NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs, never have in 5e, and that's ok.

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e does not assume that NPCs follow the same rules as PCs, except for convenience sake. A few examples, all of which are MM creatures of playable humanoid races:


The Acolyte NPC is defined to be a 1st level, wisdom based spellcaster with spells off the cleric list. At that level, a cleric has two 1st level slots. The Acolyte has 3.

The guard NPC's AC is 16 (chain shirt, shield). Yet he can wield his spear in both hands without (by raw) changing his AC.

The goblin NPC's AC is 15 (leather armor, shield). Yet he can use his shortbow without changing his AC.

The Archmage NPC has Magic Resistance as a permanent thing. Without any indication it comes from equipment, and none of the spells he has prepared grant that.

The Assassin NPC gets poison on every attack. And multiattack (emulating TWF, except getting the ability score bonus to damage and not using a bonus action)

The Bandit Captain NPC get Multiattack (2 + 1, obviously TWF except it gets ability score bonus to everything and still has its bonus action left) as well as Parry

The Cultist NPC has Dark Devotion, which is not accessible to PCs in any way as such.

The Cult Fanatic NPC not only has that, but also gets multiattack (TWF), but can also cast with its hands "full". So it can spiritual weapon and make two attacks, despite being a 4th level spellcaster (not a 9th level character, which would be required for Extra Attack).

The Gladiator NPC has Brute and Brave, neither of which are available to PCs. It can also Shield Bash (dealing damage) and can TWF with a weapon and shield. And can use its spear two handed without losing AC (by RAW). It also has Parry.

The Knight NPC has Leadership and Brave and Parry.

Both the Mage and the Archmage can have non-standard familiars despite explicitly casting find familiar.

The Noble gets Parry.

The Priest NPC has Divine Eminence, which isn't a PC-available ability.

The Scout gets Keen Hearing and Sight.

The Spy (despite being a rogue analoge) gets two melee attacks without using a bonus action. And has abilities that use its bonus action.

The Thug get Pack Tactics, as does the Tribal Warrior.

The veteran gets the regular multiattack weirdness around TWF.

Of the MM NPC stat blocks, only the Druid, Commoner, Berserker, and Bandit don't break the PC rules (not counting the fact that all of them have utterly wrong HP, with the level 1 acolyte having 2 HD and the archmage's HD all being d8s...unless he was small in which case he'd have d6s).

And things get even "worse" if you expand to all the humanoid, playable race NPCs in the MM. Heck, the very first monster in the MM, the aarakocra, gets Dive Attack, which isn't a PC option. The Kenku NPC gets Ambusher, which (legacy) kenku PCs don't.


In general, there is a hierarchy of rules, ranging from the very most general to the more content-based.

Almost everyone resolves actions the same. Ok, there are a few monsters that break this (the Marut and his auto-hitting attacks comes to mind), but just about everyone makes Ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls the same way. Neither monsters nor players get to stack advantage or disadvantage (by default). Both PCs and NPCs are hit when the incoming attack roll is equal to or higher than their AC and succeed on saving throws when their roll is equal to or greater than the DC.

Monsters generally follow roughly the same action economy as players, except where simplified. Monsters rarely have bonus actions for their basic attacks, preferring to lump them into Multiattack. Monsters don't get Extra Attack and are restricted to specifically what it says (instead of being able to substitute out for grapples or shoves).

When monsters have the spellcasting trait, those spells are cast similarly to PC spells (requiring the same actions and components, for instance). There is no indication that NPCs can use foci, however, as that requires a specific line in the trait which they do not have (component pouches being the general rule available by default). NPCs cannot cast spells as rituals by default, and are not required to be confined to a single class's spell list or even use the same ability score as "similar" PCs. But many monsters can cast spells or use spell-like abilities that do not have the Spellcasting feature and thus do not, by default, necessarily follow those rules (instead following whatever the trait says instead, such as the Psionics trait of the gith which removes components).

Beyond that, NPCs tend to have access to a superset of PC abilities. That is, they have access to almost everything PCs do and more. And have whatever abilities are convenient for their role in the world and narrative. With explicit permission to play build-a-bear and slot in anything you want or make something up to suit[1].

This is how it always has been in 5e. And it makes total sense for it to be so, since this is not an MMO/isekai where the classes are fundamental parts of the world. PC classes are abstractions and bundles of archetypal abilities that represent abilities present in most D&D worlds and that are deemed balanced for a typical adventuring lifestyle. But there's no guarantee that anyone who is in-fiction called a "wizard" has any of those abilities. People don't introduce themselves as being a Fighter. And no guarantee (or even rational expectation) that no other archetypes exist. Heck, the "evil cultist of an evil god with evil powers" isn't well represented by PC classes at all. Nor is the real necromancer (ie full on army of undead) archetype--even a 20th level necromancer wizard who spends all his slots on maintaining undead struggles to have more than a short company of undead under his control, and then only the weakest ones. There isn't a published spell that can create half (or even a smaller fraction) of the listed undead types in the monster books.

[1]

Another simple way to customize a monster is to add a special trait. You can add a special trait of your own devising or pick up a special trait from one of the many creatures in the Monster Manual. For example, you can create a goblin-spider hybrid by giving the normal goblin the Spider Climb special trait, turn an ordinary troll into a two-headed troll by giving it the Two Heads special trait, or turn an owlbear into a flying owlbear by giving it wings and a giant owl’s flying speed.

[Corran]

A) NPCs should follow the same rules as PCs.
B) NPCs shouldn't follow the same rules as PCs.

These are the two extremes. I think there's a connecting line between them. The reason I think that, is because personally, in some cases I dont mind if the NPCs play differently (in fact in most, variety is a good thing), but in some cases I do. And I know that I dont flip a coin to decide when it bothers me and when it doesn't. So there is a reasoning behind every single case. In some cases this reasoning may not be obvious to me and I may have to actually think why it bothers me or why it does not bother me. In some other cases I may have the reasoning down but it may be hard to communicate it (probably because there is some bias and bias is not something that translates well when you try to justify an opinion). And other times I may be abe to put what I think is a solid explanation as to why I think something should be done in a certain way, and still fail to communicate it because when it comes to verisimilitude, it can end up impossible to communicate anything as it seems to be very difficult to try to think outside of what's true for us.

[sandmote]

I agree with the overarching point. At least as its written at the time I write this comment. Thee notes:

What is the context for this? I've seen arguments the NPCs should generally follow PC rules when there isn't anything saying otherwise, particularly in edge cases that aren't likely to be written down, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone say NPCs explicitly have to follow the PC rules or have to be buildable using a PC character list. Without a provided context I worry that the context is "my party complained I had an NPC violate some basic rule without warning." The overarching point I agree with may or may not justify such a thing depending on the details.

The versatile property is an aspect of a particular weapon. When a PC wields a shield in one hand and spear in the other, the conditions for the spear to deal higher damage can't be met, but the versatile property still applies to the spear. I don't think the guard NPC is a good example of NPCs following different rules, because the stat block doesn't say they can meet the requirements to deal 1d8+1 while carrying their shield. You can say "This NPC has these two effects that each take up a number of hands," and having both effects is RAW for the guard, but I don't see why saying the previous statement rules out taking as RAW "the guard can benefit from only one of these two effects at a given time," on the basis the guard has less than three hands while needing three hands to benefit from both effect at the same time.

Undead created by the Finger of Death spell remain under your control permanently, which technically allows you to create an undead army of indefinite size. I find it comically inefficient, and zombies aren't relevant by that point, but by RAW a PC can do it starting at 13th level.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree with the overarching point. At least as its written at the time I write this comment. Thee notes:

What is the context for this? I've seen arguments the NPCs should generally follow PC rules when there isn't anything saying otherwise, particularly in edge cases that aren't likely to be written down, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone say NPCs explicitly have to follow the PC rules or have to be buildable using a PC character list. Without a provided context I worry that the context is "my party complained I had an NPC violate some basic rule without warning." The overarching point I agree with may or may not justify such a thing depending on the details.
.

It's been a major complaint in the other thread, that NPC spellcasters say they're wizards but don't follow the wizard rules and have other abilities. And explicitly stated that NPCs should be designed as emulations/simplifications of PCs and that the new book is somehow a major departure and violation of that fundamental "rule". My point is that no such rule exists. That it's never been the case in 5e, and that's a good thing.

And it's not just content, but it's basic rules such as action economy that they don't follow. Even disregarding legendary actions/resistances.

[Sigreid]

If I'm using a WoTC NPC, I just used what is provided. If I'm creating an NPC, I prefer to use the PC rules. I prefer the world be consistent and hate the idea of NPCs being able to achieve things PCs cannot. I won't say it's wrong to do it the other way, It's just not how I like to do it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I'm using a WoTC NPC, I just used what is provided. If I'm creating an NPC, I prefer to use the PC rules. I prefer the world be consistent and hate the idea of NPCs being able to achieve things PCs cannot. I won't say it's wrong to do it the other way, It's just not how I like to do it.

I find that having non PC abilities enhances the wonder and makes the world less of a game stage and more of a fantastic place where the piece you've got is just one tiny slice of what's possible.

[rel]

In my experience, the main mechanical problems with NPC's using different rules to PC's come up when the PC's get creative or start working with a monster.

A balrog carrying a whip of flames that swings for massive damage and can be used to restrain people is great, but expect to have to come up with answers to some ambiguous rules questions if the PC's steal it and give it to their whip / grapple specialised PC.

Since 5e expects the GM to make rulings on a non-exhaustive ruleset by default, NPC's operating by their own rules makes sense.

[Elenian]

In principle I have no problem with some NPCs having some abilities that are not available to PCs. But it starts to strain a bit when, say, most NPC spellcasters have 9d10 damage 'cantrips', or most NPC martials are adding several dice of poison / elemental / force damage on every weapon attack.

(Having said that, my favorite RPG, Ars Magica, has quite detailed mechanics for studying other magical traditions and eventually integrating them into hermetic theory. It's thus asymmetric, but with mechanics for exploring that asymmetry)

[Rukelnikov]

If I'm using a WoTC NPC, I just used what is provided. If I'm creating an NPC, I prefer to use the PC rules. I prefer the world be consistent and hate the idea of NPCs being able to achieve things PCs cannot. I won't say it's wrong to do it the other way, It's just not how I like to do it.


In my experience, the main mechanical problems with NPC's using different rules to PC's come up when the PC's get creative or start working with a monster.

A balrog carrying a whip of flames that swings for massive damage and can be used to restrain people is great, but expect to have to come up with answers to some ambiguous rules questions if the PC's steal it and give it to their whip / grapple specialised PC.

Since 5e expects the GM to make rulings on a non-exhaustive ruleset by default, NPC's operating by their own rules makes sense.

These two basically sumarize my position, especially, cause when humanoid enemies are doing something awesome, PCs wanna be able to do that too.

[Dimers]

I'm cool with PCs and NPCs having different power sets, I'm a 4e fan and all, but ...


I find that having non PC abilities enhances the wonder and makes the world less of a game stage and more of a fantastic place where the piece you've got is just one tiny slice of what's possible.

The problem I see is that all PCs do have to follow PC rules and thus are unable to really take part in anything beyond that tiny slice of what's possible. They can see it, but they'll never get to do it. It doesn't fill me with wonder and awe. It fills me with annoyance that I have to wilfully ignore, deliberately not pursue, the cool things NPCs can get because I'm stuck following PC rules. There's a whole sheet of gingerbread out there, and I can only ever get what's inside the cookie cutter.

My annoyance only applies to humanoids, though. It's not a problem when the enemy with fascinatingly different powers is fundamentally something a PC isn't. An animal, a demon, a sapient tree, a disembodied wandering spirit, a creature made of an element, a fey being deeply infused with magic. I look at those powers and say "Hey, neat!" When I look at the inaccessible powers of a human spellcaster or goblin bandit doing something I'm aware out-of-game I'll never be able to do, my response is more "Hey, what gives? How come no PC can ever accomplish that?"

And then if I'm not bound by PC rules and the gamemaster is willing to let my character learn to use NPC abilities ... we're solidly in homebrew territory, and why did I spend money on this book? This book that doesn't even offer a justification for why PCs have a limited subset of NPC abilities?

It's one of the reasons I hate facing enemies that are fundamentally the same category as my character. If they can only do what PCs can do, I don't feel any wonder; if they can go beyond the PC rules, it's frustrating for lack of justification and the fact that I have to pretend not to notice.

[Chronos]

Dimers, I agree 100% with that. You made half the points I was going to, more eloquently than I could. And I'll add to it that the line between "PC" and "NPC" can be blurred. Even in simplistic video games, PCs and NPCs using different rules tends to lead to weird edge cases (see, for instance, in Diablo II, where the Iron Maiden curse was regarded as useless on the Necromancer PC, but the Oblivion Knight was the most-feared enemy in the game because of it). But in a rich, complex game like D&D, the issues are turned up to 11. NPCs can join the PC's group. PCs can turn into monsters. PCs can mind-control NPCs, or vice-versa. Groups of NPCs can fight against each other. Groups of PCs can fight against each other. When a new player joins the table, what was previously an NPC might be made into a PC to accommodate them. Most of the prominent NPCs in the world originated as the developers' PCs. With all of the many and varied ways that all characters, PC and NPC alike, can end up on any side of any situation, it just doesn't make sense to have a fundamental distinction between two kinds of characters.

[strangebloke]

NPCs don't follow any rules. DMs are allowed to cheat.

The question then becomes, what are you trying to achieve? And verisimilitude is important. It's important for the players to feel like this is a real place they're inhabiting. NPCs are allowed to break the rules, DMs are allowed to cheat... But at the same time they can't be caught doing this.

[stoutstien]

NPCs don't follow any rules. DMs are allowed to cheat.

The question then becomes, what are you trying to achieve? And verisimilitude is important. It's important for the players to feel like this is a real place they're inhabiting. NPCs are allowed to break the rules, DMs are allowed to cheat... But at the same time they can't be caught doing this.

I think trying to frame it as cheating is unjustified. NPCs do follow rules and and DM work within a series of parameters to try to provide a enjoyable experience for the other players. Those guidelines just don't automatically include the format or presentation of how NPCs act or function. If a table decides they do want to add that condition into the game that's fine but saying it's cheating is just using inflammatory language to try to discredit a very real and growing core concept of tabletop RPGs where trust and communication supersede anything written or codified.

[Corran]

It's one of the reasons I hate facing enemies that are fundamentally the same category as my character. If they can only do what PCs can do, I don't feel any wonder; if they can go beyond the PC rules, it's frustrating for lack of justification and the fact that I have to pretend not to notice.
I like going outside what the books have to offer for NPCs/monsters, especially when it comes to spells. I can do that without drawing a dividing line between the PCs and the NPCs of the world in a fundamental level so that they feel different in an awkward and not justifiable from an in world persepctvie way. They can be different because they are different individuals. The ritual I just made up that the evil wizard is using to make some poor souls relive the same day over and over again, that's part of the magic system that remains common for those that draw from it and who do it in the same way. The pcs just didn't know it existed before they encountered it.

Fixing the boundaries of magic is not necessary in order to avoid thematic chaos by arbitrarily making pc's and npc's different, and expanding the boundaries of magic is obviously (given what is being discussed in the other thread) not the only way (or one even, but that's just my opinion) to creare a disconnect where there should not be one between pc's and npcs.

Your opinion is valid. I just want to make sure it does not get turned into a strawman as if playing with a fixed magic boundary is a necessary price to avoid immersion breaking differences bwteen pcs and npcs, or to not like mechanics that dont have place in a game world because they accidentally affect it so much that it ay be comical to have to put up with.

[GooeyChewie]

5e does not assume that NPCs follow the same rules as PCs, except for convenience sake.
Yes... and also no. NPCs have never worked exactly like PCs, but they mostly have worked in a similar enough fashion to feel like they belong in the same world. Psyren made a good point in the other thread. He said "There is no objective standard for 'verisimilitude,' every table has a different line." Not many players will question slight differences between PCs and NPCs, but as the differences grow they cross over that verisimilitude line for more tables. So while I agree that it's true that NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs, I don't think that fact is terribly helpful beyond an academic sense.


It's been a major complaint in the other thread, that NPC spellcasters say they're wizards but don't follow the wizard rules and have other abilities. And explicitly stated that NPCs should be designed as emulations/simplifications of PCs and that the new book is somehow a major departure and violation of that fundamental "rule". My point is that no such rule exists. That it's never been the case in 5e, and that's a good thing.

And it's not just content, but it's basic rules such as action economy that they don't follow. Even disregarding legendary actions/resistances.

Sure, there's no rule that "wizard" necessarily means the same thing for PCs as it does for NPCs. But when players have a class called "wizard," it's reasonable for players to think that NPCs who are also called "wizards" would function in roughly the same manner. In my opinion, this particular problem stems primarily from using a very loaded term to describe certain NPCs and then not having those NPCs match the loaded implications of that term.

[False God]

If the "benefit" of NPCs "not following the rules" is more creative and unique NPCs with more interesting and enjoyable encounters.

Why is this not applicable to the players? Doesn't the same logic follow?

The problem I have with the "just give your NPCs whatever" is that it is inherently unintuitive. Classes provide guidelines for creative specific outcomes. They provide demonstrable balance points for powers and abilities. Without those guidelines it can be difficult to gauge how powerful any given abilities is, much less any ability you make up that seems "interesting".

Not that I don't do it, but I've been playing this game and others for 30 years. And heck, sometimes I still muck things up when I give an NPC "something special" or a little more than they would normally have if I followed a class as a guide. Because this stuff is tricky.

Also, your comparison to MMOs and isekais is wrong. Like this thread subject, "classes" for the most part are only things the players have. NPCs, both in MMOs and isekais, typically do whatever they do because it is appropriate for the NPC to do them. They very very much follow the logic of "If it makes sense for the NPC to do this thing, they do it." Further, your suggestion that classes are a fundamental part of the world is flat out wrong for MMOs, like D&D they're abstractions to allow the player to interact with the world. And secondly JRPG "class" design is not like D&D and is typically far more piecemeal, which actually puts it closer to how you suggest NPCs "arent following the rules" than not.

TLDR: Classes are effective tools for character building, and NPCs shouldn't unreasonably step outside of that unless the concept of a "class" is wholly unapplicable to them. IE: a Human Guard should be built like a Fighter. A Gibbering Mouther should not be built like a druid. It does not make the game simpler or easier, it in fact makes the game harder.

[strangebloke]

I think trying to frame it as cheating is unjustified. NPCs do follow rules and and DM work within a series of parameters to try to provide a enjoyable experience for the other players. Those guidelines just don't automatically include the format or presentation of how NPCs act or function. If a table decides they do want to add that condition into the game that's fine but saying it's cheating is just using inflammatory language to try to discredit a very real and growing core concept of tabletop RPGs where trust and communication supersede anything written or codified.

What I mean is that DMs are given effectively unlimited leeway when it comes to what NPCs do. If I decide that an NPC got to the dungeon before them and completed it, I can just say that. The PCs actually have to fight through the dungeon, my NPC doesn't. The NPC has to follow no rules, because they're my character, and I'm the DM; what I say goes.

But! The DM does have constraints external to the system.

NPCs have to do things that make sense in the narrative. If the NPC gets through the dungeon first, they have to be otherwise presented as the sort of person who could do that.

NPCs have to be fun. If you have an unkillable horror movie villain who effectively teleports to wherever the PCs are, you need to give them ways to run away, and signal that they should run away.

NPCs need to interact with standard fantasy tropes. An NPC wizard doesn't need to have a specific class/subclass, but they should cast spells. They should have a spellbook. Someone whose made a pact with a devil doesn't need to be a fiendlock, but they should have devil themed magic, fire or maybe ice or poison... You can subvert both of these, of course, but it has to be deliberate, not accidental.

[PhoenixPhyre]

NPCs need to interact with standard fantasy tropes. An NPC wizard doesn't need to have a specific class/subclass, but they should cast spells. They should have a spellbook. Someone whose made a pact with a devil doesn't need to be a fiendlock, but they should have devil themed magic, fire or maybe ice or poison... You can subvert both of these, of course, but it has to be deliberate, not accidental.

Why? Why is having a spellbook the prime requisite for a fantasy wizard? The ultra-vast majority of things called wizards...don't. And even D&D doesn't demand a "normal" spellbook--it could be etched onto a staff.

[PhantomSoul]

Why? Why is having a spellbook the prime requisite for a fantasy wizard? The ultra-vast majority of things called wizards...don't. And even D&D doesn't demand a "normal" spellbook--it could be etched onto a staff.

Agreed! And if they're called a "wizard", it doesn't mean it needs to be the Wizard PC Class, given how generic the word "Wizard" is in normal use (and how varied the representations/mappings are).

On my end, I *usually* prefer NPCs to follow the same (play) rules [1], but the idea that they need to be built as a PC doesn't fit [2]. Basically, players (whether me or those I DM) should have an understanding of the rules for interaction, but shouldn't assume they know exactly what this thing can do just because I used a generic word or because someone in-world used a word that happens to map onto a mechanical character building option.

[1] E.g. Concentration, spell components, attack rolls and critical hits, etc., as appropriate. They should feel like they use the same world and physics.
[2] E.g. If it's described as a "fighter" it needs action surge, and if it's described as a "monk" it needs ki-based abilities.

[OldTrees1]

Agreed! And if they're called a "wizard", it doesn't mean it needs to be the Wizard PC Class, given how generic the word "Wizard" is in normal use (and how varied the representations/mappings are).

Personally I take a leaf out of the Complete Arcane 3E book and call non-Wizard "wizards" by some other term like "Mage".


If a term is used in a context that adds additional specific characteristics (Wizard in D&D is also a class name and thus is often loaded with Spellbook based memorization caster specific context), then using that same term haphazardly to reference something without those additional specific characteristics risks miscommunication.

To avoid that the setting could use a more generic term (like Mage/Magus/Arcanist/Witch) to refer to the spellcasters in question. This avoids invoking and colliding with the assumption that the Wizard might use the same magic system as the Wizard.

Consider the following: PCs can buy a "longsword" that is a one handed sword that deals 1d8 damage. They encounter an elf wielding a "longsword". After defeating the elf, the sword and board PC goes to pick up the "longsword" only to discover it is a two handed sword that deals 2d6 damage. After the miscommunication is discovered and corrected the game continues. There are times it is worth avoiding unforced errors in communication.

NPCs don't have to follow the same rules as PCs, but it is sometimes worth avoiding miscommunication.


Sidenote: There are also times when the rules difference can be "insulting"(crunched for time, imperfect word choice). Consider the player that likes creature XYZ and wants to play a creature XYZ. They don't mind if their XYZ has different training or is a different class (the different creation rules are a good thing). However they are extremely disappointed when the PC "xyz" is missing something core to what their desire to play an XYZ.

[Sigreid]

I think the line of reasoning here runs the same risk of what's going on in a lot of movie franchises lately. For example, in The Last Jedi; the director chose to take liberties with how the Force and hyperspace function that were in contradiction to the established rules of the universe. This shattered the enjoyment of many long time fans because we were internally screaming "That's not how this works! That's not how any of this works!". Same thing can happen with a game setting. Sure, there's no need for your NPCs to function exactly how the players do but the way they function shouldn't be a direct violation of the rules that govern the players. Ideally with the exception of actual nonhuman/humanoid monsters if the NPC can do it the PCs should be capable of learning how to do it. That doesn't mean that the learning process should be easy, automatic, or something they'd not find to morally reprehensible to do. But they should know that if an NPC can do it, at least in theory so can they.

[strangebloke]

Why? Why is having a spellbook the prime requisite for a fantasy wizard? The ultra-vast majority of things called wizards...don't. And even D&D doesn't demand a "normal" spellbook--it could be etched onto a staff.

Because it is.

End of Story.

DND is just a grab-bag of a load of random fantasy tropes. People play the game because those tropes are cozy and familiar. Don't dump the tropes. Play with them, subvert them, but do not ignore them.

[False God]

Why? Why is having a spellbook the prime requisite for a fantasy wizard? The ultra-vast majority of things called wizards...don't. And even D&D doesn't demand a "normal" spellbook--it could be etched onto a staff.

In short: Because it allows people to understand the game we are all playing together.

In long: If we say a "wizard" is a talking bottle of soy sauce, or a 30-ft tall giant robot, or a old guy with a magic stick, the word loses meaning and it makes conversation about the subject difficult. If Person A is talking about his "wizard" and describing Gandalf, and Person B is talking about their "wizard" and describing a Gundam, these two people are going to have a difficult time playing the same game, because their conception of what a "wizard" is, is completely different.

Because in those conceptions lie functions and in understanding those functions allows players to devise resolutions. A Gundam is 30-ft tall, made of metal, shoots laser-guns and has an energy sword. A Gandalf is about 6ft tall, has a staff with a glowy rock, and does magic stuff. Understanding what a Gundam is and how it functions allows players to resolve situations involving Gundams. Understanding what a Gandalf is and how it functions allows people to come up with resolutions to situations involving Gandalfs.

Saying "wizard" at the table is short-hand for communicating information under a shared understanding, because describing Gandalf may not universally be understood that he is a "wizard". Gandalf could easily pass for a cleric, a priest, a shady merchant, or just some old dude. But by communicating that this person is a "wizard" (potentially after a check of some sort is made), it leads to a shared understanding of functions, capabilities and resolutions.

If "wizard" could mean anything from a hot bowl of ramen to Samus Aran it functionally has no meaning, and has no value in conveying information because it could mean anything. Which makes it especially value-less in a game system (remember we're all playing a game here regardless of how the in-game world is presented) where a shared understanding of the terms and features is necessary for the system to function.

---
Yes, "wizard" could mean anything. But it shouldn't.

[Sigreid]

Why? Why is having a spellbook the prime requisite for a fantasy wizard? The ultra-vast majority of things called wizards...don't. And even D&D doesn't demand a "normal" spellbook--it could be etched onto a staff.

Because the defining feature of a wizard in the game's paradigm is a being that uses magic spells (formula that produce a predictable and measurable result) and through study can switch which spells they currently have access to. Note that this doesn't mean that an uninformed layman won't call anyone who he sees using magic from any source a wizard, sorcerer, witch, warlock medicine man, wise man, magi or any other term that their culture applies to a person who can cast spells. He's just wrong.

[PhantomSoul]

In short: Because it allows people to understand the game we are all playing together.

In long: If we say a "wizard" is a talking bottle of soy sauce, or a 30-ft tall giant robot, or a old guy with a magic stick, the word loses meaning and it makes conversation about the subject difficult. If Person A is talking about his "wizard" and describing Gandalf, and Person B is talking about their "wizard" and describing a Gundam, these two people are going to have a difficult time playing the same game, because their conception of what a "wizard" is, is completely different.

Because in those conceptions lie functions and in understanding those functions allows players to devise resolutions. A Gundam is 30-ft tall, made of metal, shoots laser-guns and has an energy sword. A Gandalf is about 6ft tall, has a staff with a glowy rock, and does magic stuff. Understanding what a Gundam is and how it functions allows players to resolve situations involving Gundams. Understanding what a Gandalf is and how it functions allows people to come up with resolutions to situations involving Gandalfs.

Saying "wizard" at the table is short-hand for communicating information under a shared understanding, because describing Gandalf may not universally be understood that he is a "wizard". Gandalf could easily pass for a cleric, a priest, a shady merchant, or just some old dude. But by communicating that this person is a "wizard" (potentially after a check of some sort is made), it leads to a shared understanding of functions, capabilities and resolutions.

If "wizard" could mean anything from a hot bowl of ramen to Samus Aran it functionally has no meaning, and has no value in conveying information because it could mean anything. Which makes it especially value-less in a game system (remember we're all playing a game here regardless of how the in-game world is presented) where a shared understanding of the terms and features is necessary for the system to function.

---
Yes, "wizard" could mean anything. But it shouldn't.

If they're aware that "studious/learned mage" is what people tend to mean by "wizard", it's fine. And at least from what I've seen, the players tend to default to the same ambiguity (THEY don't know what the mechanics will be, and "wizard" specifically seems to be a typical default for them).

So it can mean different things and that's fine. The word already does mean multiple things! (But it's good to highlight it early on, or to remind the player that they're using an unconfirmed assumption if they seem to be acting on an assumption.)

[Brookshw]

DND is just a grab-bag of a load of random fantasy tropes. People play the game because those tropes are cozy and familiar. Don't dump the tropes. Play with them, subvert them, but do not ignore them.

Meanwhile in D&D, you have robots running around, alien space ships crashing, all sorts of gothic horror, people animating giant bugs to ride around in them like mechs, lightning trains, penguin run trading conglomerates,.....need I go on?

[strangebloke]

Meanwhile in D&D, you have robots running around, alien space ships crashing, all sorts of gothic horror, people animating giant bugs to ride around in them like mechs, lightning trains, penguin run trading conglomerates,.....need I go on?

uhhhhh yeah? What's your point? Within the context, 'wizard' still means something pretty specific.

D&D is very broad but within it, the terms are very specific. Dragons and wyverns are more or less interchangeable concepts outside DND, or more accurately a wyvern is just a loose term for a type of dragon, but within DND they're very distinct. You see people trying to apply exceedingly strict DND definitions outside of DND and its always funny. "Actually Drogon from Game of Thrones is just a big wyvern, and not a dragon at all, because he has two legs and isn't able to speak."

[Brookshw]

uhhhhh yeah? What's your point? Within the context, 'wizard' still means something pretty specific.



Your assertion about the significance of tropes is false.

[strangebloke]

Your assertion about the significance of tropes is false.

I think that if you listed all the "penguin crime conglomerates" in fiction and all the "literally just a big evil dragon in a cave" it would become pretty clear that the latter is far more indicative of typical DND play.

DND's influence of fantasy as a genre is almost impossible to overstate. The most evergreen fantasy games out there, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, WoW, and Legend of Zelda were all at least partially inspired by D&D. The most popular genre of anime currently is the isekai genre, which is a riff on dragon quest and by extension dnd mechanics. Lord of the Rings was the biggest fantasy movie series in my lifetime, and you can see how it differed from the source material in places because of inspiration from DND and WoW.

Fantasy itself is a modern attempt at mythology. If you think about what mythology is, its basically a bunch of inter-related stories with shared tropes and characters. Fantasy is the same.

Again, I'm not arguing you need to slavishly obey the tropes, but its the sea you're swimming in. Some systems are generic and don't acknowledge these tropes, but DND does. Some systems aren't focused on a specific sort of fantasy, DND is.

[Brookshw]

I think that if you compare "penguin crime conglomerates" to "literally just a big evil dragon in a cave" it would become pretty clear that the latter is far more indicative of typical DND play. I've heard enough stories about My Little Pony games and drunken corgi tribe encounters to question this. D&D is an RPG of negotiable affections, happy to service whatever trope/game style you want, and only slavishly devoted to taking your money for a good time. Heck, we've had optional rules for laser rifles in the DMG for decades, Gygax tried to push it on the sci Fi crowd, and you're unlikely to find planet destroying robot insect swarms or surfer druids in fantasy tropes, but you sure can in D&D canon.


DND's influence of fantasy as a genre is almost impossible to overstate. The most evergreen fantasy game series out there, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, WoW, and Legend of Zelda were all at least partially inspired by D&D. The most popular genre of anime currently is the isekai genre, which is a riff on dragon quest / dnd mechanics. Lord of the Rings was the biggest fantasy movie series in my lifetime, and you can see how it differed from the source material in places because of inspiration from DND and WoW.

Fantasy itself is a modern attempt at mythology, and these narrative structures and tropes are at the core of how fantasy works. Again, I'm not arguing you need to slavishly obey the tropes, but its the sea you're swimming in.

I don't disagree it's had it's influence much like it was in turn influenced by fantasy that came before it, heck, it stole it's approach to spell levels and just about everything else from somewhere; it's not the genesis of tropes and doesn't hold itself to following them.

[strangebloke]

I've heard enough stories about My Little Pony games and drunken corgi tribe encounters to question this. D&D is an RPG of negotiable affections, happy to service whatever trope/game style you want, and only slavishly devoted to taking your money for a good time. Heck, we've had optional rules for laser rifles in the DMG for decades, Gygax tried to push it on the sci Fi crowd, and you're unlikely to find planet destroying robot insect swarms or surfer druids in fantasy tropes, but you sure can in D&D canon.

Aliens, lazer rifles, and magitech aren't the outliers in the modern fantasy genre you seem to think they are. How long ago was Phyrexia created? How many modern isekai incorporate magitech? Warhammer fantasy has aliens and lazers. World of Warcraft has them too. Is Star Wars fantasy?

DND is broad and has a lot of different things, but within DND the tropes are pretty calcified.


I don't disagree it's had it's influence much like it was in turn influenced by fantasy that came before it, heck, it stole it's approach to spell levels and just about everything else from somewhere; it's not the genesis of tropes and doesn't hold itself to following them.
Sure, DND isn't the originator, just a step on the chain. Even so, fantasy tropes are important to setting up an enjoyable fantasy.

Like I'm not saying everyone has to start in a tavern and get a quest to clear out giant spiders before eventually facing off against a great and terrible dragon... but when you bring a dragon to the story, people are going to have expectations, and you have to acknowledge that, even if your intent is to subvert those expectations.

[meandean]

I dunno what "tropes" have to do with it. There's no "trope" that says Warlocks have a spell called Eldritch Blast that has a verbal component, and never have a spell called Arcane Blast that has no such component. We're talking about very specific D&D rules, not tropes.

The objection in general is very odd to me. If you were playing a mage in an RPG video game and encountered a mage boss, would you expect the boss to have the same attacks, movement abilities, hit points, etc. as you do? You wouldn't (and you'd probably expect him to be superior to you, generally). Would you even expect to be able to gain the boss's capabilities at any point in the game, much less by the time you fought him? I'd imagine anyone trying to make any such argument would be laughed at in that context, and I don't know what the difference is. At least to me, it's completely natural that NPCs don't function the same way PCs do, even if both are "wizards" or "monks" or what have you.

[kazaryu]

5e does not assume that NPCs follow the same rules as PCs, except for convenience sake. A few examples, all of which are MM creatures of playable humanoid races:


The Acolyte NPC is defined to be a 1st level, wisdom based spellcaster with spells off the cleric list. At that level, a cleric has two 1st level slots. The Acolyte has 3.

The guard NPC's AC is 16 (chain shirt, shield). Yet he can wield his spear in both hands without (by raw) changing his AC.

The goblin NPC's AC is 15 (leather armor, shield). Yet he can use his shortbow without changing his AC.

The Archmage NPC has Magic Resistance as a permanent thing. Without any indication it comes from equipment, and none of the spells he has prepared grant that.

The Assassin NPC gets poison on every attack. And multiattack (emulating TWF, except getting the ability score bonus to damage and not using a bonus action)

The Bandit Captain NPC get Multiattack (2 + 1, obviously TWF except it gets ability score bonus to everything and still has its bonus action left) as well as Parry

The Cultist NPC has Dark Devotion, which is not accessible to PCs in any way as such.

The Cult Fanatic NPC not only has that, but also gets multiattack (TWF), but can also cast with its hands "full". So it can spiritual weapon and make two attacks, despite being a 4th level spellcaster (not a 9th level character, which would be required for Extra Attack).

The Gladiator NPC has Brute and Brave, neither of which are available to PCs. It can also Shield Bash (dealing damage) and can TWF with a weapon and shield. And can use its spear two handed without losing AC (by RAW). It also has Parry.

The Knight NPC has Leadership and Brave and Parry.

Both the Mage and the Archmage can have non-standard familiars despite explicitly casting find familiar.

The Noble gets Parry.

The Priest NPC has Divine Eminence, which isn't a PC-available ability.

The Scout gets Keen Hearing and Sight.

The Spy (despite being a rogue analoge) gets two melee attacks without using a bonus action. And has abilities that use its bonus action.

The Thug get Pack Tactics, as does the Tribal Warrior.

The veteran gets the regular multiattack weirdness around TWF.

Of the MM NPC stat blocks, only the Druid, Commoner, Berserker, and Bandit don't break the PC rules (not counting the fact that all of them have utterly wrong HP, with the level 1 acolyte having 2 HD and the archmage's HD all being d8s...unless he was small in which case he'd have d6s).

And things get even "worse" if you expand to all the humanoid, playable race NPCs in the MM. Heck, the very first monster in the MM, the aarakocra, gets Dive Attack, which isn't a PC option. The Kenku NPC gets Ambusher, which (legacy) kenku PCs don't.


In general, there is a hierarchy of rules, ranging from the very most general to the more content-based.

Almost everyone resolves actions the same. Ok, there are a few monsters that break this (the Marut and his auto-hitting attacks comes to mind), but just about everyone makes Ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls the same way. Neither monsters nor players get to stack advantage or disadvantage (by default). Both PCs and NPCs are hit when the incoming attack roll is equal to or higher than their AC and succeed on saving throws when their roll is equal to or greater than the DC.

Monsters generally follow roughly the same action economy as players, except where simplified. Monsters rarely have bonus actions for their basic attacks, preferring to lump them into Multiattack. Monsters don't get Extra Attack and are restricted to specifically what it says (instead of being able to substitute out for grapples or shoves).

When monsters have the spellcasting trait, those spells are cast similarly to PC spells (requiring the same actions and components, for instance). There is no indication that NPCs can use foci, however, as that requires a specific line in the trait which they do not have (component pouches being the general rule available by default). NPCs cannot cast spells as rituals by default, and are not required to be confined to a single class's spell list or even use the same ability score as "similar" PCs. But many monsters can cast spells or use spell-like abilities that do not have the Spellcasting feature and thus do not, by default, necessarily follow those rules (instead following whatever the trait says instead, such as the Psionics trait of the gith which removes components).

Beyond that, NPCs tend to have access to a superset of PC abilities. That is, they have access to almost everything PCs do and more. And have whatever abilities are convenient for their role in the world and narrative. With explicit permission to play build-a-bear and slot in anything you want or make something up to suit[1].

This is how it always has been in 5e. And it makes total sense for it to be so, since this is not an MMO/isekai where the classes are fundamental parts of the world. PC classes are abstractions and bundles of archetypal abilities that represent abilities present in most D&D worlds and that are deemed balanced for a typical adventuring lifestyle. But there's no guarantee that anyone who is in-fiction called a "wizard" has any of those abilities. People don't introduce themselves as being a Fighter. And no guarantee (or even rational expectation) that no other archetypes exist. Heck, the "evil cultist of an evil god with evil powers" isn't well represented by PC classes at all. Nor is the real necromancer (ie full on army of undead) archetype--even a 20th level necromancer wizard who spends all his slots on maintaining undead struggles to have more than a short company of undead under his control, and then only the weakest ones. There isn't a published spell that can create half (or even a smaller fraction) of the listed undead types in the monster books.

[1]

I 100% agree with this, in fact, i even take it a step further.

most of the rules written in the book regarding how characters interact with the world are exclusive to PC's. This is specifically in regards to things like fully healing on a LR, or how much HP they have. gaining hit dice as part of your class, healing on a short rest, fully healing on a long rest are all things that PC's do. but not all NPC's. and the ones that do, likely only do a few of them.

In practice what this means is that just because a character has a set of skills that *looks* similar to a PC of a certain level, doesn't mean they're actually fit for adventuring the same as a PC of that level. The court mage that you've seen cast 9th level spells, and knows the fundemental laws of magic? cool..he's also never been in a major fight before. he might only have 10hp. on the flip side, the street hedge wizard that barely can string a 3rd level spell together? he's been fighting all his life, for scraps, for respect, for his own life. he might actually be tankier than the parties barbarian...but he also might not recover from those fights the same way PC's do.

[strangebloke]

I dunno what "tropes" have to do with it. There's no "trope" that says Warlocks have a spell called Eldritch Blast that has a verbal component, and never have a spell called Arcane Blast that has no such component. We're talking about very specific D&D rules, not tropes.

The objection in general is very odd to me. If you were playing a mage in an RPG video game and encountered a mage boss, would you expect the boss to have the same attacks, movement abilities, hit points, etc. as you do? You wouldn't (and you'd probably expect him to be superior to you, generally). Would you even expect to be able to gain the boss's capabilities at any point in the game, much less by the time you fought him? I'd imagine anyone trying to make any such argument would be laughed at in that context, and I don't know what the difference is. At least to me, it's completely natural that NPCs don't function the same way PCs do, even if both are "wizards" or "monks" or what have you.

