actions in the combo, as well as knowing how likely the Druid is to survive a typical Troll's attacks.

The person in the game world represented by a lvl 3 Druid? They don't have this knowledge. They may guess how powerful this specific troll is, based on their experience and data-gathering, but they'll never know "yes, this Giant-type enemy has 84 HPs and can regenerate 10 per turn unless stopped".

First of all, that's why we aren't projecting the expectation onto any level 3 Druid but rather someone like an Archdruid or level 10 one whom you might expect to have extensive field experiences from trial and error. Second of all, you're confusing metagaming with creative gaming. Checking out monster statistics your character wouldn't know is metagaming. Combining spells or class abilities that your character is roleplayed into learning as they level up is creative gaming.

One, it isn't, for many people.

Two, if you think this specific spellcaster should know X, then they know X. There's no reason beating over the bush.

If you DON'T want them to know X, however, they don't know X. That's it.

The DM is the one in control, not the game mechanics.

Agreed.

Even the simplest spell costs a pretty penny to write down. And each wizard will have to write it down personally, in their personal book.

And in the process, they will modify the spell enough that even the person who wrote down the spell they copied AND who taught them magical theory would have difficulties identifying the spell if it was shown to them in written form.

And if two wizards who learned the same spell from the same teacher were to cast it in front of each other, there would still be a chance that said wizards would be unable to identify which spell the other is casting while it's being cast.

Sure. Doesn't stop an individual Wizard and someone like Elminster or Larloch from developing techniques drawn from their own spellbook pool.

----------------------

Also, frankly, most of those so called "amazing combos"/"creative ideas" just don't work unless several assumptions are followed without question

Assumption 1: "You can exact-word your way into power"

No, you can't, not with game mechanics at least. Spells do what they say they do, as arbitrated by the DM. No amount of examination of the wording will change that.

Most combos aren't exact-wording.

Assumption 2: "Knowledge from another world"

Innovation happens in a given context. It's absurd to argue that D&D wizards would use Magic Mouth as a programming language because a) there is no reason why wizards would use a programming language in a vacuum b) IF they had an use for one they would develop a new one from scratch and probably use something more practical than Magic Mouth

Programming was just a metaphor, not the inspiration.

Assumption 3: "You're the first one who thinks about it, threrefore it is valuable"

There is no reason people in the world don't know your "tricks", if they work. But that means that if it's a known and replicated thing, your "trick" isn't going to be exceptional anymore.

As an example: you can't get rich by making plants grow then collecting the Safran. Safran's value is based on its rarity, so if it's easier to collect far less valuable.

Same way, if all wizards in the academy are taught to use Web then Fireball since it's such an efficient combo, everyone will expect it and devise counters. You get Webbed? Since the Fireball is expected, some would use Counterspell, others Absorb Element, others Darkness or Fog Cloud to break the line of sight, etc.

Either you want a world where your combos and ideas are atypical, or you want a world where all mages have figured out how to metagame their spell selections and know how to combine effect X and Y the same way you do, but in that case both you and them are just average casters.

Nobody said a combo is valuable just by being an original thought, much like a Dread Conqueror might be worth little, while a Nuclear Wizard is incredible, both being the outcome of optimization efforts. Valuable methods are valuable, bad ones are not.

As for the retort that everyone else can replicate your tricks to the point of redundancy whereupon new tricks will have to be constantly re-imagined.... you realize this is how Earth works, right? Battle tactics and scientific advantages that were popularized, or plagiarized and counteracted, thus forcing a nation's minds to perpetually churn out innovations, culminating in 1,000 page tomes on Armor smithing alone. Yet the individuals or organizations with the latest cutting edge will be the top dogs for as long as they can keep it. Yes, I'd love such a universe. Pour all you know into the NPC's and may the best player defeat them.

Excellent posts right here.

It's not an UI glitch, but it's not an amazing combo either. And if it's a known combo then there is many ways to counter it, as I said above.

Wizardry can't do the "fastest man alive" thing by itself, but "there is a bunch of spikes, let's throw/drag someone over them" does not demand particular imagination. Nor is it especially impressive results.

Trying to use Tenser's Floating Disk in ways that it can't be used isn't creativity.

That's assuming D&D magic follows real world physics, saying that it produces the effect you want, then arguing that by D&D rules it should give you X mechanical results.

This wasn't meant to be a list of impressive combos, it was meant as a list of common ones that aren't even original products and make appearances elsewhere online. If you want my taste in magical combos, you know where to find them in my profile, be it a day ago or years ago, but I suspect that endeavor will be an exercise in futility due to the personal animus involved should we go down the route of fetching some actual ones and examining how and if they work.

I have a much better suggestion: Use Google or the search engine for 'spell combos/tricks' that someone else posted. There are thousands of them, I'm sure you'll find some with impressive results, and it'd be cool if talented NPC's in campaigns had some choice ones in their arsenal.

Rynjin

2021-04-03, 04:32 PM

It "works" for 3.X and 3.X inspired systems, by making a big impractical statblock that is mostly irrelevant to a DM.

5e doesn't have for expectation the humanoid NPCs are built like PCs, and I'm ever-grateful for that.

What is "mostly irrelevant" about it? Everything there can and probably will come into play, save the languages and some of the skill points (Perform/Swim/Appraise/Engineering/Geography/Nobility/Craft); that's it. Everything else is relevant to a combat encounter. Everything I mentioned is potentially relevant to a non-combat encounter.

Kane0

2021-04-03, 04:47 PM

It feels like theres some cognitive dissonance going on here.

‘How come archmages dont know about things we figured out after a few years of having access to everything like magic mouth relays and glyph stacking?’
Archmage is a statblock that was released at the start of the edition, of course they wouldnt have written in an ability like ‘the archmage knows shenanigans that can be devised using spells such as...’, thats both retroactive knowledge derived from the hivemind that is the internet and something that is better utilized on the DM/campaign level rather than the rules/mechanic level.

If you want your archmages to be Tippyverse wizards then go for it, you dont need the statblock to tell you it can be done and they indeed arent telling you it cannot. The statblock is just there to let you throw a mage into a game without needing to make it from scratch and have that NPC appear to be... a mage.

