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

[KorvinStarmast]

I actually agree with you about Extra Attack--every warrior should ideally get a third attack at class level 17, and then Fighter should get a fifth attack at 20 or something of similar value.

Yeah, 4th attack at 17 and a new capstone. (And make it a good one...I'd need to do a bit of brainstorming on that).

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I basically see it as a lower priority issue, because the NPC's are run by the DM, who has all the information. If globe of invulnerability is useless against the party, then the DM is aware of that and doesn't need to send in monsters that rely on it. It would still be better for the system to be better designed, but it's also not a make-or-break thing at the table.

Unlike, say, the party encountering a red dragon, casting protection from energy (fire), and then the DM saying "haha! The dragon's breath is so hot, it's pure plasma and does plasma damage! Your spell is useless!". Having a DM do that would be pretty lame. Having a system do that? Even by accident? For no apparent reason? Why?

I think this is just going to be a very stark gap between us in DMing expectations and style. You seem to rely on going meta over and over again. In this case, no, I won't go "The Party has access to Glove of Invulnerabilty, so avoid monsters" I design my monsters and NPCs for the world. If the party happens to be able to completely nullify a particular villain, good for them.

As for your dragon. I've never seen a DM say "Hah, the breath is so hot it's plasma so it does different damage." What I have seen and done is say "Despite your resistance this attack pierces through your endurance, blazing with power you've never seen." And it's not me making up things, it's that the enemy has Elemental Adept Fire. Which, again, already a way here to avoid the issue.

As a side note, since you keep coming up with strawman damage types. How do you feel about the addition of Custard Damage to the game?

Is giving them a cantrip action so much more complicated? Just write in the spell or something. Why shouldn't a spellcaster be shut down by a spell meant to shut down spellcasting? Like, if I cast a windwall in front of a bunch of archers on the high ground, I expect it to at least force them to move or something, not for them to say "haha, because of how my attack is written, your intelligent and tactical response to me is made useless! Watch as I shoot straight through it anyway, and there was no way for you to see this coming because it was in my statblock, not because of something that makes sense in the world-building!"

Sure, you could, I do, it's not a big deal. But the design intent is to have it not interact with Counterspell and attacks like this are part of 5e Design since the first three books, so I just don't understand

I think the reason I'm kind of annoyed by it is that it's just something that could shut down an intelligent response. I love it when players see information and form an intelligent response! It doesn't always go as planned, it's not always an instant win, and sometimes it goes wrong. But seeing a statblock that seems to shut down an otherwise intelligent, well-reasoned response in a way so casually impossible to see ahead of time just feels so wrong.

Again, the PCs have no reason to stress over the statblock unless we're all metagaming. We gave numerous examples and points about this, but your argument seems to keeps being "Since the PCs will know the stat block they'll be angry it doesn't work the way they think it should."

[animorte]

We gave numerous examples and points about this, but your argument seems to keeps being "Since the PCs will know the stat block they'll be angry it doesn't work the way they think it should."

My argument here is: "how consistently do the PCs know the stat block?"
As opposed to: "how consistently do the players know the stat block?"

Is a part of our issue that people just have a problem seeing things from the perspective of their Character? Of course you can scout about, scry, ask locals about what you're up against. Even then you're not always going to have THE stat block.
If you figure out the exact BBEG of that particular quest, that doesn't mean they won't have help from something else you weren't clued in on.
When there are scenarios you weren't in the position to learn information about prior to the encounter, just because you SEE an enemy doesn't mean that any of the PCs have actually fought THAT enemy before, and it certainly doesn't mean that every enemy of that type is expected to operate in exactly the same way.
Just like every time you have any class being played around the D&D table, that doesn't mean the Rogue is going to play the same as every other Rogue, or the Cleric the same as every other Cleric.

I think the real problem here is immersion.

Spoiler: Recent campaign session:

Show

DM: So you walk out of the safe house?
Bard: What do I see?
DM: It's very dark in front of you.
Bard: I'm a Gnome, 60 ft. darkvision.
DM: You see nothing but the ground 10 ft. before you.
Twilight Cleric: I have 300 ft. darkvision. What do I see?
DM: You see nothing but the ground 10 ft. before you.
Warlock: I have 120 ft. magical darkvision. What do I see?
DM: You see nothing but the ground 10 ft. before you.
Bard: I cast Light on my dagger.
DM: You see nothing but the ground 10 ft. before you.
Everybody: What the actual F! Detect Magic, investigate, perception, etc...
DM: When you get 10 ft. apart from "party member" they seem to be swallowed up by a deep black fog.
Others: Hey, you ok? Come back.
Party member: *walks back, reappears* Looks like we're gonna have to take this slow.

Moral of the story is, your resources shouldn't always be expected to solve every problem. There's nothing wrong with curveballs.

[Frozenstep]

You can shut them down - if they're trying to cast a spell.

If you're asking why they get powers that aren't spells at all - are you asking that same question of the PC casters?

I think I've already said I don't really like that either.