The whole point of a wizard NPC is that its an NPC who got their powers the same way as the player character. If not in the sense of literally adventuring and gaining XP, at least in the sense that they both studied how to do magic. Giving them powers similar to the PC reinforces their role in the setting as a peer to the PC, which is the whole point of having NPC wizards to begin with. Giving them abilities that are nothing like PC Wizard abilities in any way undercuts the NPC's role as "peer wizard." They don't need to be built as a PC would be built - I am not saying that and I never have - but they need to be similar to reinforce the notion that this world is a real place with real people and not a...

...well, not a thinly veiled hack and slash video game. Like I love Diablo, but if I want to play Diablo I play Diablo. It's much better at being Diablo than DND is. The whole point of using a TTRPG at all (beyond it being a social activity) is that you can interact with the world on a more minute level. Note that some of the most successful rpgs within recent memory have had a degree of PC/NPC transparency. You can take any enemy's armor, spells, or ashes in Elden Ring. Lots of top Skyrim enemies are literally built using the same perks and leveling system the PC uses. Dragon Age games and the first Mass Effect are the same.

The idea that you're only going to encounter an NPC as a blank enemy in a 30x30 room and they're going to have radically different abilities from the PC even when they're supposed to be standing in for the PC's best friend from wizard school is... weird. That's what I mean when I speak about tropes. Wizards should function (for the most part) like other wizards. It's part of the wizard brand.

Like a lots been said about how nothing is lost by making wizard NPCs behave radically different from wizard PCs... but what is actually gained? Very very little from what I can see.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The whole point of a wizard NPC is that its an NPC who got their powers the same way as the player character.

It's really not.

People playbdrawing in a thousand and more fantasy tropes.

A "Wizard" regardless of class mechanics could be.

-Harry Potter magic via blood but then trained
-Chaos manipulators from the World of Recluce, opposite of Order Mages.
-Half Elf renegades combining Elven sorcery and human psionics
-Someone who understands reality.can be warped but not without subtlety because reality can fight back.
-Those born with the Gift who wield Additive and Subtractive magics.

Even in D&D context. Look at the older man in the adventuring party. He carries a staff and wears simple robes. He prepares an alarm spell every night to protect his friends and chants strange rituals to detect magic and omens... oh, and he's a Barbarian.

Or that young woman who studies intently in a magical tome each night, tracing arcane symbols and memorizing lore before unleashing arcane devastation on her opponents. Oh, and she's a tomelock.

[Demostheknees]

The whole point of a wizard NPC is that its an NPC who got their powers the same way as the player character. If not in the sense of literally adventuring and gaining XP, at least in the sense that they both studied how to do magic. Giving them powers similar to the PC reinforces their role in the setting as a peer to the PC, which is the whole point of having NPC wizards to begin with. Giving them abilities that are nothing like PC Wizard abilities in any way undercuts the NPC's role as "peer wizard.”

That’s only one of the many ways an NPC wizard can be presented in a world with PC wizards. For instance, in my current game I have a PC wizard who’s backstory is that of a farmer who is completely self taught as a means of getting away from his familial obligations.

If a quest takes him to the popular, classical university of magic - having NPCs who’s basic abilities are drastically different than his would serve as a great contrast for his journey. If there wasn’t anything to differentiate them, that doesn’t help sell how this PC is different - which is what we want, right? The PCs are different, that’s why they are the PCs…

Even if the PC and NPC had similar training, don’t you want them to have differences to help highlight the Heroes of the story?

[ProsecutorGodot]

That’s only one of the many ways an NPC wizard can be presented in a world with PC wizards. For instance, in my current game I have a PC wizard who’s backstory is that of a farmer who is completely self taught as a means of getting away from his familial obligations.

If a quest takes him to the popular, classical university of magic - having NPCs who’s basic abilities are drastically different than his would serve as a great contrast for his journey. If there wasn’t anything to differentiate them, that doesn’t help sell how this PC is different - which is what we want, right? The PCs are different, that’s why they are the PCs…

Even if the PC and NPC had similar training, don’t you want them to have differences to help highlight the Heroes of the story?

The bolded part here is the critical part, he's "taught" magic, and you label him as a wizard... that's it.

You've agreed and proven the point even if you didn't intend to. Wizards "learn" magic, through study. Of course there's no expectation of a 1 to 1 comparison but there's an expectation that people who have "learned magic through study" will have similar enough ability that people around them will have created a blanket term to identify them as, such as "Wizard". "Wizard" behave in an expected way, and if you have someone calling themselves a "Wizard" and not behaving in that expected way, people will become confused because they actually do have a level of understanding of what exactly a "Wizard" is, it's not only a game term.



Even in D&D context. Look at the older man in the adventuring party. He carries a staff and wears simple robes. He prepares an alarm spell every night to protect his friends and chants strange rituals to detect magic and omens... oh, and he's a Barbarian.

Or that young woman who studies intently in a magical tome each night, tracing arcane symbols and memorizing lore before unleashing arcane devastation on her opponents. Oh, and she's a tomelock.
And this is where you, again, prove the point rather than disprove it. "Wizard" exists as a classification in fiction, not just as a game mechanic. These characters don't have a strict mechanical label as a Wizard but the process and even functionality of their ability is enough to be labeled in world as a type of Wizard and not subvert peoples expectations. Their abilities are close enough and within the same bounds of ability that "Wizard" might not be an inaccurate title.

Further, you're detracting from your own argument by implying that this old man or young woman would be recognized as a Barbarian or Warlock when they outward present as a "Wizard". Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't the basis of this argument that a mechanical class shouldn't translate directly into fiction? With all the information you've given, they're a "Wizard" through and through, and even mechanically, are functioning very similarly in regards to their spellcasting abilities.

[PhantomSoul]

[...] The PCs are different, that’s why they are the PCs…

While I'm not sold on the reasoning (the PCs are potentially just the ones you happen to control -- the NPCs are just as much part of the world as you are, and you're not necessarily inherently different), BUT part of it being a world is also that the books are giving ONE example (or sets of examples) that don't in the least capture everything that exists in the world, even all of the things that you might give a comparable label to. Not every Monk necessarily has identical abilities just because the example of a monk we're given has a specific set (and then another specific set from the subclass)!

[strangebloke]

It's really not.

People playbdrawing in a thousand and more fantasy tropes.

A "Wizard" regardless of class mechanics could be.

-Harry Potter magic via blood but then trained
-Chaos manipulators from the World of Recluce, opposite of Order Mages.
-Half Elf renegades combining Elven sorcery and human psionics
-Someone who understands reality.can be warped but not without subtlety because reality can fight back.
-Those born with the Gift who wield Additive and Subtractive magics.

Even in D&D context. Look at the older man in the adventuring party. He carries a staff and wears simple robes. He prepares an alarm spell every night to protect his friends and chants strange rituals to detect magic and omens... oh, and he's a Barbarian.

Or that young woman who studies intently in a magical tome each night, tracing arcane symbols and memorizing lore before unleashing arcane devastation on her opponents. Oh, and she's a tomelock.

Sure, a 'wizard' in lore can be context dependent. It could mean you're part of a rich kids club, or that you're a sage who knows a lot about arcana (but is crap at casting magic), or that you have a degree from the wizard academy (but don't ask how you got it)

But you wouldn't use an abjurer wizard to simulate any of those. You wouldn't use the old archmage statblock either. You'd use the noble or a knight (with slight alteration) or maybe the street magician statblock. The "abjurer wizard" statblock represents an clear, simple archetype - the same archetype as the PC class, which is why WotC used the same word. You can use it for non-wizard NPCs. You can use other things for wizards in your setting. But the idea that when an NPC is called druid, we are not supposed to surmise anything at all about this statblocks intended archetype, is truly wild to me.

And... ultimately, non-spell aoe abilties with no components like that have typically been the domain of psionics in DND. If I were to use the abjurer wizard, it would be as a pure psionicist, which is not the intent of the devs (again, they call it a wizard) and is at best a happy accident. The abjurer wizard has abilities that don't feel appropriate for the archetype, that also create unfortunate rules interactions.

Again, its possible that you want to have a psion who's a wizard in terms of in-universe job - that's fine - but a newer DM trying to find a statblock to use alter for this purpose would look for a psion NPC, not a poorly labeled wizard.

That’s only one of the many ways an NPC wizard can be presented in a world with PC wizards. For instance, in my current game I have a PC wizard who’s backstory is that of a farmer who is completely self taught as a means of getting away from his familial obligations.

If a quest takes him to the popular, classical university of magic - having NPCs who’s basic abilities are drastically different than his would serve as a great contrast for his journey. If there wasn’t anything to differentiate them, that doesn’t help sell how this PC is different - which is what we want, right? The PCs are different, that’s why they are the PCs…

Even if the PC and NPC had similar training, don’t you want them to have differences to help highlight the Heroes of the story?

I mean. You've chosen an unconventional wizard background, sure, but not everyone will. If you conform narrowly to a 'normal' wizard archetype when your character isn't supposed to be that... its not really the DM or systems fault if the standard magic place seems pretty 'normal' too.

But either way, PCs will always have differences from NPCs, and there are (and were) lots of ways to represent this. Having inconsistent rules interactions isn't the way.

[Rukelnikov]

The whole point of a wizard NPC is that its an NPC who got their powers the same way as the player character. If not in the sense of literally adventuring and gaining XP, at least in the sense that they both studied how to do magic. Giving them powers similar to the PC reinforces their role in the setting as a peer to the PC, which is the whole point of having NPC wizards to begin with. Giving them abilities that are nothing like PC Wizard abilities in any way undercuts the NPC's role as "peer wizard." They don't need to be built as a PC would be built - I am not saying that and I never have - but they need to be similar to reinforce the notion that this world is a real place with real people and not a...

...well, not a thinly veiled hack and slash video game. Like I love Diablo, but if I want to play Diablo I play Diablo. It's much better at being Diablo than DND is. The whole point of using a TTRPG at all (beyond it being a social activity) is that you can interact with the world on a more minute level. Note that some of the most successful rpgs within recent memory have had a degree of PC/NPC transparency. You can take any enemy's armor, spells, or ashes in Elden Ring. Lots of top Skyrim enemies are literally built using the same perks and leveling system the PC uses. Dragon Age games and the first Mass Effect are the same.

The idea that you're only going to encounter an NPC as a blank enemy in a 30x30 room and they're going to have radically different abilities from the PC even when they're supposed to be standing in for the PC's best friend from wizard school is... weird. That's what I mean when I speak about tropes. Wizards should function (for the most part) like other wizards. It's part of the wizard brand.

Like a lots been said about how nothing is lost by making wizard NPCs behave radically different from wizard PCs... but what is actually gained? Very very little from what I can see.

Completely agree.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

And this is where you, again, prove the point rather than disprove it. "Wizard" exists as a classification in fiction, not just as a game mechanic. These characters don't have a strict mechanical label as a Wizard but the process and even functionality of their ability is enough to be labeled in world as a type of Wizard and not subvert peoples expectations. Their abilities are close enough and within the same bounds of ability that "Wizard" might not be an inaccurate title.

Further, you're detracting from your own argument by implying that this old man or young woman would be recognized as a Barbarian or Warlock when they outward present as a "Wizard". Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't the basis of this argument that a mechanical class shouldn't translate directly into fiction? With all the information you've given, they're a "Wizard" through and through, and even mechanically, are functioning very similarly in regards to their spellcasting abilities.

Except we're arguing that the word doesn't uniformly refer to a specific set of rules or a spellbook. So no, it doesn't disprove the point.

The two game examples have plenty of abilities that are magic or supernatural but not spells
For the rest. Harry Potter and Swird if Truth Wizards are 100% in the Sorcerer theme from a D&D mechanics standpoint. Except they also use a bunch of magic that themes divine as well.

Chaos Wizards are also genetic based and again cross lines between arcane and divine.

Again, could keep going but don't need to.

Also, since this was the specific point I Doce into, None of these non D&D Wizards have spellbooks.

[Rukelnikov]

Except we're arguing that the word doesn't uniformly refer to a specific set of rules or a spellbook. So no, it doesn't disprove the point.

The two game examples have plenty of abilities that are magic or supernatural but not spells
For the rest. Harry Potter and Swird if Truth Wizards are 100% in the Sorcerer theme from a D&D mechanics standpoint. Except they also use a bunch of magic that themes divine as well.

Chaos Wizards are also genetic based and again cross lines between arcane and divine.

Again, could keep going but don't need to.

Also, since this was the specific point I Doce into, None of these non D&D Wizards have spellbooks.

The point is that "wizard" is more than a game term. Wizard has an in world meaning, in a setting where magic is abundant, and there are different ways creatures have access to these powers, its expected to have terms for the different kinds of caster.

Any army or merc company won't just have "spellcasters", they need to know if this is a spellcaster I can give a scroll in order for them to be casting this spell multiple times tomorrow, or they can't. Such a distinction would be necessary in world, and thus have an associated term. That term can be wizard, mage, umbrella or caterpillar, it doesn't matter, the point is that its an in world term, with associated weight. So if the PCs that work by those rules are referred to as "wizards", then the other "wizards", should be similar enough to the PCs with those faculties, otherwise they would be referred to as something else.

[Demostheknees]

You've agreed and proven the point even if you didn't intend to. Wizards "learn" magic, through study. Of course there's no expectation of a 1 to 1 comparison but there's an expectation that people who have "learned magic through study" will have similar enough ability that people around them will have created a blanket term to identify them as, such as "Wizard". "Wizard" behave in an expected way, and if you have someone calling themselves a "Wizard" and not behaving in that expected way, people will become confused because they actually do have a level of understanding of what exactly a "Wizard" is, it's not only a game term.


I don't really see how these new NPC wizards are acting out of the expected behavior of wizards. They cast spells that fit within a specific school of magic, the stat-block descriptions say that they learned their magic through study, and they all seem to be particularly inclined towards intelligence rather than other traits. That sounds like a wizard to me.

If Wizard is not a "game" term, why do we care so much that one part (their attack action) of their stat-block isn't explicitly a spell? For me that falls clearly into an abstraction of something in fiction that is presented as an easy-to-manage game mechanic. For my part, I think that it is ambiguous enough that as a DM I will be ruling that it is indeed a spell, and interacts in all the ways we expect it to.

[Anymage]

Any army or merc company won't just have "spellcasters", they need to know if this is a spellcaster I can give a scroll in order for them to be casting this spell multiple times tomorrow, or they can't. Such a distinction would be necessary in world, and thus have an associated term. That term can be wizard, mage, umbrella or caterpillar, it doesn't matter, the point is that its an in world term, with associated weight. So if the PCs that work by those rules are referred to as "wizards", then the other "wizards", should be similar enough to the PCs with those faculties, otherwise they would be referred to as something else.

We have rules for spellcasters who gain their powers through study, through a magical bloodline, through a pact, through mad science, through faith, and through nature. Each one working subtly differently. I'm okay with the idea that there are even more subdivisions, and that someone operating on prepared caster rules where they can have a new spell loadout tomorrow is going to be vanishingly rare. It's only a problem if you have regular PC turnover where you have to justify where all these PC types come from. However it takes work to die in 5e so that's unlikely, and if people at your table keep swapping characters you're already facing continuity problems.


And... ultimately, non-spell aoe abilties with no components like that have typically been the domain of psionics in DND. If I were to use the abjurer wizard, it would be as a pure psionicist, which is not the intent of the devs (again, they call it a wizard) and is at best a happy accident. The abjurer wizard has abilities that don't feel appropriate for the archetype, that also create unfortunate rules interactions.

I still think that all the wizardlikes in MotM having a free subtle spell is more oversight than intent. Making an oversight like that doesn't say nothing, but I'll want some solid evidence if you want to convince me the intent was for characters to wreak destruction while sitting and inconspicuously sipping their tea.

[Psyren]

The problem I see is that all PCs do have to follow PC rules and thus are unable to really take part in anything beyond that tiny slice of what's possible.

They actually don't. That's just the default. Default rules != "what's possible", and never have.


And then if I'm not bound by PC rules and the gamemaster is willing to let my character learn to use NPC abilities ... we're solidly in homebrew territory, and why did I spend money on this book? This book that doesn't even offer a justification for why PCs have a limited subset of NPC abilities?

Generally your DM is the one buying/using books with NPC abilities in them, so you should probably be asking them that question. I can certainly think of multiple other reasons besides PC/NPC fidelity to buy a monster book - convenience, ideation, aesthetics etc - but without knowing your DM I can't speak to which reason spoke to them. All I can say is if they (or you) are only buying books to reinforce the notion that PCs and NPCs should be identical, I'd suggest that your experience with the game might end up being much richer if you move beyond that narrow concept.

[sandmote]

I do think that the actually important aspect in what names you use to describe NPCs is that they need to provide useful information to the players.

Consider the following type of magic user:

Learns spells of a particular pool by studying particular spell components and then recording them in a physical document of some sort. Must take regularly time to re-familiarize themselves with the spells either using the physical document at regular intervals, upon which they become able to cast that spell a
number of times within these intervals under particular set of rules. If a spell was accessible during the last interval, the magic user can re-familiarize themselves with that spell without needing the physical document.

That's the PC D&D wizard. Yes, you can remove some aspects of that description and still have the party understand the abilities of a given NPC by calling that NPC a wizard.

Contrast the following description:

Learns spells by studying particular spell components. One they've done this, the magic user can cast any of the spells they've learned at any time. Additionally, they can attempt to cast any spell they know exists and can at least theoretically succeed at casting it by attempting the spell components and can create magical effects without actively attempting to do so or even knowing magic could do such a thing.

There are non-D&D settings/properties/systems/however you want to categorize a particular example where the term "wizard," refers specifically to someone like this. You've got something that learns spells but is otherwise so removed from the PC wizard that the party can get an inaccurate idea of what that NPC is capable of and/or the NPC's weaknesses, specifically based on you using the term "wizard."

Now, as far as I'm aware, the PC options presented in the first party 5e D&D books are presented as options that can exist in the D&D world/setting, but the books don't claim these are the only options that exist. This can include subclasses, feats, or other boons or abilities that aren't available to players, but can also include classes unavailable to players.

Yes, the "wizard" is the only class PCs can take that explicitly learns spells by studying spell components, but that observation alone is insufficient to conclude the wizard is the only class NPCs can take that learns spells by studying spell components. So the second bulleted example (which was taken from Harry Potter series, if there's anyone for whom that wasn't clear) can be considered a "wizard," but it isn't necessarily a clear description of what's happening in game to call them a "wizard" when representing them as an NPC in D&D. So I would consider it good practice to instead call sufficiently different characters "mages," "occultists," "witches," "shamans," or some other term that clarifies they operate on different principles.

I don't consider this sort of thing to be "NPCs following the same rules as PCs," so much as a case of "the thing you call an NPC needs to clearly describe which set of rules it follows."

If someone could quote the published first party books saying the PC classes are explicitly the only classes any creature in a D&D world could take, consider the preceding statements invalidated (or at least severely weakened, depending on the actually text). In case of pedants, by "quote" I mean repeat something from the books with a citation that lets me see the book actually says that, and I don't consider it germane whether or not you make some statement within the formatting this forum uses for quotations.

[Chronos]

Quoth PhoenixPhyre:

Why? Why is having a spellbook the prime requisite for a fantasy wizard? The ultra-vast majority of things called wizards...don't. And even D&D doesn't demand a "normal" spellbook--it could be etched onto a staff.
A D&D world contains people who intellectually study magic, record magic in books, and can learn more magic by reading other such books written by people with abilities similar to theirs. We know that D&D worlds contain such people, because it's an option for the PCs. And it must contain NPCs as well that work that way, because that's where the PCs hope to find more spells to add to their spellbook (which is a fundamental part of how the PC class works).

And in a world where such people exist, those people, at least, would need ways to talk about that category of people, people from whom they could hope to learn new spells. They would, in short, need a name for that category of people. This would be an in-universe term, not just a rulebook term, because it would be used by the people in-universe, themselves.

What would that in-universe term be? In principle, it could be anything. Maybe they're called "magi", or "professors", or "occult scholars". They don't necessarily have to be called "wizards", in-universe. But "wizard" is the obvious choice of term, because that's the term used in our universe, in the rulebooks, for people in that category.

[Dante]

For the rest. Harry Potter and Swird if Truth Wizards are 100% in the Sorcerer theme from a D&D mechanics standpoint.

If they were Sorcerer-like, Hermione wouldn't be better at magic than other students just because she loves to read.



If someone could quote the published first party books saying the PC classes are explicitly the only classes any creature in a D&D world could take, consider the preceding statements invalidated (or at least severely weakened, depending on the actually text). In case of pedants, by "quote" I mean repeat something from the books with a citation that lets me see the book actually says that, and I don't consider it germane whether or not you make some statement within the formatting this forum uses for quotations.

I mean, at least for subclasses, there's DMG pg. 96 as a specific counterexample:

Villainous Class Options

You can use the rules in the Player's Handbook to create NPCs with classes and levels, the same way you create player characters. The class options below let you create two specific villainous archetypes: the evil high priest and the evil knight or antipaladin... A player can choose one of these options with your approval.

Ergo, there can be NPC-only subclasses like Death cleric and Oathbreaker. Oddly, DMG pg 287 endorses the idea of modifying classes including adding subclasses, but is silent on the topic of adding classes. So it's harder to prove that NPC-only classes are intended. But subclasses definitely.

[Corran]

People playbdrawing in a thousand and more fantasy tropes.

A "Wizard" regardless of class mechanics could be.

-Harry Potter magic via blood but then trained
-Chaos manipulators from the World of Recluce, opposite of Order Mages.
-Half Elf renegades combining Elven sorcery and human psionics
-Someone who understands reality.can be warped but not without subtlety because reality can fight back.
-Those born with the Gift who wield Additive and Subtractive magics.

I agree with this. And it's cool if the game gives you access to many different options too*.
The problem is if you end up playing, say, a Harry Potter in a game where there are only Gandalfs, while that's not an intentional choice on your part.

*There's something to be said about too many options being bloat but that's a different conversation.

[JackPhoenix]

Except we're arguing that the word doesn't uniformly refer to a specific set of rules or a spellbook. So no, it doesn't disprove the point.

The two game examples have plenty of abilities that are magic or supernatural but not spells
For the rest. Harry Potter and Swird if Truth Wizards are 100% in the Sorcerer theme from a D&D mechanics standpoint. Except they also use a bunch of magic that themes divine as well.

Chaos Wizards are also genetic based and again cross lines between arcane and divine.

Again, could keep going but don't need to.

Also, since this was the specific point I Doce into, None of these non D&D Wizards have spellbooks.

None of those non-D&D wizards are relevant to what D&D wizards are. Harry Potter is not "Sorcerer theme from a D&D mechanics standpoint", because he's got nothing to do with D&D. He does not "use a bunch of magic that themes divine". Neither does Gandalf, Richard Rahl or Balthasar Gelt. D&D is not Harry Potter, Sword of Truth, Lord of the Rings or Warhammer... it's D&D, and it does not try to be any of those things.

[Pex]

NPCs don't have to be created using the same rules as PCs, but they do (should) have to follow the same rules of play. They don't get to have more than one Reaction per round. They don't get to Concentrate on more than one spell at a time. They don't get to do magic in an anti-magic field. They don't get to have more than one Bonus Action on their turn. When they make an attack roll and the final result of whatever dice manipulations is a Natural 1, they miss.

They don't get to break the rules.

[Corran]

NPCs don't have to be created using the same rules as PCs, but they do (should) have to follow the same rules of play. They don't get to have more than one Reaction per round. They don't get to Concentrate on more than one spell at a time. They don't get to do magic in an anti-magic field. They don't get to have more than one Bonus Action on their turn. When they make an attack roll and the final result of whatever dice manipulations is a Natural 1, they miss.

They don't get to break the rules.
Having NPCs break the rules (/expectations) is not all bad. It can be a way to make an NPC distinct. Is it the only way? Definitely not. Is it an elegant way? Debatable. But it is something you can do, as long as you want to do so. If you dont want to do so, and the game does that for you anyway, then you need to go searching for bushes and excuses. As a DM I'd rather spend my creative efforts for other things.

[RSP]

5e does not assume that NPCs follow the same rules as PCs, except for convenience.

NPCs follow the same spell casting rules as PCs. From the Basic Rules:

“Magic permeates the worlds of D&D and most often appears in the form of a spell.
This chapter provides the rules for casting spells. Different character classes have distinctive ways of learning and preparing their spells, and monsters use spells in unique ways. Regardless of its source, a spell follows the rules here.”

Bold mine for emphasis.

It is true, though, that NPCs do not follow the same character creation rules as PCs, and monster stat blocks can have Specific beats General in terms of how their abilities work.

[stoutstien]

I always follow the general rule that of the world or encounter I present isn't engaging enough that the players are preoccupied by nuance and crunch of my NPCs rather than the feel and fluff I already failed and should adjust accordingly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

NPCs don't have to be created using the same rules as PCs, but they do (should) have to follow the same rules of play. They don't get to have more than one Reaction per round. They don't get to Concentrate on more than one spell at a time. They don't get to do magic in an anti-magic field. They don't get to have more than one Bonus Action on their turn. When they make an attack roll and the final result of whatever dice manipulations is a Natural 1, they miss.

They don't get to break the rules.

Actually, there are several who can take more than one reaction. The marilith for instance.

They do "break the rules", all the time. The assassin npc can TWF (getting dex to damage without a feature) and take a cunning action (bonus action) in the same turn, because multi attack doesn't actually use the same rules as TWF.

The op is full of a list of the ways they break the rules, and that's only the beginning.

The marut doesn't miss on a 1--it doesn't even roll an attack (despite making melee attacks). It just automatically hits.

Edit: another way of thinking about it is to combine two very basic rules:

1. Specific beats general. There is no general rule that cannot be overridden by a specific rule. Features, traits, and other abilities are specific rules. In many ways, stat blocks are specific rules (containing other rules). If a stat block conflicts with a general rule, the stat block wins (being more specific).
2. Explicit permission is given for DMs (and thus content creators generally) to apply whatever features or traits (including ones they made up entirely) to monsters. Thus, monsters can override any general rule. Without breaking any rule, anymore than a PC using Extra Attack breaks a rule (the rule is that the Attack action involves making one attack, not several).

Any general rule not overridden is still in effect, but a monster stat block has primacy over any general rule when it conflicts. And can contain anything it wants to. It can even override the general rules for monsters (which, like anything in the MM or DMG, are more like suggestions).

[strangebloke]

I still think that all the wizardlikes in MotM having a free subtle spell is more oversight than intent. Making an oversight like that doesn't say nothing, but I'll want some solid evidence if you want to convince me the intent was for characters to wreak destruction while sitting and inconspicuously sipping their tea.

My thesis isn't that its intended. My thesis is, intended or otherwise its a badly written statblock.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure, there's no need for your NPCs to function exactly how the players do but the way they function shouldn't be a direct violation of the rules that govern the players. This.

DND is just a grab-bag of a load of random fantasy tropes. People play the game because those tropes are cozy and familiar. Don't dump the tropes. Play with them, subvert them, but do not ignore them. Not quite correct. D&D is the fusion of wargaming, Science Fiction and Fantasy fandom, pulps of varying kinds, adventure stories, and some fantasy tropes. (If you have not read Jon Peterson's The Elusive Shift I recommend it). The Sci Fi/Fantasy overlap has a long tradition in D&D which goes back to Arneson's games before the game ever got published, the Clone spell, psionic powers (mind flayer, introduced in 1975) and of course the infamous Barrier Peaks module, and the Blackmoor supplement (original game) Temple of the Frog module/adventure.
Sci Fi had its paw prints all over D&D from the beginning, and before the beginning.

In short: Because it allows people to understand the game we are all playing together. {snip} Yes, "wizard" could mean anything. But it shouldn't. But it's a Magic User, at heart. :smallbiggrin:

If they're aware that "studious/learned mage" is what people tend to mean by "wizard", it's fine. No, it's not. Wizard / MU is someone who went out and found magic and secret lore by going on dangerous quests with henchmen and adventuring companions. The ivory tower 'wizard' has no place in D&D.

D&D is an RPG of negotiable affections, happy to service whatever trope/game style you want, and only slavishly devoted to taking your money for a good time. True enough, but the Sci Fi fan element was there before the first edition was published.
The whole point of a wizard NPC is that its an NPC who got their powers the same way as the player character. Yes. Same with Volo's warlocks. How they got there is the same.

A D&D world contains people who intellectually study magic, record magic in books, and can learn more magic by reading other such books written by people with abilities similar to theirs. Those aren't adventurers, though. Adventurers go and and do things and find things, to include magic and magical things. That's the core conceit.

They don't get to break the rules. This.

NPCs follow the same spell casting rules as PCs. From the Basic Rules:

“Magic permeates the worlds of D&D and most often appears in the form of a spell.
This chapter provides the rules for casting spells. Different character classes have distinctive ways of learning and preparing their spells, and monsters use spells in unique ways. Regardless of its source, a spell follows the rules here.”

Bold mine for emphasis.
Also this.

[Selion]

IMHO it's a Yes and a No.

While i generally agree with DMs freedom in designing encounters, they should be aware that pushing too much the asymmetry could cause troubles.

A common example is the shadar kay in monster manual, he has a spiked chain which has abilities player characters cannot obtain, it's disappointing being unable to play a fighting style available to a humanoid enemy, and to be honest i don't see the reason why.

Conversely i could see giving a boss fight legendary actions/resistances or peculiar abilities, but they should have a narrative explaining in game (EG: this foe is a legendary warrior who has deployed a unique fighting style)

By the way, what i think the game lacks regarding NPC enemies is a conversion between character levels and CR, which causes a lot of unbalancing issues, in particular regarding shapeshifting spells and wild shape, which could have been ruled in a more smooth way if there existed such conversion.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also this.

As with all general rules, that has an implied "unless there's a specific rule that says otherwise" clause attached. And must, because specific always beats general if there's a conflict. General cannot override specific--no rule is exempt from being overridden by a more specific one. There are spells that allow you to target things that are behind full cover (teleport, message). There are monsters who have features that let them override the general (and specific!) rules for spells, allowing them to cast them
a) as a legendary action
b) without expending spell slots
c) without components
etc.

No rule stands isolated and immune. And since a) every monster stat block (and feature within those stat blocks) is a specific rule and b) there are no limits on what can be a monster feature, no general rule can constrain the set of possible monsters. Which violates no rules--it merely overrides them differently than how PCs override those same rules. Because PCs don't follow the general rules either--every single class feature overrides a rule somewhere. Else anyone could do it. Spells are overrides to the general rules. And are overridden in turn by other spells.

In essence, D&D rules are not binding contracts between anyone. They're
a) a shared language
b) tools to construct a shared experience and to resolve common situations
c) a set of defaults if you (the table as a whole) don't want to do something different

They're a UI framework. Nothing more, nothing less. And like any framework, they're intended to be extended, overridden, and outright ignored where they're not wanted. The rules exist to help the game, the game does not exist to operationalize the rules.


IMHO it's a Yes and a No.

While i generally agree with DMs freedom in designing encounters, they should be aware that pushing too much the asymmetry could cause troubles.

A common example is the shadar kay in monster manual, he has a spiked chain which has abilities player characters cannot obtain, it's disappointing being unable to play a fighting style available to a humanoid enemy, and to be honest i don't see the reason why.


Maybe being a freaky, nearly-immortal shadow elf lets you spend a few centuries mastering something that's silly and pointless? The set of "fighting styles available to humanoid enemies" is huge. Only a tiny fraction are suitable for
a) adventuring
b) heroes
c) in the framework of a game.



By the way, what i think the game lacks regarding NPC enemies is a conversion between character levels and CR, which causes a lot of unbalancing issues, in particular regarding shapeshifting spells and wild shape, which could have been ruled in a more smooth way if there existed such conversion.

That's never going to happen as long as CR and level mean the same things. Take, for instance, the CR 12 Archmage. He's a level 18 wizard (or at least casts like one, and wizards don't exactly have other class features to muddy the comparison). The level 17 (equivalent) Warlock of the Fiend is CR...7. The (judging from the stat block) level 15-equivalent Champion (1d10 + level second wind = 20 ==> level = 15, which matches up with 3 attacks and Indomitable x2) is CR 9.

Instead, what I expect (and would like to see) for polymorph, shapechange, wildshape, and the summoning spells is going to one of
a) a fixed set of possibilities. Instead of "any beast", it's X, Y, or Z.
b) a "generic" stat block like the Summon X line
c) some hybrid of the two (probably for wild shape) where you get a selection from a set of "build-a-bear" (pun intended) stat blocks with choices that scale based on your level but aren't real monster stat blocks. So you can be the (names entirely made up by someone bad at naming things) "Tank Beast" stat block, selecting the "Armored Hide" option (making something like a giant turtle).

Because nothing else will bring those anything like into balance with the rest of the system.

[Demostheknees]

This has come up in both of the threads, and I am genuinely confused...why, with all of the options for PCs present in all of the books, do folks get disappointed that an NPC is doing something they can't do/can't learn how to do?

For one, if you are playing a character, presumably you have already made your class/sub-class choices when coming up against an enemy and changing that up is generally an incredibly rare occurrence (at least in the games I've played/run). So you are seeing something that at best you'll be able to get with your next character, which seems strange to get hung up on when you are already playing one. It feels like window shopping for the next cool thing rather than exploring what you can do with what you have, which for me is a much more fun experience.

I have also never felt promised that all things I see in game are available for my character to have. My first instinct when I see an enemy use an exotic weapon or use some strange ability isn't "how can I have that for my character?" its "How can I beat that with the cool stuff I've got in my toolbox?".

If I really, really like what that enemy/NPC did, and want to change my character in the middle of its progression, is this not exactly what homebrew was made for? Every time this has happened its always been a conversation with the DM/Player that involves some amount of house ruling at the very least. If it was something the character could do/learn, they would already know that (or have that information very available).

[Pex]

Actually, there are several who can take more than one reaction. The marilith for instance.

They do "break the rules", all the time. The assassin npc can TWF (getting dex to damage without a feature) and take a cunning action (bonus action) in the same turn, because multi attack doesn't actually use the same rules as TWF.

The op is full of a list of the ways they break the rules, and that's only the beginning.

The marut doesn't miss on a 1--it doesn't even roll an attack (despite making melee attacks). It just automatically hits.

Edit: another way of thinking about it is to combine two very basic rules:

1. Specific beats general. There is no general rule that cannot be overridden by a specific rule. Features, traits, and other abilities are specific rules. In many ways, stat blocks are specific rules (containing other rules). If a stat block conflicts with a general rule, the stat block wins (being more specific).
2. Explicit permission is given for DMs (and thus content creators generally) to apply whatever features or traits (including ones they made up entirely) to monsters. Thus, monsters can override any general rule. Without breaking any rule, anymore than a PC using Extra Attack breaks a rule (the rule is that the Attack action involves making one attack, not several).

Any general rule not overridden is still in effect, but a monster stat block has primacy over any general rule when it conflicts. And can contain anything it wants to. It can even override the general rules for monsters (which, like anything in the MM or DMG, are more like suggestions).

Monsters aren't NPCs. They're monsters. A PC can cast Shapechange and be that monster doing everything the monster can, except the Legendary stuff and Lair actions. Multiattack is just the NPC name for Extra Attack.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Monsters aren't NPCs. They're monsters. A PC can cast Shapechange and be that monster doing everything the monster can, except the Legendary stuff and Lair actions. Multiattack is just the NPC name for Extra Attack.

Actually...They are. NPC is a category of monster. So NPCs are monsters, but not all monsters are NPCs. Technically anything played by someone other than a player is an NPC (literally that's what it stands for) And no, multi attack and extra attack are very very different things. One modifies the attack action, the other replaces it.

[Selion]

That's never going to happen as long as CR and level mean the same things. Take, for instance, the CR 12 Archmage. He's a level 18 wizard (or at least casts like one, and wizards don't exactly have other class features to muddy the comparison). The level 17 (equivalent) Warlock of the Fiend is CR...7. The (judging from the stat block) level 15-equivalent Champion (1d10 + level second wind = 20 ==> level = 15, which matches up with 3 attacks and Indomitable x2) is CR 9.

Instead, what I expect (and would like to see) for polymorph, shapechange, wildshape, and the summoning spells is going to one of
a) a fixed set of possibilities. Instead of "any beast", it's X, Y, or Z.
b) a "generic" stat block like the Summon X line
c) some hybrid of the two (probably for wild shape) where you get a selection from a set of "build-a-bear" (pun intended) stat blocks with choices that scale based on your level but aren't real monster stat blocks. So you can be the (names entirely made up by someone bad at naming things) "Tank Beast" stat block, selecting the "Armored Hide" option (making something like a giant turtle).

Because nothing else will bring those anything like into balance with the rest of the system.

I don't agree with this, if that equivalence was true and a level 17 fiend warlock was a fair CR 7 encounter, what about a group of 4 level 17 PC warlocks built the same way? What should be the correct CR for an encounter of a party made that way?

CR represents an average of a fair encounter of 4 PCs with level=CR, some character are more combat oriented, others are more support oriented, some others are utility oriented, so the DM may modify the CR of the encounter depending on situations. CR of a divination wizard playing poker in a "life or death" gamble is different from the CR of a divination wizard in a 10 ft room without minions defending him, but the same happens for every single monster in the manual. A Dragon in a cave unable to fly should have a encounter CR lower than a dragon ambushing the party over the cliffside of a mountain.

This IMHO is the reason because NPC CRs fluctuate this much, it's the representation of the fighting capabilities of that NPC in a "common" fighting situation, but, assuming the game is kinda balanced (outside inevitable power playing exploits), a CR X - LEVEL Y conversion should be possible, at least on average. That CR should then be refined depending on situations, as it happens with every other non-NPC monster.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Encounters don't have CR in this edition. Individual creatures do. Entirely based on two things: how hard they hit and how much it takes to kill them. That's all. And since two different builds of the same class can vary by 100% in those two factors, no stable comparison is possible.

And note that that particular 17th-level-equivalent NPC is a CR 7 monster. But change the spell selection slightly and you can make anything from a CR 4-ish monster (remove all spells that deal damage but eldritch blast) to a CR 11 (replace the 1x/day spells with circle of death, finger of death*, and maddening darkness)[1].

CR and level are not really related, other than "as one goes up, the other tends to go up. At a different, non-linear pace, and in a very non-algorithmic sort of way".

Not only that, but CR has implicit assumptions (as does the encounter guidelines). It's roughly calibrated to assume a 60-ish% hit rate by PCs and a ~50-80% hit rate against PCs. And the outgoing damage breakpoints are set for a d6 HD, low armor PC with about +2 CON[2].

Fundamentally, CR is designed as a crutch for new DMs. It's not a fundamental parameter of the system like PC level is. At this point (because I'm experienced and know what style I'm going for), I completely disregard CR and encounter balancing guidelines. I don't calculate it for my custom monsters--it provides me very little value. But that's not the case for newer DMs or those with different styles. So the best thing to do would be to move it entirely DM side and balance player abilities around different factors.

[1] not that these are good spells, but they're the heaviest-hitting direct damage 6-8th level spells, which is what CR codes for. Direct damage.

[Envyus]

NPCs are allowed to break the rules, DMs are allowed to cheat... But at the same time they can't be caught doing this.

They are allowed.

[Selion]

Encounters don't have CR in this edition. Individual creatures do. Entirely based on two things: how hard they hit and how much it takes to kill them. That's all. And since two different builds of the same class can vary by 100% in those two factors, no stable comparison is possible.

And note that that particular 17th-level-equivalent NPC is a CR 7 monster. But change the spell selection slightly and you can make anything from a CR 4-ish monster (remove all spells that deal damage but eldritch blast) to a CR 11 (replace the 1x/day spells with circle of death, finger of death*, and maddening darkness)[1].

CR and level are not really related, other than "as one goes up, the other tends to go up. At a different, non-linear pace, and in a very non-algorithmic sort of way".

Not only that, but CR has implicit assumptions (as does the encounter guidelines). It's roughly calibrated to assume a 60-ish% hit rate by PCs and a ~50-80% hit rate against PCs. And the outgoing damage breakpoints are set for a d6 HD, low armor PC with about +2 CON[2].

Fundamentally, CR is designed as a crutch for new DMs. It's not a fundamental parameter of the system like PC level is. At this point (because I'm experienced and know what style I'm going for), I completely disregard CR and encounter balancing guidelines. I don't calculate it for my custom monsters--it provides me very little value. But that's not the case for newer DMs or those with different styles. So the best thing to do would be to move it entirely DM side and balance player abilities around different factors.

[1] not that these are good spells, but they're the heaviest-hitting direct damage 6-8th level spells, which is what CR codes for. Direct damage.