Veldrenor

2021-04-03, 04:47 PM

There's nothing anyone can do to have DMs play Archmages (Or any high intelligence monster for that matter) smarter. So what's the point of this thread? Because it's starting to sound like you are just complaining that your DM isn't "good" enough for you.

This. The OP's thread isn't a complaint about NPC archmages - it's a complaint about DMs. The archmage is an archmage, a super studied expert, shouldn't they know tips and tricks and combos to use magic in ways that you haven't thought of? Absolutely, but if the DM doesn't know a trick then the archmage doesn't either. There is no mechanic by which the NPC archmage can tell you "combine a speed-boosted ally with grappling and spike growth" if the DM doesn't know that trick. WotC could write tactics into stat blocks, or DMs could spend a lot of time googling all the spells, but that's about it.

There are optimizer DMs out there, but there will always be more optimizer players. Not just because there are more players than DMs, but because of the nature of the player and DM roles. A player has just their character. They only have to worry about their abilities, their spells, and those of the small number of others in their party, so they can focus in. They can go over their spells with a fine-tooth comb for cool tricks, or go trawling the internet for "how can I get the most out of Magic Mouth?" The DM doesn't have that luxury. They've got to manage the world, and write/pick adventures, and roll up loot, and design/study encounters, and balance the players' different varieties of fun, and so on and so on. The DM may not have the time to google every spell on an NPC's spell list for spell tricks, especially if it's an ally/quest-giver NPC who may never need to cast any of said spells.

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 04:49 PM

First:

It is not mechanical aptitude for them.

Second:

This means you want the Archmages to be the "going word by word over the lowest of cantrips or 2nd-levels and asking 'How can I use this with the environment/other spells in a way that benefits me more than the obvious application would?'" type of optimizers you were talking about earlier

Or to put in differently, you want the "going word by word over the lowest of cantrips or 2nd-levels and asking 'How can I use this with the environment/other spells in a way that benefits me more than the obvious application would?'" type of optimizers to be the Archmages.

First, yes it is. The definition of a Mechanic isn't RAW. I can have an aptitude for puzzle mechanics in real life, or an aptitude for auto mechanics. Your question boils down to 'How to rationalize a Wizard character's aptitude with their spells whenever a player puppeteers their actions off RAW knowledge?'

There is already in-game fluff for that or else you'd never be able to play an effective caster without metagaming - what you learn from reading, they learn by experimentation and theory. Hell, for all we know some of those 'Arcane symbols and equations' could be the literal equivalent of dice when it comes to measuring kinetic force/heat/etc.

But both me and my character end up with the same innate comprehension of our own character sheet, if only so that your adventuring behavior as the puppet-master is reasonable for the character as well.

There's nothing anyone can do to have DMs play Archmages (Or any high intelligence monster for that matter) smarter. So what's the point of this thread? Because it's starting to sound like you are just complaining that your DM isn't "good" enough for you.

Well, it in the title. "Showerthought". Mostly ruminating about the prestige and title are often divorced from the practical skill, though there are some things to be done, it could always be seen as a call to encourage more sophisticated NPC interaction with spell mechanics.

Points 1, 2 and 3 are the same things that have been going on for the entire thread. Magic Mouth, your example, is like a mini contingency, with almost no limit to how many of them you can have available at a time, soon after taking this spell I realized the potential setting breaking repercussions of such a spell, but I did not care to dive deep into it to actually study it. I just made cards for each party member with mouth drawn on them that would warn "Someone is approaching!" if after the carrier said anyone except the party members came within 30 feet of the carrier without being seen by them, but only if the carrier has said "Alarm activated" and hasn't said "Alarm deactivated" since.

Also, you seem to not take into account that things like actually being able to cast high level spell as a wizard, in universe is in and of itself proof that someone's understanding of magic is exceptional. Its not "just copy paste that spell and use it", it requires a level of understanding outside that of most creatures.

What you claim is that most (if not all) individuals with access to such high level spells, SHOULD have knowledge on how to optimize their use, to which I say, no they actually SHOULDN'T have such knowledge, because if they did, then the setting would make no sense. For such a thing to be true, the setting should resemble something more like Tippyverse.

I haven't been very active as of 5e, but in the 3.5 era I was, and the stuff we did in the old wizards forum were absurd (literally crashing the moon into the earth with a single spell for example). Such a setting would have to be extremely different from every of the better known ones, and thus it stands to reason that in universe such knowledge is NOT widespread.

I did take it into account, its written down in the OP and the above posts. Your second point is something that I am inclined to agree with. How would a world or setting look like if mages were at peak optimization? They would probably rule the Material and beyond as invincible gods that would take an apocalypse of Divine proportiins to depose, much like the lore of Netheril and Krasus's folly in FR, except Mystra realizing that limiting spells to 9th level wasn't enough because the pesky mages have still broken her balance.

It could be a world like Athas where each mage is his own Demigod. The only reason a setting like The Sword Coast can survive suspense of disbelief as far as power structures are concerned, is because its mages are 'dumb' enough that neither villains or heroes have assumed total dominion, or that the ones who could are "isolationists" by personality.

I don't disagree with that - the more powerful the mages, the more the narrative will have to take that into account.

Willowhelm

2021-04-03, 05:05 PM

Rukelnikov

2021-04-03, 05:07 PM

I did take it into account, its written down in the OP and the above posts. Your second point is something that I am inclined to agree with. How would a world or setting look like if mages were at peak optimization? They would probably rule the Material and beyond as invincible gods that would take an apocalypse of Divine proportiins to depose, much like the lore of Netheril and Krasus's folly in FR, except Mystra realizing that limiting spells to 9th level wasn't enough because the pesky mages have still broken her balance.

Well... I have no idea what Mystra intended to be her balance, I assume she wanted to rule out things like Karsus Avatar. It always sounded strange to me that Epic spellcasting was a thing in 3e FR since that was almost in direct contradiction with Mystra's limiting of the Weave's power to mortals, but hey, at least in 5e there is no way (that I know of) to "borrow" a deity's power against their will.

It could be a world like Athas where each mage is his own Demigod. The only reason a setting like The Sword Coast can survive suspense of disbelief as far as power structures are concerned, is because its mages are 'dumb' enough that neither villains or heroes have assumed total dominion, or that the ones who could are "isolationists" by personality.

I don't disagree with that - the more powerful the mages, the more the narrative will have to take that into account.