It's a lesser priority to me, that's all. If a monster gets cheesed by the way a player's abilities are written, okay, not ideal. Kind of an eventuality of a system that's not 100% cohesive, sadly. A player getting cheesed by the way a monster statblock is written? Far bigger issue for me.

I think this is just going to be a very stark gap between us in DMing expectations and style. You seem to rely on going meta over and over again. In this case, no, I won't go "The Party has access to Glove of Invulnerabilty, so avoid monsters" I design my monsters and NPCs for the world. If the party happens to be able to completely nullify a particular villain, good for them.

Hey, hey. I said the DM doesn't need to send monsters that rely on GoI. The DM can do whatever they want. If the DM is bothered, if they think things will be better if they Meta a bit, they have that power. If they find a certain way players are unfair against monsters, they can change almost anything, what monsters they send, their tactics, etc. That's why I'm not overly concerned over small unfairnesses to monsters. Yeah, I'd still rather have a much more cohesive system that doesn't need that, but it's better it falls onto monsters that the DM can change around.

As for your dragon. I've never seen a DM say "Hah, the breath is so hot it's plasma so it does different damage." What I have seen and done is say "Despite your resistance this attack pierces through your endurance, blazing with power you've never seen." And it's not me making up things, it's that the enemy has Elemental Adept Fire. Which, again, already a way here to avoid the issue.

As a side note, since you keep coming up with strawman damage types. How do you feel about the addition of Custard Damage to the game?

It's a comparison. Sure, if the dragon as elemental adept fire, sure. How many monsters have that in the MM? And of those monsters, does it make sense for them to have it?

On top of that, my example actually doesn't go far enough, because "plasma" damage would ignore immunity to fire, which elemental adept doesn't help with. Just like how globe of invulnerability is supposed to grant you immunity to spells 5th level or lower, but doesn't do a thing to this non-spell spell that is basically like custard damage.

Sure, you could, I do, it's not a big deal. But the design intent is to have it not interact with Counterspell and attacks like this are part of 5e Design since the first three books, so I just don't understand

Again, the PCs have no reason to stress over the statblock unless we're all metagaming. We gave numerous examples and points about this, but your argument seems to keeps being "Since the PCs will know the stat block they'll be angry it doesn't work the way they think it should."

I almost feel like you're purposely missing the point. Like, how can you read what I said and come up with this as my argument?

Player sees a human mage. This is the information given to them. Perhaps for once in their adventuring careers, they have a guess what the enemy this time might do. What might work on them, unless they're actually a dragon in disguise or vampire or whatever. But at least they can try to intelligently approach the situation, based on the information available. They use some measure meant to stop spells. Against a human spellcaster.

And it doesn't work.

Why not? It wasn't because they were a dragon or vampire or fought by throwing rocks. Any of those reasons would have been fine. But no. The enemy just has a spell that pierces through the anti-spell defenses.

The players don't need to see the statblock. It just feels wrong for their defenses to fail for what just feels like nonsense. There's not an explanation. Why bother preparing defenses, when they're just gonna get gotcha'd? On top of every other way things can go wrong, sometimes monsters can just be written to not interact with systems that they really should interact with?

The problem is that the explanation is in the statblock, not in the world where players could see it. Might be able to find out about it, fit it into the strategies and tactics available to them. And, okay, not every monster ability is like that, available to be discovered, but this? This just feels deceptive, and it doesn't feel like it's designed to be deceptive in an interesting way. It's just a mage who's magic can just ignore things meant to stop magic. It's not even something like, I don't know, psionics, so that it could be part of the world and something the players can learn about.

I just think it's one more bit of poor design, among many.

[Corran]

Why not? It wasn't because they were a dragon or vampire or fought by throwing rocks. Any of those reasons would have been fine. But no. The enemy just has a spell that pierces through the anti-spell defenses.

Which is fine. So long as you intended it (and also you have a good justification for it IMO). Being the default (and lacking justification) is where the issue is at...

Why bother preparing defenses, when they're just gonna get gotcha'd? On top of every other way things can go wrong, sometimes monsters can just be written to not interact with systems that they really should interact with?

... but I have a suspicion you may agree.

[Psyren]

I think I've already said I don't really like that either.

I'm proud of/respect you for it not being a double-standard in that case, but you have to admit that doing more of the thing they've been doing since the edition began shouldn't be all that surprising in that case.

It's a lesser priority to me, that's all. If a monster gets cheesed by the way a player's abilities are written, okay, not ideal. Kind of an eventuality of a system that's not 100% cohesive, sadly. A player getting cheesed by the way a monster statblock is written? Far bigger issue for me.

I don't think it's remotely reasonable to view "player can't counter literally everything the enemy does in the exact same way" as "cheesed."

[Rukelnikov]

I think the reason I'm kind of annoyed by it is that it's just something that could shut down an intelligent response. I love it when players see information and form an intelligent response! It doesn't always go as planned, it's not always an instant win, and sometimes it goes wrong. But seeing a statblock that seems to shut down an otherwise intelligent, well-reasoned response in a way so casually impossible to see ahead of time just feels so wrong.