OK, maybe i was biased by previous editions, so, if CR is a guidelines for new DMs, i find weird that CR is hard-coded in spell descriptions and other mechanics. I feel that something is off, it's just a little detail in a extremely good system (especially considered its simplicity), but still a see room for improvement, and i think the improvement should point toward CR as encounter difficulty, and not stats wrestling

[PhoenixPhyre]

OK, maybe i was biased by previous editions, so, if CR is a guidelines for new DMs, i find weird that CR is hard-coded in spell descriptions and other mechanics. I feel that something is off, it's just a little detail in a extremely good system (especially considered its simplicity), but still a see room for improvement, and i think the improvement should point toward CR as encounter difficulty, and not stats wrestling

Right. My point is that the best thing to do is to remove it from those descriptions and find a different way to balance the spells. CR does it's job ok, but not much else. Using it for spell balance just makes things wonky.

[Brookshw]

Aliens, lazer rifles, and magitech aren't the outliers in the modern fantasy genre you seem to think they are. How long ago was Phyrexia created? How many modern isekai incorporate magitech? Warhammer fantasy has aliens and lazers. World of Warcraft has them too.

So modern day fantasy discards fantasy tropes, therefore D&D has to follow fantasy tropes? Sounds like you're evidencing tropes as being less important than you've weighted them. Admittedly, I don't know anything about Phyrexia and isekai so no comment.


Is Star Wars fantasy? good question, I would have called it Sci Fi ultimately. Trope wise, I guess not unless Luke secretly hides his spell book in R2?

As you brought up SW as an example, and to go back to the OP, there was a very long saga involving an NPC race who shattered the galaxy and had as a defining trait not interacting with the PC's Jedi's magic force powers in a ton of ways, seems a bit on point when talking about creatures having abilities that aren't available to PCs and don't interact with them as you'd expect.



Sure, DND isn't the originator, just a step on the chain. Even so, fantasy tropes are important to setting up an enjoyable fantasy.

Like I'm not saying everyone has to start in a tavern and get a quest to clear out giant spiders before eventually facing off against a great and terrible dragon... but when you bring a dragon to the story, people are going to have expectations, and you have to acknowledge that, even if your intent is to subvert those expectations.

Sounds like subvert is just code for 'ignore', so, sure, the DM can just ignore whatever expectations someone may have had based on some other game/film/literary work, no acknowledgement necessary (barring something stated as fact in session zero, in game truism established in that campaign, etc.).



True enough, but the Sci Fi fan element was there before the first edition was published.

Sure, completely agreed.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Aliens, lazer rifles, and magitech aren't the outliers in the modern fantasy genre you seem to think they are. How long ago was Phyrexia created? How many modern isekai incorporate magitech? Warhammer fantasy has aliens and lazers. World of Warcraft has them too. Is Star Wars fantasy?

So, have to add to this. New York Times Best Selling Author L.E. Modesitt Jr has a wildly popular and always sells out Fantasy Series called the Saga of Recluce. On the surface is is a world history, jumping centuries with no more than 2-3 books about one protagonist. It involves the balance of Order and Chaos and the wizards who can learn to control one or the other. It is definitely high fantasy if with a Magic A is Magic A scientific approach to power.

The earliest books also make clear that one type of wizard descends from space faring people with high end laser technology that became the foundation for learning how to manipulate chaos. To the point that you have an empire with "Mirror Lancers" wielding "Firelances" which are really laser rifles. The next earliest books show that the other type of wizard comes from a crash landed ship of the people the first group were at war with that used more fusion based technology and learned to "forge blades of lightning and throw thunder from their hands" Which translated to super alloy blades using a functional welding laser and the aliens all having firearms for the early days before ammo ran out.

He has other fantasy series too, including one with inter-dimensional aliens that use humans as a sustenance and hold technology in industrial levels.

Brandon Sanderson can in no way be considered anything but mainline fantasy. Mistborn has already jumped to the Old West style setting with lawless lands, sheriffs, trains, six guns.. And he's flat out said he's going to be progressing that world into a Swat Team style series and then a space faring series.

Wheel of Time and Shannara are both post apocalyptic worlds sitting on the bones of more advanced civilizations.

And YES, Star Wars is far more fantasy than it is Sci-Fi. People call it scifi cause space, but none of the technology makes sense, the Force is full out magic use, There's no hard rules or logic applied to make the universe consistent. Things move at the speed of plot and the whole thing could have it's trappings replaced with a LotR esc world and nothing would change.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And YES, Star Wars is far more fantasy than it is Sci-Fi. People call it scifi cause space, but none of the technology makes sense, the Force is full out magic use, There's no hard rules or logic applied to make the universe consistent. Things move at the speed of plot and the whole thing could have it's trappings replaced with a LotR esc world and nothing would change.

The term I've heard applied is "science fantasy". Fantasy with the trappings of science fiction. And there's a lot of it out there, where the "science" is a fig leaf that, when they actually try to explain it, actively makes things worse.

[Pex]

Actually...They are. NPC is a category of monster. So NPCs are monsters, but not all monsters are NPCs. Technically anything played by someone other than a player is an NPC (literally that's what it stands for) And no, multi attack and extra attack are very very different things. One modifies the attack action, the other replaces it.

Tomato tomahto

NPCs are built differently, as I said, but they should follow the same game play. An NPC doing multiattack and a fighter doing extra attack are indistinguishable in game play.

[KorvinStarmast]

They're a UI framework. Nothing more, nothing less. And like any framework, they're intended to be extended, overridden, and outright ignored where they're not wanted. The rules exist to help the game, the game does not exist to operationalize the rules.
You might be surprised at how close to the original arguments about how to play RPGs this comes. (I am talking about the fledgling RPG community in places like California, New York, Boston, Midwest, that was mostly wargamers and some others, circa 1973 to 1977). While your point is one of the salient arguments made while people were trying to figure out "what is this thing we are doing/have discovered/are playing without a net" it wasn't the only position. When D&D was described as a wide open game, it was that but it also had a lot of places were there weren't any rules at all. (Infamous quote from Dave Arneson back in the day, is, allegedly "Rule? What rules?" ). For the most part, those gaps have been filled in over the course of 4+ decades and a wide variety of editorial and design effort.

With 5e WoTC has chose to lean more towards a closed system, not a wide open system, just as EGG moved toward a closed system with AD&D 1e. While I prefer (in a general sense) your stated "it's a framework, guidelines more than rules", I feel obliged to point out that for any turn based game there is a level of rules that needs to be internally consistent. (Particularly when the action economy is involved, hence once an encounter begins). The legendary Action is an explicit exception intended to mitigate the problem of the focus/fire in the action economy and to make bosses tougher. So too the Mythic options.

That isn't what I was referring to as regards the rules needing to be consistent, though, so perhaps I was too terse.

I suppose that I am leaning toward a sense of verisimilitude where in an NPC who is a warlock (as named in Volo's) needs to have a substantial overlap with a PC who is a warlock. I don't need one-for-one correspondence (we had that in D&D and in AD&D, and it created its own burdens on DMs) but I feel that a substantial overlap improves verisimilitude and internal consistency. Your point on the CR for spell caster NPCs being all over the map is agreed.

I don't need a Slaad to have any overlap, though, as it's literally from "out of this world"

For WoTC to insert spell casting that don't follow core chapter 10 spell casting rules is not, as far as I am concerned, the better path forward.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Tomato tomahto

NPCs are built differently, as I said, but they should follow the same game play. An NPC doing multiattack and a fighter doing extra attack are indistinguishable in game play.

Differences:

NPC doing multiattack cannot switch out for different combinations. It's stuck doing exactly what multiattack says. It can't even trade out for grapples or shoves.

NPC doing multiattack with two weapons doesn't consume a bonus action to do so. The Assassin NPC can use both Cunning Action and Multiattack (2 shortsword attacks) in the same turn. They also get full modifier to damage on every hit, without needing an extra feature to do so.

They're not identical in game play. They're actually fundamentally different things and the consequences matter.



For WoTC to insert spell casting that don't follow core chapter 10 spell casting rules is not, as far as I am concerned, the better path forward.

The entire point of the thread is that those have existed from the very beginning of the edition, starting with the MM. And doing so is exactly in keeping with chapter 10, which states that specific spells override the rules presented there and are authorities in their own matter.

For that matter, chapter 10 requires that you have a clear path to target for your spells. Yet that makes a whole host of spells non-functional. And says that half cover grants a +2 bonus to Dex saves. But sacred flame ignores that. Specific beats general means that the general rules are only followed when nothing else conflicts. They always give way.

As to the specific stat blocks at issue, I agree that they're not particularly good. But the issue is way more broad than that. I find the idea that "nameplate says warlock, therefore it must be like the PC class called Warlock" to cause all sorts of issues, primarily at the world level. It encodes the classes into the world at a fundamental level and says that names matter.

I see stat blocks as generic frameworks. I'll be honest--I often take stat blocks, strip off the identifying marks and re-use them for lots of things. Stat blocks are easy collections of numbers and abilities that "hang together". The names aren't player facing. As an example, Setante Varana from last night? He was a Barlgura with more HP and a rider on his "fist" attack (turned into a grapple). Saraswathi Ikel was a Warlock of the Fiend with a bit more health and a "heals when deals damage" feature. Except I ignored her spell slot count and cast things that were appropriate, within reason. And if you were to face your gwerin friends in combat? They'd use wizard-like stat blocks, but their spell lists and other features wouldn't match at all. They use (in universe) wizardry, but they don't have spell books at all.

For example, I'd use the Mage stat block for any of the following (at an appropriate power level and with appropriate changes to spell list)
a) a particularly casterly priest (not cleric, priest) of Yogg Maggus
b) a swamp witch
c) a fiendish magic user
d) any number of other creatures whose primary interaction is casting spells or "doing magic" and for whom armor isn't appropriate.
The name on the stat block is really not relevant for anything. And this is the preferred way of doing it according to the DMG (which encourages grabbing an existing stat block and tweaking it, including changing the name, etc) instead of making your own from scratch.

Heck, I'm even a fan of using multiple stat blocks for the same creature in different circumstances. Bob the Town Guard uses the guard stat block if you face him at work. But the commoner one when he's relaxing at home. Etc. Stat blocks are not the creature; they're just an easy summary of their contributions in certain circumstances.

[Tanarii]

Actually...They are. NPC is a category of monster. So NPCs are monsters, but not all monsters are NPCs. Technically anything played by someone other than a player is an NPC (literally that's what it stands for) And no, multi attack and extra attack are very very different things. One modifies the attack action, the other replaces it.Right. From a DM side perspective, everything is a monster, and their rules are baseline general rules modified by monster specific rules modified by specific monster specific rules. Not baseline general rules modified by PC specific rules modified by specific PC specific rules.

And 5e isn't unique in this. It's the way D&D monsters (which includes NPCs) have always worked, in every edition, even 3e. Making NPCs as PCs has always been an option, even a good one in cases like henchmen / followers, but it's never been the default.

And many, if not even most, TTRPGs work the same way.


OK, maybe i was biased by previous editions, so, if CR is a guidelines for new DMs, i find weird that CR is hard-coded in spell descriptions and other mechanics. I feel that something is off, it's just a little detail in a extremely good system (especially considered its simplicity), but still a see room for improvement, and i think the improvement should point toward CR as encounter difficulty, and not stats wrestling
Yeah, it was a major error on the part of the writers of Druid's Wildshape and the Polymorph / Shapechange type spells.

That and letting them grant hit points.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That and letting them grant hit points.

An oddity here--the Archdruid stat block (which is the only one of the two druid-tagged generic stat blocks to have any kind of wildshape-like ability) explicitly doesn't grant HP.

Another oddity (and another counterpoint for the "names matter" crowd)--the regular Druid stat block is explicitly also called out as applying to tribal shamans. And not a hint of even the smallest wild shape there. Despite being of sufficient "caster level".

Personally, I think the (a?) mistake was adding the label "wizard" to things. The MM did it better with "mage", "acolyte", and "priest". Mage is just a generic arcane-magic practitioner. Priest is a generic divine magic practitioner. Etc.

[sandmote]

Any general rule not overridden is still in effect, but a monster stat block has primacy over any general rule when it conflicts. And can contain anything it wants to. It can even override the general rules for monsters (which, like anything in the MM or DMG, are more like suggestions).

The following are separate statements:

NPCs are not obligated to have only abilities available to PCs.
DMs are under no obligation to grant useful information on any NPC.
Providing useful information on an NPC is good for DMs to do.
When an NPC is described, the terms used to describe that NPC should at least attempt to reflect that NPC's abilities in the heads of everyone else at the table.
The rules for building PC characters provide provide particular ideas of what it means for a character to count as a "wizard," and tend to imply certain other abilities are obtained from sources other than being a "wizard."
I consider all the listed statements true, but I think its a mistake to just keep repeating the first two in response to the other three.


Wizard / MU is someone who went out and found magic and secret lore by going on dangerous quests with henchmen and adventuring companions. I think I follow what this is trying to say, and if I am I agree with the general concept but not the specific properties you've assigned to wizards.

That said, I'm quoting it because I want to point out the wording and specific properties listed are a terrible way to define wizards. Off the top of my head:

Is someone who went out and found magic and secret lore by going on dangerous quests alone unable to be a wizard?
Is someone who went out on dangerous quests with henchmen and adventuring companions and and found an Eldritch Staff (which is magic) and a lost encyclopedic set detailing a poorly known ancient culture (which I'd consider lore) a wizard?
If someone armed with magic and lore setting out with henchmen and adventuring companions on their first dangerous quest, why can't they qualify as a wizard?
I know none of these were meant, but I don't see how this can be a functional definition of the term.


I suppose that I am leaning toward a sense of verisimilitude where in an NPC who is a warlock (as named in Volo's) needs to have a substantial overlap with a PC who is a warlock. I don't need one-for-one correspondence (we had that in D&D and in AD&D, and it created its own burdens on DMs) but I feel that a substantial overlap improves verisimilitude and internal consistency. Your point on the CR for spell caster NPCs being all over the map is agreed.

I don't need a Slaad to have any overlap, though, as it's literally from "out of this world" I'm going to run with the slaad example.
Short Story time:

The DM calls the enemies you've been fighting "slaads." You've got your shield in one hand can choose between your +1 Longsword and your Dragon Slayer (https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/5385-dragon-slayer) Shortsword. They've got the same bonus to hit and to damage (both at +1) but the longsword has a larger damage die while the shortsword dals 3d6 extra damage to dragons. You know what a "slaad" usually is, so you use the longsword until you're disarmed, upon which you pull out the shortsword and attempt to slay the slaad that took your longsword. And only after you hit with it does the DM mention the slaads have the "dragon" type, and the shortsword deals its extra 3d6 damage.

Is this good? Is it not annoying? If it's annoying, I think the name you use to describe what an NPC is matters. Its probably less annoying in less contrived scenarios, but my Player's Handbook spends eight pages giving the rules for what a "wizard" is, and different varieties of said "wizards." So I do think that if you tell your party the NPC is a "wizard," they need to be very close to the ruleset that players are already expecting a "wizard" to have. Other abilities--from race, NPC subclass, or elsewhere--are fine, and I don't think it is necessary for every ability that NPC has to be available to PC wizards, but these aren't the only considerations in play.


The name on the stat block is really not relevant for anything. And this is the preferred way of doing it according to the DMG (which encourages grabbing an existing stat block and tweaking it, including changing the name, etc) instead of making your own from scratch. Everything I've written is intended to look at the names the DM presents to the players and what descriptions they present to the players. I do, however, think that a major job of first party published products is to provide material that can be made effective with minimal tweaking. I think the new versions of the NPC wizard statblocks fail here, but me on the recent shifts to 5e design philosophy is a long rant.

[Pex]

Differences:

NPC doing multiattack cannot switch out for different combinations. It's stuck doing exactly what multiattack says. It can't even trade out for grapples or shoves.

NPC doing multiattack with two weapons doesn't consume a bonus action to do so. The Assassin NPC can use both Cunning Action and Multiattack (2 shortsword attacks) in the same turn. They also get full modifier to damage on every hit, without needing an extra feature to do so.

They're not identical in game play. They're actually fundamentally different things and the consequences matter.



PCs get to use Extra Attack and do a Bonus Action as well. No, the Rogue Assassin is not built the same as the Assassin NPC. Some may quibble on that, but the Assassin still only gets one bonus action. If he's slowed he suffers the full effect as would a PC. NPCs are built differently than PCs. I already said that. I already said that's ok. What I further said is they should follow the same game play. Build and play are different things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

PCs get to use Extra Attack and do a Bonus Action as well. No, the Rogue Assassin is not built the same as the Assassin NPC. Some may quibble on that, but the Assassin still only gets one bonus action. If he's slowed he suffers the full effect as would a PC. NPCs are built differently than PCs. I already said that. I already said that's ok. What I further said is they should follow the same game play. Build and play are different things.

Ok, take the Bandit Captain. His multiattack is 2 scimitar, 1 dagger. That's obviously not all one hand--he has to be TWF'ing, both logically and descriptively.

Things to note:
1. he gets full damage on all attacks without listing a fighting style.
2. This does not consume a bonus action. He can do that and do anything else he might be able to do with a bonus action.
3. He can't trade out and do 1 scimitar and 2 dagger (like a fighter with Extra Attack could). He can't even do 1 scimitar and one dagger or just 2 scimitar. He must do all three (unless there are not valid targets).
4. He also can't substitute any of those for a grapple or a shove. Despite a PC with Extra Attack being able to.
5. Any features that would trigger on taking the Attack action don't trigger on Multiattack. Because it's a different, separate action. While yes, he can take the Attack action, if he does so, he's limited to a single attack. And he can use the Scimitar or Dagger action without using the Attack action. Something that a PC cannot do.

Multiattack and Extra Attack are not the same thing at all. NPC action economy is quite different than PC action economy.

[Pex]

Ok, take the Bandit Captain. His multiattack is 2 scimitar, 1 dagger. That's obviously not all one hand--he has to be TWF'ing, both logically and descriptively.

Things to note:
1. he gets full damage on all attacks without listing a fighting style.
2. This does not consume a bonus action. He can do that and do anything else he might be able to do with a bonus action.
3. He can't trade out and do 1 scimitar and 2 dagger (like a fighter with Extra Attack could). He can't even do 1 scimitar and one dagger or just 2 scimitar. He must do all three (unless there are not valid targets).
4. He also can't substitute any of those for a grapple or a shove. Despite a PC with Extra Attack being able to.
5. Any features that would trigger on taking the Attack action don't trigger on Multiattack. Because it's a different, separate action. While yes, he can take the Attack action, if he does so, he's limited to a single attack. And he can use the Scimitar or Dagger action without using the Attack action. Something that a PC cannot do.

Multiattack and Extra Attack are not the same thing at all. NPC action economy is quite different than PC action economy.

NPCs don't get feats or class features. They are built differently so use different terminology. Multiattack allows the NPC more than one attack as his action and still do a bonus action. A PC with Extra Attack allows the PC more than one attack as his action and still do a bonus action. That is what's important. The minutiae differences aren't important enough to distinguish. They are built differently. However, they have the same game play. When the NPC attacks the player can barely notice any difference in what is happening from what he can do. For all the talk in the other thread of people defending how an NPC "Wizard" is still a "Wizard" even though he's not using the PC "Wizard" class, getting all hyped up that "Multiattack" is not "Extra Attack" is being persnickety.

[KorvinStarmast]

Personally, I think the (a?) mistake was adding the label "wizard" to things. The MM did it better with "mage", "acolyte", and "priest". Mage is just a generic arcane-magic practitioner. Priest is a generic divine magic practitioner. Etc. Yes, although I often adapt my 'priests' to fit into a char level range so that I know what spells I do or don't have them prepare. (For example the priest in Salt Marsh does not have raise dead; CR / spell caster level is too low for level 5 spells).

Off the top of my head:
[LIST]
Is someone ... a wizard?

Only if they are able to make the magic work, so I respond with "what class did they choose at chargen?"
If someone armed with magic and lore setting out with henchmen and adventuring companions on their first dangerous quest, why can't they qualify as a wizard? Because that is an incomplete cherry pick of what I was getting in terms of the origin of the class now known as wizard (Magic User).
But since this discussion ought to focus on 5e since we are living with various 5e isms, I'll not pursue that further.


I think the name you use to describe what an NPC is matters. Its probably less annoying in less contrived scenarios, but my Player's Handbook spends eight pages giving the rules for what a "wizard" is, and different varieties of said "wizards." So I do think that if you tell your party the NPC is a "wizard," they need to be very close to the ruleset that players are already expecting a "wizard" to have. Yes, I was kind of getting at that.

Ok, take the Bandit Captain. His multiattack is 2 scimitar, 1 dagger. That's obviously not all one hand--he has to be TWF'ing, both logically and descriptively.
He is taking an action. It is listed under actions.


Multiattack and Extra Attack are not the same thing at all. NPC action economy is quite different than PC action economy. Out of the box, correct.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As far as monster names go, I try to avoid using PC-class names as descriptors (as a general rule). The exceptions seem to be druids and clerics--clerics because I've made a formal, in-universe differentiation between "priests" and "clerics". The latter are way more rare. And much more individual/unique in their power set than the PC class would have you seem. A given PC-class cleric might be the only person on the continent with that exact power-set, including the Turn Undead/Destroy Undead stuff. A different cleric of the same god might have a different spell list or even individual spells and might have different powers entirely. Because what a god grants to his clerics depends on the cleric and on the god. Priests are utterly different, gaining power in a way that's vaguely warlock-esque (initiation into the mysteries of a church), but mechanically quite different.

Druids because there is a very clear "what does it mean to be a druid" thing. Except that what common people call "druids" also encompasses most tribal shamans (who don't and can't wild shape and might have spirit-related powers), etc. So "druid" is both under and over inclusive.

Instead of "wizard", "sorcerer", or "warlock", I'll use mage or arcanist as general terms (ie someone working arcane magic) with a bevy of more specific terms for different schools. Which probably are actual schools--someone might say that they follow the South Sun tradition. They'd not identify as a "wizard"--that's too vague and general. Especially because "wizardry" is the in-setting name for all arcane magic and the underpinnings of how everyone does magic (ie using a combination of motions, words, and physical components).

Instead of "paladin", there might be oath-sworn, Dedicated, or other terms. And there again, their power-set is pretty much an individual matter. Not all paladins can lay on hands. Not all paladins can even smite (or when they do, different things can happen).

Basically, I don't see classes as being a fundamental part of reality in the fictional world. They're just bundles of powers with an associated playstyle and a class fiction that really represents one possible path out of the forking garden of weirdness. And I'm happy to share the weirdness with the players--my current campaign has more "boons" of various types, including new powers, than magic items. They've been blessed by dragons. They've gained power from elemental nodes. Etc.


NPCs don't get feats or class features. They are built differently so use different terminology. Multiattack allows the NPC more than one attack as his action and still do a bonus action. A PC with Extra Attack allows the PC more than one attack as his action and still do a bonus action. That is what's important. The minutiae differences aren't important enough to distinguish. They are built differently. However, they have the same game play. When the NPC attacks the player can barely notice any difference in what is happening from what he can do. For all the talk in the other thread of people defending how an NPC "Wizard" is still a "Wizard" even though he's not using the PC "Wizard" class, getting all hyped up that "Multiattack" is not "Extra Attack" is being persnickety.

For someone who cares very much about rules, this is an odd stance to take. The two are completely different rules that sort of, vaguely, if you squint, produce similar results. But they're very different approaches in ways that have very strong, visible consequences at the table.

[Pex]

For someone who cares very much about rules, this is an odd stance to take. The two are completely different rules that sort of, vaguely, if you squint, produce similar results. But they're very different approaches in ways that have very strong, visible consequences at the table.

I used to care very much for NPCs and PC to be built the same. I hated how 2E let the DM cheat. (Not worth getting into. That's how I felt.) I applauded 3E NPC design worked the same as PCs. However, later in 3E trying to DM I felt the frustration in having to create multiple NPCs using PC rules, and despite my efforts even made a mistake in an encounter giving NPCs one more feat than they should have by the rules, but I needed them to have all the feats I gave them. I learned to appreciate the DM doesnt' really have time and effrot to go into fine details for their NPCs that players require for their PCs. Players have only one character to worry about. The DM has infinite. Therefore I compromised with myself in accepting NPCs don't need to follow PC rules in their creation. What really matters is the effect in their gameplay need to be close enough. Multiattack and Extra Attack meet that requirement whatever minutiae details of differences they have don't break the similarity.

An NPC casting a spell that is not a spell thus immune to all PC effects that reference spells is a significant difference enough I find to be a wrong thing to exist.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I used to care very much for NPCs and PC to be built the same. I hated how 2E let the DM cheat. (Not worth getting into. That's how I felt.) I applauded 3E NPC design worked the same as PCs. However, later in 3E trying to DM I felt the frustration in having to create multiple NPCs using PC rules, and despite my efforts even made a mistake in an encounter giving NPCs one more feat than they should have by the rules, but I needed them to have all the feats I gave them. I learned to appreciate the DM doesnt' really have time and effrot to go into fine details for their NPCs that players require for their PCs. Players have only one character to worry about. The DM has infinite. Therefore I compromised with myself in accepting NPCs don't need to follow PC rules in their creation. What really matters is the effect in their gameplay need to be close enough. Multiattack and Extra Attack meet that requirement whatever minutiae details of differences they have don't break the similarity.

An NPC casting a spell that is not a spell thus immune to all PC effects that reference spells is a significant difference enough I find to be a wrong thing to exist.

For you. For me, they're utterly different things that have somewhat similar, but not really, results in many, but not all cases.

And there are crap-tons of "NPCs casting a spell that is not a spell thus immune to all PC effects that reference spells" and always have been. It's why there's the "or other magical effects" tag on a lot of such PC (and NPC) abilities. Spells are but one tiny fraction of magical effects out there, starting with the PHB. Heck, there are lots of PC "spells that aren't really spells". Cutting Words, for instance. It has all the hallmarks of a spell, but isn't. And can't be counterspelled or dispelled.

[Tanarii]

I applauded 3E NPC design worked the same as PCs.
Not by default though. Just like 5e, it was an option.

[JNAProductions]

Not by default though. Just like 5e, it was an option.

3.P is a heck of lot more regimented than 5E.

For instance-take an Ogre (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ogre.htm). If I want to make a generic Ogre that's also good at singing, I have to make them worse at Climbing, Listening, or Spotting things to put ranks in Perform. I could also make them less accurate with their Greatclub or physically less tough by switching a feat for Skill Focus (Perform). But regardless, I'm impacting them in a potentially not-insignificant way to add some flavor of an Ogre with a nice voice.

There's nothing in the rules that explicitly says "You cannot give an Ogre an arbitrary bonus to Perform (Vocal)," but it's certainly not encouraged.

In 5E, if I want to make an Ogre a good singer, I just give them proficiency or Expertise in Performance. Done and done. No affect on the rest of the build.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I'm going to run with the slaad example.
Short Story time:

The DM calls the enemies you've been fighting "slaads." You've got your shield in one hand can choose between your +1 Longsword and your Dragon Slayer (https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/5385-dragon-slayer) Shortsword. They've got the same bonus to hit and to damage (both at +1) but the longsword has a larger damage die while the shortsword dals 3d6 extra damage to dragons. You know what a "slaad" usually is, so you use the longsword until you're disarmed, upon which you pull out the shortsword and attempt to slay the slaad that took your longsword. And only after you hit with it does the DM mention the slaads have the "dragon" type, and the shortsword deals its extra 3d6 damage.

Is this good? Is it not annoying? If it's annoying, I think the name you use to describe what an NPC is matters. Its probably less annoying in less contrived scenarios, but my Player's Handbook spends eight pages giving the rules for what a "wizard" is, and different varieties of said "wizards." So I do think that if you tell your party the NPC is a "wizard," they need to be very close to the ruleset that players are already expecting a "wizard" to have. Other abilities--from race, NPC subclass, or elsewhere--are fine, and I don't think it is necessary for every ability that NPC has to be available to PC wizards, but these aren't the only considerations in play.

Is it annoying? Yes, but there's guilt on both sides. The DM deliberately gave information that mislead. Not just lack of information but deliberate misinformation. Meanwhile the PC responded in what is potentially a meta way by making a decision based on a word being said that wouldn't necessarily come up.

Let's retry that scenario.

The DM: You see several creatures emerging from a portal. They're large, human size or bigger, skin covered in mottled, seemingly wet, flesh. Large mouths filled with teeth, a few appear somewhere between amphibious or lizard like, some with fingers webbed and crouching ready to jump, others with large bone spurs jutting out over their hands."

Now the PC can make a choice based on that. Maybe they've encountered Slaad before and so assume and go with the Longsword. Maybe they ask the DM to make a Religion check to identify and then make a choice off that. If they did make a religion check the DM might say "to all superficial appearances these do seem to be Slaad, creatures of Limbo.. But something is off. Their skin is less smooth, holding scales that catch the light and move with them, toughening their hide. You see one has a more pronounces snout, teeth and a slender tongue forming more the shape of a dragon or lizard than a normal slaad." Now they've got a clue and can judge accordingly.

If they have no knowledge and don't meta to make up for that lack of knowledge then they're presented with what they see. It doesn't look Dragon like at all, so the longsword is probably the right choice.

Either way, no when the disarm happens and you find out you were wrong, mildly annoying, but perfectly in character and in game.

I can't help but notice all these examples involve the DM saying "You see (X)" where X is the flat name of the creature. I don't really understand why.



Multiattack allows the NPC more than one attack as his action and still do a bonus action. A PC with Extra Attack allows the PC more than one attack as his action and still do a bonus action. That is what's important.

So just to be clear. NPCs getting offhand attacks with full stats added despite the rules not allowing PCs to do that, and then getting to do an extra action the PCs wouldn't be able to do, that's alright. But an NPC having a magic based attack that can't be counterspelled is wrong.



As far as monster names go, I try to avoid using PC-class names as descriptors (as a general rule).

Basically, I don't see classes as being a fundamental part of reality in the fictional world. They're just bundles of powers with an associated playstyle and a class fiction that really represents one possible path out of the forking garden of weirdness. And I'm happy to share the weirdness with the players--my current campaign has more "boons" of various types, including new powers, than magic items. They've been blessed by dragons. They've gained power from elemental nodes. Etc.

100% this. To give an example in my game. There is a Paladin Order in the main area. They have a fortress on an Island about half an hour away from the main city. There's a customized Oath for PCs if they want to be part of this order. But there are two aspects about this group that means I never just say "The Paladins up north" or some such.

#1: In game the term Paladin never comes up and there are Paladins that are NOT part of this order. The Order is just "The Amethyst Guard" with proper terms, the "Purple Coats" for a casual stance because the uniform is in purples and silvers or the "Pretenders" to those who don't like the order because the Royal Guard's uniform is in Purples and Golds. So they're very similar.

#2: There's no guarantee NPC Members are Paladins in the first place. The Lord General of the order is a Multiclass Crown Paladin/Hexblade and is more Warlock. The head of the order's information and stealth forces only has 2 levels of Paladin and then is pure Rogue. The leader of the Wyvern Riders is 100% Monk, etc, etc. In fact, of the 7 Captains of the Order, only one is actually a pure Paladin. So yeah, a player that decides to fight one of these people and just assumes Paladin and prepares that way is in for a rude awakening.



An NPC casting a spell that is not a spell thus immune to all PC effects that reference spells is a significant difference enough I find to be a wrong thing to exist.

But PCs do this too in different ways. Just running down some easy ones:

Artificer: Infiltrator Armorer fires a Lightning blast that is a spell attack but not a spell. Artillerist uses magic to actively animate their turret but it is not a spell. Alchemist can even use spell slots to immediately infuse potions, which can't be counterspelled.

Cleric Turn undead is absolutely a magical effect that cannot be counterspelled. As are the other Channel Divinity options. Druid wildshape is 100% non-counterspellable magic. Fighter: Eldritch Knight summoning their weapon back to their hand? Paladins Lay on Hands? Warlocks activating Pact of the Blade?

PC Wizards can't learn Arcane Blast specifically based on RAW. That's not the same as "PCs can't get powers like this."

[Psyren]

This has come up in both of the threads, and I am genuinely confused...why, with all of the options for PCs present in all of the books, do folks get disappointed that an NPC is doing something they can't do/can't learn how to do?

For one, if you are playing a character, presumably you have already made your class/sub-class choices when coming up against an enemy and changing that up is generally an incredibly rare occurrence (at least in the games I've played/run). So you are seeing something that at best you'll be able to get with your next character, which seems strange to get hung up on when you are already playing one. It feels like window shopping for the next cool thing rather than exploring what you can do with what you have, which for me is a much more fun experience.

I have also never felt promised that all things I see in game are available for my character to have. My first instinct when I see an enemy use an exotic weapon or use some strange ability isn't "how can I have that for my character?" its "How can I beat that with the cool stuff I've got in my toolbox?".

If I really, really like what that enemy/NPC did, and want to change my character in the middle of its progression, is this not exactly what homebrew was made for? Every time this has happened its always been a conversation with the DM/Player that involves some amount of house ruling at the very least. If it was something the character could do/learn, they would already know that (or have that information very available).

Every word of this.


Monsters aren't NPCs. They're monsters. A PC can cast Shapechange and be that monster doing everything the monster can, except the Legendary stuff and Lair actions. Multiattack is just the NPC name for Extra Attack.

Even without Lair and Legendary actions, Shapechange doesn't give you everything a monster can do, and it can't even be used on all monsters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

100% this. To give an example in my game. There is a Paladin Order in the main area. They have a fortress on an Island about half an hour away from the main city. There's a customized Oath for PCs if they want to be part of this order. But there are two aspects about this group that means I never just say "The Paladins up north" or some such.

#1: In game the term Paladin never comes up and there are Paladins that are NOT part of this order. The Order is just "The Amethyst Guard" with proper terms, the "Purple Coats" for a casual stance because the uniform is in purples and silvers or the "Pretenders" to those who don't like the order because the Royal Guard's uniform is in Purples and Golds. So they're very similar.

#2: There's no guarantee NPC Members are Paladins in the first place. The Lord General of the order is a Multiclass Crown Paladin/Hexblade and is more Warlock. The head of the order's information and stealth forces only has 2 levels of Paladin and then is pure Rogue. The leader of the Wyvern Riders is 100% Monk, etc, etc. In fact, of the 7 Captains of the Order, only one is actually a pure Paladin. So yeah, a player that decides to fight one of these people and just assumes Paladin and prepares that way is in for a rude awakening.


Yeah. Of the four "orders" of "paladins" I can think of in my setting, exactly zero are staffed entirely by paladins or even paladin-candidates. Some of them may be called paladins by the common folk, but that just means "oath-sworn warriors". And generally they'd just call them "knights" or "warriors" or "those @#$@#$ do-gooders" or "oh crap run".

1. The Sinner's Tear isn't even really an order as much as it is a loose fraternity of people who all believe they're damned to the Abyss for their various sins (usually some form of betrayal/genocide/demon worship) and know they can't be forgiven, but are training to kick down the doors of the abyss from the inside. And while they're here as mortals, they'll do the dirty work that needs to be done so no one else has to suffer. Generally martial types, some few of which have select powers somewhat like a Paladin's, but not exactly.

2. The Scaleguard are the warriors dedicated to the Queen of Wyrmhold. Some of them are Paladins (Oath of the Crown), but most are just warriors, scholars, mages, and others.

3. The Scale-balancers (the subject of the "oh crap run" name) are the followers of Ytra, goddess of justice (not mercy). They believe the guilty should be punished (let justice be done though the heavens fall)...and everyone's guilty of something. They're clerics, Paladins, priests, warriors, assassins, etc.

4. The Order of the Watchers are a mix of warriors, spies, druids (and other primal practitioners), and yes, a few Paladins. Despite all of them taking the oath of the Watchers. Lots of people can swear oaths, but only a few have the supernal self-confidence and stubbornness to convince the universe to give them power because of it.

[Pex]

So just to be clear. NPCs getting offhand attacks with full stats added despite the rules not allowing PCs to do that, and then getting to do an extra action the PCs wouldn't be able to do, that's alright. But an NPC having a magic based attack that can't be counterspelled is wrong.

PCs can get this. They can have two-weapon style to add their ability score modifier to the off-hand attack. PCs can have Extra Attack that allows them more than one attack with full ability score modifier damage and still have a bonus action. Fighters get Action Surge allowing them another action. NPCs are built differently. Never disputed that. What matters is the game play.





But PCs do this too in different ways. Just running down some easy ones:

Artificer: Infiltrator Armorer fires a Lightning blast that is a spell attack but not a spell. Artillerist uses magic to actively animate their turret but it is not a spell. Alchemist can even use spell slots to immediately infuse potions, which can't be counterspelled.

Cleric Turn undead is absolutely a magical effect that cannot be counterspelled. As are the other Channel Divinity options. Druid wildshape is 100% non-counterspellable magic. Fighter: Eldritch Knight summoning their weapon back to their hand? Paladins Lay on Hands? Warlocks activating Pact of the Blade?

PC Wizards can't learn Arcane Blast specifically based on RAW. That's not the same as "PCs can't get powers like this."

Those aren't casting a spell that's not a spell. Not everything is about Counterspell.

[Psyren]

Those aren't casting a spell that's not a spell. Not everything is about Counterspell.

They are non-spell magical features. Just like Arcane Blast, Overwhelming Revelation et al.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

PCs can get this. They can have two-weapon style to add their ability score modifier to the off-hand attack. PCs can have Extra Attack that allows them more than one attack with full ability score modifier damage and still have a bonus action. Fighters get Action Surge allowing them another action. NPCs are built differently. Never disputed that. What matters is the game play.

They have to take a level in Fighter, clearly this NPC didn't need to do that, otherwise they'd have Second Wind and Action Surge. And the rules for two weapon fighting use up your Bonus action. Where as there are NPCs who can do multiple mainhand attacks and an offhand as a standard action and then have their bonus action for something else. You are aware we're right here. So either you're just trying to avoid the point, or your argument really is about counterspells.


Those aren't casting a spell that's not a spell. Not everything is about Counterspell.

You're right, none of what I listed are spells. Neither is Arcane Blast. They are all magical attacks that can't be hit by counterspell, just like Arcane Blast. By all means, please keep explaining how a magical attack doesn't have to be a spell and thus can be impervious to counterspells and such. Makes my argument for me. :)

To make this very simple and clear.

If your argument is you demand that PCs should be able to access non spell magic energy blasts. Infiltrator Armorer Artificer gets them.

If you're argument is that it's unfair for NPCs to have Arcane Blast because no such PC ability exists, you're wrong. Infiltration Armorer Artificer gets it.

Edit: Psyren beat me to this part. :)

[Rukelnikov]

Just a friendly reminder you can fight with weapons in both hands without using BA. You can wield 2 Longswords and with EA make an attack with each, and you would apply Stat to damage on both attacks.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Just a friendly reminder you can fight with weapons in both hands without using BA. You can wield 2 Longswords and with EA make an attack with each, and you would apply Stat to damage on both attacks.

Yes, but the NPC block in question is clearly using 2 weapon fighting. That it spells out its Multiattack as "2 Long sword attacks and 1 Dagger attack" shows this. If it was mimicking just using extra attack it would state it as "3 melee attacks"

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just a friendly reminder you can fight with weapons in both hands without using BA. You can wield 2 Longswords and with EA make an attack with each, and you would apply Stat to damage on both attacks.

But the monsters in question use two different weapons, making 3 total attacks. At CR 2. And if you're telling me that a tier 1 character can do that...

[Dante]

One interesting thing about not-a-spell AoEs is that they are neither an attack nor a spell, so technically by the book they don't break Invisibility. A MPMoM Abjuror Wizard can cast Invisibility on himself, Hide, and then walk up to you and Force Blast you and all your buddies for 8d8 (36) each, save for half, and he's still invisible and probably even still Hidden (unseen and unheard).

This is likewise (technically) true of any wizard or bard who Magic Jars into the Abjuror Wizard, Evoker Wizard, or Diviner Wizard and just casts Invisibility with their own spellcasting abilities instead of the Abj/Evoc/Div Wizard's.

PHB Enchanters can do something similar with Instinctive Charm and Hypnotic Gaze but it's a smaller scale (not an AoE) and not compatible with being hidden.

Such technicalities should not be encouraged.


But the monsters in question use two different weapons, making 3 total attacks. At CR 2. And if you're telling me that a tier 1 character can do that...

A level 5 Fighter with Str 14 Con 18 and TWF style (dual shortswords, chain mail) can also do it at CR 2. Level is not CR.

