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

[Kuu Lightwing]

Which is a personal preference, not a design argument or the core logic of the game. If you want your tables to work a certain way, cool. But nothing in the rules says it is thematically wrong. Nothing requires a "humanoid wizard" to act in the specific way of casting spells.

Rules don't say anything about themes to begin with so the point "nothing in the rules says it is thematically wrong" is moot, because that's not what rules are for. However, I'd argue that a "humanoid Wizard" is required (to a degree) to cast spells by the virtue of being a Wizard, because Wizard means a specific thing in DnD.

Otherwise we are back to the argument of "nothing requires Fighter to act in the specific way of using weapon attacks to do damage"

Again, based on your personal preference, not on the reality of the game or "Wizard" in pop culture. Even your example is wrong. A Bladesinger does not automatically draw a sword, a Bladesinger draws a martial weapon of some sort. All the way back to the 2nd Edition Book of Elves it had Whip users, polearms, etc. It's only 5e that even changed it to 1 handed last I checked. As for Wizard without specific connection, literally half the races give Martial Weapon proficiencies and there's a feat for it. There's a dozen and one ways and more for a Wizard to be adept at Melee combat. It's also pretty common for great wizards in stories to be experts with weapons. Gandalf, Rand Al'Thor, All the Recluce Protagonists, Khaladin, etc. The only reason to suggest it shouldn't happen is because of stereotypes.

My example is not wrong, Bladesinger could reasonably draw a sword, therefore I used it as an example. Example isn't meant to cover all variety of possibilities of what Bladesinger could use as weapons. So I don't see the reason to nitpick an example like that. Also, simply getting Martial Weapon proficiencies does not make a typical Wizard adept at melee combat, as they still will likely to have mediocre stats for weapon attacks, and no Extra attack, and will better off casting spells still.

However, I don't know why you bring Gandalf or other pop culture Wizards. Wizard in pop culture as a whole is just a person who does magic. Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock can all be synonyms in many pieces of media. In DnD, however, these are different things with different sources of power and different ways of interacting with the world. Though every one of those is going to be casting spells 95% of the time for their magic effects. The word "Wizard" in DnD does not have the same meaning as "Wizard" in Harry Potter, and should not be equated.

And of course "The only reason to suggest it shouldn't happen is because of stereotypes."
The stereotypes come hand in hand with "themes". Even things like Psyren mentioned - "using necrotic beams for Necromancer is good thematics" - it is also a stereotype. For example it's likely that typical PC Necromancer is going to cast Fireball a lot, which isn't typically associated with Necromancer. They are likely to cast Toll the Dead at some point too, but this won't be unique to a Necromancer, as other Wizards will also likely to Toll the Dead, because it's a good attacking cantrip.

Going even further with Necromancer, expecting them to raise or control undead or do necrotic damage, is just as much of a stereotype as Wizard casting spells. In broader pop culture, and even in some editions of DnD there are instances where healing is a subset of necromancy, and one could argue that it's not unreasonable that a Necromancer acts like a typical Life Cleric in DnD. However, that's not how it works in DnD 5e. Necromancer Wizards are incapable of casting healing spells (normally) and are expected to use necrotic damage and animate dead, and Wizards are expected to cast spells. Those are stereotypes, and those are themes. They go hand in hand. Otherwise we can just invoke Rincewind and say that Wizard doing any magic at all is just a stereotype.

And if someone has Arcana and asks to make a check I'll share. If I was running RAW and someone asked for an Arcana check I would simply say "They're not casting a spell proper, they're just drawing raw energy from (X) and letting it fly, there's nothing to counter, you'll have to find a different way to deal with it."

PS, what I do at my table has no relevance to this topic since it is specifically about RAW. I shared my personal take as a point in reference that such takes did exist and were already dismissed.

What you do at your table might affect the perception of the issue, especially if you heavily mitigated the issue in question by invoking Rule 0.