Again, the PCs have no reason to stress over the statblock unless we're all metagaming. We gave numerous examples and points about this, but your argument seems to keeps being "Since the PCs will know the stat block they'll be angry it doesn't work the way they think it should."

I haven't been following the thread so I may be missing context. However, This is an approach that may work for some groups, but I don't Think its the one to be expected (except perhaps in things like AL, not really sure how that works). At least half the DMG is dedicated to how to create your own stuff.

Homebrew is heavily encouraged by the system.

[Frozenstep]

I'm proud of/respect you for it not being a double-standard in that case, but you have to admit that doing more of the thing they've been doing since the edition began shouldn't be all that surprising in that case.

Yeah, it isn't, sadly. When I see people defend examples of bad design, though, I get tempted to do more then just grumble quietly, I guess.

I don't think it's remotely reasonable to view "player can't counter literally everything the enemy does in the exact same way" as "cheesed."

The way it's written, the information that would be presented to the player sets up an expectation. It's a wizard. Stuff that works against spells should work against this enemy. It's not a bad idea to make tactical decisions with that idea in mind.

And yet, expectations are subverted, because they can in fact, get a full round of attacks on you. Maybe it's not the most powerful thing they could have done, but it's still enough that it could break a concentration on globe of invulnerability, down/kill someone within one or that you were ready to protect with counterspell, etc.

It's not the fact that they can do it, it's that they set up the expectation and subvert them. Bait players into using tactics that are actually not nearly as effective as the players will think they should be. Those tactics already have counters, weakness, limitations already, but bypassing them like this just feels so gamey and artificial.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't know if it's just me, but when I think "wizard", I think magic, not spells. The second are just one way to do the first. A rather minor one, in fact. Even for mortals. So wizards being able to do more than just cast spells is, to me, totally harmonious with how I see the world. In fact, I find the idea that they can't, that they're defined almost solely by their spells, to be an aberration and bad design (cf the wizard thematics thread) for both the worldbuilding and the gameplay aspects.

[Rukelnikov]

The way it's written, the information that would be presented to the player sets up an expectation. It's a wizard. Stuff that works against spells should work against this enemy. It's not a bad idea to make tactical decisions with that idea in mind.

And yet, expectations are subverted, because they can in fact, get a full round of attacks on you. Maybe it's not the most powerful thing they could have done, but it's still enough that it could break a concentration on globe of invulnerability, down/kill someone within one or that you were ready to protect with counterspell, etc.

It's not the fact that they can do it, it's that they set up the expectation and subvert them. Bait players into using tactics that are actually not nearly as effective as the players will think they should be. Those tactics already have counters, weakness, limitations already, but bypassing them like this just feels so gamey and artificial.

I don't think this is a really problematic thing, because this will only happen once or twice. The same way players understand how monsters work currently, they will understand how monsters work after the "new patch" (I can't call it anything else).

My problem with these changes is that, the same way Tasha divorced PCs from their races, the changes to spellcaster creatures (particularly the humanoid NPCs), is divorcing the PCs from their archetypes in the world.

I don't know if it's just me, but when I think "wizard", I think magic, not spells. The second are just one way to do the first. A rather minor one, in fact. Even for mortals. So wizards being able to do more than just cast spells is, to me, totally harmonious with how I see the world. In fact, I find the idea that they can't, that they're defined almost solely by their spells, to be an aberration and bad design (cf the wizard thematics thread) for both the worldbuilding and the gameplay aspects.

I do think wizards do more than just spells. I don't think however that they encompass magic in general. I do picture them in their towers, doing research on many esotoric subjects, like astronomy, or alchemy, or whatever. Something in the lines of Gandalf or Merlin. I don't think of the witch of the swamp. That's also magic, but that's not a wizard for me. Can you emulate something like that mechanically in 5e using a wizard? Maybe, but its not relevant.

[Frozenstep]

I don't think this is a really problematic thing, because this will only happen once or twice. The same way players understand how monsters work currently, they will understand how monsters work after the "new patch" (I can't call it anything else).

I mean really, it's just one monster. One monster that has one ability I think is designed rather poorly, and could result in a pretty lame reveal (haha, your well-laid plans are worthless because of...really artificial and gamey reasons!), if the DM plays it as it is. I don't think I'm unjustified to say that, that's it.

[Rukelnikov]

I mean really, it's just one monster. One monster that has one ability I think is designed rather poorly, and could result in a pretty lame reveal (haha, your well-laid plans are worthless because of...really artificial and gamey reasons!), if the DM plays it as it is. I don't think I'm unjustified to say that, that's it.

Yeah, but it will only happen once or twice. After that, players will already know how enemy spellcasters work and take it into account.

[Psyren]

Yeah, it isn't, sadly. When I see people defend examples of bad design, though, I get tempted to do more then just grumble quietly, I guess.

Agreed! Glad to see we're on the same page

The way it's written, the information that would be presented to the player sets up an expectation. It's a wizard. Stuff that works against spells should work against this enemy.