Effective HP: 54
Effective AC: 16
Average Damage Per Round: 18
Effective Attack Bonus: +5
Offensive CR: 3
Defensive CR: 1
Challenge Rating: 2

[PhoenixPhyre]

A level 5 Fighter with Str 14 Con 18 and TWF style (dual shortswords, chain mail) can also do it at CR 2. Level is not CR.

Effective HP: 54
Effective AC: 16
Average Damage Per Round: 18
Effective Attack Bonus: +5
Offensive CR: 3
Defensive CR: 1
Challenge Rating: 2

But the monsters don't have the fighting style. Or any of the other pieces of being level 5.

Oh, and can't replace anything by a grapple, nor can they throw a dagger and still attack twice. They can either do three melee attacks (scimitar x2 and dagger) or throw two daggers.

Edit: and what's more, if you drop a +32 short sword of super-awesomeness next to a Bandit Captain and he picks it up, he can make...one attack. Period. Because his Multiattack specifies two scimitar attacks and one dagger attack. He can't use Multiattack at all unless he's wielding his scimitar and dagger.

It's also RAW that he may not even be proficient with the short sword. Because monsters (including NPCs) are only presumed to be proficient in what their stat block has, although DMs can alter that if they alter the stat block. And by RAW, he's only proficient in the armor he's wearing. Which means that if you give a skeleton anything other than his "scraps of armor" and tell it to put it on, it suffers the non-proficiency penalty. And if you give it anything but the short sword and short bow it has? Not proficient by RAW unless the DM decides to play nice. Zombies aren't proficient with any weapons or armor by default. Etc.

[Dante]

But the monsters don't have the fighting style. Or any of the other pieces of being level 5.

How would you know if they did have it? It would just show up in the damage roll, exactly like it does.


Oh, and can't replace anything by a grapple, nor can they throw a dagger and still attack twice. They can either do three melee attacks (scimitar x2 and dagger) or throw two daggers.

I thought your argument was that PCs couldn't replicate this NPC's capabilities, not that a PC would have to restrict themselves slightly in order to never exceed them.

A PC could absolutely just always split their attacks between weapons, if they wanted to. Rukelnikov is 100% correct.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How would you know if they did have it? It would just show up in the damage roll, exactly like it does.



I thought your argument was that PCs couldn't replicate this NPC's capabilities, not that a PC would have to restrict themselves slightly in order to never exceed them.

A PC could absolutely just always split their attacks between weapons, if they wanted to. Rukelnikov is 100% correct.

It would show up in his Traits section. Which is where things like Brute (an extra weapon die, included in the attack) show up.

My point (on this particular thing) is that Multiattack =/= Extra Attack. They're completely different actions, sharing exactly zero of the same rules. Rules that apply to the Attack action do not apply to Multiattack and vice versa. You can replicate some of the same behaviors, if you squint hard enough. But they're fundamentally not the same action. And it's an action that PCs do not, and cannot natively have (except via Shapechange or other such effects).

[Dante]

It would show up in his Traits section. Which is where things like Brute (an extra weapon die, included in the attack) show up.

Only sometimes. Other times they just show up implicitly in the action block. E.g. Githyanki have no trait that says "The Githyanki does extra 2d6 psychic damage whenever it hits with its sword." The extra damage is just there.

What value would it add if the stat block explained that the NPC in question has TWF style? Why waste words?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Only sometimes. Other times they just show up implicitly in the action block. E.g. Githyanki have no trait that says "The Githyanki does extra 2d6 psychic damage whenever it hits with its sword." The extra damage is just there.

What value would it add if the stat block explained that the NPC in question has TWF style? Why waste words?

Satisfy those people who insist that PCs and NPCs always "follow the same rules"? Which is the point. They don't include it because its presence is meaningless--there is no assumption or expectation that they follow the same rules. NPC damage calculations are literally arbitrary. Any similarity they have to PC rules is out of sheer convenience, not as a matter of rule.

[Dante]

Satisfy those people who insist that PCs and NPCs always "follow the same rules"?

"Those people" seem fine as long as it's something a PHB (N)PC could achieve. "They" don't seem to be insisting that the monster creator necessarily show their work, especially when it's obvious.

This feels like you're attacking a strawman so unless you can find an actual person who actually has the objections you claim "they" have, I'm going to bow out at this point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Those people" seem fine as long as it's something a PHB (N)PC could achieve. "They" don't seem to be insisting that the monster creator necessarily show their work, especially when it's obvious.

This feels like you're attacking a strawman so unless you can find an actual person who actually has the objections you claim "they" have, I'm going to bow out at this point.

A githyanki PC doesn't get (and can't get) a static +2d6 psychic damage to all of his attacks. A large PC (via enlarge/reduce) only gets +1d4 extra damage, not an extra damage die. Yet people are whining up a storm about "wizard" NPCs getting an arcane blast that PCs can't get. No strawman here--it's been repeatedly said across many threads that PCs and NPCs should play by the same rules. They don't. And never have.

Edit or any number of other things listed in the OP, such as the free, no action cost or consumable-use poison the assassin has or the free, no resource, no item Magic Resistance the Archmage gets.

Edit 2: You know what--I'll show my work. Try to build a few of the NPCs from the MM and Volos using the "build an NPC with PC class levels" rules and see where we get. I'll even allow dropping features to be not a rules violation, despite it actually being one by the monster-building rules.


Looks like an easy one. It's got one level of cleric (by the statblock saying it casts as a 1st level spellcaster using wisdom off the cleric list), so...

Ability scores: ok, use what's there. Not quite standard, but doable by point by (leaving lots of stuff on the table).
HP: 4 (1d8 + 0) ... uh oh, the stat block says 9 (2d8)
Skills: check.
Actions: check. No issues there.
Spellcasting: 2x 1st level slots, 3 cantrips and 3 spells prepared + domain spells....which are missing. Oh well. But wait, the stat block says 3 1st level slots. Uh oh...no can do. You can't be a 1st level spellcaster and have 3 1st level slots.

Rules failure: too many 1st level spell slots. Violation level: unrecoverable--there's no way to get there using PC rules.
Rules failure: too many HD. Violation level: minor. You could give him a fighter level (as long as you don't take any other features from it, just the HD).



It's making 3 attacks, so it needs to have at least 5 levels in something that gives Extra Attack. Let's say 5 fighter levels to start. I'll also try at level 10 (to make the HD work)

Level 5
Ability scores (note that these do not include racials, but do include a presumed level 4 ASI): requires 40 point buy equivalent. Uh....could be doable with rolled scores, but yeah.
HP after 5 fighter levels: 32 (5d8 + 10). Stat block says 2x as much (10d8+20) but I'll handle that from the other end.
Saves: 3 saves. Wait. We're in trouble here. Fighters don't get WIS save proficiency, and this build right now doesn't have the ASI's to take Resilient (WIS). Aborting.

Ok, so 5 levels doesn't work. Let's try 10 (to match up with the stat blocks). That gives us 2 extra ASIs to work from. One has to go into Resilient (WIS), so two into ASI.
Level 10
Ability scores: Still need a 32 point buy to end up right after 2 ASIs.
HP: ok, this works.
Saves: Check with Resilient (WIS)
Skills: check.
Actions:
- Substitute Multiattack for Extra Attack. Doable, if you ignore the need to draw two daggers (by presuming he has one out and then only has to draw an throw one, or starts with two out). But that crimps things for later turns, which isn't mentioned. Requires Fighting Style: TWF.
- Direct actions are OK.
Reactions:
- To get Parry, you'd need Defensive Duelist. Uh oh, that takes another ASI which we absolutely don't have to give.

Missing features:
- Second Wind
- Action Surge
- Martial Archetype (3 features)
- Indomitable

Calculated CR: actually works, assuming we utterly gimp ourself and throw away 99.9% of everything the fighter class brings to the table.
Rules violations: Ability scores don't add up -- too many points needed for point buy to get the requisite feats to make the build work. By...a crap-ton. But meh. You're free to adjust ability scores. Violation level: meh
Rules violation: The substitution of Multiattack for Extra Attack gives the Bandit Captain an extra free bonus action. Violation level: you decide.



Hey, he's a wizard, right? Should be really easy. Stat block says level 18, so...here we go.

Ability scores (assuming ASIs at 4, 8, 12, and 16): Nope. Can't do it He's at 40 points PB minimum, even with the four ASIs.
HP: Actually works out!
Saving throws: check.
Skills: uh oh, he's got expertise in both of his skills. That's not something you can get without a feat. That he doesn't have and can't afford.
Resistances: NM BPS (Stoneskin): check. Damage from spells...uh oh, where's that coming from? It's not part of stoneskin. And doesn't require concentration or anything else. It can't be the Robe of the Archmagi (which he isn't listed as wearing, but might be rational)--that doesn't provide it and would mess up his DC/attack bonus and AC.
Languages: lol no. You don't get 6 languages from your class levels, even with a background. Wizards don't get any by default, so they're at racial languages (not included here) and 2 from Sage.

Traits:
- Magic Resistance: Oops, we're done. Can't get this as a blanket effect on a PC without being tied to a specific race, which these NPCs are not.
- Spellcasting: This actually checks out...mostly. Got disguise self and invisibility as his Signature Spells, which he gets at 18th level. Doesn't have nearly enough spells prepped (20 vs 23 he should have), and is missing a cantrip he should have.

Actions: No issues here.

Rules Violations:
- ASIs. He's way over-weight here, not even counting the need to take Skill Expert (which wasn't published at that point) 2x, which you can't do. Or take 2 levels in rogue...which would throw off the HP calculations. Violation level: Meh. Maybe he rolled for it and got really really lucky?
- Resistance to spell damage. This can't be gotten as a static thing by PCs that I know of. At best, you're looking at a legendary-class item (not listed on his stat block). Violation level: Unrecoverable
- Magic Resistance. This can't be gotten as a static thing by PCs without items (not listed). Violation level: major.
- Languages: Nope. Sorry, just nope. Not without spending another ASI he doesn't have for Linguist.


Well, I'm 0/3 without any significant rules violations. And the two caster stat blocks? They're the worst of the lot! Which is ironic, since those are the ones complained about. One gets extra spell slots for free, the other gets to (partially) ignore most counterplay (resistance to spell damage? Advantage vs saves and magic, no concentration (because he's concentrating on something else?).

[Pex]

They have to take a level in Fighter, clearly this NPC didn't need to do that, otherwise they'd have Second Wind and Action Surge. And the rules for two weapon fighting use up your Bonus action. Where as there are NPCs who can do multiple mainhand attacks and an offhand as a standard action and then have their bonus action for something else. You are aware we're right here. So either you're just trying to avoid the point, or your argument really is about counterspells.

You're right, none of what I listed are spells. Neither is Arcane Blast. They are all magical attacks that can't be hit by counterspell, just like Arcane Blast. By all means, please keep explaining how a magical attack doesn't have to be a spell and thus can be impervious to counterspells and such. Makes my argument for me. :)

To make this very simple and clear.

If your argument is you demand that PCs should be able to access non spell magic energy blasts. Infiltrator Armorer Artificer gets them.

If you're argument is that it's unfair for NPCs to have Arcane Blast because no such PC ability exists, you're wrong. Infiltration Armorer Artificer gets it.

Edit: Psyren beat me to this part. :)

As with PhoenixPhyre you're missing the point here. NPCs are built differently. I've already accepted that. They don't take feats or classes. They are just given stuff. I don't care they are just given stuff. What matters is how they affect the gameplay. It doesn't matter what you call the ability of an NPC attacking twice. It doesn't matter how he acquired it. It doesn't even really matter how much damage the attack does, appropriate to the CR. That NPC follows the same rules when making the attack. Rolls to hit. Needs to meet AC. It's subject to disadvantage when a PC dodges. A hit can become a miss because of Shield. The more than one attack is thwarted by Slow. The NPC provokes an opportunity attack moving into a threatened area of someone with Pole Arm Master. That NPC follows the same rules of play as PCs. That's all I care about. The NPC can be built however the DM wants it to be, but when playing the game that NPC follows the same rules of playing as the players.

The not-spell spells don't, but that's debated on another thread.

[Rukelnikov]

Yes, but the NPC block in question is clearly using 2 weapon fighting. That it spells out its Multiattack as "2 Long sword attacks and 1 Dagger attack" shows this. If it was mimicking just using extra attack it would state it as "3 melee attacks"

Its clearly not, since using TWF requires your BA.


But the monsters in question use two different weapons, making 3 total attacks. At CR 2. And if you're telling me that a tier 1 character can do that...

They can, but that's not the point.

[gloryblaze]

A githyanki PC doesn't get (and can't get) a static +2d6 psychic damage to all of his attacks. A large PC (via enlarge/reduce) only gets +1d4 extra damage, not an extra damage die. Yet people are whining up a storm about "wizard" NPCs getting an arcane blast that PCs can't get. No strawman here--it's been repeatedly said across many threads that PCs and NPCs should play by the same rules. They don't. And never have.

Edit or any number of other things listed in the OP, such as the free, no action cost or consumable-use poison the assassin has or the free, no resource, no item Magic Resistance the Archmage gets.

Edit 2: You know what--I'll show my work. Try to build a few of the NPCs from the MM and Volos using the "build an NPC with PC class levels" rules and see where we get. I'll even allow dropping features to be not a rules violation, despite it actually being one by the monster-building rules.


Looks like an easy one. It's got one level of cleric (by the statblock saying it casts as a 1st level spellcaster using wisdom off the cleric list), so...

Ability scores: ok, use what's there. Not quite standard, but doable by point by (leaving lots of stuff on the table).
HP: 4 (1d8 + 0) ... uh oh, the stat block says 9 (2d8)
Skills: check.
Actions: check. No issues there.
Spellcasting: 2x 1st level slots, 3 cantrips and 3 spells prepared + domain spells....which are missing. Oh well. But wait, the stat block says 3 1st level slots. Uh oh...no can do. You can't be a 1st level spellcaster and have 3 1st level slots.

Rules failure: too many 1st level spell slots. Violation level: unrecoverable--there's no way to get there using PC rules.
Rules failure: too many HD. Violation level: minor. You could give him a fighter level (as long as you don't take any other features from it, just the HD).



It's making 3 attacks, so it needs to have at least 5 levels in something that gives Extra Attack. Let's say 5 fighter levels to start. I'll also try at level 10 (to make the HD work)

Level 5
Ability scores (note that these do not include racials, but do include a presumed level 4 ASI): requires 40 point buy equivalent. Uh....could be doable with rolled scores, but yeah.
HP after 5 fighter levels: 32 (5d8 + 10). Stat block says 2x as much (10d8+20) but I'll handle that from the other end.
Saves: 3 saves. Wait. We're in trouble here. Fighters don't get WIS save proficiency, and this build right now doesn't have the ASI's to take Resilient (WIS). Aborting.

Ok, so 5 levels doesn't work. Let's try 10 (to match up with the stat blocks). That gives us 2 extra ASIs to work from. One has to go into Resilient (WIS), so two into ASI.
Level 10
Ability scores: Still need a 32 point buy to end up right after 2 ASIs.
HP: ok, this works.
Saves: Check with Resilient (WIS)
Skills: check.
Actions:
- Substitute Multiattack for Extra Attack. Doable, if you ignore the need to draw two daggers (by presuming he has one out and then only has to draw an throw one, or starts with two out). But that crimps things for later turns, which isn't mentioned. Requires Fighting Style: TWF.
- Direct actions are OK.
Reactions:
- To get Parry, you'd need Defensive Duelist. Uh oh, that takes another ASI which we absolutely don't have to give.

Missing features:
- Second Wind
- Action Surge
- Martial Archetype (3 features)
- Indomitable

Calculated CR: actually works, assuming we utterly gimp ourself and throw away 99.9% of everything the fighter class brings to the table.
Rules violations: Ability scores don't add up -- too many points needed for point buy to get the requisite feats to make the build work. By...a crap-ton. But meh. You're free to adjust ability scores. Violation level: meh
Rules violation: The substitution of Multiattack for Extra Attack gives the Bandit Captain an extra free bonus action. Violation level: you decide.



Hey, he's a wizard, right? Should be really easy. Stat block says level 18, so...here we go.

Ability scores (assuming ASIs at 4, 8, 12, and 16): Nope. Can't do it He's at 40 points PB minimum, even with the four ASIs.
HP: Actually works out!
Saving throws: check.
Skills: uh oh, he's got expertise in both of his skills. That's not something you can get without a feat. That he doesn't have and can't afford.
Resistances: NM BPS (Stoneskin): check. Damage from spells...uh oh, where's that coming from? It's not part of stoneskin. And doesn't require concentration or anything else. It can't be the Robe of the Archmagi (which he isn't listed as wearing, but might be rational)--that doesn't provide it and would mess up his DC/attack bonus and AC.
Languages: lol no. You don't get 6 languages from your class levels, even with a background. Wizards don't get any by default, so they're at racial languages (not included here) and 2 from Sage.

Traits:
- Magic Resistance: Oops, we're done. Can't get this as a blanket effect on a PC without being tied to a specific race, which these NPCs are not.
- Spellcasting: This actually checks out...mostly. Got disguise self and invisibility as his Signature Spells, which he gets at 18th level. Doesn't have nearly enough spells prepped (20 vs 23 he should have), and is missing a cantrip he should have.

Actions: No issues here.

Rules Violations:
- ASIs. He's way over-weight here, not even counting the need to take Skill Expert (which wasn't published at that point) 2x, which you can't do. Or take 2 levels in rogue...which would throw off the HP calculations. Violation level: Meh. Maybe he rolled for it and got really really lucky?
- Resistance to spell damage. This can't be gotten as a static thing by PCs that I know of. At best, you're looking at a legendary-class item (not listed on his stat block). Violation level: Unrecoverable
- Magic Resistance. This can't be gotten as a static thing by PCs without items (not listed). Violation level: major.
- Languages: Nope. Sorry, just nope. Not without spending another ASI he doesn't have for Linguist.


Well, I'm 0/3 without any significant rules violations. And the two caster stat blocks? They're the worst of the lot! Which is ironic, since those are the ones complained about. One gets extra spell slots for free, the other gets to (partially) ignore most counterplay (resistance to spell damage? Advantage vs saves and magic, no concentration (because he's concentrating on something else?).

I actually 100% agree with your thesis (NPCs !=PCs and need not be built to emulate them), so don't take this as an objection but more as a nitpick: for what it's worth, the Archmage's Magic Resistance trait and passive resistance to spell damage are both meant to represent the 14th level feature of Abjuration wizards, I'm pretty sure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I actually 100% agree with your thesis (NPCs !=PCs and need not be built to emulate them), so don't take this as an objection but more as a nitpick: for what it's worth, the Archmage's Magic Resistance trait and passive resistance to spell damage are both meant to represent the 14th level feature of Abjuration wizards, I'm pretty sure.

Maybe. But do note that that only gives you advantage vs spells, while the Magic Resistance trait also includes advantage vs magical effects. But that's a good catch.

Of course, that says only abjurers can be archmages. Which is a bit daft.

[OldTrees1]

"Those people" seem fine as long as it's something a PHB (N)PC could achieve. "They" don't seem to be insisting that the monster creator necessarily show their work, especially when it's obvious.

This feels like you're attacking a strawman so unless you can find an actual person who actually has the objections you claim "they" have, I'm going to bow out at this point.

Yet people are whining up a storm about "wizard" NPCs getting an arcane blast that PCs can't get. It's been repeatedly said across many threads that PCs and NPCs should play by the same rules. They don't. And never have.

Which other thread? I have had trouble following this thread because it seemed like one sided jousting at windmills. That is certainly partially my fault for failing to follow your argument, but could you help me understand it better?

I noticed some minor concerns, but nothing worth creating a thread over. Even then I keep getting confused about which of those concerns you are arguing about.
A) "If the Players have an expectation about 'Wizards', and this Mage does not meet that expectation, then calling them a 'Wizard' risks a miscommunication. Be careful and avoid unforced errors."
B) "If it is possible for any mage to learn Arcane Blast in this setting, then it seems reasonable for a PC mage (a subset of the set of mages) to be able to learn it eventually to."

I get even more confused when I see you agreed with "A" and did not see anyone argue "B" in this thread.


Sure PCs and NPCs, by default when the GM has not modified things further, have some rule differences and some overlapping rules. However I doubt that was actually the point of contention. (Although I think Pex and you are violently agreeing on that matter)


I apologize, I am just very confused.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Which other thread?

The original thread was discussing the changes in NPC format that has been in newer books post Tasha.

In specific the remake of the wizards in MP:MoM. The argument focusing on an opinion that mages having "Arcane Blast" as a base attack instead of a cantrip. There were several arguments but one was that it was somehow a violation of 5e's design to have NPCs have powers PCs couldn't get

After numerous examples were posted of NPCs having powers that PCs couldn't get dated back to the original 5e Monster Manual.

That broke into a debate over rather or not disparity between PC builds and NPC building was a good or bad thing.

[Rukelnikov]

The original thread was discussing the changes in NPC format that has been in newer books post Tasha.

In specific the remake of the wizards in MP:MoM. The argument focusing on an opinion that mages having "Arcane Blast" as a base attack instead of a cantrip. There were several arguments but one was that it was somehow a violation of 5e's design to have NPCs have powers PCs couldn't get

After numerous examples were posted of NPCs having powers that PCs couldn't get dated back to the original 5e Monster Manual.

That broke into a debate over rather or not disparity between PC builds and NPC building was a good or bad thing.

I can't believe anyone meant that literally. Were they arguing PCs should be able to have the powers of Demogorgon or Orcus? I doubt so, so clearly they didn't mean NPCs, in general. I haven't read that thread (or if I did, I don't remember it), however, I'd hazard a guess and say the argument is probably something like:

"if the "wizards" from the academy where my PC studied magic, all have X ability, how come my PC which was taught by those very same wizards, can't have that ability?"

And its a perfectly reasonable question, since its hard to believe that's where your character learnt magic, since the magic they do and is common to all of them, is completely different from yours.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I can't believe anyone meant that literally. Were they arguing PCs should be able to have the powers of Demogorgon or Orcus? I doubt so, so clearly they didn't mean NPCs, in general. I haven't read that thread (or if I did, I don't remember it), however, I'd hazard a guess and say the argument is probably something like:

"if the "wizards" from the academy where my PC studied magic, all have X ability, how come my PC which was taught by those very same wizards, can't have that ability?"

And its a perfectly reasonable question, since its hard to believe that's where your character learnt magic, since the magic they do and is common to all of them, is completely different from yours.

Yes, the actual argument is "Why is the difference so pronounced simply because one is an NPC and the other is a PC" not "I want to have all of these abilities and its unfair that I can't". With regards to a "violation of 5e design" that's more in reference to a players expectations on whether a spellcaster is casting a spell, which in a majority of cases will now be "no" because spellcasting NPC's now feature powerful abilities that circumvent player effects that only interact with spells rather than magical effects (a distinction that, while not new, was exceedingly rare) making things less intuitive for a player.

But, I tried desperately to explain that and it went so poorly that a spinoff thread popped up engaging with an argument nobody actually made.

[Dante]

I can't believe anyone meant that literally. Were they arguing PCs should be able to have the powers of Demogorgon or Orcus? I doubt so, so clearly they didn't mean NPCs, in general. I haven't read that thread (or if I did, I don't remember it), however, I'd hazard a guess and say the argument is probably something like:

"if the "wizards" from the academy where my PC studied magic, all have X ability, how come my PC which was taught by those very same wizards, can't have that ability?"

And its a perfectly reasonable question, since its hard to believe that's where your character learnt magic, since the magic they do and is common to all of them, is completely different from yours.

The argument I made (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25480128&postcount=966) on that thread was that Ben Robbins had a point when he said (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25480128&postcount=966):


Same Description, Same Rule

Rules should not surprise players. More specifically, if you describe a situation to the players and then describe the rules or modifiers that will apply because of the situation, the players should not go “whaaaa?”

...snip... The game world is imaginary. It does not exist except in the minds of the participants. Each person has their own mind and their own imagination, which makes it all the more important to make sure there is a consensus, that you are all operating in the _same_ fictitious world and in agreement about how things work. Consistency makes that easier, inconsistency makes it harder.

To use an example from M&M, the players encounter one machine gun that uses a normal attack roll, and then later they encounter another machine gun that uses an Area attack instead (automatic hit, Reflex save to reduce damage). Conceptually the two machine guns are identical — one is bigger but otherwise the same.

A player sees the second machine gun before it fires and says “a ha, I will dodge to increase my Defense, which will make me harder to hit!” Logical but completely incorrect, because that player doesn’t know that the second machine gun uses a rule mechanic that has nothing to do with Defense.

Or to take another example, one supervillain has a lightning bolt that does normal damage and requires a Toughness save, but another character has a lightning bolt that requires a Fortitude save instead, bypassing force fields and anything else granting a Toughness bonus. Advantageous yes, but the person getting hit is unlikely to see it as consistent or fair.

There’s a simple fix for this:

The same description should never be modeled with two different rules. If you want to use a different rule, there should be a different description.

[Psyren]

"if the "wizards" from the academy where my PC studied magic, all have X ability, how come my PC which was taught by those very same wizards, can't have that ability?"


Why are you assuming "all the wizards from that academy have X ability?" You're basing that on a sample size of {wizards you encountered that used the MotM wizard statblock}, which is only representative of the population if the DM says it is. Maybe you encountered the only Transmuters there who figured out the trick of making a Transmuter's Stone for instance.

In other words (points at sig), rather than choosing assumptions that don't fit with the text and complaining that the text is wrong, try choosing different assumptions.



The same description should never be modeled with two different rules. If you want to use a different rule, there should be a different description.

I agree with this if we're talking about something specific like "Mindflayer" or "Erinyes." But some labels are much broader than that; "Transmuter Wizard" does not need to be a straitjacket to one specific set of abilities, nor does "Archmage." There are also descriptions that can be tied to different rules based on factors not immediately obvious in the label, like "Vampire" or "Lich."


Yes, the actual argument is "Why is the difference so pronounced simply because one is an NPC and the other is a PC" not "I want to have all of these abilities and its unfair that I can't". With regards to a "violation of 5e design" that's more in reference to a players expectations on whether a spellcaster is casting a spell, which in a majority of cases will now be "no" because spellcasting NPC's now feature powerful abilities that circumvent player effects that only interact with spells rather than magical effects (a distinction that, while not new, was exceedingly rare) making things less intuitive for a player.

I don't see how it's "less intuitive." Every single PC class in the game has magical effects that don't function like spells. Why can't the NPC versions do the same?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why are you assuming "all the wizards from that academy have X ability?" You're basing that on a sample size of {wizards you encountered that used the MotM wizard statblock}, which is only representative of the population if the DM says it is. Maybe you encountered the only Transmuters there who figured out the trick of making a Transmuter's Stone for instance.

In other words (points at sig), rather than choosing assumptions that don't fit with the text and complaining that the text is wrong, try choosing different assumptions.

I agree with this if we're talking about something specific like "Mindflayer" or "Erinyes." But some labels are much broader than that; "Transmuter Wizard" does not need to be a straitjacket to one specific set of abilities, nor does "Archmage." There are also descriptions that can be tied to different rules based on factors not immediately obvious in the label, like "Vampire" or "Lich."

I don't see how it's "less intuitive." Every single PC class in the game has magical effects that don't function like spells. Why can't the NPC versions do the same?

Right. Being a wizard who studied at an academy (which is in and of itself only a tiny fraction of all wizards, let alone any specific academy) doesn't mean that you're a carbon copy of another wizard. For all you know, you might be the only one with that powerset in the setting. Every wizard could be different, united only in that they learned their spells via study (which is in and of itself an incoherent assumption that has massively bad consequences for settings, but I digress). What spells they can learn (ie their spell list), how their powers manifest, and all the details may be absolutely individual.

[BRC]

As regards NPC spellcasters, and forgive me if this has already come up, there's also the factor of how different statblocks will be used.

D&D is partially a logistics puzzle. A wizard PC doesn't just fire off their highest level spell slot each round, because they expect to want to preserve some spell slots for later.

The power of an NPC wizard is going to vary wildly depending on if they're firing off their biggest spell slots each round, or if they're acting like they want to preserve some power.


"Arcane Blast" is supposed to serve as a stand-in for the NPC wizard throwing around higher level spells, but with less paperwork for the DM from tracking spell slots.

"Arcane Blast" is the Doylist explanation. The Watsonian explanation is that they're just throwing around some refluffed version of Scorching Ray or whatever and we're not bothering to track the spell slots because we don't expect them to run out in a relevant timescale.


Which is to say the PC Wizard CAN learn Arcane Blast. Pick and refluff a damage spell of your choice. Yes, you can't throw it every round forever, but the idea is neither can the NPC wizard, that statblock is only expected to exist for 6 rounds tops, and if they want to spend all 6 rounds casting Fireball, they could.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't see how it's "less intuitive." Every single PC class in the game has magical effects that don't function like spells. Why can't the NPC versions do the same?

Many of those magical effects don't actually target enemies and they're not all that common either. It's a separate issue when an NPC is doing it though because there are several PC's whose choice to learn Counterspell, Antimagic Field, Globe of Invulnerability Dispel Magic or Mage Slayer (just to list a few examples) could be a costly and permanent choice. If those players made the choice not knowing that there will be substantially less opportunity to use it when the situations they're dealing with are still presenting as "spells being cast by a spellcaster" that it unintuitive.


Right. Being a wizard who studied at an academy (which is in and of itself only a tiny fraction of all wizards, let alone any specific academy) doesn't mean that you're a carbon copy of another wizard. For all you know, you might be the only one with that powerset in the setting. Every wizard could be different, united only in that they learned their spells via study (which is in and of itself an incoherent assumption that has massively bad consequences for settings, but I digress). What spells they can learn (ie their spell list), how their powers manifest, and all the details may be absolutely individual.

And this continues to miss the point, deliberately at this point I feel. Being an NPC should not make your ability to cast spells functionally different. I don't care whether the abilities are different in application, I care whether they interact with all of the same aspects of the game. The fact that you and Psyren continue to deliberately ignore this distinction is becoming increasingly frustrating, you're not engaging with the argument myself and others are making, you're twisting it into something else and dismissing it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And this continues to miss the point, deliberately at this point I feel. Being an NPC should not make your ability to cast spells functionally different. I don't care whether the abilities are different in application, I care whether they interact with all of the same aspects of the game. The fact that you and Psyren continue to deliberately ignore this distinction is becoming increasingly frustrating, you're not engaging with the argument myself and others are making, you're twisting it into something else and dismissing it.

It's not because they're not PCs. It's because they're not you and you're not them. There's no expectation that PCs will have access to every piece of the game. Or that NPCs will. That's something you're inserting in there and getting frustrated about, entirely self-inflicted. It has nothing to do with their PC status (or not). It's perfectly common and normal for every single person in the setting to "cast spells functionally differently". Because the fiction is not a game, and the fiction doesn't have those bright-line pigeonholes and mechanics.

And these sorts of abilities have existing since the very beginning. Both on the PC side and on the NPC side. There is nothing new here except that they're becoming more common.

[BRC]

What if they brought back the old "Spell Like Ability" Label, and gave it some clear rules, for stuff like "Arcane Blast".

A Spell Like Ability is a spell in all ways, except that it can be done at-will.

Arcane Blast is a 3rd level evocation SLA. Anything that interacts with spells interacts with it as if it were a 3rd level evocation spell. Just slap a level and school onto anything that's supposed to be a stand-in for "They cast a spell"

[PhoenixPhyre]

What if they brought back the old "Spell Like Ability" Label, and gave it some clear rules, for stuff like "Arcane Blast".

A Spell Like Ability is a spell in all ways, except that it can be done at-will.

Arcane Blast is a 3rd level evocation SLA. Anything that interacts with spells interacts with it as if it were a 3rd level evocation spell. Just slap a level and school onto anything that's supposed to be a stand-in for "They cast a spell"

Honestly, it'd be easier[1] to just label it as "Spell ([Cantrip/nth]): Arcane Blast" if that was their intent.

[1] and something they should have done.

[BRC]

Honestly, it'd be easier[1] to just label it as "Spell ([Cantrip/nth]): Arcane Blast" if that was their intent.

[1] and something they should have done.

I think their intent was to make running spellcaster enemies easier and more consistent, rather than to explicitly block Counterspell and the like.

There just wasn't a rules-space for NPC only Spells that exist as stand-ins for "It's not worth it to track spell slots for this statblock", and they didn't feel like carving such a space out. Having a generic "Spell" label might be the trick.

If an ability is labeled as a Spell, using it is treated like casting a spell.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's not because they're not PCs. It's because they're not you and you're not them. There's no expectation that PCs will have access to every piece of the game. Or that NPCs will. That's something you're inserting in there and getting frustrated about, entirely self-inflicted. It has nothing to do with their PC status (or not). It's perfectly common and normal for every single person in the setting to "cast spells functionally differently". Because the fiction is not a game, and the fiction doesn't have those bright-line pigeonholes and mechanics.

And these sorts of abilities have existing since the very beginning. Both on the PC side and on the NPC side. There is nothing new here except that they're becoming more common.

They did not previously exist as intentional and deliberate spell substitutes though. Now they do, explicitly so. I'll once again remind you that the Bard statblock lost its ability to cast Thunderwave and gained Cacophony... which is functionally identical to Thunderwave, except it is not a spell. Because it's not a spell, it can't be countered, defended against by an Ancients Paladin Aura or Globe of Invulnerability. It can also be used while the Bard is invisible without breaking invisibility because it is neither an attack or a spell.

Does that make my objections clear? I'm not asking for them to be built and played identically but a player has every reasonable expectation to wonder why some invisible creature is continiously able to "cast thunderwave" on a coin flip through invisibility while the party Paladin's main subclass feature has been reduced to a ribbon feature.

Additionally, since you seem to agree that the implementation is poor and that the abilities should be considered spells or spell like, I don't understand exactly why you're taking a stance of "Disagreement" under the pretense that you are being argued against with an argument that simply does not exist.

[Hytheter]

Extra Attack isn't the same as Multiattack but from the player's perspective it might as well be. The enemy comes up to them and hits them a few times with a pointy stick, using the normal rules for weapon attacks. You can disarm them of the stick to stop them from hitting you with it. You can use defensive abilities that are specific to enemy weapon attacks. If they're under Invisibility or Sanctuary, those spells will end. Players can see a guy with two swords, deduce that he will use them to attack a bunch, and then apply their understanding of the game to account for that.

The MPMM fake spells are nothing like this. You see a guy with a staff and a pointy hat and deduce that he will wave it around to do weird stuff at you, and he does. But then you try to apply your understanding of the game to account for this everything breaks down. You disarm him of his staff and gag him but it doesn't stop him at all. You try to counterspell or use your Ancients Paladin's aura to defend yourself but get told it's not technically a spell.

Surely you can see how that's different?

[Demostheknees]

Yes, the actual argument is "Why is the difference so pronounced simply because one is an NPC and the other is a PC"




"Arcane Blast" is supposed to serve as a stand-in for the NPC wizard throwing around higher level spells, but with less paperwork for the DM from tracking spell slots.

"Arcane Blast" is the Doylist explanation. The Watsonian explanation is that they're just throwing around some refluffed version of Scorching Ray or whatever and we're not bothering to track the spell slots because we don't expect them to run out in a relevant timescale.

In the spirit of engaging with the exact argument you are making, you are asking why there is such a pronounced difference, and I think that BRC's comment really illustrates this well, but let me add to it.

All NPCs use mechanics that are meant to be an abstraction of the system that the PCs are engaging with, serving the direct purpose of making the DMs job easier. For martial characters, it is easier to see a similarity (though as PP as pointed out they are quite different mechanically) as the martial combat system is fairly well-bound and so it doesn't take much abstraction to get something that is easy for the DM to use.

What we are seeing now is the designers attempt at providing a full abstraction of the spellcasting mechanics for NPCs that serves the same purpose as the martial mechanics abstraction - make the DM's job easier. Because the spellcasting mechanics of this game are not nearly as well-bound as the martial ones, the abstraction is at a much higher level.

IMO treating it like it is an absolute, specific change to spellcasting mechanics, but only for NPCs, is going against the design principles of 5e as a whole. That has never been how it works, 5e is all about abstracting mechanics for DMs. Nothing that happens on our end is actually happening "in-fiction" we must always find, as BRC put it, the "Watsonian" explanation for what is actually happening in the world.

Now, if you counter my above argument with the fact that none of the abilities are spells/magical and can't be countered, AMF, etc - I will concede that it is indeed ambiguous, but with the assumption that it is meant to be an abstraction, one can easily make the call that thus they are absolutely meant to represent spells and be treated as such, or not. Different strokes for different folks.

[BRC]

They did not previously exist as intentional and deliberate spell substitutes though. Now they do, explicitly so. I'll once again remind you that the Bard statblock lost its ability to cast Thunderwave and gained Cacophony... which is functionally identical to Thunderwave, except it is not a spell.

Does that make my objections clear?

I feel like there are two questions that are being talked past each other.

Question 1: Should NPCs have access to abilities that PCs do not get?
Answer Yes. The game is full of those, and NPC statblocks are built backwards from the purpose they serve. NPC's like the Gladiator have the "Brute" ability because their purpose is to be a humanoid statblock that hits hard with weapons, and working backwards from that using PC mechanics would be far more complicated than necessary.

"Cacophony" as a new ability makes sense, because you can put the effect in the statblock, rather than making the DM go look up how Thunderwave works. Working backwards from the purpose of making the statblock easier to use, it makes perfect sense to build Cacophony instead of just listing Thunderwave as a castable spell.

Question 2: Should NPCs representing Spellcasters have abilities that replace spells, but are NOT mechanically speaking, Spells.

Answer: No. NOT because these are super abilities beyond what PC's can do, but because there is a lot of interplay in the spellcaster ecosystem. Treating these abilities as not-spells cuts off those points of interaction.


I could see this being intentional with, say, a Pit Fiend's at-will Fireball or Detect Magic spells. A Pit Fiend probably doesn't Detect Magic as a wizard does, so much as they can naturally detect magic, due to being a potent magical being themselves. I Could see a Pit Fiend's Fireball or Wall of Fire coming from a connection to infernal power that is instinctive even beyond what a sorcerer does, more akin to a Dragon's Breath than a Wizard's Spell, such that it can't be counterspelled.


For stat blocks representing arcane spellcasters, if these abilities are just Doyalist takes on them casting spells, let them be treated as Spells. I can't speak to the RAI, but if the RAI is anything but "yeah, Cacophany is a spell", then the RAI is dumb and should be ignored.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I can't believe anyone meant that literally. Were they arguing PCs should be able to have the powers of Demogorgon or Orcus? I doubt so, so clearly they didn't mean NPCs, in general. I haven't read that thread (or if I did, I don't remember it), however, I'd hazard a guess and say the argument is probably something like:

No, the argument narrowed down to because the Wizards are humanoids they have to be built like PCs, which doesn't change what I said.


"if the "wizards" from the academy where my PC studied magic, all have X ability, how come my PC which was taught by those very same wizards, can't have that ability?"

Have you ever been to an academy in the real world? Shockingly enough, I could be a PHD and meet another PHD that took a completely different set of classes and skills and knowledges. The analogy breaks even with just PC wizards. "How come I, an Enchanter Wizard, can't learn Arcane Ward, or Portent? Because once they picked a subclass other than Abjurer or Diviner those abilities are forever things they can't have. So no, the idea that an ability can't be picked up by everyone isn't unique or wierd.


And its a perfectly reasonable question, since its hard to believe that's where your character learnt magic, since the magic they do and is common to all of them, is completely different from yours.

Who says it is? Who says you're unique? Who says that those NPC wizards didn't study from an Armorer Artificer and learned to throw energy without somatic or verbal components? As mentioned above, there's no guarantee of such.



that's more in reference to a players expectations on whether a spellcaster is casting a spell, which in a majority of cases will now be "no" because spellcasting NPC's now feature powerful abilities that circumvent player effects that only interact with spells rather than magical effects (a distinction that, while not new, was exceedingly rare) making things less intuitive for a player.

Which we also discussed as false because a "Wizard" can mean multiple things and a humanoid throwing magical energy isn't automatically a spell as we've proven even in PC design. Your PC might assume someone is casting a cantrip, but then your PC is wrong. It happens.



To use an example from M&M, the players encounter one machine gun that uses a normal attack roll, and then later they encounter another machine gun that uses an Area attack instead (automatic hit, Reflex save to reduce damage). Conceptually the two machine guns are identical — one is bigger but otherwise the same.