Actually, per the title of the thread this entire discussion is focused on the fact that Game Design wise, NPCs and PCs are not on the same ruleset. The argument is that that fact is not a problem. So the topic really is about rather or not PCs and NPCs can have abilities the other side can't access or if they're built on an even playing field.

Anything beyond that would be it's own topic.

If this is the argument made in response to people criticizing Wizard statblocks, then it just incorrect interpretation of reasons why people are opposed to said statblocks.

[Kuu Lightwing]

It's not superficial, rather it makes sense. For example, most constructs are immune to psychic, and many psionic creatures are resistant - which are exactlty the kinds of matchups an enchanter should be struggling with.

I'm well aware that your "example" was a crappy theme, which is exactly why I'm pointing out how bad an analogy it is relative to the much better printed themes we got in WotC's actual books.

"Necromancers doing necrotic damage makes sense" might be an opinion, but I'd be hard-pressed to see it as a controversial one.

You continue to ignore the argument in question and keep repeating that it makes sense for necromancer to do necrotic damage. You dodged the point that it might not be good theme for an enchanter to have good sustained damage output, even if it comes in form of a psychic damage, by saying "but it's all fine cause constructs are immune." You are cherry picking aspects that do "make sense" and ignore aspects that do not "make sense".

This does suggest to me that you think that the fact that Necromancer does necrotic damage you see as more important thematically than Wizard casting spells that could be conterspelled and negated by antimagic field. Which just demonstrates, again, that "theme" is subjective, because to me it's the opposite.

[animorte]

The Wikipedia page that directs from "Wizard" reads "The extent of a wizard's knowledge is limited to which spells a wizard knows and can cast."

The quibble is about the new "wizard" style npcs violating the wizard tropes. If they were called "mutant thralls of icky gods" there wouldn't be any complaints. But they invoke the wizard tropes and then violate them, so complaints.

D&D fighter tropes are rather more stale, just having hit points and hitting things with sticks, maybe dump statting intelligence & charisma. If you popped in a new "champion fighter" npc that at-will teleported and "shot" intelligence saving throw laser eye beams based on the "learn fightering by training with a sword & wearing armor" trope you'd get complaints too.

All of this above is incredibly short-sighted to assume that there is no such thing as multi-classing. Just because I’m a Wizard doesn’t mean I can’t take a level or two in War Cleric or Barbarian, wear armor, and start knocking monster’s lights out every once in a while. If you see a “Wizard” doing that, it’s essentially the same thing. But wait, they’re Wizards and it doesn’t say that Wizards do that. Or you’re ok with that functionally because it’s easier to deal with?

So what a Fighter teleports (Echo, for one) but I noticed you mention Champion subclass as it’s the most straightforward. Maybe this guy took a couple levels in some random caster for Misty Step because he though it was cool or wanted a different way to reposition or escape or clear a jump.

I wouldn’t expect either this Wizard or Fighter to start calling themselves by the other class they took a couple levels in compared to the primary class choice.

But bags of hp & melee damage fit the cr calculations better so they don't need to "fix" those npcs or monsters.

This is an issue as well. Then we wouldn’t have the need for any creative thinking, problem solving, or combat utility.

[Kuu Lightwing]

All of this above is incredibly short-sighted to assume that there is no such thing as multi-classing. Just because I’m a Wizard doesn’t mean I can’t take a level or two in War Cleric or Barbarian, wear armor, and start knocking monster’s lights out every once in a while. If you see a “Wizard” doing that, it’s essentially the same thing. But wait, they’re Wizards and it doesn’t say that Wizards do that. Or you’re ok with that functionally because it’s easier to deal with?

So what a Fighter teleports (Echo, for one) but I noticed you mention Champion subclass as it’s the most straightforward. Maybe this guy took a couple levels in some random caster for Misty Step because he though it was cool or wanted a different way to reposition or escape or clear a jump.