Which wizard in this game has only spells and no non-spell abilities?

[Pixel_Kitsune]

It's a comparison. Sure, if the dragon as elemental adept fire, sure. How many monsters have that in the MM? And of those monsters, does it make sense for them to have it?

On top of that, my example actually doesn't go far enough, because "plasma" damage would ignore immunity to fire, which elemental adept doesn't help with. Just like how globe of invulnerability is supposed to grant you immunity to spells 5th level or lower, but doesn't do a thing to this non-spell spell that is basically like custard damage.

How many monsters in the MM? Haven't looked, how reasonable is it that if something with an elemental themed power set is growing in abilities it learns the Feat? very. My point isn't if it's super common, my point is you're acting like having an ability that ignores a certain counter or defense is some horrible out of nowhere idea, when the option to do so for a whole slew of things is in the PHB. You act like "The Dragon's breath is so hot it creates plasma and ignores your fire resistance" is absurd, when it seems like a perfectly science minded way to flavor Elemental Adept making their fire so hot it burns through even those who would ignore flame normally. Once something heats enough you get plasma.

Side note, Custard Damage? Pro or Con? Should it be included more than it currently is? :)

Player sees a human mage. This is the information given to them. Perhaps for once in their adventuring careers, they have a guess what the enemy this time might do. What might work on them, unless they're actually a dragon in disguise or vampire or whatever. But at least they can try to intelligently approach the situation, based on the information available. They use some measure meant to stop spells. Against a human spellcaster.

Unless you're metagaming, no, what the PC sees is a human looking person in robes with the trappings of a mage of some sort. They can then make a GUESS that the NPC wields magic. They can then assume certain things, right or wrong. Look back to the how many things a suit of Fullplate can be. If you're staying in character and no metagaming you don't get the things that concretely spell things out.

Why not? It wasn't because they were a dragon or vampire or fought by throwing rocks. Any of those reasons would have been fine. But no. The enemy just has a spell that pierces through the anti-spell defenses.

No, the enemy has magic that pierces through Anti Spell Defenses. And an Arcana check would reveal something to the effect of "You watch your opponent as he unleashes another blast and realize... There's no gestures, no whispered incantations, They're simply ripping a hole to an inner plane and releasing a blast of force or acid or what have you.

The players don't need to see the statblock. It just feels wrong for their defenses to fail for what just feels like nonsense. There's not an explanation. Why bother preparing defenses, when they're just gonna get gotcha'd? On top of every other way things can go wrong, sometimes monsters can just be written to not interact with systems that they really should interact with?

Why are they feeling it's nonsense? Who says there's no explanation? The statblock is meant to be a monster encounter, it's up to the DM to tell the story. There's no Gotcha, there's just a limitation in what you can know and do.

The problem is that the explanation is in the statblock, not in the world where players could see it. Might be able to find out about it, fit it into the strategies and tactics available to them. And, okay, not every monster ability is like that, available to be discovered, but this? This just feels deceptive, and it doesn't feel like it's designed to be deceptive in an interesting way. It's just a mage who's magic can just ignore things meant to stop magic. It's not even something like, I don't know, psionics, so that it could be part of the world and something the players can learn about.

Who says there's not an explanation in the world where the player's could see it? There's no Lore in these monster blocks, they're blank wizards there to be used as tools by a DM who is writing their own story. And again, the players don't KNOW there's anything weird going on unless they see a statblock to specifically go "Hey, that's a wizard magic attack that's not a spell!" All the In Game knowledge available will never guarantee what you're facing 100%

I haven't been following the thread so I may be missing context. However, This is an approach that may work for some groups, but I don't Think its the one to be expected (except perhaps in things like AL, not really sure how that works). At least half the DMG is dedicated to how to create your own stuff.

Homebrew is heavily encouraged by the system.

100%. To be clear, the reason so many of us have tried to come up with purely RAW explanations is because when this debate started on the other thread the immediate reaction was "So change it for your table." Which got people saying that wasn't a valid argument.

The way it's written, the information that would be presented to the player sets up an expectation. It's a wizard. Stuff that works against spells should work against this enemy. It's not a bad idea to make tactical decisions with that idea in mind.

It's not a bad idea, and that type of set up will stop 90% of the NPC's abilities. As I've pointed out in this thread and the other one, spamming Arcane Blast isn't the optimal or in character intelligent way to play any of these NPCs. They have some powerful and big spells to use and you can Counter, Anti Magic, Mage Slayer away at those. They literally have two abilities that you can't do that to. And yes, I saw your next comment saying it doesn't matter because even if it's not their main thing they can use it while their main thing is offline. So? As Psyren said, how is it gotcha or cheesing to make the PCs deal with more than one situation at a time?

[animorte]

Loads of incredible points at work here. I think I have decent one. Let’s say they didn’t change any stat blocks to include this new spell-like ability. What if they just gave that fellow a medical staff that he can cast spells into? Y’know, one that your (party’s) Wizard had at some point in the last campaign. But your new PCs shouldn’t recognize it so easily. Then this caster enemy starts unloading not-new, very familiar spells that you try, and fail, counter spell. Because it’s already been cast before this fight, into the staff. Then what?