A player sees the second machine gun before it fires and says “a ha, I will dodge to increase my Defense, which will make me harder to hit!” Logical but completely incorrect, because that player doesn’t know that the second machine gun uses a rule mechanic that has nothing to do with Defense.

As discussed, this is false on a number of levels and already false IN GAME with examples on both PC and NPC side.

Your machine gun example is wrong simply because it lacks clarifying information. Now, if both examples SPECIFICALLY described an exact model gatling gun, yeah, they should operate the same. But "Machine Gun" covers a LOT of things and the PCs might not have automatic view of all the details.

Onto PC Examples:

Artificer: Artillerist Eldritch Cannons can all look identical, right up until they start firing Force Bolts or spewing flame or healing. Their arcane firearm can rotate damage types, so you might see one Artillerist shoot Fire and another Cold. Firearm might look the same if they learned the same. Meanwhile there's two Armorers. One gets right up in your face and does Thunder punches. Alright, so that armor does... Wait, that other one is flinging lightning from a distance, without spell casting components, so it can't be counterspelled.

Barbarian: Well that first Barbarian I met Yelled loudly and started hitting much harder. Alright, I understand this ability... Wait, another one yelled loudly and grew a Scorpion tail. And that one over there yelled loudly and started summoning exploding flumphs...

This could continue.


Or to take another example, one supervillain has a lightning bolt that does normal damage and requires a Toughness save, but another character has a lightning bolt that requires a Fortitude save instead, bypassing force fields and anything else granting a Toughness bonus. Advantageous yes, but the person getting hit is unlikely to see it as consistent or fair.

Time for NPC examples, someone brought up "If I see a suit of fullplate with a longsword I should know I'm fighting a knight." Should you? Could be a Knight, could be a Gish, could be Animated Armor, could be an Iron Golem, could be a Deathknight....

A description absolutely gives a basic idea. But it's never the whole picture and it's not unreasonable for it to have aspects not expected.

As for your supervillain, who says those are the same powers? Fun example. A normal Wizard casts lightning bolt at someone who's electric resistance and does very little. Another Wizard has elemental adept and blasts through that resistance. Both attacks look identical and you have no way of knowing the second wizard has Elemental Adept.

[ProsecutorGodot]

In the spirit of engaging with the exact argument you are making, you are asking why there is such a pronounced difference, and I think that BRC's comment really illustrates this well, but let me add to it.

All NPCs use mechanics that are meant to be an abstraction of the system that the PCs are engaging with, serving the direct purpose of making the DMs job easier. For martial characters, it is easier to see a similarity (though as PP as pointed out they are quite different mechanically) as the martial combat system is fairly well-bound and so it doesn't take much abstraction to get something that is easy for the DM to use.

What we are seeing now is the designers attempt at providing a full abstraction of the spellcasting mechanics for NPCs that serves the same purpose as the martial mechanics abstraction - make the DM's job easier. Because the spellcasting mechanics of this game are not nearly as well-bound as the martial ones, the abstraction is at a much higher level.

IMO treating it like it is an absolute, specific change to spellcasting mechanics, but only for NPCs, is going against the design principles of 5e as a whole. That has never been how it works, 5e is all about abstracting mechanics for DMs. Nothing that happens on our end is actually happening "in-fiction" we must always find, as BRC put it, the "Watsonian" explanation for what is actually happening in the world.

Now, if you counter my above argument with the fact that none of the abilities are spells/magical and can't be countered, AMF, etc - I will concede that it is indeed ambiguous, but with the assumption that it is meant to be an abstraction, one can easily make the call that thus they are absolutely meant to represent spells and be treated as such, or not. Different strokes for different folks.

I would entirely agree if one of the designers wasn't on record in the same video (https://youtu.be/d8fpggA759c) stating that the effects are intentionally designed as combined effects or replacements for spells and at the same time making clear that they are also intentionally not considered spells.

I find this drawn comparison to be troubling, because the pre-existing magical abilities they use to support this change were never really found in ways that were relatable to a spell. It might be unreasonable for a player to have an expectation that a Mind Blast or Dragon's Breath was a spell as they've never functioned similarly to one or pretended to be, it's not unreasonable however to assume that a Bard's Cacophony or a Derro Savant's Chromatic Beam is a spell because they're intentionally designed to be similar or the same in effect to one.


For stat blocks representing arcane spellcasters, if these abilities are just Doyalist takes on them casting spells, let them be treated as Spells. I can't speak to the RAI, but if the RAI is anything but "yeah, Cacophany is a spell", then the RAI is dumb and should be ignored.
Sad to disappoint you, but yes, that is the intention and I agree it's dumb and should be ignored. The link above shows Jeremy Crawford stating as such.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For stat blocks representing arcane spellcasters, if these abilities are just Doyalist takes on them casting spells, let them be treated as Spells. I can't speak to the RAI, but if the RAI is anything but "yeah, Cacophany is a spell", then the RAI is dumb and should be ignored.

I'll note that the Deathlocks (who are explicitly (former) warlocks) don't get eldritch blast. Instead, they get...abilities that are basically eldritch blast. And the Cambion NPC gets Fiery Rays...which is scorching ray at will that doesn't say it's a spell.

These things have always existed on people who do cast arcane spells. They're just more common.

And I agree that I'd prefer they went a different direction. But it's a matter of taste and preference. And I think the wailing and gnashing of teeth is super overblown. On a scale from 1-10, it's about a 2. Notable, but something that could be trivially errata'd and houseruling it isn't going to break anything at all and is a trivial change.

[Pex]

Why are you assuming "all the wizards from that academy have X ability?" You're basing that on a sample size of {wizards you encountered that used the MotM wizard statblock}, which is only representative of the population if the DM says it is. Maybe you encountered the only Transmuters there who figured out the trick of making a Transmuter's Stone for instance.



Because we are told these are meant to be just dropped in the game to be easier for the DM. Since a DM dropping a generic wizard NPC would use these new wizards, all NPC wizards will have this ability.

[ProsecutorGodot]

And I agree that I'd prefer they went a different direction. But it's a matter of taste and preference. And I think the wailing and gnashing of teeth is super overblown. On a scale from 1-10, it's about a 2. Notable, but something that could be trivially errata'd and houseruling it isn't going to break anything at all and is a trivial change.

All of the issues these changes were meant to address were equally trivial to change so that is not an argument worth any weight.

And you're right, it is a matter of taste and preference. I preferred it before, and these changes have fixed none of my problems with spellcasting while introducing new ones. I would greatly appreciate if my dislike of these changes wasn't continuously dismissed as pointless wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[BRC]

I would entirely agree if one of the designers wasn't on record in the same video (https://youtu.be/d8fpggA759c) stating that the effects are intentionally designed as combined effects or replacements for spells and at the same time making clear that they are also intentionally not considered spells.

I find this drawn comparison to be troubling, because the pre-existing magical abilities they use to support this change were never really found in ways that were relatable to a spell. It might be unreasonable for a player to have an expectation that a Mind Blast or Dragon's Breath was a spell as they've never functioned similarly to one or pretended to be, it's not unreasonable however to assume that a Bard's Cacophony or a Derro Savant's Chromatic Beam is a spell because they're intentionally designed to be similar or the same in effect to one.


Sad to disappoint you, but yes, that is the intention and I agree it's dumb and should be ignored. The link above shows Jeremy Crawford stating as such.

So He does.

I can kind of see the logic behind this? Specifically as a nerf to Counterspell. I've got issues with Counterspell (It's an absurdly powerful spell, negating an opponent's Action at the cost of a Reaction), and stopping PC's from just being able to shut down NPC spellcaster turns is a reasonable goal.

Personally I'd rather cut the problem off at the source and nerf Counterspell (My go-to nerf is to say that if you cast Counterspell, you cannot cast spells 1st level or above on your next turn. Similar to how casting a spell as a Bonus Action limits you to cantrips only for your Action), or build a Counterspell Resistance of some sort into the NPC statblock proper, but the first doesn't fit in a Monster Manual reprint, and the second would be more complicated.

Mostly I dislike the idea of "Spells" vs "Things Wizards can do but are NOT spells" as fluff distinctions.


I'll note that the Deathlocks (who are explicitly (former) warlocks) don't get eldritch blast. Instead, they get...abilities that are basically eldritch blast. And the Cambion NPC gets Fiery Rays...which is scorching ray at will that doesn't say it's a spell.

These things have always existed on people who do cast arcane spells. They're just more common.

And I agree that I'd prefer they went a different direction. But it's a matter of taste and preference. And I think the wailing and gnashing of teeth is super overblown. On a scale from 1-10, it's about a 2. Notable, but something that could be trivially errata'd and houseruling it isn't going to break anything at all and is a trivial change.

To nitpick, I'd still say that a Cambion or even a Deathlock is a different sort of Being than a Wizard, so them being able to do magic stuff in ways that are not "Casting a Spell" is fine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To nitpick, I'd still say that a Cambion or even a Deathlock is a different sort of Being than a Wizard, so them being able to do magic stuff in ways that are not "Casting a Spell" is fine.

I don't see why "wizard" is special. Especially since Cambions are half-mortal and deathlocks got their power from being a (mortal) warlock. They're still basically mortal spellcasters.

I'll also note that the idea of "learning your power strictly by study" is incoherent at both setting and mechanics level -- you can have someone who knows more about magic than a wizard, yet can't cast a single spell. Arcana proficiency is optional for wizards, so you can have a wizard who knows only what his native intelligence has taught him and has never formally studied magic who can cast 9th level spells. Or a Sage rogue with high INT and Arcana Expertise who can't cast a single spell. Study alone is not enough, in fiction.

Basically, the root of all D&D problems is the wizard. Remove him and the problems all go away.

Edit: Looking at it, there was a sharp uptick in these sorts of abilities in FToD.
* Draconian Mage (sorcerer-esque)
* Draconian Mastermind (also sorcerer-esque)
* Dragon Blessed (cleric-esque)
* Dragon Chosen
* Dragon Speaker (bard-esque)
* Dragonborn of X

But it's existed before:
* Drow Arachnomancer is a warlock-esque...with a change shape, a poison touch, and a single-target web spell.
* Drow Inquisitor had Death Lance and Discern Lie
* Drow Mage (MM) had Summon Demon, which doesn't require concentration or a spell slot but is dismissable. And he's explicitly a wizard.
* Drow Priestess has the same ability
* Drow Matron Mother has a whole suite of abilities that no cleric has. Despite being, in fiction, just a powerful cleric.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Because we are told these are meant to be just dropped in the game to be easier for the DM. Since a DM dropping a generic wizard NPC would use these new wizards, all NPC wizards will have this ability.

Except the reality proves it a lie. Because PC wizards exist, as do specific wizards like The Black Staff or Iggwilv who operate on their own weird scales.

So no, all that's established is that potentially all generic specialist wizards have this ability.

[Dante]

I'll also note that the idea of "learning your power strictly by study" is incoherent at both setting and mechanics level -- you can have someone who knows more about magic than a wizard, yet can't cast a single spell. Arcana proficiency is optional for wizards, so you can have a wizard who knows only what his native intelligence has taught him and has never formally studied magic who can cast 9th level spells. Or a Sage rogue with high INT and Arcana Expertise who can't cast a single spell. Study alone is not enough, in fiction.

You're confusing "knowing what" with "knowing how". I may have four graduate degrees in the history of martial arts, may be able to recognize every move used in an MMA competition and tell you who first invented it and how it is often used, yet be utterly unable to execute those moves to win a fight.

That doesn't mean my knowledge of martial arts is incoherent. It means that learning how is different from learning what.

[Psyren]

Many of those magical effects don't actually target enemies and they're not all that common either. It's a separate issue when an NPC is doing it though because there are several PC's whose choice to learn Counterspell, Antimagic Field, Globe of Invulnerability Dispel Magic or Mage Slayer (just to list a few examples) could be a costly and permanent choice. If those players made the choice not knowing that there will be substantially less opportunity to use it when the situations they're dealing with are still presenting as "spells being cast by a spellcaster" that it unintuitive.

1) Whether or not there is "substantially less opportunity" to counterspell/dispel/globe/etc depends on the DM, not the statblock. Regardless of what abilities you choose or what class you're playing, the DM should be planning and running encounters so that your character has a chance to shine AND a chance to be challenged.

2) Who exactly are these poor players living under a rock and thus unaware that monsters exist in D&D 5th Edition with magical abilities that can't be dispelled or counterspelled? And even if the number of such innocents is truly substantial, every single spellcasting class has mechanics that allow them to change out spells that haven't been or stop being useful, for others that are more useful. So if your DM refuses to utilize spellcasting enemies in your encounters, then the simple stop preparing counterspell.


And this continues to miss the point, deliberately at this point I feel. Being an NPC should not make your ability to cast spells functionally different. I don't care whether the abilities are different in application, I care whether they interact with all of the same aspects of the game. The fact that you and Psyren continue to deliberately ignore this distinction is becoming increasingly frustrating, you're not engaging with the argument myself and others are making, you're twisting it into something else and dismissing it.

You seem to think that "engaging with the argument" requires swallowing your premise whole. It does not. You want NPC non-spell abilities to "interact with all of the same aspects of the game" as spells, and we don't. More importantly, the designers themselves have specifically said they don't either (in the very video you keep linking no less.) If you're not going to accept that, fine, you have options at your disposal like houserules. So yes, us having the unmitigated temerity to continue having different opinions from you about what the design of this game should be is indeed deliberate. If you think the only possible way someone can disagree with you is to miss your point, so be it. (How dare we.)


Because we are told these are meant to be just dropped in the game to be easier for the DM. Since a DM dropping a generic wizard NPC would use these new wizards, all NPC wizards will have this ability.

Composition Fallacy. The wizards you come to blows with in a campaign do not need to be representative of the whole.

[Corran]

Composition Fallacy. The wizards you come to blows with in a campaign do not need to be representative of the whole.
Then you may need a way to communicate that, because it will certainly seem that they are.

[Demostheknees]

I would entirely agree if one of the designers wasn't on record in the same video (https://youtu.be/d8fpggA759c) stating that the effects are intentionally designed as combined effects or replacements for spells and at the same time making clear that they are also intentionally not considered spells.

I find this drawn comparison to be troubling, because the pre-existing magical abilities they use to support this change were never really found in ways that were relatable to a spell. It might be unreasonable for a player to have an expectation that a Mind Blast or Dragon's Breath was a spell as they've never functioned similarly to one or pretended to be, it's not unreasonable however to assume that a Bard's Cacophony or a Derro Savant's Chromatic Beam is a spell because they're intentionally designed to be similar or the same in effect to one.


Sad to disappoint you, but yes, that is the intention and I agree it's dumb and should be ignored. The link above shows Jeremy Crawford stating as such.

Well, as was stated by yourself and others - that's dumb.

If abstraction wasn't what they were going for, they sure did a bad job of convincing me that was the intent just looking at the statblock, but Jeremy Crawford can be wrong/contradictory and has been before. As such, because I enjoy what the stat blocks are doing I will be going forward with the abstraction interpretation, but will no longer argue that was (at least Crawford's) design intent.

I do notice in the video that he specifically doesn't make a distinction between magical abilities and the specific weapon-attack replacement "not-a-spell" Arcane Blast that the new wizards get, which seem to be causing the most friction for folks and for me feels the most like RAI was that it is supposed to be a spell. (for all of the other "special" abilities I can easily see the reasoning for making those explicitly not spells - most monsters have something like that, and the PCs generally do as well.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

You're confusing "knowing what" with "knowing how". I may have four graduate degrees in the history of martial arts, may be able to recognize every move used in an MMA competition and tell you who first invented it and how it is often used, yet be utterly unable to execute those moves to win a fight.

That doesn't mean my knowledge of martial arts is incoherent. It means that learning how is different from learning what.

Except that the "class fiction" (scare quotes intentional) of the wizard is exactly that they learned to do magic simply by studying how magic works. That anyone could do it if they studied magic enough. Yet someone who knows a crapton more about how magic works (because that's what Arcana proficiency represents) can't cast a single spell, but someone who has never formally studied any of it can cast legendary-level spells.

If intelligence and study is enough, then any smart person with Arcana proficiency should be able to cast spells, if even cantrips. They can't. So it can't be that simple. Or the class fiction is incoherent.

[KorvinStarmast]

A Spell Like Ability is a spell in all ways, except that it can be done at-will. Kind of like innate spell casting, which is in the MM. (FSCR needs to be annotated for "Follows Spell Casting Rules" if they are not going to flat out call it a spell.

Honestly, it'd be easier[1] to just label it as "Spell ([Cantrip/nth]): Arcane Blast" if that was their intent. [1] and something they should have done. Part of what the kvetching is about.

You're confusing "knowing what" with "knowing how". I may have four graduate degrees in the history of martial arts, may be able to recognize every move used in an MMA competition and tell you who first invented it and how it is often used, yet be utterly unable to execute those moves to win a fight. Good example.

[OldTrees1]

I feel like there are two questions that are being talked past each other.

Question 1: Should NPCs have access to abilities that PCs do not get?
Answer Yes. The game is full of those, and NPC statblocks are built backwards from the purpose they serve. NPC's like the Gladiator have the "Brute" ability because their purpose is to be a humanoid statblock that hits hard with weapons, and working backwards from that using PC mechanics would be far more complicated than necessary.

"Cacophony" as a new ability makes sense, because you can put the effect in the statblock, rather than making the DM go look up how Thunderwave works. Working backwards from the purpose of making the statblock easier to use, it makes perfect sense to build Cacophony instead of just listing Thunderwave as a castable spell.

Question 2: Should NPCs representing Spellcasters have abilities that replace spells, but are NOT mechanically speaking, Spells.

Answer: No. NOT because these are super abilities beyond what PC's can do, but because there is a lot of interplay in the spellcaster ecosystem. Treating these abilities as not-spells cuts off those points of interaction.

I think you are right, this is why I am so confused by the argument.

I don't see anyone arguing that NPCs and PCs should not follow some different rules. The consensus is the generation rules should differ to better specialize for the type of character they are generating.

I don't see anyone arguing that NPCs and PCs should not follow some of the same rules. It is useful for some fundamental rules to be the same to allow players to be informed about how they can interact with the game.

I don't see anyone arguing NPCs should never have unique features. Although I did notice someone saying the in game fiction can affect which features qualify. If it is possible for NPC mages to learn a technique simply because they are mages at a specific school, then a PC mage that attends that school would probably be eligible to learn that technique. Consider NPC Mages knowing Detect Magic. However if the NPCs mages have a feature that abstracts that technique differently then the PC's feature that abstracts that ability, that can be fine. Consider an NPC Warlock that knows "cast Fireball spell[Recharge 5-6]" instead of using Pact Magic slots for casting Fireball.

I don't see anyone arguing miscommunication is good. Many agreed that using the term "Wizard" to refer to a Mage that behaves differently from the Player's assumptions about the meaning of "Wizard" can result in an unintentional undesirable miscommunication. The same applies to "Spellcaster", even if indirectly due to the Players assuming "Wizard" means "Spellcaster", if it is being used to describe an NPC that does not "cast spells".


@PhoenixPhyre
Am I misunderstanding something? It sounds like the concern about having spellcasters that don't cast spells is a reasonable concern about risking miscommunication.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Am I misunderstanding something? It sounds like the concern about having spellcasters that don't cast spells is a reasonable concern about risking miscommunication.

Here's the thing. There are epic tons of spellcasters that don't cast spells for everything they do. And have been since the MM. Humanoid NPCs of playable races even. And the new stat blocks also cast spells. Just not for everything they do.

To me, it seems like people are qvetching about changes as if it's something new. When it's not. When it's not even close to new. It's been there all along. It feels like "someone moved my cheese" (or "every change breaks someone's workflow").

And I reject outright the idea that every "mage" needs to be a "wizard" or even that every thing that in-fiction is called a wizard needs to hew exactly to the limits of the PC class. That way lies video game settings with labels over people's heads. The name on a stat block is entirely internal to the DM. I do agree that they shouldn't have gone further with labeling these new stat blocks as wizards--I'd prefer if they'd stripped all that verbiage off of every stat block everywhere.

PC classes have no in-fiction meaning except as abstractions over bundles of thematic material. There's no system expectation that if you meet someone that someone calls a "wizard" or a "cleric" or a "paladin" or even a fighter that they'll have the features of that class or that they won't have unique features of their own. That's nowhere in the system. It's being injected in from outside and causing issues. The solution is to drop that expectation, not demand that everything else bow to this foreign, alien assumption.

Edit: and my motivation for this thread is more than just the spellcaster changes. This is a complaint (that NPCs are somehow "cheating" if they use things that PCs don't have access to) has been a perennial one. And the broader topic of what is called "PC/NPC transparency" is important. Everyone focuses on their pet peeve, but disregards all the stuff there about the hierarchical structure of the rules and the difference between "rules" and "content". PCs and NPCs use very different content. But they mostly use the same basic resolution mechanics (except where one side or the other overrides those with content).

This all boils down to specific beats general. And getting people to realize that their objections are matters of taste, about which people can differ and about which there will never be consensus, not matters of objective quality. There's really (as far as I can tell) very little scope for miscommunication here that wasn't already present in a multitude of ways. And I don't expect it to be any more salient than it was.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Then you may need a way to communicate that, because it will certainly seem that they are.

That's simple enough. My campaign has no less than 17 named NPCs who are spellcasters of some sort and don't use the simplified rules. Yay for DM solutions. :)



Part of what the kvetching is about.

Sadly the first answer given about this is what PP is suggesting. Just DM Fiat it one way or another.

But the response was that certain people only play with imaginless DMs who blindly obey the books and never deviate at all and if there's a gap, they just ignore it existing at all. So the discussion branched into intent and design philosophy for something that Rule 0 could 100% fix and has in the case of most of us.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's simple enough. My campaign has no less than 17 named NPCs who are spellcasters of some sort and don't use the simplified rules. Yay for DM solutions. :)


There's actually a quote from one of the style guides for adventure writers to never use a caster stat block as written for a named monster and to always customize it with different spells and abilities, etc. Which then WotC breaks themselves routinely. Consistency is not one of their strengths.

[Psyren]

Then you may need a way to communicate that, because it will certainly seem that they are.

That's neither my problem nor WotC's. The player should always be asking the DM how their world works and whether a given enemy's ability set is representative of a larger whole, or even whether it matters for anything beyond the current scene at all.


You're confusing "knowing what" with "knowing how". I may have four graduate degrees in the history of martial arts, may be able to recognize every move used in an MMA competition and tell you who first invented it and how it is often used, yet be utterly unable to execute those moves to win a fight.

That doesn't mean my knowledge of martial arts is incoherent. It means that learning how is different from learning what.

...How does this not apply to NPCs knowing how to do something PCs, by default, don't?

The default NPC Illusionist knows how to displace themselves for a minute. The default PC Illusionist knows how to do an illusory self instead. WotC doesn't have to mandate one can learn the other, but your DM certainly can.

[BRC]

PC classes have no in-fiction meaning except as abstractions over bundles of thematic material. There's no system expectation that if you meet someone that someone calls a "wizard" or a "cleric" or a "paladin" or even a fighter that they'll have the features of that class or that they won't have unique features of their own. That's nowhere in the system. It's being injected in from outside and causing issues. The solution is to drop that expectation, not demand that everything else bow to this foreign, alien assumption.

So, this is the key point of contention here.

PC classes and NPC statblocks are mechanical abstractions for thematic material.

The Gladiator statblock in the Monster Manual COULD represent a literal gladiator. It could also be used to represent an elite mercenary company captain, a Barbarian Chieftain, a Super-Soldier created by an Alchemist, A member of the Royal Guard. And that's all without even changing it's equipment. Gladiator might as well be labeled "CR 5 Martial Character".

Ser Bob, Knight of the Realm could be a full PC fighter, or use a Gladiator statblock, or be a refluffed Hobgoblin Warlord, depending on how the DM feels like stating up an especially powerful martial combatant. The players don't need to know exactly how Ser Bob's numbers fall out, just so long as he interacts with the fiction as a Very Skilled Martial Combatant would do.

If Ser Bob is statted as a Gladiator, he can make a Shield Bash attack, forcing a save vs being knocked prone. PC fighters can do something similar (Specifically battlemasters with Tripping Strike), but they don't have anything quite like the Gladiator's Shield Bash. However, he interacts with the fiction as Very Skilled Martial Combatant, knocking you down with his shield, so everything is fine. Ser Bob and a PC fighter both fit just fine as a mechanical abstraction for the theme of A Martial Fighter, even if they have some mutually exclusive abilities, because the mechanics are thematically reflected in the same general way.



The issue with Spellcaster NPCs having spell-equivalent Nonspells is that it implies a separate theming. Fighter Alice and Ser Bob are both Fighters, they do basically the same stuff, even if their exact methods are represented slightly differently mechanically. Alice and Bob just trained differently, so Bob gets that shield bash.

Now consider Wizard Christa (PC) and Mage Dan (NPC). They're supposed to share the same Theme, similar to Alice and Bob. Alice has Scorching Ray, which is a Spell, and it being a spell has certain mechanical interactions.
Mage Dan has Arcane Blast, which is NOT a Spell, and lacks those interactions.

While you're correct to say that the "mage" statblock does not NEED to represent the same sort of spellcaster as a PC Wizard. The issue is that as written, these statblocks, which are presented as go-tos so GMs don't need to stat out full PC spellcasters, CANNOT represent the same sort of spellcaster as a PC Wizard. It's not just that Dan has an ability that Christa doesn't, it's that he has an ability that is explicitly unlike all the similar stuff Christa does. He's got Arcane Blast, which cannot be counterspelled. It's not just that Christa can't get that specific ability, it's that basically everything she does is filtered through the Spells mechanic, which has thematic reflections (Can be countered).


Which is fine for the use case of "An NPC that can cast some spells, but also does other magic stuff that is LIKE spells but isn't", but doesn't work for the more common use case of "An NPC that is supposed to have the same theming as a PC". In a world of NPC Statblocks, Christa is the weirdo who can only cast Spells, instead of being able to unleash an arcane blast of unspecified but definitely not-spell nature.


And it would be fine if these nonspell abilities were roughly comparable to the nonspell abilities PC casters get, and some of them are. That's just Shield Bash vs Tripping Strike again.

But when you get direct Spell Replacements that are Nonspells, you get a breakdown of theme. Christa and Dan CANNOT share a theme, because their abilities are explicitly different in type, rather than just detail.


Edit: More practically, it turns into a RAW guessing game. Consider Thunderwave vs Cacophany. There's now a non-arbitrary distinction between if the NPC you're up against is casting the spell Thunderwave, or using the nonspell Cacophany. This is mechanically relevant, say, if you have the Mage Slayer feat. You're up against a Spellcaster, but whether a given ability is a Spell or a Nonspell ability is mostly just up to whether the diviner felt like writing out the ability in the statblock, or just calling it a spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

And the broader topic of what is called "PC/NPC transparency" is important. Everyone focuses on their pet peeve, but disregards all the stuff there about the hierarchical structure of the rules and the difference between "rules" and "content".
PCs and NPCs use very different content.
But they mostly use the same basic resolution mechanics (except where one side or the other overrides those with content). OK, that covers a bit better than my input on "rules have layers, ogres have layers, onions have layers" from a descriptive perspective.
[/QUOTE]


There's actually a quote from one of the style guides for adventure writers to never use a caster stat block as written for a named monster and to always customize it with different spells and abilities, etc. Which then WotC breaks themselves routinely. Consistency is not one of their strengths. I completely missed the subtle distinction between the spell misty step {bonus action} and the reaction misty escape (Volo's Warlock, Archfey) which ended up in with my not using the latter when I really should have, as a DM, and the encounter ended rather quickly.

DM prep is needed, and some people won't do it, or will do it without being thorough (see my example of me above) so the idea that DMs need some of that off loaded isn't necessarily ill founded.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, this is the key point of contention here.

PC classes and NPC statblocks are mechanical abstractions for thematic material.

The Gladiator statblock in the Monster Manual COULD represent a literal gladiator. It could also be used to represent an elite mercenary company captain, a Barbarian Chieftain, a Super-Soldier created by an Alchemist, A member of the Royal Guard. And that's all without even changing it's equipment. Gladiator might as well be labeled "CR 5 Martial Character".

Ser Bob, Knight of the Realm could be a full PC fighter, or use a Gladiator statblock, or be a refluffed Hobgoblin Warlord, depending on how the DM feels like stating up an especially powerful martial combatant. The players don't need to know exactly how Ser Bob's numbers fall out, just so long as he interacts with the fiction as a Very Skilled Martial Combatant would do.

If Ser Bob is statted as a Gladiator, he can make a Shield Bash attack, forcing a save vs being knocked prone. PC fighters can do something similar (Specifically battlemasters with Tripping Strike), but they don't have anything quite like the Gladiator's Shield Bash. However, he interacts with the fiction as Very Skilled Martial Combatant, knocking you down with his shield, so everything is fine. Ser Bob and a PC fighter both fit just fine as a mechanical abstraction for the theme of A Martial Fighter, even if they have some mutually exclusive abilities, because the mechanics are thematically reflected in the same general way.



The issue with Spellcaster NPCs having spell-equivalent Nonspells is that it implies a separate theming. Fighter Alice and Ser Bob are both Fighters, they do basically the same stuff, even if their exact methods are represented slightly differently mechanically. Alice and Bob just trained differently, so Bob gets that shield bash.

Now consider Wizard Christa (PC) and Mage Dan (NPC). They're supposed to share the same Theme, similar to Alice and Bob. Alice has Scorching Ray, which is a Spell, and it being a spell has certain mechanical interactions.
Mage Dan has Arcane Blast, which is NOT a Spell, and lacks those interactions.

While you're correct to say that the "mage" statblock does not NEED to represent the same sort of spellcaster as a PC Wizard. The issue is that as written, these statblocks, which are presented as go-tos so GMs don't need to stat out full PC spellcasters, CANNOT represent the same sort of spellcaster as a PC Wizard. It's not just that Dan has an ability that Christa doesn't, it's that he has an ability that is explicitly unlike all the similar stuff Christa does. He's got Arcane Blast, which cannot be counterspelled. It's not just that Christa can't get that specific ability, it's that basically everything she does is filtered through the Spells mechanic, which has thematic reflections (Can be countered).


Which is fine for the use case of "An NPC that can cast some spells, but also does other magic stuff that is LIKE spells but isn't", but doesn't work for the more common use case of "An NPC that is supposed to have the same theming as a PC". In a world of NPC Statblocks, Christa is the weirdo who can only cast Spells, instead of being able to unleash an arcane blast of unspecified but definitely not-spell nature.


And it would be fine if these nonspell abilities were roughly comparable to the nonspell abilities PC casters get, and some of them are. That's just Shield Bash vs Tripping Strike again.

But when you get direct Spell Replacements that are Nonspells, you get a breakdown of theme. Christa and Dan CANNOT share a theme, because their abilities are explicitly different in type, rather than just detail.

The Drow Mage has Summon Demon. Which is a direct spell replacement. That doesn't count as casting a spell, doesn't require concentration, and won't become hostile. And can be dismissed. And has since the MM.

Personally, I don't see the difference here. It feels like "but spellcasters are special" is just special pleading.

[BRC]

The Drow Mage has Summon Demon. Which is a direct spell replacement. That doesn't count as casting a spell, doesn't require concentration, and won't become hostile. And can be dismissed. And has since the MM.

Personally, I don't see the difference here. It feels like "but spellcasters are special" is just special pleading.

Just because The Bad Thing has precedent doesn't make it Not A Bad Thing.

Like, you could argue that this represents something different than a Summon Spell, a relationship more akin to a supercharged Familiar. But I'm not going to do that. I'm going to say that it's worth complaining that NPC statblocks that are supposed to be able to share their theming with PCs become thematically incompatible, even if there are some similar examples from the original version of the monster manual.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just because The Bad Thing has precedent doesn't make it Not A Bad Thing.

But it does make it not new. And working as designed.

Basically, people are making this out to be a fundamental betrayal of core rules...when it's just the same thing that's always been going on. That is one of the key points of the OP--that this sort of thing has been happening all along. And is as designed. And that the expectation that it doesn't happen is alien to 5e entirely and is mostly just old-edition hangover. Not some fundamental point of good design.

[Dante]

But it does make it not new. And working as designed.

Working as designed does not make it Not Bad.

Not [completely] new does not make it Not Increasingly Prevalent And In New Contexts. As others have mentioned, there's a world of difference between giving Mind Blast to Mind Flayers and modifying IIRC every single humanoid spellcaster in Volo's and MToF to now have Mind Blast-inspired abilities. And it's quite possible that that's a bad design decision and a new design direction.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Working as designed does not make it Not Bad.

Not [completely] new does not make it Not Increasingly Prevalent And In New Contexts. As others have mentioned, there's a world of difference between giving Mind Blast to Mind Flayers and modifying IIRC every single humanoid spellcaster in Volo's and MToF to new have Mind Blast-inspired abilities. And it's quite possible that that's a bad design decision and a new design direction.

Not Bad is entirely a matter of taste. And de gustibas no est disputandum[1] and all that.

My whole point is that PCs and NPCs are not transparent in content. They are not supposed to be. Expectations that they are are completely personally-injected and any breakage is a you problem, not a system problem. They use very different theming, mechanics, and even rules. And have since the beginning. Any particular instantiation of that may be debatable. And the trend actually started in Volo's. So fighting it now is somewhat of fighting a battle that was already lost a long time ago. Like...in the first non-core book published if not in the core itself.

That is, not doing this would be a change. And a significant one.

[1] "Of tastes there is no disputation"--arguing about matters of taste is pointless.

[KorvinStarmast]

And that the expectation that it doesn't happen is alien to 5e entirely and is mostly just old-edition hangover. Not some fundamental point of good design. My old "don't fix what isn't broken" line applies here somewhat. The stat blocks as built were both useful and usable. (Although some people complain that they are too long).

[Corran]

That's neither my problem nor WotC's. The player should always be asking the DM how their world works and whether a given enemy's ability set is representative of a larger whole, or even whether it matters for anything beyond the current scene at all.
It's certainly my problem, and to an extent WotC's too. In make-belief perception is important. It doesn't matter what I am telling my players about how my game world is, all that matters is how they perceive it to be.

[OldTrees1]

Here's the thing. There are epic tons of spellcasters that don't cast spells for everything they do. And have been since the MM. Humanoid NPCs of playable races even.
Yes, I don't think there is any disagreement here.


And the new stat blocks also cast spells. Just not for everything they do.
Just like the old stat blocks cast spells, but not for everything they do.

I don't see any evidence those points are debated, so the concern about the new stat blocks must be more nuanced that "Oh no the spellcasters have a feature that is not spellcasting". As best as I can tell in spite of my confusion, it seems to be closer to "The spellcasters have a specific feature that is not spellcasting, but for reason XYZ it is strange that it is not spellcasting." As best I can tell reason XYZ deals with the feature is meant to represent spellcasting but isn't spellcasting. Sort of like using jumping to represent swimming? *shrug*


To me, it seems like people are qvetching about changes as if it's something new. When it's not. When it's not even close to new. It's been there all along. It feels like "someone moved my cheese" (or "every change breaks someone's workflow").

Since you point to facts that are not new and are not debated, clearly that is not the whole story for the criticism. Is there something about THIS change that is being criticized in how it differs from the past non casting features spellcasters had?


And I reject outright the idea that every "mage" needs to be a "wizard"
Good but irrelevant? Who disagrees with that? Was it an arcanist?

or even that every thing that in-fiction is called a wizard needs to hew exactly to the limits of the PC class.
Good but irrelevant? Who disagrees with that?
You even agreed that miscommunication was less than ideal and took steps to avoid some unforced errors in your own campaigns.

You used BOLD so I infer you tone implies this was a very important and vehement rejection, but I don't see who you are talking to.


PC classes have no in-fiction meaning except as abstractions over bundles of thematic material. There's no system expectation that if you meet someone that someone calls a "wizard" or a "cleric" or a "paladin" or even a fighter that they'll have the features of that class or that they won't have unique features of their own. That's nowhere in the system. It's being injected in from outside and causing issues. The solution is to drop that expectation, not demand that everything else bow to this foreign, alien assumption.

Words have no in-fiction meaning except as a tools to communicate between players. However ascribing meaning to words is a useful shortcut in the communication. When the game describes what it means by "Wizard", then we should expect some portion of the population of the playerbase will ascribe some associations to that word until and unless provided with different context.

Consider if a GM refers to a PC as a "blrag" and to an NPC as also a "blrag". The GM should expect the player will assume there is something the PC and NPC have in common. Outside of additional context, it is reasonable for the GM to expect the player will draw their assumptions based on previous examples of the word "blrag" in the game text and beyond. It is also reasonable for the GM to expect previous examples with greater context overlap (the game text) are likely to be given greater weight than previous examples with less context overlap (Star Wars books).

Likewise when the game text calls one thing a "garlb" and another thing a "garlb", it is reasonable to assume a player might assume there is something those things have in common. This is similar to above.

However none of that in controversial either, you agreed with that upthread too.



Edit: and my motivation for this thread is more than just the spellcaster changes. This is a complaint (that NPCs are somehow "cheating" if they use things that PCs don't have access to) has been a perennial one. And the broader topic of what is called "PC/NPC transparency" is important. Everyone focuses on their pet peeve, but disregards all the stuff there about the hierarchical structure of the rules and the difference between "rules" and "content". PCs and NPCs use very different content. But they mostly use the same basic resolution mechanics (except where one side or the other overrides those with content).

This all boils down to specific beats general. And getting people to realize that their objections are matters of taste, about which people can differ and about which there will never be consensus, not matters of objective quality. There's really (as far as I can tell) very little scope for miscommunication here that wasn't already present in a multitude of ways. And I don't expect it to be any more salient than it was.

If the goal is to get people to realize their objections are matters of taste, then I suggest clearly signaling you understand their objection. If they don't get that signal, or worse if they get a signal to the contrary, they will waste time explaining at you.

Unless I am missing something, I don't see anyone making the complaint "(that NPCs are somehow "cheating" if they use things that PCs don't have access to)". I see other complaints to be sure, but I don't see that one.

[False God]

But it does make it not new. And working as designed.

Basically, people are making this out to be a fundamental betrayal of core rules...when it's just the same thing that's always been going on. That is one of the key points of the OP--that this sort of thing has been happening all along. And is as designed. And that the expectation that it doesn't happen is alien to 5e entirely and is mostly just old-edition hangover. Not some fundamental point of good design.

I mean, I didn't. I just don't like it.

I get the reason for it. I just disagree.

It's one thing to give special abilities on the basis that the being they're granted to is special. A creature with a poison stinger obviously has an appendage that a creature with a poison stinger does not, and there's no class ability to reasonably simulate that. You can't just level up and gain a poison stinger.

But for basic weapon attacks and spells and things that the game has a system to generate on creatures that aren't special (like the ones playable as PCs) there's no need to create an additional, less intuitive system for NPCs. A human "bandit" can be a level 3 rogue just fine. An orc "mountain warrior" can be a level 5 barbarian just fine. An elf swashbucker can be a level 8 Battlemaster fighter with a rapier.

Saying "It's okay for a DM to get creative with NPCs." is a fine rule of course, but it doesn't necessitate PCs and NPCs being two whole separate systems and it should be IMO the exception rather than the rule that an otherwise normal NPC like a Wizard has things outside and beyond what a Wizard can do. Not just because it relies too heavily on the "Rule of Cool" for the DM to assign special abilities, but it can be jarring from an in-world explanation when there's no rhyme or reason why NPC Wizard is doing all sorts of things PC Wizard can't ever do.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

But when you get direct Spell Replacements that are Nonspells, you get a breakdown of theme. Christa and Dan CANNOT share a theme, because their abilities are explicitly different in type, rather than just detail.

So your argument is that it's a break down and Christa and Dan cannot share a theme because Dan's Spell Attack +6 for 3d10+3 X damage can't be counterspelled where as Christa's spell attack +9 for 2d10 X damage can be counterspelled?

Who counterspells Cantrips? And this is meant to stand in for a Cantrip, not Scorching Ray. It's a slightly buffed Firebolt with varying damage types.

It's also not even remotely true. Christa, if she CHOOSES to stay a pure mage, will have to deal with what is eventually a Spell Attack +11 for 4d10 Fire Damage. vs, Dan getting Spell Attack +6 for 3d10+3 X Damage.

But, what is Christa? Is she a Bladesinger? Then She'll also never get Portent, or Benign Transposition, or any other Subclass power of other wizards, it's impossible for her to ever have these. Also, she wants to have a Spell Attack that can't be counterspelled (Because for some reason that scares her, instead of being a triumph that the enemy wasted a spellslot on a cantrip), well then, she has options. For instance, she could drop 3 levels in Artificer for an Infiltrator Armor with a ranged attack with 90/300 range, using your casting stat to attack, dealing 2d6 Lightning.