I wouldn’t expect either this Wizard or Fighter to start calling themselves by the other class they took a couple levels in compared to the primary class choice.


This is an issue as well. Then we wouldn’t have the need for any creative thinking, problem solving, or combat utility.

I mean given that multiclassing is an optional feature one could argue that it's also short-sighted to assume that it is always a thing.

But what is definitely short-sighted is to ignore the context of these NPC Wizards that are meant to be "simplified" caster statblocks. Obviously they could have multiclassed and got Heavy Armor proficiency, Martial Weapons, Extra Attack and Rage, but that's not going to be a "simple" Enchanter/Abjurer/Necromancer/etc. anymore, that's going to be some sort of Rage Mage. And I am not opposed to such a statblock if it's going to be appropriately presented. There is a bit of an issue if after seeing that player would want to try a Rage Mage themselves because they find it a fun concept, but 5e doesn't really have any support for it on the side of the players, but it's a different discussion. What I would dislike, if Enchanter Wizards will have "Rage" feature because you can in theory build a character like that via multiclassing.

[animorte]

I mean given that multiclassing is an optional feature one could argue that it's also short-sighted to assume that it is always a thing.

Certainly not always, but shouldn’t be so easily disregarded.

As far as everything else, a big problem seems to be that “players” are addressing stat blocks as an issue, when in reality PCs shouldn’t automatically know everything about their opponent.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Certainly not always, but shouldn’t be so easily disregarded.

As far as everything else, a big problem seems to be that “players” are addressing stat blocks as an issue, when in reality PCs shouldn’t automatically know everything about their opponent.

Well no, but they will probably notice if spellcaster flies into rage. And besides it's not just a player perspective discussion, though it is considered too.

[animorte]

Well no, but they will probably notice if spellcaster flies into rage. And besides it's not just a player perspective discussion, though it is considered too.

Which is an excellent point. I don’t see anything wrong with players learning about the opponent and then figuring out how to deal with them.

[Telok]

The thing is... What's a "Spell" sure we have a game mechanic rule, but not a flavor or thematic one. For all intents and purposes Snape is casting a spell when he silently looks at something and does wandless magic with no incantation. Lerris casts a spell when ...
...There's no such thing as a stat block I can't easily give a justification for, to be honest. And ultimately, flavor is the DM's job, even in a vacuum of RAW only.

And once again you missed the entire point of a post by focusing on random details. Look, I'm sure its nice for you as DM to fix any problems in npcs with rule changes and post hoc excuses, but its irrelevant.

D&D uses tropes & arcetypes. They are the basis for the classes & rules. The tropes & arcetypes that are used are not from the works of fiction you referenced. For a long time now D&D tropes & arcetypes have been derived from other versions of D&D and works of fiction thay were written to use D&D rules & tropes.

Saying "everything npc magic is a spell" is an excuse after the fact in order to justify a statblock or mechanic that violates the tropes & arcetypes presented to the players. Its also an npc only excuse because the players are still going to be constrained by the rules they don't get to rewrite at whim. Rules based on D&D tropes. In violating the D&D tropes for a class like "wizard" or "fighter" by having npc "wizards" or "fighters" have those abilities you are telling the players that the game and game world are not based on the tropes & rules they have to follow. This means the players can't expect anything to work the same way twice.

[Psyren]

You continue to ignore the argument in question and keep repeating that it makes sense for necromancer to do necrotic damage. You dodged the point that it might not be good theme for an enchanter to have good sustained damage output, even if it comes in form of a psychic damage, by saying "but it's all fine cause constructs are immune." You are cherry picking aspects that do "make sense" and ignore aspects that do not "make sense".

This does suggest to me that you think that the fact that Necromancer does necrotic damage you see as more important thematically than Wizard casting spells that could be conterspelled and negated by antimagic field. Which just demonstrates, again, that "theme" is subjective, because to me it's the opposite.

