D&D 5E Apprentice Wizard- Arcane Burst power

[cbwjm]

Yeah, it's goofy. There was a video – wish I had saved the link – where Jeremy Crawford iirc mentioned how "counterspell-proofing" certain monster magical abilities made their damage more reliable.

And then I look at something like not-eldritch blast...ahem, I mean Arcane Burst... and I just roll my eyes. Perfect example of D&D creating problems with fundamental design choices (how counterspell works) that have a ripple effect that channel solutions to issues into ridiculous territory.

I would 100% allow counterspell to counter these abilities if this is what the players do.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There are numerous posters on this very board who would vehemently dispute the idea that PCs and NPCs should ever use distinct sets of rules. To them, there is an inherent design requirement: If a power exists, in any form, for any creature, anywhere, then it must conceivably be something a player could use, and vice-versa. It might be extremely difficult, or locked to a specific physiology, or a lost art, or...(etc., etc., ad nauseam), but at least in theory it should be accessible. Anything that creates disparate mechanics for NPCs vs PCs is anathema.

I share your criticisms of these ideas, to be clear. But there are lots of people who consider this a necessary prerequisite for the game to be worth playing at all.

True, some people like to think of game rules as like the laws of Physics, they describe how the world really works. And 3rd edition leaned into that, whilst the other editions all went the other way.

That is, the came rules are a model, that allows you to simulate things within the parameters of the game. This is best seen if you try to assign stats to fictional characters, such as Gandalf. "If Gandalf is an X level wizard, why didn't he cast Y?" Character sheets and monster stat blocks are only an approximation of what a character can do under certain circumstances, they are not THE character.

 

[Yaarel]

Character sheets and monster stat blocks are only an approximation of what a character can do under certain circumstances, they are not THE character.

I especially agree, statblocks are a convenient abbreviation, not an entire character.

Even players might want to use a statblock to simplify their character down to their "favorite" most likely combat actions. If something unusual comes up, they can consult the rest of their character sheet to decide how to handle it.


At the same time, if something exists in the world, it should normally be doable by a player character, by some means.

Being an "Apprentice Wizard" is bog standard. Pretty much every Wizard character of levels 1 thru 4 is one. It would require narrative explanation if the player character and the nonplayer character who are in the same class in the same Wizard school are somehow learning radically different magic from the same teacher.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

At the same time, if something exists in the world, it should normally be doable by a player character, by some means.

Being an "Apprentice Wizard" is bog standard. Pretty much every Wizard character of levels 1 thru 4 is one. It would require narrative explanation if the player character and the nonplayer character who are in the same class in the same Wizard school are somehow learning radically different magic from the same teacher.

This is letting the players see too much behind the curtain. An actual apprentice wizard would have a range of different cantrips and first level spells*: Fire Bolt, Shocking Gasp, Magic Missile, Chromatic Orb etc. "Arcane Burst" is supposed to model ALL of those spells. It does force damage because it is assuming the wizard would select the one that the PCs are least likely to be resistant to. It is ranged and melee because the wizard selects the spell that is the best option. Just don't tell the players the name of the attack or the damage type. "The wizard zaps you with a spell for 7 points of damage".


*Given he is unlikely to last more than three rounds, three first level spell slots is effectively unlimited.

 

[Yaarel]

This is letting the players see too much behind the curtain.

The players are DMs too! It is bizarre to pretend to gatekeep information away from them.

Heh, the players are probably looking thru the Monster Manual anyway, to see what to conjure or shapechange into.

The better a DM the players become, the easier it is for them to not metagame. Since they understand better how the world works, and what any particular character might or might not know.

An actual apprentice wizard would have a range of different cantrips and first level spells*: Fire Bolt, Shocking Gasp, Magic Missile, Chromatic Orb etc. "Arcane Burst" is supposed to model ALL of those spells. It does force damage because it is assuming the wizard would select the one that the PCs are least likely to be resistant to. It is ranged and melee because the wizard selects the spell that is the best option. Just don't tell the players the name of the attack or the damage type. "The wizard zaps you with a spell for 7 points of damage".
*Given he is unlikely to last more than three rounds, three first level spell slots is in effect unlimited.

More in the following post.

 

[Yaarel]

Here is the statblock of the "Wizard, Apprentice" from Mordenkainen.

This is a convenient abbreviation of the stats for a level 2 Wizard.

A player Wizard has three cantrips and three slot 1 spells.