The only way the argument works is if you posit that A: Counterspelling Cantrips is so common that it's an INTEGRAL part of character flavor and thematics. And B: It is specifically important to have Acid or Force Damage that is exactly 3d10+3, never lower or higher.

If those two things somehow destroy immersion and theme for a game, I really question the DMing and RPing skills of those involved.

[PhantomSoul]

The only way the argument works is if you posit that A: Counterspelling Cantrips is so common that it's an INTEGRAL part of character flavor and thematics. And B: It is specifically important to have Acid or Force Damage that is exactly 3d10+3, never lower or higher.


Or you just need to not be 100% sure what the spell being counterspelled is beforehand...

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, I didn't. I just don't like it.

I get the reason for it. I just disagree.

It's one thing to give special abilities on the basis that the being they're granted to is special. A creature with a poison stinger obviously has an appendage that a creature with a poison stinger does not, and there's no class ability to reasonably simulate that. You can't just level up and gain a poison stinger.

But for basic weapon attacks and spells and things that the game has a system to generate on creatures that aren't special (like the ones playable as PCs) there's no need to create an additional, less intuitive system for NPCs. A human "bandit" can be a level 3 rogue just fine. An orc "mountain warrior" can be a level 5 barbarian just fine. An elf swashbucker can be a level 8 Battlemaster fighter with a rapier.

Saying "It's okay for a DM to get creative with NPCs." is a fine rule of course, but it doesn't necessitate PCs and NPCs being two whole separate systems and it should be IMO the exception rather than the rule that an otherwise normal NPC like a Wizard has things outside and beyond what a Wizard can do. Not just because it relies too heavily on the "Rule of Cool" for the DM to assign special abilities, but it can be jarring from an in-world explanation when there's no rhyme or reason why NPC Wizard is doing all sorts of things PC Wizard can't ever do.

Great. 5e is not the system for you. Because 5e is based around the whole idea that NPCs and PCs are different from the ground up.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Saying "It's okay for a DM to get creative with NPCs." is a fine rule of course, but it doesn't necessitate PCs and NPCs being two whole separate systems and it should be IMO the exception rather than the rule that an otherwise normal NPC like a Wizard has things outside and beyond what a Wizard can do. Not just because it relies too heavily on the "Rule of Cool" for the DM to assign special abilities, but it can be jarring from an in-world explanation when there's no rhyme or reason why NPC Wizard is doing all sorts of things PC Wizard can't ever do.

But we don't have NPC Wizards doing all sorts of things PC Wizards can't ever do.

We have NPC wizards making an attack that works like Eldritch Blast but does some more damage and doesn't trigger the option to Countspell and then one other thematically appropriate ability. That's it. That's the only thing different. The rest of their abilities are spells, just spells that can cast 2/Day instead of a full complicated slot breakdown to manage.

Take an NPC Enchanter as an example. They operate exactly like any other Enchanter Wizard. With 2 exceptions. Their generic Cantrip hits harder. And they have an ability that Recharges (4-6) ability that let's it try to force an enemy to redirect an attack from it to someone else. That's the "All kinds of things". Except it's nonsense. A PC Wizard might not be able to reaction re-direct an attack, but they can just Dominate Monster and tell it to hit something else. They can use Scorching Ray if they specifically want 3 beams, or they can use Firebolt for less damage but flavor wise the same thing.



Or you just need to not be 100% sure what the spell being counterspelled is beforehand...

There's two answers to this.

#1: DM FIAT, make it a spell and have Counterspell work. This was suggested but since were discussing RAW specific, it doesn't come up. It takes no effort on the part of the DM to let this work or consider it.

#2: It's not a spell so it doesn't trigger the option to use Counterspell. Just like what happens when a Beholder fires an eye beam or a Mindflayer does a Mind Blast.

[BRC]

So your argument is that it's a break down and Christa and Dan cannot share a theme because Dan's Spell Attack +6 for 3d10+3 X damage can't be counterspelled where as Christa's spell attack +9 for 2d10 X damage can be counterspelled?

Who counterspells Cantrips? And this is meant to stand in for a Cantrip, not Scorching Ray. It's a slightly buffed Firebolt with varying damage types.
.
I can't say I've specifically read every Arcane Blast, but my understanding is that they're usually Cantrip+Multiattack, which is why I used Scorching Ray as my comparison point.

Christa's spell attack is +9 for 2d10 damage, Dan's is +6 for 3d10+3, 3 times.

It's supposed to be a replacement for Dan chewing through his higher level spell slots on boring damage spells each round because he has no reason to preserve spell slots for later encounters.

It's a "Cantrip" in that it's an at-will ability, but as far as it's impact on the battle, it's far more like a 2nd or 3rd level spell, both of which could easily be counterspell-worthy.

And if Cantrips hit as hard as 2nd or 3rd level spells, people would counter them.

So yeah, I'd say it is relevant.

[Brookshw]

Unless I am missing something, I don't see anyone making the complaint "(that NPCs are somehow "cheating" if they use things that PCs don't have access to)". I see other complaints to be sure, but I don't see that one.


NPCs don't follow any rules. DMs are allowed to cheat.

The question then becomes, what are you trying to achieve? And verisimilitude is important. It's important for the players to feel like this is a real place they're inhabiting. NPCs are allowed to break the rules, DMs are allowed to cheat... But at the same time they can't be caught doing this.

To your other points, there's a lot of carry over coming from the 36 page thread (I'm not sure this separate thread was really needed).

[PhoenixPhyre]

To your other points, there's a lot of carry over coming from the 36 page thread (I'm not sure this separate thread was really needed).

And it's not just that other thread. The issue of transparency goes well beyond the current "hot spot". And has been going on for a very long time. Hence a separate thread.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I can't say I've specifically read every Arcane Blast, but my understanding is that they're usually Cantrip+Multiattack, which is why I used Scorching Ray as my comparison point.

Christa's spell attack is +9 for 2d10 damage, Dan's is +6 for 3d10+3, 3 times.

It's supposed to be a replacement for Dan chewing through his higher level spell slots on boring damage spells each round because he has no reason to preserve spell slots for later encounters.

It's a "Cantrip" in that it's an at-will ability, but as far as it's impact on the battle, it's far more like a 2nd or 3rd level spell, both of which could easily be counterspell-worthy.

And if Cantrips hit as hard as 2nd or 3rd level spells, people would counter them.

So yeah, I'd say it is relevant.

That's how you're interpreting it, which I give allowance for in other posts and well, opinion is opinion.

It's been my experience that NPCs often have more attacks and hit harder as part of the design philosophy of how does one creature potentially stand up to an average of 4 and not just die.

I'll pose a different example of drastically different NPC vs PC issues. It's one I brought up in the other thread but people kept avoiding talking about it, but I'm curious your take on it since you're coming across much more as someone discussing in good faith and just disagreeing on points.

What do you make of 5e Eladrin? As a PC race the only special thing they get outside of normal elf is a limited use "Misty step" like power with a small rider that triggers on its use. As an NPC they have a constant aura that affects anything w/in 60' of them and a "Misty Step" like power that's useable on average 1 every 2 rounds. Does it hurt immersion or break the game that there's such a sharp difference here?

[stoutstien]

I never considered any NPC stat block more than a rough template to begin withb and that template is only applicable in a snapshot is subject to change. That's the fundamental difference between a PC and an NPC. The former has to exist and function in all aspects of the game on a continuum where the latter just needs to be there when they're there.

[Dante]

Great. 5e is not the system for you. Because 5e is based around the whole idea that NPCs and PCs are different from the ground up.

Wow, the 5E DMG is apparently written for people whom "5e is not the system for." Who knew?

[Psyren]

NPC statblocks that are supposed to be able to share their theming with PCs

According to who though? When and where was this vow made? I've never seen it.


I can't say I've specifically read every Arcane Blast, but my understanding is that they're usually Cantrip+Multiattack, which is why I used Scorching Ray as my comparison point.

Christa's spell attack is +9 for 2d10 damage, Dan's is +6 for 3d10+3, 3 times.

It's supposed to be a replacement for Dan chewing through his higher level spell slots on boring damage spells each round because he has no reason to preserve spell slots for later encounters.

It's a "Cantrip" in that it's an at-will ability, but as far as it's impact on the battle, it's far more like a 2nd or 3rd level spell, both of which could easily be counterspell-worthy.

And if Cantrips hit as hard as 2nd or 3rd level spells, people would counter them.

So yeah, I'd say it is relevant.

You can counter them. Just not with counterspell. Shield works quite well for example.

[BRC]

Great. 5e is not the system for you. Because 5e is based around the whole idea that NPCs and PCs are different from the ground up.

They're different, but they interact with the world in generally the same way. Attacks are Attacks, even if PC fighters get fighting styles and superiority dice and NPC fighters just get the "Brute" ability.

And there are exceptions. Some Monsters have abilities that are thematically physical attacks, but are resolved as saving throws instead of attack rolls.

I'd say the fact that prior exceptions exist is decent evidence that this particular exception is different. In fact, i'd say it's drawing ire because it's being taken as a specific design direction, becoming a new norm.

If you gave one monster a "Massive Blow" ability, which is resolved as a Dex save instead of an Attack, that would probably be fine. If you decided that from now on, most Martial NPC statblocks would have "Massive Blow", which bypasses the attack mechanic in exchange for a saving throw, it would cause problems. Suddenly, Armor Class, Defensive Duelist, and other abilities that trigger off Attacks would no longer apply.


People's complaint isn't that NPC's now get toys that PC's don't. It's that there is a new design direction that fundamentally changes how NPCs and PCs interact with the world in a pretty relevant way, and which renders certain tools and playstyles substantially less potent. It's that what is being presented as a simple quality-of-life improvement for DMs is a pretty substantial nerf to certain options, and has some thematic implications.


That's how you're interpreting it, which I give allowance for in other posts and well, opinion is opinion.

It's been my experience that NPCs often have more attacks and hit harder as part of the design philosophy of how does one creature potentially stand up to an average of 4 and not just die.


The issue isn't the NPC's power. The issue is the thematic implications of cutting off this point of interaction.

If I were a 6th level PC, fighting an 18th level Sorceror who had spent all their higher-level spell slots, but still had their 5d10 Firebolt cantrip, it would be relevant that the Cantrip in question a Spell, because I'd trade a counterspell to avoid taking 5d10 damage at 6th level.

People don't not counterspell cantrips because they're at-will abilities, they don't counterspell Cantrips because Cantrips are generally not impactful enough to justify the 3rd level spell slot. If a Cantrip WERE impactful enough to do so, people would counter it. If a bog standard 3d10 Firebolt is being sent at your 4 health ally, you may very well Counterspell that, because keeping your ally up is worth the spell slot.

arguing that having uncounterable spells is fine because you read them as cantrip-replacements doesn't exactly resolve the issue.

As far as Eldarin go, I can't say I'm especially familiar with NPC Eldarin, but I've always assumed that Monster statblock, even one whose name is just the name of a race, doesn't neccessarily apply to every member of that Race. The "Ogre" statblock assumes an Ogre with some degree of fighting experience. An Ogre who spends all their time herding sheep wouldn't be as skilled a fighter as the base Ogre in the monster manual.


The Eldarin statblocks in MTOF I would read as especially potent members of the Eldarin race, those who have spent centuries in the feywild mastering both mortal skill and their innate abilities. An Eldarin PC is presumably one who has not yet undergone similar practice. If an Eldarin PC had a few centuries to spare living in the feywild mastering their natural gifts, I'd say they could pick up similar powers. But, given as your average campaign doesn't last for centuries, it's probably not relevant.

Or if the Player really wanted to, I'd be cool with homebrewing a feat to do something similar, or giving it to them as a treasure/psudeo magic item dealy.

[Tanarii]

My take is pretty simple:
Are there any requirements that NPCs work the same way as PCs? No, not really.

Should spellcasting NPCs generally speaking, be casting a spell when they use a stat-block specific action that is probably intended to replicate the simplified use of something like a spell, in regards to things like components, counterspell, and AMF? Yes, absolutely.

Also, I thought it had been previously established that the new content's spellcasting action did in fact count as casting a spell.

[Psyren]

Also, I thought it had been previously established that the new content's spellcasting action did in fact count as casting a spell.

It does. The majority of the gripes AFAICT center around the stuff outside of the "Spellcasting" action, like the Diviner's Overwhelming Revelation and Arcane Burst.

[OldTrees1]

To your other points, there's a lot of carry over coming from the 36 page thread (I'm not sure this separate thread was really needed).


And it's not just that other thread. The issue of transparency goes well beyond the current "hot spot". And has been going on for a very long time. Hence a separate thread.

And now I am right back to being confused. What is this "issue" that "has been going on for a very long time"?

Forget the game for a moment and consider just the fiction of an arbitrary campaign. Let's say there is a lizard like creature in that campaign that has certain characteristics in common with certain other lizard like creatures. The GM and other players are using the word "wurm" to communicate about these creatures based on that similarity they have.

Bring it back up to the game level now. One of the players wants to play as one of these "wurm"s. The GM also wants to have some other "wurm"s as characters. Now they turn to the game system to use the PC and NPC rules to instantiate these wurm characters.


Should we expect that things all wurms are capable of, will be possible for both the PC and NPC wurms? Maybe, as an example, both can slither?
Should we expect there are things some wurms can do that other wurms cannot? Maybe, as an example, some have wings and can fly but others have legs and can jump? That difference would be independent of PC vs NPC as well since it is tied to wings vs legs?
Should we expect the mechanics that represent these capabilities might abstract them differently based on quality of life for the player or GM?
Should we expect other mechanical differences based on abstracting the differences in how PCs and NPCs interface with the game?


So a character can do what they are capable of doing regardless of which player is controlling them (PC vs NPC) but the specific game mechanics might differ based on which player is controlling them (PC vs NPC).

What is the long running issue? I thought there was a consensus on the big picture.

[Brookshw]

And now I am right back to being confused. What is this "issue" that "has been going on for a very long time"?


Nope, I'm not getting involved in trading essays or buying you're missing the issue when you're listing a bunch of stuff related to it. Here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?644917-My-least-favorite-thing-about-recent-monster-books-(A-small-rant))'s the other thread if you want additional background.


And it's not just that other thread. The issue of transparency goes well beyond the current "hot spot". And has been going on for a very long time. Hence a separate thread.

Without diving into the hot topic, I'm curious if people have the same dissonance for NPC narrative abilities vs. NPC abilities which are active in combat, for example, if an NPC does a thing that causes a massive meteor storm which devastates a continent (a'la, Rain of Colorless Fire), summons some Big Bad to the world which they wouldn't generally have any ability to summon, put a kingdom to sleep with a curse, etc., things which more set the stage so to speak.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And now I am right back to being confused. What is this "issue" that "has been going on for a very long time"?

Forget the game for a moment and consider just the fiction of an arbitrary campaign. Let's say there is a lizard like creature in that campaign that has certain characteristics in common with certain other lizard like creatures. The GM and other players are using the word "wurm" to communicate about these creatures based on that similarity they have.

Bring it back up to the game level now. One of the players wants to play as one of these "wurm"s. The GM also wants to have some other "wurm"s as characters. Now they turn to the game system to use the PC and NPC rules to instantiate these wurm characters.


Should we expect that things all wurms are capable of, will be possible for both the PC and NPC wurms? Maybe, as an example, both can slither?
Should we expect there are things some wurms can do that other wurms cannot? Maybe, as an example, some have wings and can fly but others have legs and can jump? That difference would be independent of PC vs NPC as well since it is tied to wings vs legs?
Should we expect the mechanics that represent these capabilities might abstract them differently based on quality of life for the player or GM?
Should we expect other mechanical differences based on abstracting the differences in how PCs and NPCs interface with the game?


So a character can do what they are capable of doing regardless of which player is controlling them (PC vs NPC) but the specific game mechanics might differ based on which player is controlling them (PC vs NPC).

What is the long running issue? I thought there was a consensus on the big picture.

Except that this (the italic part) isn't true at all in 5e as it stands. Not even for things like the drow. Not even slightly. And never has been. And that's the point.

For example, the Lizardman NPC can attack with a Spiked Shield and deal damage. While getting the shield bonus. That's not a mechanical implementation difference--that's just flat out different content only accessible if you have the NPC tag. And there are lots of capabilities that no NPC has but PCs do -- Destroy Undead. Heck, even turn undead doesn't show up on (the generic) NPC stat blocks. Which is a major change--PC necromancers have a lot easier time than NPC necromancers do against divine types. And the list goes on and on.

5e, from core up, is rife with substantial, not-just-abstraction-level differences in capabilities between NPCs and PCs. Across the board. And people are denying that even in this thread. And in other threads stating that having those is cheating by the DM or completely destroys verisimilitude. Which is just so far from anything like the system's assumptions it makes the mind boggle.

[Pex]

Except the reality proves it a lie. Because PC wizards exist, as do specific wizards like The Black Staff or Iggwilv who operate on their own weird scales.

So no, all that's established is that potentially all generic specialist wizards have this ability.

Exactly, the generic wizard which is what the new wizards represent, and some people aren't liking that. They aren't for the unique special BBEG wizards the DM creates as a villain. TThey can be if the DM wants, but more often the DM specially creates his BBEG wizard. The DM is doing work to create it, which is not so "simple" so these new wizards don't help him.


Except that the "class fiction" (scare quotes intentional) of the wizard is exactly that they learned to do magic simply by studying how magic works. That anyone could do it if they studied magic enough. Yet someone who knows a crapton more about how magic works (because that's what Arcana proficiency represents) can't cast a single spell, but someone who has never formally studied any of it can cast legendary-level spells.

If intelligence and study is enough, then any smart person with Arcana proficiency should be able to cast spells, if even cantrips. They can't. So it can't be that simple. Or the class fiction is incoherent.

But then we fall back on what makes PCs so unique they are unable to learn Arcane Blast?

[OldTrees1]

Nope, I'm not getting involved in trading essays or buying you're missing the issue when you're listing a bunch of stuff related to it. Here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?644917-My-least-favorite-thing-about-recent-monster-books-(A-small-rant))'s the other thread if you want additional background.
Sorry if my post was unclear. I was able to find the thread you referenced (thank you for mentioning the page length and later the link). I am not understanding the "long standing issue" PhoenixPhyre is mentioning beyond that thread. I did not mean to imply a trading of essays. Your posts and point were clear. It is the OP's argument I am struggling to follow/find the bounds/find the scope.


Except that this (the italic part) isn't true at all in 5e as it stands. Not even for things like the drow. Not even slightly. And never has been. And that's the point.

For example, the Lizardman NPC can attack with a Spiked Shield and deal damage. While getting the shield bonus. That's not a mechanical implementation difference--that's just flat out different content only accessible if you have the NPC tag.
A 5E Lizardman can train in wielding a spiked shield, acquire a spiked shield, and then wield that spiked shield. Some 5E Lizardmen might be trained to use the shield different from other 5E Lizardmen.

The mechanical abstraction of wielding the spiked shield is different between the NPC in the monster manual, and a PC using the Fighter class. In this case the abstraction for the NPC assumes the shield is always up to avoid the numbers for multiple NPCs toggling up and down all the time.

Also did you ask your GM about the PC learning that particular technique (assuming it is not restricted training in the campaign world), or as a GM have you created an NPC that can Destroy Undead or a Lizardfolk less adept with the spiked shield? Yes the extant example content is a subset of the possible example content, but that is normal.


Or are you asserting 5E claims the player cannot play a "wurm" character but must instead play a "wurm" character. Two entirely separate in universe nouns that overload the same name. If so, then why would we consider that claim to be a good idea over the idea that the player can play a "wurm" character using the PC rules.


I am suspicious Brookshw is right, even with the independent "wurm" example it sounds like the 36 page thread is having a lot of carry over.

[Pex]

So, this is the key point of contention here.

PC classes and NPC statblocks are mechanical abstractions for thematic material.

The Gladiator statblock in the Monster Manual COULD represent a literal gladiator. It could also be used to represent an elite mercenary company captain, a Barbarian Chieftain, a Super-Soldier created by an Alchemist, A member of the Royal Guard. And that's all without even changing it's equipment. Gladiator might as well be labeled "CR 5 Martial Character".

Ser Bob, Knight of the Realm could be a full PC fighter, or use a Gladiator statblock, or be a refluffed Hobgoblin Warlord, depending on how the DM feels like stating up an especially powerful martial combatant. The players don't need to know exactly how Ser Bob's numbers fall out, just so long as he interacts with the fiction as a Very Skilled Martial Combatant would do.

If Ser Bob is statted as a Gladiator, he can make a Shield Bash attack, forcing a save vs being knocked prone. PC fighters can do something similar (Specifically battlemasters with Tripping Strike), but they don't have anything quite like the Gladiator's Shield Bash. However, he interacts with the fiction as Very Skilled Martial Combatant, knocking you down with his shield, so everything is fine. Ser Bob and a PC fighter both fit just fine as a mechanical abstraction for the theme of A Martial Fighter, even if they have some mutually exclusive abilities, because the mechanics are thematically reflected in the same general way.



The issue with Spellcaster NPCs having spell-equivalent Nonspells is that it implies a separate theming. Fighter Alice and Ser Bob are both Fighters, they do basically the same stuff, even if their exact methods are represented slightly differently mechanically. Alice and Bob just trained differently, so Bob gets that shield bash.

Now consider Wizard Christa (PC) and Mage Dan (NPC). They're supposed to share the same Theme, similar to Alice and Bob. Alice has Scorching Ray, which is a Spell, and it being a spell has certain mechanical interactions.
Mage Dan has Arcane Blast, which is NOT a Spell, and lacks those interactions.

While you're correct to say that the "mage" statblock does not NEED to represent the same sort of spellcaster as a PC Wizard. The issue is that as written, these statblocks, which are presented as go-tos so GMs don't need to stat out full PC spellcasters, CANNOT represent the same sort of spellcaster as a PC Wizard. It's not just that Dan has an ability that Christa doesn't, it's that he has an ability that is explicitly unlike all the similar stuff Christa does. He's got Arcane Blast, which cannot be counterspelled. It's not just that Christa can't get that specific ability, it's that basically everything she does is filtered through the Spells mechanic, which has thematic reflections (Can be countered).


Which is fine for the use case of "An NPC that can cast some spells, but also does other magic stuff that is LIKE spells but isn't", but doesn't work for the more common use case of "An NPC that is supposed to have the same theming as a PC". In a world of NPC Statblocks, Christa is the weirdo who can only cast Spells, instead of being able to unleash an arcane blast of unspecified but definitely not-spell nature.


And it would be fine if these nonspell abilities were roughly comparable to the nonspell abilities PC casters get, and some of them are. That's just Shield Bash vs Tripping Strike again.

But when you get direct Spell Replacements that are Nonspells, you get a breakdown of theme. Christa and Dan CANNOT share a theme, because their abilities are explicitly different in type, rather than just detail.


Edit: More practically, it turns into a RAW guessing game. Consider Thunderwave vs Cacophany. There's now a non-arbitrary distinction between if the NPC you're up against is casting the spell Thunderwave, or using the nonspell Cacophany. This is mechanically relevant, say, if you have the Mage Slayer feat. You're up against a Spellcaster, but whether a given ability is a Spell or a Nonspell ability is mostly just up to whether the diviner felt like writing out the ability in the statblock, or just calling it a spell.

Bingo!
ten letters

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The issue isn't the NPC's power. The issue is the thematic implications of cutting off this point of interaction.

If I were a 6th level PC, fighting an 18th level Sorceror who had spent all their higher-level spell slots, but still had their 5d10 Firebolt cantrip, it would be relevant that the Cantrip in question a Spell, because I'd trade a counterspell to avoid taking 5d10 damage at 6th level.

How do you know they're out of spell slots as a 6th level PC? Your character is unlikely to know the exact slots a high level caster possesses. Unless you're metagaming.


People don't not counterspell cantrips because they're at-will abilities, they don't counterspell Cantrips because Cantrips are generally not impactful enough to justify the 3rd level spell slot. If a Cantrip WERE impactful enough to do so, people would counter it. If a bog standard 3d10 Firebolt is being sent at your 4 health ally, you may very well Counterspell that, because keeping your ally up is worth the spell slot.

Exactly, and one 3d10+3 attack that can be blocked other ways is not impactful when the caster can turn around and use Hold Monster or Fireball the next round.


As far as Eldarin go, I can't say I'm especially familiar with NPC Eldarin, but I've always assumed that Monster statblock, even one whose name is just the name of a race, doesn't neccessarily apply to every member of that Race. The "Ogre" statblock assumes an Ogre with some degree of fighting experience. An Ogre who spends all their time herding sheep wouldn't be as skilled a fighter as the base Ogre in the monster manual.

The Eldarin statblocks in MTOF I would read as especially potent members of the Eldarin race, those who have spent centuries in the feywild mastering both mortal skill and their innate abilities. An Eldarin PC is presumably one who has not yet undergone similar practice. If an Eldarin PC had a few centuries to spare living in the feywild mastering their natural gifts, I'd say they could pick up similar powers. But, given as your average campaign doesn't last for centuries, it's probably not relevant.

Or if the Player really wanted to, I'd be cool with homebrewing a feat to do something similar, or giving it to them as a treasure/psudeo magic item dealy.

Ah, welcome to the actual argument that's been going on. So, everything you said is perfectly sensible. Something I, or Psyren or PP or other DMs would do. The statblock is an abstract, there can be reasons to justify variables.

But there's the thing your answer doesn't address, not to me, but to the argument going on.

You're not allowed to use DM Fiat to justify. Psyren, myself, Phoenix, several others, all of us gave simple DM Fiat logic that'd solve the issue. The response was some variable of "But I play with DMs who rule pure RAW and never interpret or discuss anything so you have to make this argument purely by what the book does say." So. Nothing in the book says the NPC Eladrin are more experienced, there is nothing in the book that says the PC and NPC Eladrin are different at all. Same type of argument would apply to the general Ogre. :)

Because if you ask with the allowance of DM Fiat you get a couple of answers. Psyren has said the Arcane Blast isn't a spell, can't be countered, that's the DM ruling, move forward. I've said I consider ALL magic to be subject to counterspells and such and have already houseruled plenty and would consider Arcane Blast a Cantrip for such purposes.

With DM fiat we've already answered these issues easily and quickly, but that wasn't what the opposing side of the argument is wanting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A 5E Lizardman can train in wielding a spiked shield, acquire a spiked shield, and then wield that spiked shield. Some 5E Lizardmen might be trained to use the shield different from other 5E Lizardmen.

The mechanical abstraction of wielding the spiked shield is different between the NPC in the monster manual, and a PC using the Fighter class. In this case the abstraction for the NPC assumes the shield is always up to avoid the numbers for multiple NPCs toggling up and down all the time.

Also did you ask your GM about the PC learning that particular technique (assuming it is not restricted training in the campaign world), or as a GM have you created an NPC that can Destroy Undead or a Lizardfolk less adept with the spiked shield? Yes the extant example content is a subset of the possible example content, but that is normal.

Or are you asserting 5E claims the player cannot play a "wurm" character but must instead play a "wurm" character. Two entirely separate things that overload the same name. If so, then why would we consider that claim to be a good idea?

I am suspicious Brookshw is right, even with the independent "wurm" example it sounds like the 36 page thread is having a lot of carry over.

I am the DM in that case, and it came up. And I asked about it on these forums. And the consensus was "that's an NPC thing, PCs can't do it". And that's what the player was fine with.

And note that PCs can't use shields as weapons period. They're not weapons. And there is no overlap between "shield" and "weapon." Which is why the spiked armor of the battlerager is so awkward. This is a case where the rules just are absolutely different.

I have absolutely no problem with any of
1) it's something that PCs could, in principle learn to do if they grew up with that culture and trained to do so
2) it's something that PCs cannot do, period
3) it's something that PCs could do if they picked up a feat
4) some lizardfolk can do it, others can't (for instance the Lizardfolk King/Queen can't do it, by RAW), but PCs can't do it.
5) eh, whatever the table wants
6) it's something that PCs could do if they killed a lizardfolk and picked up their shield

None of that matters to me at all--all are valid options and it's up to the DM. Others...disagree. Strongly. The default in 5e, however, is absolutely #4. Monsters can only take the actions provided or actions that any other creature can do; PCs can only do what's on their sheets or the actions that any other creature can do. But the two sets only overlap in that "actions that any other creature can do" area. Which this isn't one of.

And I don't see any fundamental difference with spellcasting. mainly because I don't hold spellcasting as something special--"Spells" aren't some utterly different piece of the world. They're just one of countless ways of doing magic. That we categorize entirely for game purposes. I don't actually believe or expect that any wizard casts spells in the same way (in universe) as any other wizard--if they did, then other wizards should be able to pick up the spell just by watching. But they can't--they have to go through an expensive and time-consuming process of experimentation even with written notes and can't learn from a verbal description. For me, performing magic is everywhere an individual act. There are rough similarities, but the details are all different. So it harms my verisimilitude not at all to say that

a) PCs represent one tiny slice of the world, packaged together for game purposes.
b) NPCs occupy the whole of the space, with abstractions convenient for them.
c) any overlap between them is coincidental or for convenience, not as a matter of principle.

[Dante]

Without diving into the hot topic, I'm curious if people have the same dissonance for NPC narrative abilities vs. NPC abilities which are active in combat, for example, if an NPC does a thing that causes a massive meteor storm which devastates a continent (a'la, Rain of Colorless Fire), summons some Big Bad to the world which they wouldn't generally have any ability to summon, put a kingdom to sleep with a curse, etc., things which more set the stage so to speak.

Yes.

I feel the same dissonance in both not-so-hypothetical cases. If an ritual formula for destroying the world works for an NPC, it would work under the same conditions even if it were a PC doing it.

This can lead to a lot of fun interactivity that players can take advantage of. See also: Harry Dresden and the Red Court ritual.

[Pex]

The Drow Mage has Summon Demon. Which is a direct spell replacement. That doesn't count as casting a spell, doesn't require concentration, and won't become hostile. And can be dismissed. And has since the MM.

Personally, I don't see the difference here. It feels like "but spellcasters are special" is just special pleading.

Said demon is subject to Protection From Evil. It can be Banished. Magic weapons that have special properties against fiends do their thing. The demon follows the rules of game play. A PC can't do the same thing exactly but doesn't need to. The closest is the Conjurer who at 10th level cannot lose concentration on his summoned creature due to damage, though it is still concentration. The issue is not having an ability a PC cannot do. The issue is whatever the ability is does it follow the same rules that PCs do when it is played.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Said demon is subject to Protection From Evil. It can be Banished. Magic weapons that have special properties against fiends do their thing. The demon follows the rules of game play. A PC can't do the same thing exactly but doesn't need to. The closest is the Conjurer who at 10th level cannot lose concentration on his summoned creature due to damage, though it is still concentration. The issue is not having an ability a PC cannot do. The issue is whatever the ability is does it follow the same rules that PCs do when it is played.

You're playing fast and loose with what you mean by "rules", cherry picking the ones you care about. Which makes this rather pointless. Especially since that's a direct spell replacement that isn't a spell. And so can't be counterspelled. Which is the big source of the complaint.


Yes.

I feel the same dissonance in both not-so-hypothetical cases.

So if any content is available to NPCs, it must be available to PCs? Is "you could do it, but it would take the rest of your life to learn how, so if you want to, hand over your character sheet" an option? Or does it have to be a feat/class feature/etc?

And people claimed that I was strawmanning....that's exactly what I was talking about. There is content available to PCs and content available to NPCs. And they're different by black-letter RAW. And any such expectation/dissonance is entirely imposed on the game from outside, not arising from any rational expectation set by the game itself.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Said demon is subject to Protection From Evil. It can be Banished. Magic weapons that have special properties against fiends do their thing. The demon follows the rules of game play. A PC can't do the same thing exactly but doesn't need to. The closest is the Conjurer who at 10th level cannot lose concentration on his summoned creature due to damage, though it is still concentration. The issue is not having an ability a PC cannot do. The issue is whatever the ability is does it follow the same rules that PCs do when it is played.

Let's try that out... Arcane Burst is subject to the Shield Spell or magical armor, it can force disadvantage from the Dodge option and depending on the damage type can be blocked with Absorb elements. The attack follows the rules of game play. A PC can't do the same thing exactly but doesn't need to. The closest is a Warlock of level 11+ with Eldritch Blast, or any caster casting Scorching Ray, though it does have other weaknesses.

Arcane Burst's only different from a Scorching Ray or a Cantrip is the issue of interacting with CounterSpell and the like. The same is true of the Drow Summon Demon vs a PC spellcaster using a summon.

[Pex]

So your argument is that it's a break down and Christa and Dan cannot share a theme because Dan's Spell Attack +6 for 3d10+3 X damage can't be counterspelled where as Christa's spell attack +9 for 2d10 X damage can be counterspelled?

Who counterspells Cantrips? And this is meant to stand in for a Cantrip, not Scorching Ray. It's a slightly buffed Firebolt with varying damage types.



Last game session my DM used a Legendary Resistance on a Battlemaster Goading attack. Who counterspells Cantrips? A DM who doesn't metagame what a PC does and have an NPC counter whatever spell the PC casts next which just happens to be a Cantrip.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Last game session my DM used a Legendary Resistance on a Battlemaster Goading attack. Who counterspells Cantrips? A DM who doesn't metagame what a PC does and have an NPC counter whatever spell the PC casts next which just happens to be a Cantrip.

If you're playing a game where both the DMs and the PCs state "(I/NPC) begins to cast a spell, then waits for response.

If your groups do that, cool. Most don't. Most say "I can Disintegrate" or "Vecna is going to use Teleport". Yeah, there's some Meta there, but I always chock that up to actual characters are more experienced and often smarter than we the players or DM are.

[Pex]

That's how you're interpreting it, which I give allowance for in other posts and well, opinion is opinion.

It's been my experience that NPCs often have more attacks and hit harder as part of the design philosophy of how does one creature potentially stand up to an average of 4 and not just die.

I'll pose a different example of drastically different NPC vs PC issues. It's one I brought up in the other thread but people kept avoiding talking about it, but I'm curious your take on it since you're coming across much more as someone discussing in good faith and just disagreeing on points.

What do you make of 5e Eladrin? As a PC race the only special thing they get outside of normal elf is a limited use "Misty step" like power with a small rider that triggers on its use. As an NPC they have a constant aura that affects anything w/in 60' of them and a "Misty Step" like power that's useable on average 1 every 2 rounds. Does it hurt immersion or break the game that there's such a sharp difference here?

That was a discrepancy I think Telok criticized, that PCs don't get to play the races they were promised to play because they can't do what NPC members of that race do. That was the whole point of the light sensitivity debate. It's a different topic but related in the sense of general criticism against the new design 5E is presenting.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

That was a discrepancy I think Telok criticized, that PCs don't get to play the races they were promised to play because they can't do what NPC members of that race do. That was the whole point of the light sensitivity debate. It's a different topic but related in the sense of general criticism against the new design 5E is presenting.

But that's not new design. The example I'm tossing up is from Tome of Foes, it's the old design. Though yeah, Telok would be on the PC/NPC transparency side of the debate.

[Dante]

So if any content is available to NPCs, it must be available to PCs? Is "you could do it, but it would take the rest of your life to learn how, so if you want to, hand over your character sheet" an option? Or does it have to be a feat/class feature/etc?

That's not what I said. Your takeaway is unrelated to what I wrote. Try rereading the actual question from @Brookshw that I was responding to.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

That's not what I said. Your takeaway is unrelated to what I wrote. Try rereading the actual question from @Brookshw that I was responding to.

Being clear. If anything an NPC can do a PC must be able to do in your view of things, AND it has to be accomplishable in game. Does that mean the idea of the BBEG spending their lives and even into Undeath to unlock the mystical power to bind the Abyss to them is something the PCs must be able to accomplish far faster than the NPC did?

To use an example, look back at Expedition to the Demonweb pits. It centered around a scroll that could be used to bind multiple demon lords to a single cause, but requires a Divine Spark to bind it. None of the PCs are presumably gods. Should they be able to do accomplish this without getting and NPC deity to help? If they get the NPC deity to help then they're still relying on the NPC to do something they can't. Or do the PCs need to now quest straight for god hood?

[Corran]

Without diving into the hot topic, I'm curious if people have the same dissonance for NPC narrative abilities vs. NPC abilities which are active in combat, for example, if an NPC does a thing that causes a massive meteor storm which devastates a continent (a'la, Rain of Colorless Fire), summons some Big Bad to the world which they wouldn't generally have any ability to summon, put a kingdom to sleep with a curse, etc., things which more set the stage so to speak.
Ooh, I like that. Maybe not so much the extreme scenarios of summoning the ultimate bag guy or destroying the world (because I dont enjoy too epic adventures), but something like putting a small town to sleep or other things of similar nature that would essentially set the stage for something intriguing, sign me up.

As a player, especially if for example I was playing a wizard, I would be certainly very interested to have my character be interested to finding more about the whatever crazy magical thing going on. I can understand not getting it for balance reasons, in terms of not breaking the challenges of the campaign, but it would matter to me how the DM would handle this.
1) This is something that your character needs to spend a lot of years (enough to be realistic that even with downtime I wont get there while playing the game) trying to master it
2) Given time you'll be able to do that, but the moment you do your character must become an NPC
3) You know what the spell does but here is what the caster's notes have on spell components and casting time along with that extra special clause
4) The spell notes got destroyed through a comically convenient turn of events.
5) This is something your character can use as inspiration to come up with lesser versions until substancial time and effort goes into it, which you wont do for reasons you'll give me. Etc

4 is particularly weak, and though I wouldn't find something like that an enjoyable moment, if the part up to there was good enough it would be easier to brush it aside. 2 and 5 (that are suspiciously similar now that I am giving them a second look) are not very satisfying either, but they are definitely better than 4.

As a DM I just have the extra burdern to think through such things and decide on what would be the best. But I tell you what. If I can turn this into a dilemma among the various party members and give them something to roleplay their guts about while I am pressumably watching and enjoying without knowing what they'll end up doing, I am probably doing it without even thinking the consequences and after that I ask a certain friend of mine (who more than once has given me good solutions to similarly troubling situations) what the heck will I do. And if that fails, then I am coming here and I am asking what the heck will I do. In all likelihood I'll hear at least one solution that I'll like. But generally, I'd probably try to find either a good reason why the players wont get it or have already some plaussible limitation in mind that will allow me some reign over how it can be used.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ooh, I like that. Maybe not so much the extreme scenarios of summoning the ultimate bag guy or destroying the world (because I dont enjoy too epic adventures), but something like putting a small town to sleep or other things of similar nature that would essentially set the stage for something intriguing, sign me up.

As a player, especially if for example I was playing a wizard, I would be certainly very interested to have my character be interested to finding more about the whatever crazy magical thing going on. I can understand not getting it for balance reasons, in terms of not breaking the challenges of the campaign, but it would matter to me how the DM would handle this.
1) This is something that your character needs to spend a lot of years (enough to be realistic that even with downtime I wont get there while playing the game) trying to master it
2) Given time you'll be able to do that, but the moment you do your character must become an NPC
3) You know what the spell does but here is what the caster's notes have on spell components and casting time along with that extra special clause
4) The spell notes got destroyed through a comically convenient turn of events.
5) This is something your character can use as inspiration to come up with lesser versions until substancial time and effort goes into it, which you wont do for reasons you'll give me. Etc

4 is particularly weak, and though I wouldn't find something like that an enjoyable moment, if the part up to there was good enough it would be easier to brush it aside. 2 and 5 (that are suspiciously similar now that I am giving them a second look) are not very satisfying either, but they are definitely better than 4.

As a DM I just have the extra burdern to think through such things and decide on what would be the best. But I tell you what. If I can turn this into a dilemma among the various party members and give them something to roleplay their guts about while I am pressumably watching and enjoying without knowing what they'll end up doing, I am probably doing it without even thinking the consequences and after that I ask a certain friend of mine (who more than once has given me good solutions to similarly troubling situations) what the heck will I do. And if that fails, then I am coming here and I am asking what the heck will I do. In all likelihood I'll hear at least one solution that I'll like. But generally, I'd probably try to find either a good reason why the players wont get it or have already some plaussible limitation in mind that will allow me some reign over how it can be used.

I'm totally fine with giving players this sort of thing. But I also don't think it's required or expected by the game. That is, the default seems to be "there are plot devices and things NPCs can do that PCs can't and vice versa. That's normal and expected."