Its not that they are necessarily dumb, Hilbert, Von Neumann and Turing never lived in FR, so their knowledge of "programming" is limited to non-existant. Its like saying medical doctors are dumb in 5e because they don't do heart transplants, or engineers are dumb because they don't make nuclear reactors and computers. The resources to make such things are available but they don't exist cause no one has invented them yet. To further the point, its like saying Leonardo was dumb because he didn't invent solar powered cars, or Newton was dumb because he didn't come up with relativity.

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 05:16 PM

Well... I have no idea what Mystra intended to be her balance, I assume she wanted to rule out things like Karsus Avatar. It always sounded strange to me that Epic spellcasting was a thing in 3e FR since that was almost in direct contradiction with Mystra's limiting of the Weave's power to mortals, but hey, at least in 5e there is no way (that I know of) to "borrow" a deity's power against their will.

Its not that they are necessarily dumb, Hilbert, Von Neumann and Turing never lived in FR, so their knowledge of "programming" is limited to non-existant. Its like saying medical doctors are dumb in 5e because they don't do heart transplants, or engineers are dumb because they don't make nuclear reactors and computers. The resources to make such things are available but they don't exist cause no one has invented them yet. To further the point, its like saying Leonardo was dumb because he didn't invent solar powered cars, or Newton was dumb because he didn't come up with relativity.

Well considering Mystra banned spells well below the level of Krasus's Avatar, which was in itself an anomaly, and caused all of Netherese society to quite literally crash and burn in the process, I'd imagine she wanted to take mortal mages down a notch.

In regards to the recurring programming throwback, that particular pheasing was a metaphor. It could just as well be called the 'Magic Mouth Messaging Artificer bonanza'. Its core application does not require programming knowledge, just arcane innovation. But let's put it aside formthe time being - take a look at the Build Collection threads or the online list of spell tricks.

99% of them have nothing to do with our world or with foreshadowed knowledge. They're based off entirely on fantasy purposes and can be logically deduced either by player or character. Somehow those fantasy societies can understand medieval archtiecture or siege weapons or ship building perfectly fine as fantasy characters, yet spell combos are utterly off bounds for innovative logic. The one phenomena that only exists in theirs is something that players should be more practiced at than the mages living there? I find the mentality somewhat drab.

And I know it will always be DM dependent, its right there in the OP. It's a showerthought contemplation, it isn't supposed to be a demand to rewrite DND or something. What I wanted to say is that it would be nice if optimized NPC mages became the norm in most tables, or in popular streaming campaigns and the like, so their titles carry more weight than they already do.

DwarfFighter

2021-04-03, 05:22 PM

I would be happy if an experienced mage adventurer NPC or Archmage could teach, if not me then at least some less versed players, something about optimizing official spells or my class abilities that would'nt be blatantly obvious to me as a player. I'd like to be impressed by their mechanical aptitude beyond just having access to higher level slots.

Ah, here are. The underlying issue: NPCs don't optimize.

I think it's a stretch to say this disqualifies them from their titles, the local king may be perfectly satisfied with a magical advisor that can Power Word Kill troublesome visitors or scry on disloyal vassals. I also feel that tricks that players feel is optimization is what people in the game world would consider insanity. For example: Casting Guidance on yourself once or more every minute for every waking hour pretty extreme OCD. It's the kind of behavior that only makes sense if your character sees the world in terms of rules.

Maybe your GM is cool with this, and in his game world every NPC has the same understanding of the world as the players project into their characters. Every commoner in this world is aware that there exists something called "hit points" and that getting stabbed will cause them to lose a discrete number of them, and they will die if they are reduced to 0, and that falling off a cliff will deal a maximum of 120 hp damage.

The commoners are aware of the advantage and disadvantage rules, and how it makes no difference to their chance of success if one negative condition applies or multiple. This isn't just the GM having an orc that has been blinded, knocked prone and tied up in grasping vines make a javelin attack at long range, no: The commoners sit at the pub and discuss how to avoid making their farming checks with disadvantage. There's an industry of real and fake remedies that grant you advantage on ability checks, and they are advertised to the public in game-mechanic terms!

"Buy Herbert's Herbs For Advantage On Constitution Checks and Saving Throws! Pass Concentration Saves! Impress Your Wife With Your Stamina In The Bedroom! Disclaimer: Does Not Improve Death Saving Throws!"

In this world, sure, the sub-optimized Archmage is undeserving of their title.

Edit: There is also some more weirdness here: You want the NPC to impress the players? I pity the GM that tries to live up to that standard, and I envy the GM that gets to kick players like that out of their group.

-DF

Morty

2021-04-03, 05:34 PM

Rukelnikov

2021-04-03, 05:35 PM

Well considering Mystra banned spells well belowmthe level of Krasus's Avatar, which was in itself an anomaly, and caused all of Netherese society to quite literally crash and burn in the process, I'd imagine she wanted to take mortal mages down a notch.

Well, they didn't crash and burn because of Mystra's limitation of the weave, since that happened some time afterwards, they crashed and burned because Mystril sacrificed herself to stop Karsus from destroying "the world" because he couldn't wield Mystril's power, and with her death magic stopped existing, and the enclaves crashed, yada yada yada.

And also she did take mortals down a notch, as I said, at least in 5e, I don't know of any way to borrow a deity's power against their consent, and tbh there isn't even epic magic available anymore, I guess the spellplague was what limited magic further (at least in the FR)

In regards to the recurring programming throwback, that particular pheasing was a metaphor. It could just as well be called the 'Magic Mouth Messaging Artificer bonanza'. Its core application does not require programming knowledge, just arcane innovation. But let's put it aside formthe time being - take a look at the Build Collection threads or the online list of spell tricks.

That's quite literally programming, the magic mouths are acting as a computer's CPU.

99% of them have nothing to do with our world or with foreshadowed knowledge. They're based off entirely on fantasy purposes and can be logically deduced either by player or character.

Every single ounce of scientific knowledge in our world can be deduced, does that mean everyone born before 1900 was dumb? No, its not a matter of intelligence but of knowledge and its availability. For instance in one campaign I DMed, the Monster Manual appeared and it was an artifact, because such knowledge, in my world at least (but I'd wager in most official settings too), is not widely available.