So you're suddenly concerned about Enchanter damage output? When the old Volo Enchanter was CR5 throwing out 10d6 fireballs (which they can make your party autofail no less), where was your picket sign then?

And once again you missed the entire point of a post by focusing on random details. Look, I'm sure its nice for you as DM to fix any problems in npcs with rule changes and post hoc excuses, but its irrelevant.

D&D uses tropes & arcetypes. They are the basis for the classes & rules. The tropes & arcetypes that are used are not from the works of fiction you referenced. For a long time now D&D tropes & arcetypes have been derived from other versions of D&D and works of fiction thay were written to use D&D rules & tropes.

Saying "everything npc magic is a spell" is an excuse after the fact in order to justify a statblock or mechanic that violates the tropes & arcetypes presented to the players. Its also an npc only excuse because the players are still going to be constrained by the rules they don't get to rewrite at whim. Rules based on D&D tropes.

"D&D mechanics are based on D&D tropes" is circular. WotC make this game and they get to decide which of those tropes to keep and which to throw out. And they certainly have no mandate to appeal to tradition over experimenting with ways to improve ease of play.

[Kuu Lightwing]

So you're suddenly concerned about Enchanter damage output? When the old Volo Enchanter was CR5 throwing out 10d6 fireballs (which they can make your party autofail no less), where was your picket sign then?

I don't think I made any statements about old enchanter at all, have I? It doesn't matter what flaws it may or may not have in the context of this discussion.

[Zecrin]

"D&D mechanics are based on D&D tropes" is circular. WotC make this game and they get to decide which of those tropes to keep and which to throw out. And they certainly have no mandate to appeal to tradition over experimenting with ways to improve ease of play.

I mean, Wizards can do whatever they want; it's their product. Just because they get to decide what happens in D&D doesn't mean I can't respond with, "IMO, Wizards should make this change for this reason." This is especially true when Wizards is "experimenting" with new mechanics.

As many critics of 4e can tell you, ease of play is not the be all end all of D&D, especially when this principal conflicts with player expectations.

Moreover, I'm not convinced this mechanic even increases ease of play. If a player casts antimagic field, you now have one more ability available to the monster. I'm sure you can think of several examples in which "arcane blast" reduces complexity, but I'm not convinced it definitively makes D&D less complicated in any noticeable way.

[animorte]

To be completely fair, the name is WizardsotC. That’s probably why Wizard, the class, gets to know everything and break all the rules.

[Psyren]

I don't think I made any statements about old enchanter at all, have I? It doesn't matter what flaws it may or may not have in the context of this discussion.

The whole discussion is about how the new statblocks are inferior due to theming, mechanics etc. If the theme issues you're highlighting have always been present (like a monster labelled "Enchanter" being capable of competitive direct damage output), perhaps the problem lies with your perception/understanding of the NPC in question, or NPC design more generally, rather than with the game.

Put another way, all the wizard statblocks are capable of doing substantial damage and always have been (insert astronaut meme here), because ultimately that's how offensive CR for casters works in this game. Hopefully that helps solve your disconnect.

I mean, Wizards can do whatever they want; it's their product. Just because they get to decide what happens in D&D doesn't mean I can't respond with, "IMO, Wizards should make this change for this reason." This is especially true when Wizards is "experimenting" with new mechanics.

Of course you can respond, and I can respond to your response.

As many critics of 4e can tell you, ease of play is not the be all end all of D&D, especially when this principal conflicts with player expectations.

Oh come off it, 4e has nowhere near the ease of play 5e does. It's absolutely littered with tags and hidden mechanics, combat is a slog, skill challenges are a mess etc.

Moreover, I'm not convinced this mechanic even increases ease of play. If a player casts antimagic field, you now have one more ability available to the monster. I'm sure you can think of several examples in which "arcane blast" reduces complexity, but I'm not convinced it definitively makes D&D less complicated in any noticeable way.