At one point I played a Monk a couple years ago and that Monk wore a basic robe. He had painted symbols on it to represent his past and interests (like tattoos). He carried with him a staff, similarly decorated. He may come across as a caster, as is the purpose. Now imagine that being an NPC you’re about to throw down with. Seems kind of obvious: “hey guys, watch out for a spell!” Then he sprints up at the speed of PunPun and punches your beak around to the other side of your noggin, see Daffy Duck.

[Tanarii]

Spells cast from a magic item can be counterspelled, as long as there is something visible to trigger it. There's been debates before about what counts in that regard though.

[Frozenstep]

Which wizard in this game has only spells and no non-spell abilities?

Not a lot of wizards get an option that just sidesteps globe of invulnerability. Including the abjuration wizard, who this monster is based on. The few that do generally seem to be getting non-damage options through. Not a fan of those either, though.

How many monsters in the MM? Haven't looked, how reasonable is it that if something with an elemental themed power set is growing in abilities it learns the Feat? very. My point isn't if it's super common, my point is you're acting like having an ability that ignores a certain counter or defense is some horrible out of nowhere idea, when the option to do so for a whole slew of things is in the PHB. You act like "The Dragon's breath is so hot it creates plasma and ignores your fire resistance" is absurd, when it seems like a perfectly science minded way to flavor Elemental Adept making their fire so hot it burns through even those who would ignore flame normally. Once something heats enough you get plasma.

I don't like things being telegraphed to make a counter look effective, and then actually it isn't and it tricks players who were trying to be observant and intelligent.

It's reasonable for an elemental monster to get the feat, but does it make for a better experience for the players? That's what I care about. In my opinion, making even their basic observations and attempts to respond fail because of a trick is a bad idea. I generally wouldn't like for monsters to have things like elemental adept. If you want to trick your players, make that random bandit secretly a dragon in disguise, make it so that the wizard actually had some archer buddies hiding behind an illusionary wall. Something interesting!

If one monster has elemental adept, it puts in the danger that more could. The value of responding to elemental damage with resistance drops, especially if it takes an action to set up. You do it once, get your "gotcha" moment, and then what? The players stop bothering with responding to elemental damage with resistance? Great, we've made combat less dynamic and interesting. That's what I worry about.

Unless you're metagaming, no, what the PC sees is a human looking person in robes with the trappings of a mage of some sort. They can then make a GUESS that the NPC wields magic. They can then assume certain things, right or wrong. Look back to the how many things a suit of Fullplate can be. If you're staying in character and no metagaming you don't get the things that concretely spell things out.

Guys, is it metagaming for characters to try and learn about their enemies before/during a fight? They see a human wearing robes, they could probably scry/ask around town and learn they cast spells. They can even straight up fight them and see the mage casting lightning bolts at them. At what point is it fair to assume, based on all the things this monster is, that the players might be fighting a spellcaster? Because they are! They're right! They just didn't know this spellcaster had a move that worked on a different ruleset.

At least the suit of armors, the information presented isn't misleading. The fact that you don't see what is inside the armor is out in the open. Sure, the players can make the wrong assumption, but they weren't led to those assumptions. The lack of information was a known bit of information.

No, the enemy has magic that pierces through Anti Spell Defenses. And an Arcana check would reveal something to the effect of "You watch your opponent as he unleashes another blast and realize... There's no gestures, no whispered incantations, They're simply ripping a hole to an inner plane and releasing a blast of force or acid or what have you.

Why are they feeling it's nonsense? Who says there's no explanation? The statblock is meant to be a monster encounter, it's up to the DM to tell the story. There's no Gotcha, there's just a limitation in what you can know and do.

Is any of that stuff written in for this enemy? No? Is it just the DM having to fix WoTC's monsters for them, to make them learnable? Because yeah, that's totally easier on a DM then just writing in a cantrip.

Who says there's not an explanation in the world where the player's could see it? There's no Lore in these monster blocks, they're blank wizards there to be used as tools by a DM who is writing their own story. And again, the players don't KNOW there's anything weird going on unless they see a statblock to specifically go "Hey, that's a wizard magic attack that's not a spell!" All the In Game knowledge available will never guarantee what you're facing 100%

The players will know something is weird when they fight something that by all accounts is a wizard, but then does something no wizard can do, and it's not for any lore reason or part of any system. The DM needing to homebrew explanation is bad. These systems shouldn't be putting more work on a DM just to create a good experience.

Again, I say it's bad to make even basic observations worthless. I don't believe that makes the game more fun.

It's not a bad idea, and that type of set up will stop 90% of the NPC's abilities. As I've pointed out in this thread and the other one, spamming Arcane Blast isn't the optimal or in character intelligent way to play any of these NPCs. They have some powerful and big spells to use and you can Counter, Anti Magic, Mage Slayer away at those. They literally have two abilities that you can't do that to. And yes, I saw your next comment saying it doesn't matter because even if it's not their main thing they can use it while their main thing is offline. So? As Psyren said, how is it gotcha or cheesing to make the PCs deal with more than one situation at a time?