Something like the PHB list of spells, or the 3.x Spell Compendium could very easily be one of the 5 Nether Scrolls.

Knowledge as detailed as that of the PHB for every spell would be the research of more than an entire lifetime, specially for high level spells, given the small amount of spell slots available for experimentation and the small amount of people available to cast them, plus the fact that I assume at least, that a lot of that experimentation is what allows the spell to exist in the first place.

And I know it will always be DM dependent, its right there in the OP. It's a showerthought contemplation, it isn't supposed to be a demand to rewrite DND or something. What I wanted to say is that it would be nice if optimized NPC mages became the norm in most tables, or in popular streaming campaigns and the like, so their titles carry more weight than they already do.

Optimized as in taking the right multiclass to squeeze an extra bit of damage (if the DM uses the option to make NPCs as PCs)? I agree.

Optimized as in having every wizard capable of casting 9th level spells having an arbitrarily high number of chain simulacri? No, because again, it would make the setting inconsistent. If that's the setting you wanna play, you can perfectly do it. But it would not make sense for FR, Oerth, or even Athas to be that way. It wouldn't be a very interesting medieval fantasy setting, if every time a problem arose in the FRs a battalion of Elminster's simulacri showed up to mop the enemies. I do think there's potential for VERY interesting adventures in such worlds, but they wouldn't be medieval fantasy, which I assume is the aim of most of the official settings, and I'd bet is what most players are interested to play when they think of playing DnD.

Kane0

2021-04-03, 05:36 PM

You know you can make new spells too, the ones we as players using the books are exposed to are supposed to be the ones that adventurers would be exposed to and familiar with, doing heroics and so on.
I imagine Archmages would be pretty good at devising new spells to do exactly what they need done.

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 05:40 PM

Ah, here are. The underlying issue: NPCs don't optimize.

On top of what you said, it's important to say that a DM can just decide the NPC is as powerful as they want, so the only way they could optimize would be 1) establish arbitrary limits 2) work to make the NPC as powerful as possible within those limits.

And also she did take mortals down a notch, as I said, at least in 5e, I don't know of any way to borrow a deity's power against their consent, and tbh there isn't even epic magic available anymore, I guess the spellplague was what limited magic further (at least in the FR)

Well, in Dragon Heist/Dungeon of the Mad Mage:

Laeral Silverhand explicitly laments about how she's not as strong as she used to be.

Willowhelm

2021-04-03, 05:46 PM

Somehow those fantasy societies can understand medieval archtiecture or siege weapons or ship building perfectly fine as fantasy character, yet spell combos are utterly off bounds for innovative logic.

No they aren’t. You’re complaining about something that you have decided is true when it isn’t. Multiple people have pointed this out in this thread.

Morty

2021-04-03, 05:48 PM

I feel like a lot of this thread's premise rests on the fact that using spells in a "creative" or "optimized" way is perceived to require more cleverness than learning those spells to begin with - because it requires cleverness from the player. Casting level 9 spells doesn't require a lot of effort from a player, strictly speaking - you just need to play a character long enough, but you can also write them as level 17 immediately. Especially if they're an NPC. But in-universe, it absolutely does.

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 05:51 PM

Also it's not that the D&D world's people "can understand medieval archtiecture or siege weapons or ship building perfectly fine", they developed those things and they just happen to be somewhat similar to how things were in very-late-middle-age-early-Renaissance Europe in some places.

In practice D&D is completely ahistorical. With various tech level ranging from the broken rock to full on spaceships.

I feel like a lot of this thread's premise rests on the fact that using spells in a "creative" or "optimized" way is perceived to require more cleverness than learning those spells to begin with - because it requires cleverness from the player. Casting level 9 spells doesn't require a lot of effort, strictly speaking - you just need to play a character long enough, but you can also write them as level 17 immediately. Especially if they're an NPC.

Good point.

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 05:51 PM

Ah, here are. The underlying issue: NPCs don't optimize.

I think it's a stretch to say this disqualifies them from their titles, the local king may be perfectly satisfied with a magical advisor that can Power Word Kill troublesome visitors or scry on disloyal vassals. I also feel that tricks that players feel is optimization is what people in the game world would consider insanity. For example: Casting Guidance on yourself once or more every minute for every waking hour pretty extreme OCD. It's the kind of behavior that only makes sense if your character sees the world in terms of rules.

Maybe your GM is cool with this, and in his game world every NPC has the same understanding of the world as the players project into their characters. Every commoner in this world is aware that there exists something called "hit points" and that getting stabbed will cause them to lose a discrete number of them, and they will die if they are reduced to 0, and that falling off a cliff will deal a maximum of 120 hp damage.

The commoners are aware of the advantage and disadvantage rules, and how it makes no difference to their chance of success if one negative condition applies or multiple. This isn't just the GM having an orc that has been blinded, knocked prone and tied up in grasping vines make a javelin attack at long range, no: The commoners sit at the pub and discuss how to avoid making their farming checks with disadvantage. There's an industry of real and fake remedies that grant you advantage on ability checks, and they are advertised to the public in game-mechanic terms!

"Buy Herbert's Herbs For Advantage On Constitution Checks and Saving Throws! Pass Concentration Saves! Impress Your Wife With Your Stamina In The Bedroom! Disclaimer: Does Not Improve Death Saving Throws!"

In this world, sure, the sub-optimized Archmage is undeserving of their title.

Edit: There is also some more weirdness here: You want the NPC to impress the players? I pity the GM that tries to live up to that standard, and I envy the GM that gets to kick players like that out of their group.

-DF

NPC's don't optimize? Who laid down that edict? You exclaimed in your last post that if a DM believes a mage should have access to certain combos or tricks, they can, and I support that. There's no reason why the Illusion Wizard BBEG can't have a history of rising to prominence above other Illusionists thanks to his equisite methods of artfully orchestrating different spells and subclass features to grandiose displays, or that the BEARbarian Moon Druid is 'the king of the jungle' for all his syngerzied skills.

I'd say the underlying issue is that snark should only be reserved for those who confidently know their own merits at the very minimum and aren't just going off on a tangent which doesn't validate their position. Other than the fact that we've already gone over the point that most creative spell combos are less about dice crunching and more about intuitive hypotheses, farmers do in fact pay attention to these conditions.