AMF shuts down all the "Arcane Bursts." They are spell attacks, therefore magical per SA.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Put another way, all the wizard statblocks are capable of doing substantial damage and always have been (insert astronaut meme here), because ultimately that's how offensive CR for casters works in this game. Hopefully that helps solve your disconnect.

Right. The current (ie legacy) Enchanter has substantial damage capability...it casts fireballx3. Upcast. In fact, that's how its CR is calculated.

Every monster has substantial damage capabilities. By design. NPCs are not different.

In fact, I'd say "Enchanter does psychic blasts for its major damage capabilities" is much more on theme than "Enchanter casts fireballs for its major damage capabilities" (which is the current model).

Basically no caster stat block depends on cantrips for its CR. Those cantrips really don't exist--the monster is expected (for purposes of CR) to basically cast...fireball. With a few getting (wow) cone of cold or a couple other higher-level blasting spells.

[Kuu Lightwing]

The whole discussion is about how the new statblocks are inferior due to theming, mechanics etc. If the theme issues you're highlighting have always been present (like a monster labelled "Enchanter" being capable of competitive direct damage output), perhaps the problem lies with your perception/understanding of the NPC in question, or NPC design more generally, rather than with the game.

Put another way, all the wizard statblocks are capable of doing substantial damage and always have been (insert astronaut meme here), because ultimately that's how offensive CR for casters works in this game. Hopefully that helps solve your disconnect.

The theme issues I'm highlighting were outlined before, but you ignored them with your counterargument being "but it's psychic damage, so it makes sense". Now you try to grasp at me mentioning the idea that Enchanter might not even need to have direct damage capabilities comparable to all other Wizards to fit its theme, and trying to spin it as if it's my only issue with the statblocks, ignoring everything else.

No, it's not. The point is that there are multiple possible perspective on the question "what type of damage should Enchanter Wizard use in combat" all with reasonable arguments. One could say that it makes sense for a mage specializing on mind-affecting magic to do psychic damage. Other person would say that it's reasonable to expect Enchanter to use Fire damage, because Fireball is a very good offensive spell and most Wizards prepare it, including Enchanters. And third person, arguing from the perspective of low level 3.5e Wizard would argue that Enchanter Wizard would use Piercing damage, because he doesn't normally prepare any direct damage spells and will rely on his Crossbow if he really needs to do some damage.

All of these people have their own idea of what the "theme" of Enchanter is, and based on that will make conclusions.

[Psyren]

The theme issues I'm highlighting were outlined before, but you ignored them with your counterargument being "but it's psychic damage, so it makes sense". Now you try to grasp at me mentioning the idea that Enchanter might not even need to have direct damage capabilities comparable to all other Wizards to fit its theme, and trying to spin it as if it's my only issue with the statblocks, ignoring everything else.

No, it's not. The point is that there are multiple possible perspective on the question "what type of damage should Enchanter Wizard use in combat" all with reasonable arguments. One could say that it makes sense for a mage specializing on mind-affecting magic to do psychic damage. Other person would say that it's reasonable to expect Enchanter to use Fire damage, because Fireball is a very good offensive spell and most Wizards prepare it, including Enchanters. And third person, arguing from the perspective of low level 3.5e Wizard would argue that Enchanter Wizard would use Piercing damage, because he doesn't normally prepare any direct damage spells and will rely on his Crossbow if he really needs to do some damage.

All of these people have their own idea of what the "theme" of Enchanter is, and based on that will make conclusions.

I didn't know until this moment (i.e. the last couple of posts) that you somehow erroneously believed Enchanter NPCs in 5e shouldn't be capable of direct damage. Forgive me for not realizing how miscalibrated your expectations of NPC casters are in this edition.

I agree that the acceptability of the type of damage can vary from user to user/designer to designer (though I definitely think psychic is more fitting for them than fire, for reasons I hope should be obvious), but the acceptability of them being capable of damage fitting their CR at all really should not.