I don't think I can get through to you. I don't think setting up observations, that one might make tactical decisions around, and then subverting them in a non-clever way like this is good. A character, observing the way the world works, should have no reason to believe this enemy will just be able to freely blast them if they have X defenses. Those defenses already all have weaknesses, which the player can plan around. They're led to believe the enemy will have to respond in one of those ways. But this enemy can just break those expectations in a way that can only be foreseen if the DM puts in the work.

Why even lead the player to those expectations? It's not just "the players made an assumption", they were led to make the wrong assumption, because of how this monster is designed and presented. That's why I find it so annoying, I don't like design that punishes players for observation and trying to engage the system based on those observations.

[Dante]

It's reasonable for an elemental monster to get the feat, but does it make for a better experience for the players? That's what I care about.

I don't have anything to say about this that wouldn't be off topic, but I wanted you to know that the people who disagree with you aren't the only ones reading your posts. Also this paragraph is emphatically terrific.

[Frozenstep]

I don't have anything to say about this that wouldn't be off topic, but I wanted you to know that the people who disagree with you aren't the only ones reading your posts. Also this paragraph is emphatically terrific.

Thank you, that means a lot to me.

[Anymage]

I think this is just going to be a very stark gap between us in DMing expectations and style. You seem to rely on going meta over and over again. In this case, no, I won't go "The Party has access to Glove of Invulnerabilty, so avoid monsters" I design my monsters and NPCs for the world. If the party happens to be able to completely nullify a particular villain, good for them.

As for your dragon. I've never seen a DM say "Hah, the breath is so hot it's plasma so it does different damage." What I have seen and done is say "Despite your resistance this attack pierces through your endurance, blazing with power you've never seen." And it's not me making up things, it's that the enemy has Elemental Adept Fire. Which, again, already a way here to avoid the issue.

As a side note, since you keep coming up with strawman damage types. How do you feel about the addition of Custard Damage to the game?

...

Sure, you could, I do, it's not a big deal. But the design intent is to have it not interact with Counterspell and attacks like this are part of 5e Design since the first three books, so I just don't understand.

If one BBEG happens to ignore Counterspell and similar antimagic tricks, that's cool. It's one guy's shtick, it's an interesting wrinkle to the encounter, and the world is bigger and weirder than the players first thought.

If every boss happens to ignore Counterspell because that one spell warps how encounters work to such a degree, I'd want everybody to sit down and have an adult conversation about how that one spell is throwing the game off and what we can do about it. Either having an honest talk about how we can change it to be more reasonable, or just a gentleman's agreement to not use it. Allowing it to exist in the game but having it arbitrarily not work against certain abilities is a knock against anyone who invested resources in that ability. (Yes, I know wizards can just find and prepare another spell in its place. Sorcerers and warlocks have a lot more invested in their spells known slots.)

If every rank and file spellcaster has nonspell spells, throwing off the value of Mage Slayer and ancients paladins all in the name of not having Counterspell trivialize them, that's definitely time to talk. I'd much rather everybody be upfront about the problem than sprinkle around stealth nerfs just to dance around it. Be upfront about your thoughts, the potential downstream effects of all the options, and be frank about it all. Building nonspell spells into all caster types going forward without considering how that affects every other mechanic that interacts with the spell system just feels frustrating and unclear to me.

(And in the name of putting everything on the table, what would make me happy would be an article/series of articles admitting some of the rough spots in 5e and some of their current thoughts as to how to patch things up. Fallback attacks being immune to Counterspell because otherwise players would be too quick to spam it and shut down enemies? Not ideal, but that's fine as a stopgap solution. It just feels sloppy to depower a wide swath of other abilities that interact with the spell system while the team is tinkering with the rules midway through, all while expecting us to figure out from clues what issues they might be trying to figure out today.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

If one BBEG happens to ignore Counterspell and similar antimagic tricks, that's cool. It's one guy's shtick, it's an interesting wrinkle to the encounter, and the world is bigger and weirder than the players first thought.

If every boss happens to ignore Counterspell because that one spell warps how encounters work to such a degree, I'd want everybody to sit down and have an adult conversation about how that one spell is throwing the game off and what we can do about it. Either having an honest talk about how we can change it to be more reasonable, or just a gentleman's agreement to not use it. Allowing it to exist in the game but having it arbitrarily not work against certain abilities is a knock against anyone who invested resources in that ability. (Yes, I know wizards can just find and prepare another spell in its place. Sorcerers and warlocks have a lot more invested in their spells known slots.)

If every rank and file spellcaster has nonspell spells, throwing off the value of Mage Slayer and ancients paladins all in the name of not having Counterspell trivialize them, that's definitely time to talk. I'd much rather everybody be upfront about the problem than sprinkle around stealth nerfs just to dance around it. Be upfront about your thoughts, the potential downstream effects of all the options, and be frank about it all. Building nonspell spells into all caster types going forward without considering how that affects every other mechanic that interacts with the spell system just feels frustrating and unclear to me.