You understand, DF, they just have a different terminology for them than us the players do. The farmers sit at pubs and complain how droughts or broken tools impose 'disadvantage' on their farming checks while rainy seasons advantage their crops. They know they're toast in mere seconds ( *cough* round ) if they fall into a laval pool but the Troll won't be.

They know the more floors you fall, the more bones you'll break. They know Herbert's Herbs will make them more resistant to being poisoned. So what exactly were you getting at, I have no clue.

- Renduaz

DwarfFighter

2021-04-03, 05:55 PM

On top of what you said, it's important to say that a DM can just decide the NPC is as powerful as they want, so the only way they could optimize would be 1) establish arbitrary limits 2) work to make the NPC as powerful as possible within those limits.

Indeed. If the point is to impress the players with the NPCs powerful optimization, they'd also have to be aware of those limitations and why those optimizations are so rad. We'd be looking at some weird stuff like...

GM: The Archmage gives you a sly grin and casts Magic Missile at the training dummy for 305 points of acid damage, using only a level 3 spell slot.

Players: "Cor! How did he do that!"

GM: "Come to my study and I shall teach you. Do any of you by chance have the ability to change your race into a Crystal Genasi? It's kind of a requirement."

-DF

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 05:58 PM

NPC's don't optimize? Who laid down that edict?

I can answer that, but first, I just want to make sure we are on the same page in term of definition.

Would you define "optimizing" as "the character's creator using all their capacities, including all their knowledge of the system, in order to make the character (and the concept the character is based on) as powerful as possible", or have a different definition?

Rukelnikov

2021-04-03, 05:59 PM

Well, in Dragon Heist/Dungeon of the Mad Mage:

Laeral Silverhand explicitly laments about how she's not as strong as she used to be.

Oh...

So they spellplague did canonically make magic users weaker then??

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 06:19 PM

I don't listen to streaming campaigns and I don't plan on starting, but I feel like minutiae of high-level spells and optimized ways of using them is the opposite of what most people want when they tune in.

I'm sure it is, if it was what most players wanted then it would be present. But it can be jarring to watch a playeer desprately struggling against an NPC or vice versa when you know it could all be over very quickly if they just knew how to combo that one spell they've got properly.

Sometimes it gets plain enough that even the 'general public' perks up and comments fly by of "Why don't they do X? Everyone knows the X trick".

Well, they didn't crash and burn because of Mystra's limitation of the weave, since that happened some time afterwards, they crashed and burned because Mystril sacrificed herself to stop Karsus from destroying "the world" because he couldn't wield Mystril's power, and with her death magic stopped existing, and the enclaves crashed, yada yada yada.

And also she did take mortals down a notch, as I said, at least in 5e, I don't know of any way to borrow a deity's power against their consent, and tbh there isn't even epic magic available anymore, I guess the spellplague was what limited magic further (at least in the FR)

That's quite literally programming, the magic mouths are acting as a computer's CPU.

Every single ounce of scientific knowledge in our world can be deduced, does that mean everyone born before 1900 was dumb? No, its not a matter of intelligence but of knowledge and its availability. For instance in one campaign I DMed, the Monster Manual appeared and it was an artifact, because such knowledge, in my world at least (but I'd wager in most official settings too), is not widely available.

Something like the PHB list of spells, or the 3.x Spell Compendium could very easily be one of the 5 Nether Scrolls.

Knowledge as detailed as that of the PHB for every spell would be the research of more than an entire lifetime, specially for high level spells, given the small amount of spell slots available for experimentation and the small amount of people available to cast them, plus the fact that I assume at least, that a lot of that experimentation is what allows the spell to exist in the first place.

Optimized as in taking the right multiclass to squeeze an extra bit of damage (if the DM uses the option to make NPCs as PCs)? I agree.

Optimized as in having every wizard capable of casting 9th level spells having an arbitrarily high number of chain simulacri? No, because again, it would make the setting inconsistent. If that's the setting you wanna play, you can perfectly do it. But it would not make sense for FR, Oerth, or even Athas to be that way. It wouldn't be a very interesting medieval fantasy setting, if every time a problem arose in the FRs a battalion of Elminster's simulacri showed up to mop the enemies. I do think there's potential for VERY interesting adventures in such worlds, but they wouldn't be medieval fantasy, which I assume is the aim of most of the official settings, and I'd bet is what most players are interested to play when they think of playing DnD.

They're only adapted into bona fide CPU's in subsequent pages, in the OP they're used as simplistic information relays and alerting aystems. Ancient people understood the concepts of information storage and relay, that's how languages, ciphers and taxonomies were independently developed, they just didn't have magic stones that can process sounds and infinite triggers or else they would never need the transistor and we'd probably see Magic Mouth tech springing up all over.

Again.. no, I don't think mages should know every spell in DND or deduce every combo. I think they should be able to deduce *some* just like any Earth inventors has his own deductions. Optimized as in playing their class and available spells in the best way they can and chaining good effects together.

You know you can make new spells too, the ones we as players using the books are exposed to are supposed to be the ones that adventurers would be exposed to and familiar with, doing heroics and so on.
I imagine Archmages would be pretty good at devising new spells to do exactly what they need done.

By making new spells, I'm just giving them more toys to combo and more incentive to figure out at least some good combos. That's how it goes whenever WOTC releases new spells in a book- all the power-gamers rush off to 'break' them. It's a cycle.

No they arenÂ’t. YouÂ’re complaining about something that you have decided is true when it isnÂ’t. Multiple people have pointed this out in this thread.

I feel like a lot of this thread's premise rests on the fact that using spells in a "creative" or "optimized" way is perceived to require more cleverness than learning those spells to begin with - because it requires cleverness from the player. Casting level 9 spells doesn't require a lot of effort from a player, strictly speaking - you just need to play a character long enough, but you can also write them as level 17 immediately. Especially if they're an NPC. But in-universe, it absolutely does.

We're circling back to exhausted topics as new posters show up who were'nt present for the previous back and forths, but I'll reiterate it one more time - Yes, the archmage is a storming genius for knowing that 9th or 5th level spell. So why can't they also be half as clever as the player in finding ways to using them in an optimized way? If the DM knows how, then they would.

I can answer that, but first, I just want to make sure we are on the same page in term of definition.