I guess part of it seems to be a disconnect between "game mechanics as simulating a world's intrinsic rules" and "game mechanics as evoking narrative tropes and conventions". 5e tends much more towards the second than the first. NPC bakers don't need to make Dexterity (Cook's Tools) checks--they just bake stuff as appropriate. Evil Viziers don't have to have sky-high Persuasion modifiers to persuade other NPCs--they do or they don't depending on the needs of the fiction, not by the interplay of mechanics. If two NPC armies fight, the outcome is [I]narratively determined, not played out (even in principle). Evil "NPC wizards" can do big flashy grand things, because that's what evil "wizards" do in fiction; PCs are more grounded because in the fiction being emulated, the PCs are always the underdogs. Etc.

[Dante]

Being clear. If anything an NPC can do a PC must be able to do in your view of things, AND it has to be accomplishable in game.

Find a quote where I ever said that and I'll be happy to discuss with you what I said and meant.

The question I answered was about whether combat and noncombat differ w/rt dissonance created. Notice that @Brookshw *explicitly* disavows interest in "the hot topic" that you're trying to interrogate.

You're interpreting a Q&A about A as an answer to your own question about B. It's not.


To use an example, look back at Expedition to the Demonweb pits. It centered around a scroll that could be used to bind multiple demon lords to a single cause, but requires a Divine Spark to bind it. None of the PCs are presumably gods. Should they be able to do accomplish this without getting and NPC deity to help? If they get the NPC deity to help then they're still relying on the NPC to do something they can't. Or do the PCs need to now quest straight for god hood?

Or is this an adventure Dante would find dissonant and perhaps choose not to run?


If two NPC armies fight, the outcome is narratively determined, not played out (even in principle). Evil "NPC wizards" can do big flashy grand things, because that's what evil "wizards" do in fiction; PCs are more grounded because in the fiction being emulated, the PCs are always the underdogs. Etc.

Another great example of dissonance from my perspective. If the DM says that an army of ten thousand slaads are at the gates, and an "evil NPC wizard" with designs on the throne defeats all the Slaads because "the narrative" requires it, and then it turns out that the evil wizard is just a bog-standard MM Archmage or a 15th level Evoker... I would find challenge to my willing suspension of disbelief extremely unpleasant.

Such things have been part of my motivation for walking away from DMs and campaigns before, although I have found that DMing issues are usually linked to other DMing issues. It's never just one DM issue driving me crazy. E.g. dissonance + poor pacing (i.e. wasting the time of actual human beings at the table on stuff that should have been skipped over) + lack of interesting choices to make = Dante has a word with the DM after the session about how he won't be coming back + DM unfriends Dante on Facebook. That's life.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Find a quote where I ever said that and I'll be happy to discuss with you what I said and meant.

The question I answered was about whether combat and noncombat differ w/rt dissonance created. Notice that @Brookshw *explicitly* disavows interest in "the hot topic" that you're trying to interrogate.

You're interpreting a Q&A about A as an answer to your own question about B. It's not.

I'm not asking about B for A. I was attempting to clarify the original question posed to you which was, when it comes to this type of story narrative thing an NPC does, what level of transparency do you want? I obviously have my opinions, but asking yours isn't an attempt at a gotcha.


Or is this an adventure Dante would find dissonant and perhaps choose not to run?

It was an example of an adventure that's well regarded and solid. I used it as a middle ground point so everyone understands the details. If you don't like the adventure, that's cool. But no, the idea what about it would be dissonant.


Another great example of dissonance from my perspective. If the DM says that an army of ten thousand slaads are at the gates, and an "evil NPC wizard" with designs on the throne defeats all the Slaads because "the narrative" requires it, and then it turns out that the evil wizard is just a bog-standard MM Archmage or a 15th level Evoker... I would find challenge to my willing suspension of disbelief extremely unpleasant.

No matter what? Or would there be plot reasons to make sense? What if the PCs go on a series of quests to strip away the evil wizard's extra powers and by the time of the real fight it's the level 15 power scale (or whatever scale the game is set at)?

That's how the 3.5 Strahd ran. He had three-four distinct things that could be done to drag him down to manageable levels. Or what happened to V in the comic here? Attaching onto 3 powerful spirits that is where a ton of his power came from at that specific time frame.

[KorvinStarmast]

Last game session my DM used a Legendary Resistance on a Battlemaster Goading attack. seems legit to me.

Who counterspells Cantrips? A DM who doesn't metagame what a PC does and have an NPC counter whatever spell the PC casts next which just happens to be a Cantrip. Yeah, good example.


But that's not new design. The example I'm tossing up is from Tome of Foes, it's the old design. And perhaps not that relevant to the 5e discussion we are having about 5e stuff being a case of goal post moving or cheese moving.

[Dante]

I'm not asking about B for A. I was attempting to clarify the original question posed to you which was, when it comes to this type of story narrative thing an NPC does, what level of transparency do you want? I obviously have my opinions, but asking yours isn't an attempt at a gotcha.

It was an example of an adventure that's well regarded and solid. I used it as a middle ground point so everyone understands the details. If you don't like the adventure, that's cool. But no, the idea what about it would be dissonant.

I don't even know the adventure (apparently it's a 3E product from 2007? I skipped 3E). The only thing I know about it is your description, which sounds both too reliant on NPC intervention for my taste and too high-fantasy. I don't always mind putting a powerful NPC in the picture--imagine a low-level adventure where the middle third of the adventure is about seeking reinforcements and NPC help, and the last third is about using them to defeat the threat. But especially the way it was described, inherently dissonant, does make it sound unpleasant and not my style.

If the adventure is about multiple demon lords getting together, I'm more about the "having discovered the big pow-wow, you may infiltrate the alliance and see if you can undermine it, subvert it, take control of it, or at least siphon off treasure from it." If players opted to ignore it completely I would be disappointed, but that's life sometimes. (If this were part of an ongoing campaign I would enjoy reasoning out the consequences of ignoring the demon lords, with the help of some dice.)

Have I answered your question?


No matter what? Or would there be plot reasons to make sense? What if the PCs go on a series of quests to strip away the evil wizard's extra powers and by the time of the real fight it's the level 15 power scale (or whatever scale the game is set at)?

You're adding in extra details that change the scenario, and aren't applicable to the post I was responding to (or the experiences I've had). PhoenixPhyre postulated that when 5E armies fight, their stats don't matter "even in principle".

Now you're asking whether it would matter to me if the players never had the data to infer the wizard's stats, because they didn't encounter him until he'd been severely weakened. That would bother still bother me I think, but in a different way: lack of closure. You never even learn how his Defeat Ten Thousand Slaad trick worked.

In any case you *are* changing the subject here from my response to PhoenixPhyre's claims about 5E and I hope you recognize that. If you want to understand more about where I'm coming from, look into GDS Simulationism (not GNS Simulationism).

[BRC]

But there's the thing your answer doesn't address, not to me, but to the argument going on.

You're not allowed to use DM Fiat to justify. Psyren, myself, Phoenix, several others, all of us gave simple DM Fiat logic that'd solve the issue. The response was some variable of "But I play with DMs who rule pure RAW and never interpret or discuss anything so you have to make this argument purely by what the book does say." So. Nothing in the book says the NPC Eladrin are more experienced, there is nothing in the book that says the PC and NPC Eladrin are different at all. Same type of argument would apply to the general Ogre. :)

Because if you ask with the allowance of DM Fiat you get a couple of answers. Psyren has said the Arcane Blast isn't a spell, can't be countered, that's the DM ruling, move forward. I've said I consider ALL magic to be subject to counterspells and such and have already houseruled plenty and would consider Arcane Blast a Cantrip for such purposes.

With DM fiat we've already answered these issues easily and quickly, but that wasn't what the opposing side of the argument is wanting.

Yeah, DM fiat resolves the problem easily. We know that the Dev chose to very specifically make Arcane Blast a nonspell, and explicitly call out that it can't be Counterspelled, so it's worthwhile to discuss that decision, and both the mechnical, and thematic consequences therof, if only to help other DM's who might read this understand the situation and make similar decisions about how they want to treat this.

The mechanical consequence is that certain interactions (Counterspell, antimagic field, Mage Slayer) no longer interact with this particular ability, despite it being functionally, and thematically, A Spell (except for the "Not A Spell" label that is put on it)

The Thematic consequence is that you've got this odd category of nonspell spells that are magical effect done by mortal spellcasters, and which apparently significantly skilled spellcasters can do, but which PC spellcaster cannot do anything like. The issue isn't that the NPC can do something the PC cannot, I would be 100% okay if Arcane Blast was just an NPC only cantrip that PCs cannot take no matter how much they whine and beg and puppy eye their DMs, because it's an abstraction for the NPC throwing higher level spell slots into blasting spells.

there are three ways to rule it that I see:

1) Arcane Blast is just a mechanical abstraction for the NPC throwing their spell slots into damage spells. narratively, they can't cast it all day, but it generally isn't worth tracking individual spell slots for a statblock that will only exist for 4 rounds and has more than 4 3+ level spell slots. Therefore, Arcane Blast is a Spell, and can be interacted with as such (DM Fiat)

2) Arcane Blast is a narrative thing skilled spellcasters can do, but it is NOT a Spell, and PC wizards can never learn it or anything like it. Even if the PC and the NPC have the same theming, there is some X-factor or variable that allows the NPC to use Arcane Blast that the PC does not have. (RAW)

3) Arcane Blast is a narrative thing skilled spellcasters can do, and thematically the NPC statblock is supposed to represent something distinct from anything a PC can build. An innately different Sort of Spellcaster whose mastery of the Arcane is such that they can do this spelllike thing that isn't technically a spell.

And the decision you make matters.



I'd say this is different from, say, the Gladiator's Shield Bash (An ability that has no clear PC available equivalent), because the Shield Bash is, at it's core, A Way To hit Somebody With A Weapon, and PC fighters can do that. They have other ways of Hitting People With Weapons To Make Them Fall Down, and so there isn't much of a disconnect to say "This NPC knows a way to hit somebody with a shield that you don't know". It's not about different toys, because you can't draw a hard, mechanical (And therefore thematic) line between what the NPC does and what the PC does.


I guess part of it seems to be a disconnect between "game mechanics as simulating a world's intrinsic rules" and "game mechanics as evoking narrative tropes and conventions". 5e tends much more towards the second than the first. NPC bakers don't need to make Dexterity [Intelligence?] (Cook's Tools) checks--they just bake stuff as appropriate. Evil Viziers don't have to have sky-high Persuasion modifiers to persuade other NPCs--they do or they don't depending on the needs of the fiction, not by the interplay of mechanics. If two NPC armies fight, the outcome is narratively determined, not played out (even in principle). Evil "NPC wizards" can do big flashy grand things, because that's what evil "wizards" do in fiction; PCs are more grounded because in the fiction being emulated, the PCs are always the underdogs. Etc.


This is kind of the thing that gets me about Arcane Blast, it's a seemingly petty different with major consequences.

The Evil Wizard has his Big Flashy Spells that are Better Than What the PC's Have. That's fine, that's wonderful.

But Arcane Blast isn't substantially different from what PC's have. It's basically a slightly beefier Scorching Ray. If Evil Wizard NPC just had Slightly Beefier Scorching Ray as an at-will ability, that would be fine.

But instead we've constructed this new category of I-Can't-Believe-Its-Not-Spell, apparently with the intent of being thematically different from a Spell. It's not so much that it's unfair as that it's odd.

Spellcasters can do This Thing That's Not A Spell, because Spell has a mechanically enforced in-universe definition. It's LIKE a Spell, and the people who can do it are defined as Spellcasters. But it's not a spell.
The PC Wizard, despite eventually learning spells to rend reality asunder and reshape it to their will, and sharing a lot of thematic background with the NPC spellcaster (Not necessarily, but that's not an uncommon use case), cannot learn this or anything like it. It's not that there is this specific thing they cannot recreate, there's apparently this whole skill of "Nonspell Magic Attacks" that NPCs can learn but PC wizards cannot.

And it's not strictly speaking NEW by any measure, but it's apparently a design decision they've decided to make standard.

If Game Mechanics invoke tropes and narrative conventions, then the narrative convention is that the Evil Wizard casts spells, not "Casts Spells and also shoots magic hurty beams that are distinctly NOT spells for the purpose of things that interact with spells"

I'd also be fine if it was a statblock for a Specific Character, whose mastery of the Arcane is so great that they can channel RAW ARCANE MIGHT without bothering to shape it with a spell.

But as presented, the statblocks are "Here's some stats to use for A Spellcaster in your game world".

[KorvinStarmast]

We know that the Dev chose to very specifically make Arcane Blast a nonspell, and explicitly call out that it can't be Counterspelled, so it's worthwhile to discuss that decision, and both the mechnical, and thematic consequences therof, if only to help other DM's who might read this understand the situation and make similar decisions about how they want to treat this.

The mechanical consequence is that certain interactions (Counterspell, antimagic field, Mage Slayer) no longer interact with this particular ability, despite it being functionally, and thematically, A Spell (except for the "Not A Spell" label that is put on it)

The Thematic consequence is that you've got this odd category of nonspell spells that are magical effect done by mortal spellcasters, and which apparently significantly skilled spellcasters can do, but which PC spellcaster cannot do anything like. The issue isn't that the NPC can do something the PC cannot, I would be 100% okay if Arcane Blast was just an NPC only cantrip that PCs cannot take no matter how much they whine and beg and puppy eye their DMs, because it's an abstraction for the NPC throwing higher level spell slots into blasting spells. And this makes the DM's job harder, not easier, by having to remember this edge case.


I'd say this is different from, say, the Gladiator's Shield Bash (An ability that has no clear PC available equivalent), because the Shield Bash is, at it's core, A Way To hit Somebody With A Weapon, and PC fighters can do that. They have other ways of Hitting People With Weapons To Make Them Fall Down, and so there isn't much of a disconnect to say "This NPC knows a way to hit somebody with a shield that you don't know". It's not about different toys, because you can't draw a hard, mechanical (And therefore thematic) line between what the NPC does and what the PC does. Agree


But instead we've constructed this new category of I-Can't-Believe-Its-Not-Spell, apparently with the intent of being thematically different from a Spell. It's not so much that it's unfair as that it's odd. Which makes the devs, collectively, an idiot in this case.

Spellcasters can do This Thing That's Not A Spell, because Spell has a mechanically enforced in-universe definition. It's LIKE a Spell, and the people who can do it are defined as Spellcasters. But it's not a spell.

[BRC]

Which makes the devs, collectively, an idiot in this case.

Eh, I think they did this very deliberately, either because they didn't want to carve out a new space for "Spells that exist on NPC statblocks, but on no PC class list" (Which would be weirder mechanically, because mechanically "Spell" is defined as "Something a PC can do", but less weird Thematically), or because they wanted NPC spellcasters who could have impactful turns that couldn't be shut down with a 3rd level spell, and did it as a deliberate nerf to Counterspell.

Regardless of their reasoning, this is what they decided.

[Dante]

1) Arcane Blast is just a mechanical abstraction for the NPC throwing their spell slots into damage spells. narratively, they can't cast it all day, but it generally isn't worth tracking individual spell slots for a statblock that will only exist for 4 rounds and has more than 4 3+ level spell slots. Therefore, Arcane Blast is a Spell, and can be interacted with as such (DM Fiat)

Aside: given WotC's stated design goals (make it harder for a monster to fail to live up to its CR) it is baffling that they didn't stick a 3/Day tag on the Multiattacks in question.

It would have prevented players from being able to exploit them via Magic Jar, Simulacrum, or (in the case of the Bheur Hag and maybe others) Planar Binding.

#NiceJobBreakingItHero.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aside: given WotC's stated design goals (make it harder for a monster to fail to live up to its CR) it is baffling that they didn't stick a 3/Day tag on the Multiattacks in question.

It would have prevented players from being able to exploit them via Magic Jar, Simulacrum, or (in the case of the Bheur Hag and maybe others) Planar Binding.

#NiceJobBreakingItHero.

I'm strongly betting that in 5.5e, Magic Jar, Simulacrum, and Planar Binding will be either completely revamped or removed.

I also strongly expect that the various Conjure X spells will either go away entirely (replaced by the Summon X line) or be replaced by a fixed list (a la PF1e). Similarly I expect[1] Polymorph and Wildshape to have similar fates (probably in the fixed list variant).

[1] with substantially less confidence than the other predictions.

[Pex]

Let's try that out... Arcane Burst is subject to the Shield Spell or magical armor, it can force disadvantage from the Dodge option and depending on the damage type can be blocked with Absorb elements. The attack follows the rules of game play. A PC can't do the same thing exactly but doesn't need to. The closest is a Warlock of level 11+ with Eldritch Blast, or any caster casting Scorching Ray, though it does have other weaknesses.

Arcane Burst's only different from a Scorching Ray or a Cantrip is the issue of interacting with CounterSpell and the like. The same is true of the Drow Summon Demon vs a PC spellcaster using a summon.

BRC above gives a better response than I could.

[Corran]

I'm totally fine with giving players this sort of thing. But I also don't think it's required or expected by the game. That is, the default seems to be "there are plot devices and things NPCs can do that PCs can't and vice versa. That's normal and expected."
First of all, apologies for responding only partially to your post, but I think we can reach an understanding about this particular point, and at this point I am all for that (I just wanna be understood!:smallbiggrin:)
I dont want to say if it's required or not. It's a DM decision and there's nothing else to it. And what we can do is judge if that decision is good or bad, and how much. Before going into the DM's decision, let's ask another thing. Is it justifiable for the player to want their character to interact with (let's say it's a spell, specifically spell notes) the spell? I think yes. My powerhungry caster probably wants to learn it, my greedy rogue probably wants to sell it, my wise cleric probably wants to take it to a secure location, my zealous paladin probably wants to destroy it, etc etc.

Let's go back to the DM decision. I can certainly understand if a DM goes ahead to say 1)"sorry guys, I didn't mean for you to get this, it's too powerful to give to a pc and it would make the campaign less fun, I used it to create an interesting situation for you, but you cannot do anything with it", or similarly 2) come up with a reason why we never had the opportunity anyway. 3) Or flat out say no for that matter, without even giving an excuse, but it's better to communicate the actual reason IMO. Anyway, I can understand this DM, and I even sympathise if they are in an uncomfortable position (not that they should be), and I do want to help not break the game world or the campaign, because I am playing in it.

Is that explanation (1) good enough? Well, it makes sense OoC, but no, it's not good enough IMO. You need to dress it up a little. Answering with something that creates even more questions from an IC point of view is fun only if these other questions are not unanswerable from an IC point of view.

Maybe the caster was a fool (like, a literal fool, a jester, at least dressed like that and looking the part) who speaks only in silly sentences that dont make sense and his notes dont make the any sense either. Is that a good enough explanation now? For some of my characters it will be, for others it might be just a good start. Meaning, I could still have a character who decides to break that riddle and takes the notes in the hope of finding more about this mystery. A DM does not owe resolution to that player, but it wouldn't be exactly bad if you thought something down the line to make this player feel rewarded about engaging with something they found interesting in the game world. Maybe the notes lead them to a GOO cult or something which you can turn into a side quest of sorts. And maybe the spell is not something that can be learned without undertaking the cult's ritual or whatever.

Maybe the caster was a lich and it took them a few centuries to come up with the spell. Most likely no shortcuts there. You can say that, or if you trust your players you can just hint it (enough to be understood, but without stating anything categorically), while at the same time you allow to keep the spell notes and you help them make something out of it (eg they have to consult experienced casters to make progress with these notes; which is good, in a way that you give your player some side goals he could be trying to accomplish something they took an interest in, pararrel to what they are doing with the rest of the party.

And if a devilishly handsome drow rogue pockets it under the party's noses and tries to sell it to the highest bidder ("because what's the worst that can happen, lots of heroes to make it their problem and save the day if need be"), maybe you let them try and plan around possible consequences that may include what happens if they get caught by the authorities or whoever else would not take kindly to that transaction.

Keeping the imaginary world spinning is a collective effort. Some players wont need dressing up the explanations so that they make sense from an in character perspective. Others will care a little, others will care a lot. Depending on what exactly it is we are talking about, you can expect people to shift their stance. Sometimes the same person will change their stance depending on what kind of character they are playing, because while one explanation might make sense for one pc, it might not make sense for another (eg because they have the personality/character knowledge or means/ mechanics to further question the explanation).

[PhoenixPhyre]

First of all, apologies for responding only partially to your post, but I think we can reach an understanding about this particular point, and at this point I am all for that (I just wanna be understood!:smallbiggrin:)
I dont want to say if it's required or not. It's a DM decision and there's nothing else to it. And what we can do is judge if that decision is good or bad, and how much. Before going into the DM's decision, let's ask another thing. Is it justifiable for the player to want their character to interact with (let's say it's a spell, specifically spell notes) the spell? I think yes. My powerhungry caster probably wants to learn it, my greedy rogue probably wants to sell it, my wise cleric probably wants to take it to a secure location, my zealous paladin probably wants to destroy it, etc etc.

Let's go back to the DM decision. I can certainly understand if a DM goes ahead to say 1)"sorry guys, I didn't mean for you to get this, it's too powerful to give to a pc and it would make the campaign less fun, I used it to create an interesting situation for you, but you cannot do anything with it", or similarly 2) come up with a reason why we never had the opportunity anyway. 3) Or flat out say no for that matter, without even giving an excuse, but it's better to communicate the actual reason IMO. Anyway, I can understand this DM, and I even sympathise if they are in an uncomfortable position (not that they should be), and I do want to help not break the game world or the campaign, because I am playing in it.

Is that explanation (1) good enough? Well, it makes sense OoC, but no, it's not good enough IMO. You need to dress it up a little. Answering with something that creates even more questions from an IC point of view is fun only if these other questions are not unanswerable from an IC point of view.

Maybe the caster was a fool (like, a literal fool, a jester, at least dressed like that and looking the part) who speaks only in silly sentences that dont make sense and his notes dont make the any sense either. Is that a good enough explanation now? For some of my characters it will be, for others it might be just a good start. Meaning, I could still have a character who decides to break that riddle and takes the notes in the hope of finding more about this mystery. A DM does not owe resolution to that player, but it wouldn't be exactly bad if you thought something down the line to make this player feel rewarded about engaging with something they found interesting in the game world. Maybe the notes lead them to a GOO cult or something which you can turn into a side quest of sorts. And maybe the spell is not something that can be learned without undertaking the cult's ritual or whatever.

Maybe the caster was a lich and it took them a few centuries to come up with the spell. Most likely no shortcuts there. You can say that, or if you trust your players you can just hint it (enough to be understood, but without stating anything categorically), while at the same time you allow to keep the spell notes and you help them make something out of it (eg they have to consult experienced casters to make progress with these notes; which is good, in a way that you give your player some side goals he could be trying to accomplish something they took an interest in, pararrel to what they are doing with the rest of the party.

And if a devilshy handsome drow rogue pockets it under the party's noses and tries to sell it to the highest bidder ("because what's the worst that can happen, lots of heroes to make it their problem and save the day if need be"), maybe you let them try and plan around possible consequences that may include what happens if they get caught by the authorities or whoever else would not take kindly to that transaction.

Keeping the imaginary world spinning is a collective effort. Some players wont need dressing up the explanations so that they make sense from an in character perspective. Others will care a little, others will care a lot. Depending on what exactly it is we are talking about, you can expect people to shift their stance. Sometimes the same person will change their stance depending on what kind of character they are playing, because while one explanation might make sense for one pc, it might not make sense for another (eg because they have the personality/character knowledge or means/ mechanics to further question the explanation).

Personally, I'm fine with a DM saying, OOC, "sorry, that's just how it is. Things go sideways if I let you play with this." I value honesty--if there's no real way for a PC to do something, I'm fine with that. But tell me that. Don't string me along or try to back-handed take it away later. DMs should be open and upfront about how things go.

Personally, my style is that I share lots of stuff. But the world is also full of stuff you can't do. For one reason or another. Or no particular reason other than "that's out of scope for this campaign, sorry".

[Corran]

Personally, I'm fine with a DM saying, OOC, "sorry, that's just how it is. Things go sideways if I let you play with this." I value honesty--if there's no real way for a PC to do something, I'm fine with that. But tell me that. Don't string me along or try to back-handed take it away later. DMs should be open and upfront about how things go.
I see that as the worst good answer I could give. It's really the bare minimum. Because it does not translate to the language the pc's are speaking. It's a fine answer out of game, but as a player I'd appreciate any help from the DM in having my character wrap ther head around the "why not". I am not saying there's no way I would ignore it (particularly if something else made up for it), but I'd rather not get there because I dont enjoy roleplaying "pretend you never saw the cracks on the 4th wall".


Personally, my style is that I share lots of stuff. But the world is also full of stuff you can't do. For one reason or another. Or no particular reason other than "that's out of scope for this campaign, sorry".
Oof. I dont like the last one, but I might use it in certain cases. For example if I am starting with a small setting because I dont have the time to flesh out the whole world (eg the frontier of a kingdom, the newly established settlements at the other side of the sea, etc), I may do this (ie camera stays on this setting). But other than that, instead of disallowing things I generally prefer speeding through anything that I dont think is good time spent at the table for everyone involved. Eg, does the bard want to spend the evening singing in the local tavern, and it's, say, the 3rd time we are doing that? Yep, I am not spending half an hour on songs and tavern rp if everyone else (inluding me) are not up for it. Though I'll allow it to happen, I'll just rush through it (narration replaces rp, resolution of whatever starts and ends with a die roll).

ps: I agree with the telling things upfront part. Eg, and I learnt this by experiencing the exact opposite as a player, if I am not feeling ready for the next session for whatever reason, I wont try to awkwardly redirect the players' attention to some of the ready side quests I've got, I'll just either ask if they want to do a side quest or play something else entirely/ cancel (explaining that I've not readied whatever I might have needed for what they were up to doing).

[Demostheknees]

1) Arcane Blast is just a mechanical abstraction for the NPC throwing their spell slots into damage spells. narratively, they can't cast it all day, but it generally isn't worth tracking individual spell slots for a statblock that will only exist for 4 rounds and has more than 4 3+ level spell slots. Therefore, Arcane Blast is a Spell, and can be interacted with as such (DM Fiat)

This is the best explanation I can think of for my table, and as for PC's learning it I will probably go with something along the lines of "This is a signature spell of theirs, while you can't learn it, you can use it to make one of your damage spells like it" or some such and then work on flavoring and potentially boosting one of their spells.

I will also echo Phoenix's sentiments about honesty - I recently just had a situation where I had to change up some stat-blocks for the main set of mobs that the party had been facing for the last few sessions. I didn't like how they were playing and felt they were decreasing fun at the table and so I made changes. I then made a post in our discord detailing essentially "patch notes" for the stat-blocks, without going into too much detail so their would still be surprise in game, but detailing the reasons and broad strokes of the changes. Players loved it and engaged with the new changes with enthusiasm rather than complaint. Cannot recommend just being honest with your players enough.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Oof. I dont like the last one, but I might use it in certain cases. For example if I am starting with a small setting because I dont have the time to flesh out the whole world (eg the frontier of a kingdom, the newly established settlements at the other side of the sea, etc), I may do this (ie camera stays on this setting). But other than that, instead of disallowing things I generally prefer speeding through anything that I dont think is good time spent at the table for everyone involved. Eg, does the bard want to spend the evening singing in the local tavern, and it's, say, the 3rd time we are doing that? Yep, I am not spending half an hour on songs and tavern rp if everyone else (inluding me) are not up for it. Though I'll allow it to happen, I'll just rush through it (narration replaces rp, resolution of whatever starts and ends with a die roll).

Scope can be for various aspects too. One of the best DMs I know refuses to do heavy political intrigue and such. Because she tried to be more casually open to the idea of it and I ran roughshod over her on accident. No player trying to win or be mean, just I understand economics and politics way better than she does and it caused issues. So now she doesn't really indulge that type of thing unless she's planned it really well. Not that it doesn't happen, just that she knows she won't have fun running that type of story.

[Corran]

Scope can be for various aspects too. One of the best DMs I know refuses to do heavy political intrigue and such. Because she tried to be more casually open to the idea of it and I ran roughshod over her on accident. No player trying to win or be mean, just I understand economics and politics way better than she does and it caused issues. So now she doesn't really indulge that type of thing unless she's planned it really well. Not that it doesn't happen, just that she knows she won't have fun running that type of story.
Gotcha. I mean, yeah, if there's no opportunity to do something then you cannot do it. From what PhoenixPhyre wrote I thought he meant that there may be an opportunity to do something but you cannot do this because I dont care to run that scene for you. In which case, speeding up through it could be a good compromise. Obviously not always, it's one of these things that are more of a case-by-case thing and are certainly tied to whatever was discussed at session 0. It can also be one of those things that are too easy to mess up (especially if you become too comfortable with it) and end up disappointing your players, so I can see why going with a hard no up front may seem more appealing. But I like restricting my hard no's to a minimum and then do my best at keeping the pacing as good as I can.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Gotcha. I mean, yeah, if there's no opportunity to do something then you cannot do it. From what PhoenixPhyre wrote I thought he meant that there may be an opportunity to do something but you cannot do this because I dont care to run that scene for you. In which case, speeding up through it could be a good compromise. Obviously not always, it's one of these things that are more of a case-by-case thing and are certainly tied to whatever was discussed at session 0. It can also be one of those things that are too easy to mess up (especially if you become too comfortable with it) and end up disappointing your players, so I can see why going with a hard no up front may seem more appealing. But I like restricting my hard no's to a minimum and then do my best at keeping the pacing as good as I can.

In that case, "out of scope" means something like "the only way to make sense doing it would be to turn the entire campaign into nothing but that. And the rest of the party isn't so interested." Or "I can't have fun doing so"--I'm a player too, and I deserve to have fun. Or in rare occasions, "that's just too evil". My players rarely want to do things that fall into that latter category, but I have some hard personal lines I won't cross.

For example, if someone wants to get hands-on with running a mercantile empire, I'm going to tell them that that's out of scope. Even if the whole party is down for it--I'm not. I won't have teh inspiration or the expertise to do a good job. But the whole party rarely is. Sure, I'll let you be the absentee owner of a mercantile establishment, but it's not going to be a big part of the campaign other than narratively.

Or if you want to try to replicate the faux-hoard experiment that the players discovered last session in my Soefra campaign. That falls under "too evil for me"--it requires constantly-refreshed human sacrifices used as a filter for elemental energy (in exquisitely painful ways) and pulls that energy up through dragons' eggs. Sorry, that's not something for PCs. I don't do evil campaigns.'

[False God]

Great. 5e is not the system for you. Because 5e is based around the whole idea that NPCs and PCs are different from the ground up.

Lol wow. Not even gonna bother eh? Just the good ol' "Hey mate if you don't like it, bugger off!"?

I actually get by just fine and build almost all of my humanoid (and many intelligent monsters) using the class system. They're far more intuitive, they're far more flexible, and they're much more comprehensible to my players. Noone asks why the CR??? Ancient Dragon Monk has 20th-level monk abilities, they clearly studied them! And noone wonders how that bandit leader who ran away after a fight in the first session came back as an endgame baddie warlock, he did it just like the players did!

My experience has generally been, across a multitude of games, the more systems they have, the worse they are. Especially when they are systems for the same thing. D&D has always been a terrible offender for this, particularly in spellcasting. Multiple classes get access to the same spell at different levels, though different means, sometimes with different casting components, and so on. At it's best it's bloat. Artificial inflation of the actual amount of content. At it's worst, it's clunky and confusing, leading both players and DMs to confusion over how or why spell X is working differently today for Bob as opposed to yesterday for Sam.

Time (both at the table and ink on the page) has to spent explaining why NPC Guard Bob and Level 3 Fighter Joe are operating differently. And that explanation is weak, relying heavily on expedience or ease, when it actually isn't either of those things or relying on "If you think it's cool for the NPC to have a special ability, give them one!" which I mean, heck isn't that a rule in every game?

Yeah I get I'm not gonna sway you, but "Well bugger off then!" certainly isn't winning your argument any points.


But we don't have NPC Wizards doing all sorts of things PC Wizards can't ever do.

We have NPC wizards making an attack that works like Eldritch Blast but does some more damage and doesn't trigger the option to Countspell and then one other thematically appropriate ability. That's it. That's the only thing different. The rest of their abilities are spells, just spells that can cast 2/Day instead of a full complicated slot breakdown to manage.
Is this an ability PC's can have?
No?
Then it's something the PC Wizard can't ever do.

"All sorts of things" is referring to the continuous reappearance of abilities that PCs don't have access to, but players are expected to accept as a normal part of the world that someone learned how to do. The fact that Wizard NPC A and Fighter NPC B have only "a couple exceptions" adds up over time and across the spectrum of NPCs.

Games should not, again IMO, have rules only to make a bunch of exceptions and special circumstances. That just gets us into Calvinball. It is generally poor for the state of the game for the DM to be playing Calvinball while the party can only play Rugby. Calvinball, like Rugby, is best played when both sides are playing the same game.

[Psyren]

Is this an ability PC's can have?
No?
Then it's something the PC Wizard can't ever do.


If your PC can't do this and you feel so strongly about it, your DM is to blame, not WotC.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Games should not, again IMO, have rules only to make a bunch of exceptions and special circumstances. That just gets us into Calvinball. It is generally poor for the state of the game for the DM to be playing Calvinball while the party can only play Rugby. Calvinball, like Rugby, is best played when both sides are playing the same game.

D&D is literally nothing but exceptions to rules and special circumstances. It's called exception based design, and it's intentional. That's what every single feature and trait is--something someone without it can't do it can't do as well. An exception to the general rules (which is why specific beats general is one of the cardinal principles of D&D). And the list of content not available to PCs is much much larger than that available to them--99.99% of all monsters are not playable as PCs.

What you seek isn't in this system. Both sides have never, from day 1, been playing the same game. No, not even in 3e, which made a half-baked attempt to align them, to it's detriment (IMO). PCs and NPCs are complementary, not symmetric. The asymmetric nature of the ruleset is rather intrinsic to D&D. An nPC necromancer can have as many undead under his control as he wishes without spending spell slots. A PC necromancer cannot. Etc.

That's not being rude, it's accepting reality. Sure, you can try to coerce the system into doing what you want. But you will be happier elsewhere, and the cost of bending to that point of view would, if accepted as a design principle, entirely ruin things for at least one person: me. And transitively my players, who self reportedly enjoy my games.

Your point of view is not wrong, but it means that 5e is a bad fit for what you want.

[Duff]

There's times when this is excellent at showing the other person is weird.
The cultist has lost so much of themselves they have powers that people don't get.

There's lots where it shows that the NPC has more specialised training than is good for a PC
Assassins have focused on their poisonings and their knife fighting. But they haven't done anything for their survival skills or their team fighting tactics
Or the adept getting an extra spell because they focused on their magic casting and link to their god over other skills. Knights, scouts nobles (fencing school) all fit this
Archmagi should all be individual statblocks. *This* Archmage has magic resistance. All good - they know a trick that's not in the book. If you have more than one archmage where the players get to see the stats and they aren't visibly different, there's an issue
But I feel like the Bandit captain's lifestyle doesn't justify this. If you really want to have them do more damage relative to their "level", make them stronger, or give them a feat or 2. Or a bigger weapon

Ignoring AC changes for using a shield might be a pragmatic option when there's lots of them. GMs don't want to have to keep track of each individual and add 1 to some of their AC.
But I think it's poor writing.
As a player, I expect it to be easier to hit the goblin with a bow than the one with a shield
Better to write a goblin using a spear in both hands, then a bow in both hands. Or always has a shield and switch between sword and sling

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Is this an ability PC's can have?
No?
Then it's something the PC Wizard can't ever do.

"All sorts of things" is referring to the continuous reappearance of abilities that PCs don't have access to, but players are expected to accept as a normal part of the world that someone learned how to do. The fact that Wizard NPC A and Fighter NPC B have only "a couple exceptions" adds up over time and across the spectrum of NPCs.

Cool, but where does the line exist and why? The poster I made this comment to said it was perfectly fine that the NPC could summon demons without spell slots, with no chance to be countered and without concentration to maintain all because the demon itself was then "Normal". But why is a uncounterable, no components, no concentration, no spell slot spell alright There but not elsewhere?

Also, when you say "A wizard can't ever do" do you mean can't ever do 3 attacks a round? Cause Scorching Ray does that. Do you mean they can't do an average of 59 damage total? Scorching Ray at 7th level plus does that. If you just mean multiple attacks like that, 1 level of Lock or 1 Feat gives Eldritch Blast. If you mean an energy attack that doesn't act as a spell, Armorer artificer gives that, so does Artillerist which gives it as a bonus action.

It only becomes "Something a wizard PC can't ever do" if you specifically mean "Fire 3 ranged attacks in a single round for 3d10+3 each." Which yeah, they can't, because Monster design has never been even.


Games should not, again IMO, have rules only to make a bunch of exceptions and special circumstances. That just gets us into Calvinball. It is generally poor for the state of the game for the DM to be playing Calvinball while the party can only play Rugby. Calvinball, like Rugby, is best played when both sides are playing the same game.

Someone already pointed out that the entirety of D&D's design is based on doing this thing you think is horrible. But again, where is the line drawn? Should NPC Antagonists never have more than 440 HP (Level 20 Barbarian with 24 Con and Toughness Feat with a +2 Tome) Cause after all, if that's the case then most NPCs get rolled by a party of 4. Because the PCs are built with smaller HP for the most part. That NPC Wizard can't ever have more than 280 and that's only with perfect Con, magic and Toughness. More likely they're going to have right around 142 if we're all being "fair" and will die in two rounds at best. Yep, big scary interesting fight there.

The Vecna fight is touted as a master class in DM BBEG design and epic fights. The entire Vecna stat block is impossible if it has to be things the PC can do. PC's don't get 3+ 9th level slots and 4-6+ of every other level. PC's don't get Lair actions to move the terrain AND 6 Legendary Actions to funnel more spellcasting per round than a PC wizard will get off over 3 or 4.

[animorte]

Joining a bit late, but from what I’ve gathered, players see what is happening within a game through what NPCs may be capable of and get jealous. This strikes me as quite odd because things like this literally happen all the time. Say I’m a Warlock in a party with a Fighter who has action surge, a Druid with wild shape, a Monk with flurry of blows, a Wizard with a trillion spells. All of them can do obvious things that I’m incapable of in my current build, various things that change the rules to accommodate their specialization in this class.

My point being that when I see things working differently through NPCs or PCs alike, I like to acknowledge the creativity and dedication from the perspective of my PC as well, whatever class that may be. I understand that whoever it is has likely put years of work into what they are good at. If I wish to emulate that, I’ll have to look at the concept through the design of another PC.

If it’s all about wielding a weapon or taking ownership of an item that does something special. That’s something else entirely, but understand that there are still limits to what everybody is capable of.

There’s also several rules that encourage the DM’s various customization and home brew concepts to flavor up your campaign with imagination.

[GooeyChewie]

Joining a bit late, but from what I’ve gathered, players see what is happening within a game through what NPCs may be capable of and get jealous. This strikes me as quite odd because things like this literally happen all the time. Say I’m a Warlock in a party with a Fighter who has action surge, a Druid with wild shape, a Monk with flurry of blows, a Wizard with a trillion spells. All of them can do obvious things that I’m incapable of in my current build, various things that change the rules to accommodate their specialization in this class.

It isn't jealousy. It's mechanical consistency and immersion. Players look at NPCs which are supposed to represent Wizards, and see that their spellcasting does not line up with Wizard spellcasting. The NPCs have spell-like abilities which seem like spells but do not interact with any mechanics which specify "spell," and then when the NPC casts an actual spell they are unable to upcast it. Nobody is jealous of the NPC for being unable to upcast spells, but it can create a cognitive dissonance when the NPC is called a "Wizard" but cannot do this basic Wizard thing. For many (though clearly not all) players, the changes have brough the NPCs far enough away from PCs to take them out of the story.

[KorvinStarmast]

PCs and NPCs are complementary, not symmetric. There's the other design issue which is that the NPC/Monster is usually going to last for one encounter while the PCs last for multiple encounters during a session and/or adventure day. That informs another reason for design variation.

And transitively my players, who self reportedly enjoy my games. Yep.

Your point of view is not wrong, but it means that 5e is a bad fit for what you want. But it's customizable, so it can be bent to what one wants from the DM side of the screen.