[pothocboots]

In fact, I'd say "Enchanter does psychic blasts for its major damage capabilities" is much more on theme than "Enchanter casts fireballs for its major damage capabilities" (which is the current model).

But consider how much more that damage would fit with the theming if it was a cantrip/spell, or interacted with things in a similar manner. (Edit: expanded phrasing to encompass a broader set of possible reactions)

I'm not positive, but I think based on posts that this is something you and Pixel have already done.


@Psyren, Why is it thematic that the enchanter's psychic damage doesn't use the cantrip/spell framework?

[Brookshw]

It's certainly the purpose of the default material. You could argue that giving people the tools to make up whatever rules they want actually flies in the face of that profit motive, much like giving players robust modding tools can lead to them making your next competitor - a lesson that WotC even learned once the hard way already - but the default material being designed primarily to be sold is (or should be) uncontroversial.

We're in violent agreement that the WoTC is looking to make money and that is a very significant driving aspect, but I do that that alone is a simplification of the entire games existence, the inception of this conversation is related to intentional changes brought in as a result of design theory and user experience and is a clear indication that such elements are also part of the purpose of the game (because they'll drive profits). Just saying "designed to be sold" would bring us back to the TSR model which collapsed from too much attempts at selling a diverse, and, at times, questionably designed, product line.

As to the bold part, whomever at WoTC came up with the idea of the DMGuild and licensing users to commercialize their content was genius. Outsource (if that's the right word) the design and production costs and take a chunk of the profit through a licensing/royalty mechanism, yes. Incidentally, by providing the licensing mechanism they further create protection for their IP and shut down some arguments people can make about non-infringment, its a pretty clever meeting of their legal and business interests (and that's all I'll say on the legal topic).

[Psyren]

We're in violent agreement that the WoTC is looking to make money and that is a very significant driving aspect, but I do that that alone is a simplification of the entire games existence, the inception of this conversation is related to intentional changes brought in as a result of design theory and user experience and is a clear indication that such elements are also part of the purpose of the game (because they'll drive profits). Just saying "designed to be sold" would bring us back to the TSR model which collapsed from too much attempts at selling a diverse, and, at times, questionably designed, product line.

As to the bold part, whomever at WoTC came up with the idea of the DMGuild and licensing users to commercialize their content was genius. Outsource (if that's the right word) the design and production costs and take a chunk of the profit through a licensing/royalty mechanism, yes. Incidentally, by providing the licensing mechanism they further create protection for their IP and shut down some arguments people can make about non-infringment, its a pretty clever meeting of their legal and business interests (and that's all I'll say on the legal topic).

I agree that we agree () but just to reiterate - I wasn't saying anything about "the purpose of the entire game's existence." I was talking about the purpose of default material specifically, such as ready-made generic statblocks.

But consider how much more that damage would fit with the theming if it was a cantrip/spell.

@Psyren, Why is it thematic that the enchanter's psychic damage doesn't use the cantrip/spell framework?

Why does it need to? They're not PCs. They're designed for a single purpose, to be an easy-to-run 3-5 round challenge to a party of players whose level corresponds to the desired encounter difficulty.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But consider how much more that damage would fit with the theming if it was a cantrip/spell, or interacted with things in a similar manner. (Edit: expanded phrasing to encompass a broader set of possible reactions)

I'm not positive, but I think based on posts that this is something you and Pixel have already done.


@Psyren, Why is it thematic that the enchanter's psychic damage doesn't use the cantrip/spell framework?

I don't think that being a cantrip or a spell is more thematic. Because I think the theme of "is a wizard ergo does nothing but spells" is both not fitting for existing PC wizards, and, to the degree that it does fit, is lousy and lacking anything like real bite. It's the bread sandwich (ie nothing but white bread) of themes.

Edit: and I disagree that NPCs should be presumed to be the same as PCs, including in theme. For me, labeling them as wizards was the core mistake.