(And in the name of putting everything on the table, what would make me happy would be an article/series of articles admitting some of the rough spots in 5e and some of their current thoughts as to how to patch things up. Fallback attacks being immune to Counterspell because otherwise players would be too quick to spam it and shut down enemies? Not ideal, but that's fine as a stopgap solution. It just feels sloppy to depower a wide swath of other abilities that interact with the spell system while the team is tinkering with the rules midway through, all while expecting us to figure out from clues what issues they might be trying to figure out today.)

I have a strong hunch that this is all just a symptom of their decision to do "5.5.alpha1" in public via book release. So you have this disjointed feeling, because the rest of the rules (ie changes to those abilities, including counterspell) that are required to have it make sense aren't published yet. It feels like the sort of thing that will make "perfect"[1] sense...once the rest of the framework was in place. And the "solution" to that disjoint would be not publishing this book as a mainline book and instead including it in a public playtest.

[1] as much as anything done by WotC recently, which isn't a very hard bar to clear.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I don't like things being telegraphed to make a counter look effective, and then actually it isn't and it tricks players who were trying to be observant and intelligent.

It's reasonable for an elemental monster to get the feat, but does it make for a better experience for the players? That's what I care about. In my opinion, making even their basic observations and attempts to respond fail because of a trick is a bad idea. I generally wouldn't like for monsters to have things like elemental adept. If you want to trick your players, make that random bandit secretly a dragon in disguise, make it so that the wizard actually had some archer buddies hiding behind an illusionary wall. Something interesting!

If one monster has elemental adept, it puts in the danger that more could. The value of responding to elemental damage with resistance drops, especially if it takes an action to set up. You do it once, get your "gotcha" moment, and then what? The players stop bothering with responding to elemental damage with resistance? Great, we've made combat less dynamic and interesting. That's what I worry about.

I think we just have to walk away disagreeing here. There's nothing a PC would notice in world that 100% telegraphs a certain behavior. You might expect it, like you'd expect the suit of Full plate to be a human knight(Oops it's Animated Armor), or expect General Krieg to be a human fighter(Oops it's a Blue Dragon). You very clearly run a game where knowing game mechanic info is normal for your PCs. That's alright, not everyone focuses on being in character for this game. But it means we're incompatible in our discussion here.

Guys, is it metagaming for characters to try and learn about their enemies before/during a fight? They see a human wearing robes, they could probably scry/ask around town and learn they cast spells. They can even straight up fight them and see the mage casting lightning bolts at them. At what point is it fair to assume, based on all the things this monster is, that the players might be fighting a spellcaster? Because they are! They're right! They just didn't know this spellcaster had a move that worked on a different ruleset.

It is not metagaming to try and learn about enemies. It is not metagaming to gather info and make a reasonable guess that they cast spells. It is 100% Metagaming to decided that based on how you know the GAME rules work that that should mean this certain ability automatically works. All things considered IN game you'd try to Counter, it wouldn't work and you'd assume the Mage is too powerful or some such.

At least the suit of armors, the information presented isn't misleading. The fact that you don't see what is inside the armor is out in the open. Sure, the players can make the wrong assumption, but they weren't led to those assumptions. The lack of information was a known bit of information.

You just acknowledged my point about in game vs meta. ALL you see with the suit of armors is a moving suit of full plate. The information isn't misleading. ALL your see with the "Wizard" is a person in light clothing, there's no guarantee of a "Robed human with a staff" even. The information isn't misleading.

If every boss happens to ignore Counterspell because that one spell warps how encounters work to such a degree, I'd want everybody to sit down and have an adult conversation about how that one spell is throwing the game off and what we can do about it. Either having an honest talk about how we can change it to be more reasonable, or just a gentleman's agreement to not use it. Allowing it to exist in the game but having it arbitrarily not work against certain abilities is a knock against anyone who invested resources in that ability. (Yes, I know wizards can just find and prepare another spell in its place. Sorcerers and warlocks have a lot more invested in their spells known slots.)

Absolutely. And to be clear again, at my table these are all treated as spells and counterspell works. The debate approach was due to certain members of this debate demanding RAW only because they apparently play with unimaginative DMs that only do what the book says no matter what.

For my game I long ago decided the idea of a difference between "Magic" and "Spellcasting" was nonsense. You can try to counter a beholder's eye beams or a mindflayer's Mind Blast in my games and you can counter Arcane Burst.

I'm a strong proponent of DM fiat to solve and resolve a lot of things. My protest here is the idea that it somehow is a gotcha, or hurts the game, or is new (different arguments from everyone).

[Dante]

I think we just have to walk away disagreeing here. There's nothing a PC would notice in world that 100% telegraphs a certain behavior. You might expect it, like you'd expect the suit of Full plate to be a human knight(Oops it's Animated Armor), or expect General Krieg to be a human fighter(Oops it's a Blue Dragon). You very clearly run a game where knowing game mechanic info is normal for your PCs. That's alright, not everyone focuses on being in character for this game.