[animorte]

It isn't jealousy. It's mechanical consistency and immersion. Players look at NPCs which are supposed to represent Wizards, and see that their spellcasting does not line up with Wizard spellcasting. The NPCs have spell-like abilities which seem like spells but do not interact with any mechanics which specify "spell," and then when the NPC casts an actual spell they are unable to upcast it. Nobody is jealous of the NPC for being unable to upcast spells, but it can create a cognitive dissonance when the NPC is called a "Wizard" but cannot do this basic Wizard thing. For many (though clearly not all) players, the changes have brough the NPCs far enough away from PCs to take them out of the story.

In that instance specifically, obviously I’m not going to be jealous of others that can’t do what I’m capable of. Quite the inverse, and I appreciate that. I hadn’t approached it from that angle, but it’s not something that particularly bothers me. That being said, I do understand that just because I don’t have issue with something certainly doesn’t mean that it’s not a notable concern for others.

So (for me) when I see something like this, I tend to appreciate the unexpected reality of the game. In a lot of areas, some PCs are typically (though rarely enforced) expected to find a trainer, somebody who is a much higher level in their class, to teach them new spells or new battle maneuvers, etc.

Let’s say that very same Wizard that can’t upcast spells knows Fireball while your other Wizard can upcast his spells but doesn’t know Fireball. One may think, “what Wizard doesn’t have Fireball in their spell book?” Perhaps one that never acquired a master or acquaintance or book from which to learn it.

Not every BASIC Wizard can upcast spells, namely because they don’t have higher levels to upcast to, just like not every BASIC Wizard can cast Fireball. Basic being, you know, level 1.

Naturally there are spell-like abilities that can simulate what various classes are, and naturally there aren't such easy explanations for every instance like this. The real takeaway is that I like to imagine there are legitimate reasons for circumstances like this. You don’t automatically know somebody’s history from first impressions, and rarely even shortly after that, in D&D and IRL. But that doesn’t mean any DM or source books do justice to that notion, and not everybody thinks the same way. So that’s completely fair.

[Psyren]

But it's customizable, so it can be bent to what one wants from the DM side of the screen.

Yes, agreed. This is exactly what us opponents of default PC/NPC transparency have been advocating for this entire time. If someone wants to learn a move that is NPC-only by default, they should talk to their DM about it.

[Willie the Duck]

Joining a bit late, but from what I’ve gathered, players see what is happening within a game through what NPCs may be capable of and get jealous. This strikes me as quite odd because things like this literally happen all the time. Say I’m a Warlock in a party with a Fighter who has action surge, a Druid with wild shape, a Monk with flurry of blows, a Wizard with a trillion spells. All of them can do obvious things that I’m incapable of in my current build, various things that change the rules to accommodate their specialization in this class.

My point being that when I see things working differently through NPCs or PCs alike, I like to acknowledge the creativity and dedication from the perspective of my PC as well, whatever class that may be. I understand that whoever it is has likely put years of work into what they are good at. If I wish to emulate that, I’ll have to look at the concept through the design of another PC.

If it’s all about wielding a weapon or taking ownership of an item that does something special. That’s something else entirely, but understand that there are still limits to what everybody is capable of.

There’s also several rules that encourage the DM’s various customization and home brew concepts to flavor up your campaign with imagination.

Yeah, I'm also late enough to the party I'm not sure if I should jump in. Overall, I agree-- D&D is a game where you only get to do certain things (including many things your friends and allies can do, but also things they most likely can't) and that's just part of the game. You pick a lane and then (for the most part) you drive it. That's part of the experience. Also part of the game has been that most of the rules are player-facing. The economy isn't meant to make sense for answering questions about how peasants can earn a living, it is set up so that players can afford the things they are supposed to have at level X with the money they'd gain getting to level X, etc. Non-PC entities (monsters, NPCs, whatever) are built to inform how they interact with the PCs. Expecting them to work exactly like PCs doesn't (IMO) fit with the design goals of the ruleset. Trying to force them to do so would constrain design freedom in ways outside of the needs of the design goal, and I'm rarely in favor of that -- under the mindset that a given designer of given competence and with a given set of other constraints (deadline or need to balance against X or adherence to divine bovines) will turn out a better quality X (designed for purpose Y) if they are not beholden to extraneous restriction Y.

Where I think this is a clearly acceptable where monster X is not built from the same pieces (levels, classes, feats) as the characters (certain point buy games like GURPS and HERO SYSTEM have monster manual-like things that include monsters built effectively the same as a PC doing the same thing, and it's often the case that the more imposing challenger to the PCs does not have higher point costs). Also where things would work differently from a monster-usage perspective than a PC one (see Korvin's point about monsters lasting for one encounter. I distinctly remember 3e's Savage Species having trouble with creatures with, for example, at-will Charm Persons).

Where things become more questionably acceptable for me is where a monster is ostensibly the same as a PC, doing the same thing as a PC, but interact with the greater rules of the game in a different way. The Monster Manual gladiator having a different mechanical math to their 'knock people down and do damage' effect than PCs? Fine. Monster Manual wizards casting spells that aren't counter-able? I don't think I'd be as fine with that as the other situation excepting that I suspect it is part of a phasing out of Counterspell (which I think is a net positive, but that's a side issue). 'I reserve my reaction in the hopes of countering the wizard's spell' ought to be a strategy whose value does not depend on whether the DM is using a MM wizard or an NPC wizard. That said, those kind of inconsistencies are part and parcel of D&D -- like things not being like based on the nuances of the game system (example: taking the dodge action against the enemy attack making less sense because the attack pings off a Con save instead of the enemy's to-hit).


I guess part of it seems to be a disconnect between "game mechanics as simulating a world's intrinsic rules" and "game mechanics as evoking narrative tropes and conventions". 5e tends much more towards the second than the first. NPC bakers don't need to make Dexterity (Cook's Tools) checks--they just bake stuff as appropriate. Evil Viziers don't have to have sky-high Persuasion modifiers to persuade other NPCs--they do or they don't depending on the needs of the fiction, not by the interplay of mechanics. If two NPC armies fight, the outcome is [I]narratively determined, not played out (even in principle). Evil "NPC wizards" can do big flashy grand things, because that's what evil "wizards" do in fiction; PCs are more grounded because in the fiction being emulated, the PCs are always the underdogs. Etc.

Fundamentally that's what I mean when I say player facing above. At its' heart D&D was designed* around the assumption of PCs going down into dungeons and battling/robbing/possibly-teaming-up-with goblins and vampires, fighting the evil duke and his throne room full of henchmen, and going to the town cleric for the occasional Raise Dead or Cure Disease, and the goblins, vampires, duke, and cleric only need game rule components which speak to their ability to fill those roles. As much as D&D has evolved from where it started, I don't feel that this underlying assumption has really disappeared. Sure 2e started including an ecology paragraph to explain what cockatrice eat (when not fallen adventurers) and 3e built monsters with skills and feats (although I don't think I ever saw a MM entry with creatures taking feats or skills not relevant to combating them), but all-in-all, the game has been pretty consistent in that regard.
*the preponderance of the rules, that is. The game was also designed for hex-crawling in the wilderness and building keeps and becoming rulers and so on, but there was more assumption of DM adjudication over hard rules as you advanced along these play modes.

I'm not sure I agree that PCs are more grounded and that Evil "NPC wizards" can do things flashier than the PCs. I mean, if the DM wants to have the Evil Wizard literally move mountains, they can (with fiat). However, what the MM entry Evil Wizard-type entries can do may be different than, but not explicitly less powerful than, what PC casters can do.

[RSP]

That said, those kind of inconsistencies are part and parcel of D&D -- like things not being like based on the nuances of the game system (example: taking the dodge action against the enemy attack making less sense because the attack pings off a dex save instead of the enemy's to-hit).


Just pointing out Dodging does help against Dex Saves (gives you Advantage on them).

[Dante]

Someone already pointed out that the entirety of D&D's design is based on doing this thing you think is horrible.

Someone fallaciously claimed that exception-based design was inherent to D&D, as opposed to "prevalent in WotC's designs because MtG is in their corporate DNA".

The claim went unchallenged because no one wanted to engage with it in the context of this thread, but don't take that to mean it's uncontroversial. GOTO Considered Harmful because it's hard to understand, and COME FROM is so much worse that it's seen as a joke. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMEFROM for details on why) Exception-based design is COMEFROM for TTRPG rulesets, and it's not used in TSR-era D&D.

When the AD&D PHB tells you that bards can make a short speech before battle to inspire comrades for a morale bonus, it's not overriding an existing rule that says "short speeches don't affect morale." There may or may not be some rules that you could argue are exception-based, but it isn't built around WotC-ish exception-based rules that require a "specific beats general" reading philosophy to understand. (Not that "specific beats general" necessarily does anything anyway except generate arguments about which rule is more specific.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Not that "specific beats general" necessarily does anything anyway except generate arguments about which rule is more specific. *golf clap*

[OldTrees1]

Yes, agreed. This is exactly what us opponents of default PC/NPC transparency have been advocating for this entire time. If someone wants to learn a move that is NPC-only by default, they should talk to their DM about it.

This is also the expected policy for dealing with finite default material.

When character XYZ in universe could learn move ABC but there is no default material covering adding move ABC, then the GM has the power to create content.

This applies to when a NPC/PC could learn a move a different NPC/PC knows.

For example a Hobgoblin encounter than drilled coordinated strikes and thus the GM gave them pack tactics.

[Willie the Duck]

Just pointing out Dodging does help against Dex Saves (gives you Advantage on them).

Ugh. Thanks. Fixed.

[Psyren]

Ugh. Thanks. Fixed.

Regarding your fix, Con save stuff being undodgeable makes sense, those are usually based either on things that have no associated projectile or other delivery mechanism to mitigate (e.g. a Cone of Cold instantly lowers the temperature in the area of effect without relying on a combustion of some kind), or things that trigger after the delivery mechanism has already hit (e.g. poison entering your system after already being stung.)

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Someone fallaciously claimed that exception-based design was inherent to D&D, as opposed to "prevalent in WotC's designs because MtG is in their corporate DNA".

Exception based design was in 2nd Edition, I can't speak for 1st edition, never played. 2nd edition was made by a different company entirely. Either way, even if the evil MtG influences were the reason, it's still true.


The claim went unchallenged because no one wanted to engage with it in the context of this thread, but don't take that to mean it's uncontroversial. GOTO Considered Harmful because it's hard to understand, and COME FROM is so much worse that it's seen as a joke. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMEFROM for details on why) Exception-based design is COMEFROM for TTRPG rulesets, and it's not used in TSR-era D&D.

Really? So in 2nd Edition you didn't get 1 attack, unless you took Specialization or had sufficient levels in a warrior class. You can't climb super smooth difficult surfaces, unless you have a certain Thief Skill at a high enough percentage. Elves cannot be Bards unless you take the certain kit that lets them be Bards...


When the AD&D PHB tells you that bards can make a short speech before battle to inspire comrades for a morale bonus, it's not overriding an existing rule that says "short speeches don't affect morale." There may or may not be some rules that you could argue are exception-based, but it isn't built around WotC-ish exception-based rules that require a "specific beats general" reading philosophy to understand. (Not that "specific beats general" necessarily does anything anyway except generate arguments about which rule is more specific.)

There's not a written rule, but clearly without that unique class feature you can't do something, so the normal place is that giving a short speech has no mechanical effect, unless you have a unique ability. In 5e it doesn't say "You can't attack twice" it just says the attack action is a single attack. And then Extra Attack and Multi Attack give changes to that.

And of course, even if you were right and it was embraced or added by WotC. So? WotC has been in charge of D&D for 25 Years, TSR only had it for 20, WotC has been the brains behind D&D longer than TSR was.

[Pex]

Cool, but where does the line exist and why? The poster I made this comment to said it was perfectly fine that the NPC could summon demons without spell slots, with no chance to be countered and without concentration to maintain all because the demon itself was then "Normal". But why is a uncounterable, no components, no concentration, no spell slot spell alright There but not elsewhere?



The line is drawn by how it affects PCs once it comes to the table. It is a miff the drow doesn't need to concentrate on a summoned demon freeing up concentration for something else, but at least once that demon is there it functions like any other demon in regards to PC abilities. Non-spell spells get to ignore everything PCs have that deals with spells when before those NPCs didn't have such things. This is a new direction 5E is going, and that is what's ticking people off. They know it's on purpose the developers think is a great idea. Not everyone agrees with that assessment.

[Dante]

There's not a written rule, but clearly without that unique class feature you can't do something

No. Without that unique class feature, it depends on how good a speech you give and how the DM thinks the NPCs would react. There's no need for a "specific beats general" reading philosophy--the bard feature is adding a rule where previously there was no rule.

[Psyren]

Non-spell spells get to ignore everything PCs have that deals with spells when before those NPCs didn't have such things.

This is still false/hyperbolic. You can still use Shield against those non-spell attacks, you can still use cover, you can still use Dodge etc. Just because those defenses/counters are not specific to spells doesn't mean they don't exist or work.

[Willie the Duck]

Regarding your fix, Con save stuff being undodgeable makes sense, those are usually based either on things that have no associated projectile or other delivery mechanism to mitigate (e.g. a Cone of Cold instantly lowers the temperature in the area of effect without relying on a combustion of some kind), or things that trigger after the delivery mechanism has already hit (e.g. poison entering your system after already being stung.)

Um, okay. The point I am trying to make is that shoring up AC works when the opponent uses a mechanic which uses a to-hit, but not when they use (most) saving throws, and which of those is the case is often relatively arbitrary. More broadly, who does the rolling (the attacker making the attack roll or the defender making a save) is a matter of game mechanical inertia. All of this is merely a specific example towards the more general point that there are any number of instances where relatively like things do not work the same way by the rules and thus assuming a strategy that works for one would not work for the other (that itself being a simply a point that something like a MM Wizard spells not working the same as PC wizards would not be wildly out of place in the game).

[KorvinStarmast]

WotC has been in charge of D&D for 25 Years, TSR only had it for 20, WotC has been the brains behind D&D longer than TSR was. Some of the TSR folks ported over to WoTC for 3rd, though. I won't pursue this derail any further, as it's worth its own topic/thread if folks want to discuss that.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The line is drawn by how it affects PCs once it comes to the table. It is a miff the drow doesn't need to concentrate on a summoned demon freeing up concentration for something else, but at least once that demon is there it functions like any other demon in regards to PC abilities. Non-spell spells get to ignore everything PCs have that deals with spells when before those NPCs didn't have such things. This is a new direction 5E is going, and that is what's ticking people off. They know it's on purpose the developers think is a great idea. Not everyone agrees with that assessment.

It is a miff that you can't counterspell Arcane Burst, but at least once the attack is launched it functions like any other attack, having to hit the target AC, being blockable by things like Shield, etc.

Essentially you're saying the variance exists and it's just a matter of where you personally find it problematic. Which is a fine answer, but then begs the question, why debate at all? It seems like you're saying it's a personal opinion and decision on what's okay or not, but then why turn around and argue DM fiat can't handle something that has to be judged like that?



No. Without that unique class feature, it depends on how good a speech you give and how the DM thinks the NPCs would react. There's no need for a "specific beats general" reading philosophy--the bard feature is adding a rule where previously there was no rule.

That's not an official rule, that's DM fiat. This entire thread has screamed the idea that we're debating from a point of RAW, not Rule 0. If you want to invoke DM fiat, cool, that nullifies this entire thread and the one before it.



Some of the TSR folks ported over to WoTC for 3rd, though. I won't pursue this derail any further, as it's worth its own topic/thread if folks want to discuss that.

Not trying to pursue it further, just acknowledge a solid point. Honestly, I only brought up the length each company had the property since someone wanted to imply that WotC came in and ruined D&D vs being the one responsible for most of what we know. (IE 3rd-5th edition)

[Anymage]

The line is drawn by how it affects PCs once it comes to the table. It is a miff the drow doesn't need to concentrate on a summoned demon freeing up concentration for something else, but at least once that demon is there it functions like any other demon in regards to PC abilities. Non-spell spells get to ignore everything PCs have that deals with spells when before those NPCs didn't have such things. This is a new direction 5E is going, and that is what's ticking people off. They know it's on purpose the developers think is a great idea. Not everyone agrees with that assessment.

Things that look like spells but that aren't spells because screw Counterspell in particular are a bad call. D&D has had bad Sage Advice calls back in early 5e and before. So it's bad and for a bad reason, but not uniquely so and shouldn't be read any deeper than any other bad SA ruling.


Um, okay. The point I am trying to make is that shoring up AC works when the opponent uses a mechanic which uses a to-hit, but not when they use (most) saving throws, and which of those is the case is often relatively arbitrary. More broadly, who does the rolling (the attacker making the attack roll or the defender making a save) is a matter of game mechanical inertia. All of this is merely a specific example towards the more general point that there are any number of instances where relatively like things do not work the same way by the rules and thus assuming a strategy that works for one would not work for the other (that itself being a simply a point that something like a MM Wizard spells not working the same as PC wizards would not be wildly out of place in the game).

Sending in the rogue (nimble and good against dex saves, but more invested in skills or damage than AC) vs. the tanky fighter (stellar AC but dumped dex) might be a good example of your attack roll vs. dex save.

I do think there's value to the idea that players can reasonably expect similar things to work similar things and that their characters can perceive enough for them to make informed decisions. Player intuitions should matter (whether based on similar rules or on situations in the real world/narratively similar stories), over expecting rules mastery through memorizing countless individual interactions. Still, aside from the specific "these spell-like things don't count as spells because screw Counterspell in particular" ruling mentioned above, MotM casters run enough like PC casters that I doubt someone living in the world or even casually sitting at the table would notice too much discrepancy. Which is good enough for me to not worry about the sky falling here.

[Psyren]

Something they've been doing since the inception of 5e, are still doing, and have stated very clearly they plan to continue doing in the future along with their reasons why, is a "bad SA ruling?" Weird.

[Frozenstep]

Apologies if I missed anything I've jumped into this conversation rather late, but...


It is a miff that you can't counterspell Arcane Burst, but at least once the attack is launched it functions like any other attack, having to hit the target AC, being blockable by things like Shield, etc.

Okay. How does it interact with rod of absorption? Globe of invulnerability? A Rakshasa?

Breaking out of the general system of how things work means there's new interactions to consider, new complications, new issues. There can be value in doing so, but that value better be worth the cost.


Essentially you're saying the variance exists and it's just a matter of where you personally find it problematic. Which is a fine answer, but then begs the question, why debate at all? It seems like you're saying it's a personal opinion and decision on what's okay or not, but then why turn around and argue DM fiat can't handle something that has to be judged like that?

I mean, complaining about design principles slowly turning into Calvinball is valid, no? If every new monster added a whole bunch of odd interactions, you soon end up with an unapproachable game. It's the system's job to be understandable, learnable, and intuitive. Exceptions to the rules being commonplace is a good way to do the opposite.

[Psyren]

Okay. How does it interact with rod of absorption? Globe of invulnerability? A Rakshasa?

Breaking out of the general system of how things work means there's new interactions to consider, new complications, new issues. There can be value in doing so, but that value better be worth the cost.

What "complications?" If they're not spells, stuff that looks for spells/spell levels doesn't work on them or care. That takes care of two of these three outright. For Rakshasa, they get advantage on saves vs. "other magical effects" - but if the thing in question has no saving throw, they get no special defense against it. Done.

Now, if the DM wants those three things to affect Arcane Burst, they are free to do so, but that has no bearing on the default.


I mean, complaining about design principles slowly turning into Calvinball is valid, no? If every new monster added a whole bunch of odd interactions, you soon end up with an unapproachable game. It's the system's job to be understandable, learnable, and intuitive. Exceptions to the rules being commonplace is a good way to do the opposite.

Magic that is spells and magic that is not spells have existed since 5e began. If that = Calvinball, then by your logic the game has always been Calvinball. Somehow I doubt that to be the case.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Okay. How does it interact with rod of absorption? Globe of invulnerability? A Rakshasa?

Breaking out of the general system of how things work means there's new interactions to consider, new complications, new issues. There can be value in doing so, but that value better be worth the cost.

Rod of Absorption says "If you are targeted by a spell that the rod can't store, the rod has no Effect on that spell." it already has limitations. It also won't absorb an Infiltrator Artificer's Lightning Launcher. It specifically absorbs spells, not magic. Same with Globe of Invulnerability. Issue solved. Psyren already covered the Rakshasa


I mean, complaining about design principles slowly turning into Calvinball is valid, no? If every new monster added a whole bunch of odd interactions, you soon end up with an unapproachable game. It's the system's job to be understandable, learnable, and intuitive. Exceptions to the rules being commonplace is a good way to do the opposite.

Again, Psyren already covered. But it's not slowly turning into Calvinball. There's two ways to look at this reall.

1: We must abide by RAW. The Designers flat out said they WANT there to be magical attacks that aren't spells and thus can't be counterspelled and the like. So design working as intended. It's also ALWAYS worked this way as there have always been abilities that are magical but not spells.

2: We are allowed to use DM fiat. In which case this entire thing can be solved by a 2 second thought process of "Do I want to allow these to work like spells?" Problem solved.

[Zecrin]

This is still false/hyperbolic. You can still use Shield against those non-spell attacks, you can still use cover, you can still use Dodge etc. Just because those defenses/counters are not specific to spells doesn't mean they don't exist or work.

I think when someone says "everything PCs have that deals with spells" they're not referring to things that help mitigate the effects of spells, but rather measures that are designed specifically to counteract spell effects (like counterspell or globe of invulnerability).

For example, I wouldn't consider an amulet of health an item that "deals with spells" even though it gives you extra hp (which some spells take away) and a bonus to constitution saves (which some spells target).

On a more general note, I really don't see the harm in giving abilities like arcane blast components. If you tie up and gag a "wizard", he or she shouldn't be casting many blast-style "spells" (at least, per standard fantasy convention). Blasts of force just materializing out the air without any motion, incantation, or focus, seems more psionic than it does arcane.

On the question of whether all magical effects produced by wizards should be affected by counterspell, I fall on the side of "no" just because I don't personally think that cantrips (and cantrip like effects) should be counterable. However, if you're going to rule that flame bolt, chill touch, and eldritch blast can all be counterspelled, then it can feel unfair when NPC basic "spell-like" attacks don't suffer these limitations." I'm not saying that the rules can't do this (they already have), but that, if they do, it's going to make some people unhappy.

[Psyren]

I think when someone says "everything PCs have that deals with spells" they're not referring to things that help mitigate the effects of spells, but rather measures that are designed specifically to counteract spell effects (like counterspell or globe of invulnerability).

For example, I wouldn't consider an amulet of health an item that "deals with spells" even though it gives you extra hp (which some spells take away) and a bonus to constitution saves (which some spells target).

On a more general note, I really don't see the harm in giving abilities like arcane blast components. If you tie up and gag a "wizard", he or she shouldn't be casting many blast-style "spells" (at least, per standard fantasy convention). Blasts of force just materializing out the air without any motion, incantation, or focus, seems more psionic than it does arcane.

On the question of whether all magical effects produced by wizards should be affected by counterspell, I fall on the side of "no" just because I don't personally think that cantrips (and cantrip like effects) should be counterable. However, if you're going to rule that flame bolt, chill touch, and eldritch blast can all be counterspelled, then it can feel unfair when NPC basic "spell-like" attacks don't suffer these limitations." I'm not saying that the rules can't do this (they already have), but that, if they do, it's going to make some people unhappy.

What happens with these statblocks outside of combat is up to the DM. They're not designed for you to tie up and gag for social interaction, they're designed to be short-lived dangers or punching bags.

If a DM is really going to give your heroes no choice but to render an Enchanter comatose or slit his throat because he's impossible to disable any other way, that's on them. Personally, I would rule that if you've tied up and gagged one of these, it shuts off their ability to continue attacking. If he ends up being a major or recurring antagonist later, I'd probably rebuild him with PC rules.

[Frozenstep]

stuff


stuff

You know what, if the designers want non-spell magic, I get it. I don't like their thought process, but okay, you guys are right, it does work like you said.

But just consider...this system works in a way that's not super-intuitive to a player. Let's say a party realizes they need to face a group of human wizards, abjurers. Knowing they're facing wizards, they prepare by getting their hands on things that work against spells. Maybe they get a scroll of globe of invulnerability. Get a rasakasha on their side, somehow.

Maybe they're confident their enemies will be helpless. Maybe they're prepared for it to help, but their enemies will still have things that make it challenging. But instead the wizards just blast them straight through the preparations that should have been very effective against a wizard, because they're not playing by wizard rules. Like...why? What value does that bring, creating something that tricks players like that?

Yes, DMs can fix these issues. Give the party hints their ideas won't work. Rule the way it does work in a way that's more favorable. But it's still just one more example of the game throwing in an exception that makes it less intuitive, less possible to actually be intelligent and think ahead, unless the DM fixes it.

[BRC]

Really, it's a question of Expectation.


Imagine you are fighting a Red Dragon.

The Dragon swipes at your fighter, it's claws wreathed in flame, the fighter takes slashing and fire damage.

The Dragon unleashes it's breath weapon on you.
"Dm!" you say "I have a Cloak of Fire Resistance! I will take less damage from this attack!"
"Oh Wait", the DM says " According to this statblock, technically speaking, the Dragon's breath weapon is listed as dealing Heat Damage, not Fire, so your fire resistance doesn't apply".

"But the Claw attack deals fire damage" "Correct, some of the stuff it does is Fire, some is Heat".

So, the giant Fire Dragon's breath weapon is suddenly some mechanically distinct "Heat" damage, that bypasses fire resistance.

The above scenario is, at least, basically how I see the "Arcane Blast". The issue isn't that there is no way to deal with the Heat Damage, or even that there's no world in which a Red Dragon's breath weapon might be more accurately described as a blast of unbearable heat instead of a wave of flames.

It's that the expectation (A Spellcaster enemy primarily functions by Casting Spells) is broken by what comes down to mechanical pedantry. It inevitably leads to the table being slowed down as the DM explains that, well, technically, no, this isn't the thing you'd expect, it's a different thing. In what way is it different? Mainly in that The Stuff You Have no longer interacts with it.

[Psyren]

You know what, if the designers want non-spell magic, I get it. I don't like their thought process, but okay, you guys are right, it does work like you said.

But just consider...this system works in a way that's not super-intuitive to a player. Let's say a party realizes they need to face a group of human wizards, abjurers. Knowing they're facing wizards, they prepare by getting their hands on things that work against spells. Maybe they get a scroll of globe of invulnerability. Get a rasakasha on their side, somehow.

Maybe they're confident their enemies will be helpless. Maybe they're prepared for it to help, but their enemies will still have things that make it challenging. But instead the wizards just blast them straight through the preparations that should have been very effective against a wizard, because they're not playing by wizard rules. Like...why? What value does that bring, creating something that tricks players like that?

If you were up against an enemy Storm Sorcerer, and they used their reaction to blast you off a cliff despite your globe and counterspell, would you complain then? Or a Clockwork Soul turned off your advantage? Or a Chronurgist put you in Stasis? Would you feel "tricked" because they have some powers that aren't spells? Why is this concept anathema?

[Zecrin]

What happens with these statblocks outside of combat is up to the DM.

I agree that the DM has complete discretion over what happens both in an out of combat. But including things like language lists and persuasion modifiers serves to establish certain standards for creatures. My past experience with D&D and generic fantasy suggests that "bound and gagged wizards cannot cast spells" is a reasonable (but not inviolable) standard. Given, then, that adding components doesn't really cause any harm, I believe that their inclusion would be worthwhile.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not trying to pursue it further, just acknowledge a solid point. Honestly, I only brought up the length each company had the property since someone wanted to imply that WotC came in and ruined D&D vs being the one responsible for most of what we know. (IE 3rd-5th edition):smallsmile: Most of what *you* know.
To be fair, as an originally older version guy, I think some of what WoTC did was great in terms of organization and making a lot of pieces fit together in a cleaner fashion. For example, original Will / Reflex / Fortitude save schema appealed to me for its simplicity. (Don't need a look up table). Of course I disliked some other bits, so overall it's a wash for me, like a lot of other things. And 5e brought me back to the hobby.

The Dragon unleashes it's breath weapon on you.
"Dm!" you say "I have a Cloak of Fire Resistance! I will take less damage from this attack!"
"Oh Wait", the DM says " According to this statblock, technically speaking, the Dragon's breath weapon is listed as dealing Heat Damage, not Fire, so your fire resistance doesn't apply".

"But the Claw attack deals fire damage" "Correct, some of the stuff it does is Fire, some is Heat".

So, the giant Fire Dragon's breath weapon is suddenly some mechanically distinct "Heat" damage, that bypasses fire resistance.

The above scenario is, at least, basically how I see the "Arcane Blast". The issue isn't that there is no way to deal with the Heat Damage, or even that there's no world in which a Red Dragon's breath weapon might be more accurately described as a blast of unbearable heat instead of a wave of flames. It's almost like they are formalizing a bit of "Gotcha DMing."

[BRC]

If you were up against an enemy Storm Sorcerer, and they used their reaction to blast you off a cliff despite your globe and counterspell, would you complain then? Or a Clockwork Soul turned off your advantage? Or a Chronurgist put you in Stasis? Would you feel "tricked" because they have some powers that aren't spells? Why is this concept anathema?

For a few reasons

1) PC Perspective vs DM perspective. The DM deals with a fairly consistant set of PCs, they know that some powers are Spells and some are Not Spells. Yeah, it's a bit of work to keep track of what is what, but not that hard. They also have perfect information about the mechanics behind the PCs.

PC's on the other hand, are going to be constantly encountering, and learning about, new statblocks. A lot of their response is going to be based on what narrative information they receive.

If the narrative detail is "A robed man holding a wooden staff with a crystal on the end, you know him to be a master of Conjuration magic". You expect to fight an NPC that uses the mechanics of Spellcasting.

2) The scale of the ability. Most Nonspell magic that PC's have is a smaller effect, rather than the substance of the Turn. Exceptions abound (Most notably Wildshape, which copies the mechanics of the spell Polymorph, or the Chronurgist's Stasis ability that you brought up). They're rarely replacements for a full turn of Spell.

3) And this is the pettiest by far, most nonspell abilities are thematically linked to the subclass or class in a pretty solid way. A Chronurgist's Stasis is a unique ability that is deeply tied into the theme of the Chronurgist, because D&D has decided against creating Spells That Only Certain Subclasses Can Learn, such things are handled as Nonspell Abilities.

The Arcane Blast on an Evoker might be less egregious, he's a specialist Evoker, he can blast you with magic without "Casting a Spell". But it's handed out as a generic ability to spellcaster NPCs.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

You know what, if the designers want non-spell magic, I get it. I don't like their thought process, but okay, you guys are right, it does work like you said.

But just consider...this system works in a way that's not super-intuitive to a player. Let's say a party realizes they need to face a group of human wizards, abjurers. Knowing they're facing wizards, they prepare by getting their hands on things that work against spells. Maybe they get a scroll of globe of invulnerability. Get a rasakasha on their side, somehow.

Sure, and then All of that preparation rips through these human wizard's spell casting forcing them to only have a single option of their Arcane Burst. You find out you can't counter it and have to adapt.

Let's spin your example. Let's say the party has managed to scry or stealth in and see that the room they HAVE to go through and see a room full of figures in full plate armor and wielding longswords. So they prep ways to handle armored knights. They walk in and use a series of psychic damage and mental attacks to subdue the knights.. And the Animated Armor doesn't care and attacks. Or they rush in and start using Heat Metal to cause the knights pain and make them unable to fight effectively and the Narzugon don't care and attack back. Or maybe they burst in to deal with the Knights and a pair of Marilith stand up, because their information was wrong to begin with... You're #1: Assuming the DM is going to give clear cut titles and names to everything and #2: That the Party should somehow be allowed to have perfect information.


Maybe they're confident their enemies will be helpless. Maybe they're prepared for it to help, but their enemies will still have things that make it challenging. But instead the wizards just blast them straight through the preparations that should have been very effective against a wizard, because they're not playing by wizard rules. Like...why? What value does that bring, creating something that tricks players like that?

The enemy mages aren't going to "Just blast away" They're going to use their more powerful and potent abilities, find them not working, rewarding the party for planning well by giving them a round or two of advantage because the mages are wasting time trying to figure out what's going on before they fall back to just their basic attack of conjuring raw energy and letting it fly.


Yes, DMs can fix these issues. Give the party hints their ideas won't work. Rule the way it does work in a way that's more favorable. But it's still just one more example of the game throwing in an exception that makes it less intuitive, less possible to actually be intelligent and think ahead, unless the DM fixes it.

Again, you're assuming an intuitiveness that should not automatically be there. A good DM isn't going to tell the PCs they're facing a group of "human wizards, abjurers". How did they get this info? Is it from a source in town? The source probably says "Aye, there's spellflingers in there. quite a few of em. Blokes throwing energy around, raising things that shouldn't be." And that might be wizards, abjurers, or death priests, or Cults with granted powers from an archdevil, or Mindflayers in diguise. And that's the issue too. Your party sneaks in all prepared for dealing with human wizards, abjurers and then the Mindflayer with a hat of disguise Mind Blasts the party, bypassing all their abilities.




Imagine you are fighting a Red Dragon.

The Dragon swipes at your fighter, it's claws wreathed in flame, the fighter takes slashing and fire damage.

The Dragon unleashes it's breath weapon on you.
"Dm!" you say "I have a Cloak of Fire Resistance! I will take less damage from this attack!"
"Oh Wait", the DM says " According to this statblock, technically speaking, the Dragon's breath weapon is listed as dealing Heat Damage, not Fire, so your fire resistance doesn't apply".

"But the Claw attack deals fire damage" "Correct, some of the stuff it does is Fire, some is Heat".

So, the giant Fire Dragon's breath weapon is suddenly some mechanically distinct "Heat" damage, that bypasses fire resistance.

Already exists, want a super easy one? You're fighting a sorcerer, it blasts you with flame, fire dancing around it. It turns and a bolt of raging heat and light pours out. You say you have a Cloak of Fire resistance. The DM says this is radiant damage. You are making fair assumptions and guesses on a scenario, but that's not the same as being right or having all the info.


1) PC Perspective vs DM perspective. The DM deals with a fairly consistant set of PCs, they know that some powers are Spells and some are Not Spells. Yeah, it's a bit of work to keep track of what is what, but not that hard. They also have perfect information about the mechanics behind the PCs.

How does this apply to an NPC storm sorcerer doing it to your PC?


PC's on the other hand, are going to be constantly encountering, and learning about, new statblocks. A lot of their response is going to be based on what narrative information they receive.

Which is narrative information, not meta stat blocks.


If the narrative detail is "A robed man holding a wooden staff with a crystal on the end, you know him to be a master of Conjuration magic". You expect to fight an NPC that uses the mechanics of Spellcasting.

No, I'm going to expect to fight an NPC that summons things. Now if they do that via being a Wizard, a Cleric, a weird Fae creature that can open rifts, that I need more information to determine. I'll probably prep counterspell but not be freaked out when it doesn't work.


2) The scale of the ability. Most Nonspell magic that PC's have is a smaller effect, rather than the substance of the Turn. Exceptions abound (Most notably Wildshape, which copies the mechanics of the spell Polymorph, or the Chronurgist's Stasis ability that you brought up). They're rarely replacements for a full turn of Spell.

This isn't a replacement for spell casting, it's an attack, it replaces a cantrip, or a low level filler spell. The Wizards with Fireball or Wall of Force or Telekinesis are going to lead with those more potent abilities.


3) And this is the pettiest by far, most nonspell abilities are thematically linked to the subclass or class in a pretty solid way. A Chronurgist's Stasis is a unique ability that is deeply tied into the theme of the Chronurgist, because D&D has decided against creating Spells That Only Certain Subclasses Can Learn, such things are handled as Nonspell Abilities.

Which means you don't care that they have an ability that ignores spellcasting rules, you care that it's not flavored the way you want. Which means you're not objecting to the idea in itself and this entire argument changes.


The Arcane Blast on an Evoker might be less egregious, he's a specialist Evoker, he can blast you with magic without "Casting a Spell". But it's handed out as a generic ability to spellcaster NPCs.

It changes damage type. Personally I think too many have "Force" but the Enchanter and Diviner, for instance, deal Psychic Damage.

[Psyren]

I agree that the DM has complete discretion over what happens both in an out of combat. But including things like language lists and persuasion modifiers serves to establish certain standards for creatures. My past experience with D&D and generic fantasy suggests that "bound and gagged wizards cannot cast spells" is a reasonable (but not inviolable) standard. Given, then, that adding components doesn't really cause any harm, I believe that their inclusion would be worthwhile.

If you believe that, that's fine; ask your DM to include them.


For a few reasons

1) PC Perspective vs DM perspective. The DM deals with a fairly consistant set of PCs, they know that some powers are Spells and some are Not Spells. Yeah, it's a bit of work to keep track of what is what, but not that hard. They also have perfect information about the mechanics behind the PCs.

PC's on the other hand, are going to be constantly encountering, and learning about, new statblocks. A lot of their response is going to be based on what narrative information they receive.

If the narrative detail is "A robed man holding a wooden staff with a crystal on the end, you know him to be a master of Conjuration magic". You expect to fight an NPC that uses the mechanics of Spellcasting.

Should you be expecting only spellcasting? Pre-MotM, when that Conjurer teleported and swapped places with your cleric without casting a spell, did you yell hax then?

And if you do go in only expecting spellcasting, that's no one's fault but your own.


2) The scale of the ability. Most Nonspell magic that PC's have is a smaller effect, rather than the substance of the Turn. Exceptions abound (Most notably Wildshape, which copies the mechanics of the spell Polymorph, or the Chronurgist's Stasis ability that you brought up). They're rarely replacements for a full turn of Spell.

3) And this is the pettiest by far, most nonspell abilities are thematically linked to the subclass or class in a pretty solid way. A Chronurgist's Stasis is a unique ability that is deeply tied into the theme of the Chronurgist, because D&D has decided against creating Spells That Only Certain Subclasses Can Learn, such things are handled as Nonspell Abilities.

The Arcane Blast on an Evoker might be less egregious, he's a specialist Evoker, he can blast you with magic without "Casting a Spell". But it's handed out as a generic ability to spellcaster NPCs.

1) The spellcasting on the old blocks was mistuned. CR 5 Enchanters shouldn't have been throwing out 10d6 fireballs to begin with, especially when they're also able to paralyze multiple party members first for an autofail on their save.

2) All of the arcane bursts are thematically linked to the class by their element. The Necromancer's is necrotic, the Enchanter's is psychic etc.

3) Their other nonspell ability is even moreso. the Diviner's Overwhelming Revelation is thematically fitting. So are the Necromancer's skeleton posse, the conjurer's elemental buddy, and the abjurer's repelling blast.

[Zecrin]

If you believe that, that's fine; ask your DM to include them.

Fortunately, all games I DM for / play in, already do include components on these sorts of abilities.

As an occasional DM who always prefers doing less work on statblocks, I'd appreciate if WOTC included the components for the reasons I've previously provided.

As a player who appreciates (but does not demand) consistency between games, I'd appreciate if WOTC included the components for the reasons I've previously provided.

[Psyren]

Fortunately, all games I DM for / play in, already do include components on these sorts of abilities.

As an occasional DM who always prefers doing less work on statblocks, I'd appreciate if WOTC included the components for the reasons I've previously provided.

As a player who appreciates (but does not demand) consistency between games, I'd appreciate if WOTC included the components for the reasons I've previously provided.

And I'm glad they don't. Not every magical ability needs spell components, as the PC classes themselves make abundantly clear.

I would much rather WotC come up with fun and easy to use NPC abilities to drop into ready-made statblocks and move on to other priorities, than to waste time going over every single one of them for fidelity with the spellcasting system before they can be published.

[animorte]

And I'm glad they don't. Not every magical ability needs spell components, as the PC classes themselves make abundantly clear.

Not to mention all the magic items we have access to with entirely different mechanical functions than spell casting.

[Pex]

This is still false/hyperbolic. You can still use Shield against those non-spell attacks, you can still use cover, you can still use Dodge etc. Just because those defenses/counters are not specific to spells doesn't mean they don't exist or work.

But it's not unreasonable for people to get upset that all the things that specifically target spells no longer function because suddenly NPC magic users aren't casting spells anymore.

[Envyus]

I should point out that Arcane Burst is equivalent to a Cantrip. Which could not be counterspelled anyway.

[Envyus]

But it's not unreasonable for people to get upset that all the things that specifically target spells no longer function because suddenly NPC magic users aren't casting spells anymore.

They do cast spells, they just have other options too.

[Dante]

I should point out that Arcane Burst is equivalent to a Cantrip. Which could not be counterspelled anyway.

Where did you get the idea that cantrips can't be Counterspelled?