[pothocboots]

Why does it need to? They're not PCs. They're designed for a single purpose, to be an easy-to-run 3-5 round challenge to a party of players whose level corresponds to the desired encounter difficulty.

Then why are the thematics of the fighter NPC with at-will fireball a problem? With some number crunching they can be balanced. They're not PCs. They'd be designed by the same process for a single purpose, to be an easy-to-run 3-5 round challenge to a party of players whose level corresponds to the desired encounter difficulty.

A fighter NPC statblock with at-will fireball would indeed be disconcerting

[Psyren]

Then why are the thematics of the fighter NPC with at-will fireball a problem? With some number crunching they can be balanced. They're not PCs. They'd be designed by the same process for a single purpose, to be an easy-to-run 3-5 round challenge to a party of players whose level corresponds to the desired encounter difficulty.

All three kinds of wizard (PHB, VGtM, MotM) are capable of spontaneously producing external magical energy. Without a highly specialized subclass, fighters are not, and even with it their ability to do so is extremely limited.

Could you explain a rectally sourcing at-will fireball fighter in some way? I'm sure you could. WotC however has no reason to, and neither do I. Nothing is stopping you from doing so.

[noob]

Honestly I wish there was new homebrew subclasses for casting classes that replaces the spell system by "You get an hodge podge of 1 to 3 times a day spell that gets updated as you level and a few at will abilities" so that you could behave like those caster npcs and blast with magic all day long without worrying(about either running out or about opponents countering you by grappling you or about the silence spell or about people trying to stab you while you use the ability thus leaving little more than cover/concealment based counterplay) and have those few limited use spells when needed in a pinch (like those npcs too).

[Pixel_Kitsune]

But consider how much more that damage would fit with the theming if it was a cantrip/spell, or interacted with things in a similar manner. (Edit: expanded phrasing to encompass a broader set of possible reactions)

I'm not positive, but I think based on posts that this is something you and Pixel have already done.

Being fair, I didn't decided to treat these abilities as Cantrips or Spells. I have, at my table, ALWAYS ruled that Counterspell and other such factors work based on magic use, not spells cast. You can Counterspell Arcane Burst at my table, you can also counterspell a Beholder's disintegration eye beam. Basically I don't flavor my counterspell as seeing the chant/gestures and responding to that with the interupt, but instead to seeing or feeling the incoming energy and pushing back, similar to a Shonin hero catching or pushing back an energy blast.

I have no problem what so ever with the idea that things learn to use magic to fling energy or do other things without it being a spell. Literally everything an Artificer does except their actual spells is doing magic without spells. Most Wizard Subclass features are magic without spells. Channel Divinity, WildShape, etc, etc, etc.

@Psyren, Why is it thematic that the enchanter's psychic damage doesn't use the cantrip/spell framework?

It's not that it's thematic to specifically not use cantrip/spell frameworks. It's that it's not breaking thematics to not use them.

Again, immersive DM's generally don't say "The Enchanter casts Fireball at you." They say "(NPC Name or Descriptor) mumbles a few words and hurls a small red bead towards you, as it flies past you a dull roar erupts as a flash of fire expands out from it in all directions."

Then why are the thematics of the fighter NPC with at-will fireball a problem? With some number crunching they can be balanced. They're not PCs. They'd be designed by the same process for a single purpose, to be an easy-to-run 3-5 round challenge to a party of players whose level corresponds to the desired encounter difficulty.

They're not, I already gave an answer. And then a step further I gave the answer to a fighter that flings laser beams. Flavor is the domain of the DM, plain and simple.

Honestly I wish there was new homebrew subclasses for casting classes that replaces the spell system by "you get an hodge podge of 1 to 3 times a day spell that gets updated as you level and a few at will abilities" so that you could behave like those caster npcs and blast with magic all day long without worrying(about either running out or about opponents countering you by grappling you or about the silence spell or about people trying to stab you while you use the ability thus leaving little more than cover/concealment based counterplay) and have those few limited use spells when needed in a pinch (like those npcs too).