Would you define "optimizing" as "the character's creator using all their capacities, including all their knowledge of the system, in order to make the character (and the concept the character is based on) as powerful as possible", or have a different definition?

I'm defining it as the DM character, much like there would be an in-game justification for a player's character being a Bearbarian or Nuclear Wizard or knowing how to do Simulacrum shenanigans, using all their capacities and knowledge of their own spells and class abilities in order to make attain their goals as effectively as possible - be it a goal of obliterating enemies, amassing wealth, summoning a ****-ton of minions for a personal army, or using permanent effects for utility contraptions.

Willowhelm

2021-04-03, 06:26 PM

So why can't they also be half as clever as the player in finding ways to using them in an optimozed way?

They can.

Can i make that any clearer for you?

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 06:33 PM

They can.

Can i make that any clearer for you?

No, we understand each other, that's why I already addressed those replies in a previous post and in the OP to begin with. I'm mostly busy enganging with claims that it can't or shouldn't be done. I'm aware its contingent on the DM's experience.

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 06:34 PM

I
I'm defining it as the DM character, much like there would be an in-game justification for a player's character being a Bearbarian or Nuclear Wizard or knowing how to do Simulacrum shenanigans, using all their capacities and knowledge of their own spells and class abilities in order to make attain their goals as effectively as possible - be it a goal of obliterating enemies, amassing wealth, summoning a ****-ton of minions for a personal army, or using permanent effects for utility contraptions.

I think there is a miscommunication here, and I apologize for it.

Let me try to rephrase it:

Do you think that a player optimizing should use all what they are allowed by the rules and their knowledge of the system in order to make their character the most powerful possible (within the theme/concept they have decided for said character)?

PhoenixPhyre

2021-04-03, 06:46 PM

The only archmage I've statted for my world spends all his spell slots casting customized versions of enlarge/reduce[0] and enhance ability (Bear's Endurance only, which he learned by studying at the bard's college for a while). That's because he's well past his prime and prefers to sport with his "apprentices"[1] instead. He once had all the tricks, but very few of them were combat. He's lived in the lap of luxury and has no desire to do anything fancy--he's happy with how things are. And a bit senile at this point.

[0] targeting a specific body part. The customization is all about duration, at the cost of maximum size.
[1] who are hired specifically for their youthful beauty and willingness to serve. So it's consensual. They all get decent posts later, despite usually being pretty crappy mages.

Rukelnikov

2021-04-03, 06:50 PM

They're only adapted into bona fide CPU's in subsequent pages, in the OP they're used as simplistic information relays and alerting aystems. Ancient people understood the concepts of information storage and relay, that's how languages, ciphers and taxonomies were independently developed, they just didn't have magic stones that can process sounds and infinite triggers or else they would never need the transistor and we'd probably see Magic Mouth tech springing up all over.

Ok, I could see it used inside an archmages tower or domain, but in a whole region? It would have to be Lantan or somewhere in Eberron, otherwise it wouldn't mesh well with the rest of the setting.

Again.. no, I don't think mages should know every spell in DND or deduce every combo. I think they should be able to deduce *some* just like any Earth inventors has his own deductions. Optimized as in playing their class and available spells in the best way they can and chaining good effects together.

Well yeah, but that could just as easily be their own signature spell, or the ability to maximize or quicken a couple spells. In-world that IS optimization, cause they managed, thru their own knowledge and study, to make something that's difficult for the other casters to do.

I understand your proposition:

NPCs who are supposed to be great wizards should feel like great wizards.

And I agree with it, the point of contention is:

They can only feel like great wizards if they are capable of "outside the box" uses for spells

And this is the point I disagree with.

There's more than one path to optimization, these I'm mentioning are more akin to "brute force" optimization, but if we look at Earth's history, most of our optimizations are that way too. Look no further than cars, it took a bout a hundred years for there to be any kind of "optimization" that is not "do the same thing you already do but better", only recently are we starting to do things like cars that can drive themselves, and its still a very long way from it being the standard.

Renduaz

2021-04-03, 06:51 PM

I think there is a miscommunication here, and I apologize for it.

Let me try to rephrase it:

Do you think that a player optimizing should use all what they are allowed by the rules and their knowledge of the system in order to make their character the most powerful possible (within the theme/concept they have decided for said character)?

'Power' is nebulous, there are many arcane paths to power - spell combos, or class abilities synergizing with spells that aim to profilerate precious minerals or items or manipulate an economy,mspell combos that increase your speed for powerful mobility and range in combat, avoiding oppprtunity attacks, etc, all the way to combos that just deal more damage.

With that in mind, yes, a player who optimizes their character to be as powerful as possible as allowed by the rules and system, in their own style. But I will once again underline the fact that its written in the DMG or Sage Advice somewhere, if it wasn't obvious enough, that a character knows the intricacies of their abilities and character sheet as much as the player does, in their own awareness. Otherwise they'd be impossible to play.

So for example, if you the player cast a spell with a given duration, range, concentration, components, effects, does your character know all of that when casting the spell? Yes, they found out from their own fluff sources and experimentation as part of learning the spell. Only the terminology is different.

When a character casts a spell like Bane, are they aware of what it does? Its an imaginary 1d4 to saving throws, so the Wizard must think the spell does absolutely nothing in reality, because they don't know what saving throws are as DF wisely alerts our attention to. Right? No. They know its a spell which makes enemies more vulnerable to other spells. Sure, they don't have precise numbers, but its not about the numbers. -4, -6, who cares.

They still understand the principle of the combo behind chaining Bane with Bestow Curse or increasing damage and speed.

Veldrenor

2021-04-03, 07:00 PM

We're circling back to exhausted topics as new posters show up who were'nt present for the previous back and forths, but I'll reiterate it one more time - Yes, the archmage is a storming genius for knowing that 9th or 5th level spell. So why can't they also be half as clever as the player in finding ways to using them in an optimized way? If the DM knows how, then they would.

Has anyone in this thread claimed that they can't be that clever? There are replies justifying why a DM may choose not to (9th level spells are difficult and impressive and can be representative of the archmage's study, some spell combos have world-building implications they're not interested in dealing with, etc.). There are replies pointing out that it can't be done if the DM doesn't know it (your NPC can't use Magic Mouth information relays if you yourself don't know that's a possible use of the spell). But has anyone in this thread attempted to argue that a DM who knows potent spell combos shouldn't have their NPCs use said combos?