I just want to point out that this is a non-sequitur. Rules with an observable impact can be known to both players and (N)PCs. E.g. characters will be fully aware of the benefits of 3/4 cover, and with enough experimentation could even deduce exactly how much benefit it gives.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I just want to point out that this is a non-sequitur. Rules with an observable impact can be known to both players and (N)PCs. E.g. characters will be fully aware of the benefits of 3/4 cover, and with enough experimentation could even deduce exactly how much benefit it gives.

Not at all. As is being show repeatedly here and as comes up throughout my time in the hobby. (From the simplest thing to the "Yeah YOU know trolls need fire but your PC has never seen a troll before.").

Your example also goes with a personally done activity versus an observation. Yeah, you know what 3/4 cover is give or take and what it does, because it's an action YOU take and do. You do NOT know that that person over there in light clothing that clearly radiates magic is specifically a "Wizard" that works under the exact rules of the PC Wizard. Every one of the other poster's points always boiled down to "The PCs KNOW it's a WIZARD casting Spells and so get upset when things don't work out that way." And my response has always been "Unless the DM is telling you that, no, you don't know that."

[Frozenstep]

I think we just have to walk away disagreeing here. There's nothing a PC would notice in world that 100% telegraphs a certain behavior. You might expect it, like you'd expect the suit of Full plate to be a human knight(Oops it's Animated Armor), or expect General Krieg to be a human fighter(Oops it's a Blue Dragon). You very clearly run a game where knowing game mechanic info is normal for your PCs. That's alright, not everyone focuses on being in character for this game. But it means we're incompatible in our discussion here.

Yeah, we'll have to walk away disagreeing, because you seem to be strawmanning incredibly hard. I've literally addressed the full plate point. A thing of full plate doesn't have misleading information, it has incomplete information, and it's very clear to even a casual observer that the information is complete. This small thing makes a massive difference in how it feels.

And you know what? All this dog and pony over whether players can even assume "dude with a robe is a wizard"? It's actually the worst argument you can make, because it is a wizard. The players observing are 100% right, it is a spellcaster! Are you really going to blame them for planning their tactics like they'd be facing a spellcaster? Do you really consider that meta-gaming, when they came to the correct conclusion based on observable data?

I'm not running a game where knowing game mechanic info is normal for PC's. They observe the situation, I don't try to sprinkle in misleading information just to trick them into acting dumb. I don't tell them everything, I let them see what their characters see, and come to their own conclusions. I don't use that against them!

[Psyren]

I still don't understand how "planning to face a wizard" means "every single thing the wizard does needs to be spellcasting." No wizard in 5e works like that.

[Frozenstep]

You do NOT know that that person over there in light clothing that clearly radiates magic is specifically a "Wizard" that works under the exact rules of the PC Wizard. Every one of the other poster's points always boiled down to "The PCs KNOW it's a WIZARD casting Spells and so get upset when things don't work out that way." And my response has always been "Unless the DM is telling you that, no, you don't know that."

How do you know the characters haven't figured it out based on what kind be observed? Because this enemy casts wizard spells. The players could literally observe this NPC cast lightning bolt in front of their eyes. They might be a wizard themselves and know these spells.

Why do you just assume we're talking about blind characters that never heard of a spellcaster? These are things that this monster demonstrably show, openly. These are things in-game characters can see.

But in this case, making choices based on what the in-game character knows can be misleading, because for out-of-game reasons, the logical options don't work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How do you know the characters haven't figured it out based on what kind be observed? Because this enemy casts wizard spells. The players could literally observe this NPC cast lightning bolt in front of their eyes. They might be a wizard themselves and know these spells.

Why do you just assume we're talking about blind characters that never heard of a spellcaster? These are things that this monster demonstrably show, openly. These are things in-game characters can see.

Spell lists aren't in-universe things. There are lots of people who can cast lightning bolt without being wizards. There are lots of people who wear cloth and cast spells without being wizards or even primarily spellcasters. The MM is full of them.

[Frozenstep]

I still don't understand how "planning to face a wizard" means "every single thing the wizard does needs to be spellcasting." No wizard in 5e works like that.

But in this case, why does this enemy need a non-spellcasting option? What does it add? It is really so much simpler then a cantrip?

Because I think it takes away cohesion of the system. More messy, less player-can-figure-it-out-ahead-of-time interaction, devaluation of tactics.

[Frozenstep]

Spell lists aren't in-universe things. There are lots of people who can cast lightning bolt without being wizards. There are lots of people who wear cloth and cast spells without being wizards or even primarily spellcasters. The MM is full of them.

If they specifically try present themselves as a specific class, and then can do things that just fly in the face of the class, creating a deception where a strategy that should be effective against that class is instead useless, then they're not well designed either.

If instead there's just a lack of information, that's fine. Just not misleading information.