It's called an Artificer.

Their 1/2 Casting spells work with those limitations, but nothing else does. Their Magical Tinkering takes no Verbal or Somatic components. The Sublcass features may use Spell Slots but aren't spells. I keep bringing up the Infiltrator Armorer with their lightning launcher, but the Guardian's Thunder Gaunlets, the Alchemist's Elixers, Artillerists Turrets all bypass these issues.

[noob]

It's called an Artificer.

Their 1/2 Casting spells work with those limitations, but nothing else does. Their Magical Tinkering takes no Verbal or Somatic components. The Sublcass features may use Spell Slots but aren't spells. I keep bringing up the Infiltrator Armorer with their lightning launcher, but the Guardian's Thunder Gaunlets, the Alchemist's Elixers, Artillerists Turrets all bypass these issues.

No 1: the artificer class does not picks the spells for me.
2: the artificer class does not decides how many of each spell I can cast a day.
There is just too many choices as an artificer both when levelling up and during fights.
You could spend each spell slot on multiple different spells or on a subclass feature, that is far too much choice in the resource management system.
There is a reason for the cliche of the smart player picking an artificer.

[Psyren]

Honestly I wish there was new homebrew subclasses for casting classes

The solution seems pretty obvious no?

[Pixel_Kitsune]

No 1: the artificer class does not picks the spells for me.
2: the artificer class does not decides how many of each spell I can cast a day.
There is just too many choices as an artificer.
you could spend each spell slot on multiple different spells or on a subclass feature, that is far too much choice.

Your original post did not ask for choice simplicity, it asked for, and I quote, "...you could behave like those caster npcs and blast with magic all day long without worrying(about either running out or about opponents countering you by grappling you or about the silence spell or..."

You asked for simplified abilities that could be used at will without worrying about running out of slots or silences. You then specified wanting "...have those few limited use spells when needed in a pinch..." Which the Artificer as a 1/2 caster gives you.

[noob]

The solution seems pretty obvious no?

Get a more brilliant and smart person to write them for me so that it is balanced, easy to use and have cool themes.
Do you volunteer for that?

Your original post did not ask for choice simplicity, it asked for, and I quote, "...you could behave like those caster npcs and blast with magic all day long without worrying(about either running out or about opponents countering you by grappling you or about the silence spell or..."

You asked for simplified abilities that could be used at will without worrying about running out of slots or silences. You then specified wanting "...have those few limited use spells when needed in a pinch..." Which the Artificer as a 1/2 caster gives you.

I was quite not clear enough on the desire for simplicity, sorry.
although I did specify the presence of a static spell allocation changing only on level ups through in a not very clear way.

that replaces the spell system by "you get an hodge podge of 1 to 3 times a day spell that gets updated as you level and a few at will abilities"

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Get a more brilliant and smart person to write them for me so that it is balanced, easy to use and have cool themes.

I was quite not clear enough on the desire for simplicity, sorry.
although I did specify the presence of a static spell allocation through in a not very clear way.

If you want the spells picked for you and to play more generically, try googling D&D Quicker Character Builder. There's a few options.

[noob]

If you want the spells picked for you and to play more generically, try googling D&D Quicker Character Builder. There's a few options.

There is no options for preallocating spells, it still have the weird "spell slots that can be used for any spell" thing.
and it did really pick a lot of complicated spells for me.

1st Level (4 slots): Healing Word*, Ray Of Sickness*, Detect Magic, Cure Wounds, Feather Fall

2nd Level (3 slots): Flaming Sphere*, Melf's Acid Arrow*, Invisibility, Lesser Restoration, Web, Enhance Ability

3rd Level (2 slots): Gaseous Form*, Mass Healing Word*, Dispel Magic, Fly, Blink

That is a whole lot of spells, way more than most npcs.