Rukelnikov

2021-04-03, 07:07 PM

Has anyone in this thread claimed that they can't be that clever? There are replies justifying why a DM may choose not to (9th level spells are difficult and impressive and can be representative of the archmage's study, some spell combos have world-building implications they're not interested in dealing with, etc.). There are replies pointing out that it can't be done if the DM doesn't know it (your NPC can't use Magic Mouth information relays if you yourself don't know that's a possible use of the spell). But has anyone in this thread attempted to argue that a DM who knows potent spell combos shouldn't have their NPCs use said combos?

Well... I kinda did, I gave the example of not having high level wizards with chain simulacri for example, because that would fundamentally change the setting I'm DMing, and in general I prefer Dark Fantasy or Sci-Fi settings for that kind of thing. Not Medieval Fantasy or even Steampunk Fantasy which is what I generally go for with DnD.

Veldrenor

2021-04-03, 07:28 PM

Well... I kinda did, I gave the example of not having high level wizards with chain simulacri for example, because that would fundamentally change the setting I'm DMing, and in general I prefer Dark Fantasy or Sci-Fi settings for that kind of thing. Not Medieval Fantasy or even Steampunk Fantasy which is what I generally go for with DnD.

You choose not to use said combo because it has world-building implications you're not interested in, that's not the same thing as saying "DM's shouldn't have their NPCs use spell combos." I did mention your example in my post, although not explicitly so:

Has anyone in this thread claimed that they can't be that clever? There are replies justifying why a DM may choose not to (9th level spells are difficult and impressive and can be representative of the archmage's study, some spell combos have world-building implications they're not interested in dealing with, etc.). There are replies pointing out that it can't be done if the DM doesn't know it (your NPC can't use Magic Mouth information relays if you yourself don't know that's a possible use of the spell). But has anyone in this thread attempted to argue that a DM who knows potent spell combos shouldn't have their NPCs use said combos?

Telok

2021-04-03, 07:38 PM

Possibly the core issue is that the MM archmage is a simplified stat block that's not very interesting. If an in game "archmage" is just that stat block then they're not impressive since, RAW, they don't even get the spellbook and ritual caster abilities. Nothing in the stats says "master of the arcane arts" beyond the arcana proficiency and high level spell slots with 'meh' spells in them.

The printed archmage is a chump with time stop, cone of cold, & teleport, plus an OK bonus on arcana checks. Getting anything beyond that is dependent on the DM making stuff up.

Silly Name

2021-04-03, 07:44 PM

And I know it will always be DM dependent, its right there in the OP. It's a showerthought contemplation, it isn't supposed to be a demand to rewrite DND or something. What I wanted to say is that it would be nice if optimized NPC mages became the norm in most tables, or in popular streaming campaigns and the like, so their titles carry more weight than they already do.

I'd rather not. If there's something I don't want is to start some absurd arms-race between the players and the NPCs.

Basic combat efficiency from NPCs is something I assume most DMs get around to as they learn. I don't think any DM with a few sessions under their belt is particularly amazed by their players doing a combo of "impose disadvantage on next saving throw->cast a Save or Suck spell", and if they want a particular mage NPC to feel "smart" they'll probably do something similar. A lot of the time, this is even easily intuitive as you read a monsters' statblock: Dragons can fly. Dragons have a ranged AoE attack. It's not rocket science to figure out a dragon can stay out of range, swoop down to use their breath weapon and fly away.

Optimising NPCs is 5e sounds... silly to me. 5e NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs: oh, sure, a handful statblocks are clearly based off this or that class, but at the end of the day the only "optimisation" I can run as a DM is to arbitrarly give an NPC some abilities or not. I can tweak their scores as much as I like, I can just give them flight if they need to and I don't have to worry about how they got flight, mechanically. Last night I ran a boss battle against a flying vampire knight. Why could he fly? Because he was a vampire! Who cares if he had no spellcasting or wasn't wearing winged boots.

Basic combat tricks aren't what makes an archmage anyways. They probably spend their time pouring over ancient dusty tomes and conjecturing over the deeper mysteries of magic rather than trying to figure out the most efficient combat tactics. Why? Because they can Meteor Swarm most of their problems away and then return to their profound elucubration. Why spend time devising optimal tactics when sheer arcane power is just as good?

There are a myriad other possibilities: maybe a NPC just isn't combat-minded. They may be great at making potions and creating magical devices, but they don't care about combat.

But all of this is pretty irrelevant, because the core issue is another: the game is about the PCs. You are the ones who should get to be cool, and show up those dusty boring old dullards sitting in their ivory towers. The NPCs exist to facilitate the story told by the GM and the players, but they should never overshadow the actual protagonists of the story.

Unoriginal

2021-04-03, 08:24 PM

'Power' is nebulous, there are many arcane paths to power - spell combos, or class abilities synergizing with spells that aim to profilerate precious minerals or items or manipulate an economy,mspell combos that increase your speed for powerful mobility and range in combat, avoiding oppprtunity attacks, etc, all the way to combos that just deal more damage.

With that in mind, yes, a player who optimizes their character to be as powerful as possible as allowed by the rules and system, in their own style.

Thank you for your answer.

So the answer for "Who laid down that edict?" is: "you, Renduaz, and everyone else who played 5e".

If optimizing is "make their character to be as powerful as possible as allowed by the rules and system, in their own style", then a an optimized NPC would have full omnipotence (at the exclusion of the boundaries between PC and NPC), because that's as powerful as possible a DM is allowed by the rules and system to make them.

So a DM cannot optimize. Or they essentially just say "I win" in whichever context the PCs are confronted to any NPC.

Furthermore:

But I will once again underline the fact that its written in the DMG or Sage Advice somewhere, if it wasn't obvious enough, that a character knows the intricacies of their abilities and character sheet as much as the player does, in their own awareness. Otherwise they'd be impossible to play.

So for example, if you the player cast a spell with a given duration, range, concentration, components, effects, does your character know all of that when casting the spell? Yes, they found out from their own fluff sources and experimentation as part of learning the spell. Only the terminology is different.

When a character casts a spell like Bane, are they aware of what it does? Its an imaginary 1d4 to saving throws, so the Wizard must think the spell does absolutely nothing in reality, because they don't know what saving throws are as DF wisely alerts our attention to. Right? No. They know its a spell which makes enemies more vulnerable to other spells. Sure, they don't have precise numbers, but its not about the numbers. -4, -6, who cares.

They still understand the principle of the combo behind chaining Bane with Bestow Curse or increasing damage and speed.

A PC cannot optimize. A player does. A PC does not select the Sentinel feat in order to get the right combo that allow their build to have the type of capacities and the level of capacities they want, they train/acquire a specific technique to accomplish their desired goals. The player does select the Sentinel feat, however.

A PC is a person, in-universe. You can't say they optimize themselves or their capacities, because optimization is solely a meta concept.

Tanarii

2021-04-04, 12:24 AM

Personally I have no problem with the idea that an NPC archmage or archdruid or archsorcer or archwarlock who spent 2 decades slowly gaining power through non-adventuring methods wouldn't know half the combat application tricks and tactics that the average level 10 PC (and player behind it) has picked up in a year or two intense years of adventuring.

If it was an adventuring or military caster that had seen lots of action, it might be a stretch.

DwarfFighter

2021-04-04, 04:20 AM

NPC's don't optimize? Who laid down that edict?
From the context it should have been clear that I though I had finally figured out what you were getting at with this thread: A lament that NPCs didn't optimize. I guess I could have been even clearer.

I then proceeded to ridicule the notion because optimization at the level you are suggesting requires the NPCs to realize that the rules of his world are game rules.

To illustrate that I describe a world where everyone is acutely aware of the game mechanics that govern them. A character in this world knows a fall to be dangerous, but also knows this in terms of hit points and damage. An "optimizer" needs for this to be known in order to decide if the most effective spell for the job is one that calls for an attack roll or a saving throw. They use "different terminology"? Why would they? "long range" and "DC" perfectly describe what they are.

It's what the whole world would look like if the NPCs also know the rules.

-DF

DwarfFighter

2021-04-04, 04:32 AM

Optimising NPCs is 5e sounds... silly to me. 5e NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs: oh, sure, a handful statblocks are clearly based off this or that class, but at the end of the day the only "optimisation" I can run as a DM is to arbitrarly give an NPC some abilities or not. I can tweak their scores as much as I like, I can just give them flight if they need to and I don't have to worry about how they got flight, mechanically. Last night I ran a boss battle against a flying vampire knight. Why could he fly? Because he was a vampire! Who cares if he had no spellcasting or wasn't wearing winged boots.

:+1:

As a GM, 5e's move away from NPC classes of 3.x was a huge relief! At first I though that this was mostly about getting away from assigning skill points (groan!), but I guess today I realized it was more than that: I no longer have to have the NPCs climb though the class levels to pick up the feats and class features that are available to the players.

Does it make sense in my campaign to have an Archmage in plate wielding a greatsword? No. But that's because it doesn't fit the campaign world, not because of CR budget constraints where the character would have to sacrifice wizard levels to multi-class into Fighter.

-DF

DwarfFighter

2021-04-04, 05:22 AM

When a character casts a spell like Bane, are they aware of what it does? Its an imaginary 1d4 to saving throws, so the Wizard must think the spell does absolutely nothing in reality, because they don't know what saving throws are as DF wisely alerts our attention to. Right? No. They know its a spell which makes enemies more vulnerable to other spells. Sure, they don't have precise numbers, but its not about the numbers. -4, -6, who cares.

They still understand the principle of the combo behind chaining Bane with Bestow Curse or increasing damage and speed.

I feel you are back-tracking here. You want for GMs to impress the players by how optimized the arch mage is, but at the same time you don't want to admit that the way to achieve this is for the NPC to have a complete grasp of the game rules.

Bane. I'd love to for this exchange to take place.

GM: "You should know a little trick! Cast Bane on your foes before casting Fireball and you will cause them great harm!"

Player 1 (has never played before): "Wow! I'm taking notes!"

GM: "Yes, Bane is a fine starter for damage spells, like Firebolt and Power Word Kill."

Player 2 (has played before): "This arch mage is an impostor. I kill him with my longsword!"

GM: "No wait! He only has a an understanding of the principle behind Bane as making targets more susceptible for magic, he doesn't understand the concept of spell attacks vs saves, or no-save spells!"

Players 1 & 2: "UNWORTHY!"

-DF

Tanarii

2021-04-04, 09:52 AM

GM: "No wait! He only has a an understanding of the principle behind Bane as making targets more susceptible for magic, he doesn't understand the concept of spell attacks vs saves, or no-save spells!"
Why not? Any experienced or studied caster should be aware of those differences in spells. Either that or they and others haven't cast those spells against opponents with anything like regularity (see my comment about arch-caster experience vs those "in the trenches" so to spell), AND Arcana theory has no understanding of these aspects of spells.

This spell works worse against armored targets, Others worse vs agile opponents (Dex saves), vs opponents with worldly awareness (wis saves), or vs forceful personality (Cha saves). Others cannot be resisted.

The only tricky ones are ones based of HPs, such as sleep, color spray, or PWK. And of course healing spells. In some cases those represent big tough hard to kill monsters, in other cases HPs are straight narrative plot armor (like all PCs over level 1). For these spells it'd probably appear to be some kind of nebulous "life force", and might easily be confused with a Con save.

Also if in-world characters cannot understand the basics of rules mechanics for spells, there becomes a huge disconnect between player decision making and what the heck is going on in the game. Players inevitably end up doing the kind of rule manipulation usually incorrectly & negatively accused/dismissed as "metagaming" any time they asses an opponent and decide what kind of spell to use against it based on possible save or being an attack roll or even "I use sleep against opponents we've been fighting for a while because they have lower HPs".

And this attitude will inevitably extend to combat rules in general, and skill checks. Can you imagine a world where creatures never have any basic understand of the underlying concept of DC in any way, so players can't ever asses how ability check tasks might be without "metagaming"? Or the DM just tells players they have to make every check blind, without knowing the DC?

You can't just treat the rules as a complete abstraction in-universe people will have absolutely no understanding of. It makes for a no-sense world just as bad as Tippyverse, but in the opposite direction. There must be some kind of link between the rules abstraction results and the in-game "events" that result.