This nonplayer Wizard has the three slot 1 spells (Burning Hands, Disguise Self, Mage Armor), and actually the three cantrips (Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Eldritch Blast). "Arcane Burst" Spell Attack is actually a variant Eldritch Blast cantrip. Since it is a "spell" attack, Counterspell could easily be said to apply.


These are the default spells that this particular Wizard student happens to prep. A DM can swap these spells and cantrips, and swap the damage type of the Spell Attack. A group of Wizard Apprentices at a pub could have different spells among them.

I would definitely swap the Burning Hands for Magic Missile instead. Every wizardry school student should have Magic Missile handy, to defend the school.

Disguise Self is interesting for an encounter. I might swap Mage Armor for Entangle instead, for the purpose of fleeing if things go wrong.

For the spell attack, I like Force, but could easily apply an other damage type instead, depending on concept.


Judging by the statblock, the "Variant Eldritch Blast" cantrip looks like the following. Here is a cantrip that any Wizard can learn to cast.


ARCANE BURST
Dunamancy cantrip

Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: Melee or 120 feet
Components: None

Raw arcane force ruptures across your target, distorting and wracking the body. Make a Melee or Ranged Spell Attack. On a Hit, the target incurs 1d10 Force Damage.

At Higher Levels. At level 5 the damage increases to 2d10, at level 11 to 3d10, and at level 17 to 4d10.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The players are DMs too! It is bizarre to pretend to gatekeep information away from them.

Heh, the players are probably looking thru the Monster Manual anyway, to see what to conjure or shapechange into.

The better a DM the players become, the easier it is for them to not metagame. Since they understand better how the world works, and what any particular character might or might not know.

When I am playing rather than DMing, I lock my metagame knowledge away in a mental box and don't peak at it. Spoilers I think, the game is more fun without it.

 

[Yaarel]

When I am playing rather than DMing, I lock my metagame knowledge away in a mental box and don't peak at it. Spoilers I think, the game is more fun without it.

Generally, it is easy to minimize looking thru the Glossary when playing this way in first person immersion. When needing to switch to rules mechanics gaming frame of mind, to doublecheck a rule, it helps for the rules to be all in one place, instead of hopping back and forth between books.

 

[Teemu]

The idea that PCs should (in theory) be able to learn the skills and abilities of NPCs doesn't make sense even if you played NPCs with full PC rules. A player character illusionist wizard can never learn the powers that other wizard subclasses grant, no matter how hard they try, barring house rules. Same thing with a battlemaster fighter observing the abilities of an NPC rune knight fighter. This mythical in-world consistency with regards to PC vs NPC abilities has never existed and will never exist even if you build every single NPC with the PC rules.

I would 100% allow counterspell to counter these abilities if this is what the players do.

Would you allow an NPC caster to counterspell a PC druid's wildshape or a PC conjurer wizard's benign transposition or a PC cleric's various channel divinity powers? They're all magical abilities after all and very similar to spells even if they aren't spells. Or vice versa, if an NPC possessed any of these PC class abilities and a player wanted to counterspell it?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

True, some people like to think of game rules as like the laws of Physics, they describe how the world really works. And 3rd edition leaned into that, whilst the other editions all went the other way.

What I find most humorous is that this is now the prevailing opinion, but back when 5e launched, I very much saw the opposite--folks felt D&D had always been at least somewhat simulationist and 5e was finally returning to full-throated simulationism. The despised gamism of 4e had finally been slain.

It's just funny how the tides change.

If the NPC is being designed to be a common element of the world, then it should not have abilities that are not common elements of the world.

Even if I granted this if-then, my dispute is the antecedent, not the consequent. I don't accept that a creature labelled "Apprentice Wizard" is meant to be some Platonic ideal of all individuals undertaking wizardly apprenticeship. I don't accept that a creature labelled "Green Recruit" is meant to be some universalized representation of absolutely every being that can be parsed as a fresh, inexperienced conscript. Since I reject the former, even if this conditional were true, it would not establish the truth of the consequent. Of course, it also wouldn't establish that the consequent were false, but since this "creatures should not have abilities that are not common elements of the world" claim is your assertion, the burden of proof lies on you. I make no special assertion about it.

Further, even if I granted both the conditional and the premise that NPCs are or should be designed as common elements of the world, it wouldn't follow that this Platonic idealization actually does result in your desire, the "taking the diegetic context it occurs in seriously." Because enforced uniformity is (or at least seems) just as artificial and contrary to diegetic seriousness as the (allegedly) artificial situation you're complaining about. That is, why should it be the case that absolutely all "Apprentice Wizards" learn exactly the same stuff in exactly the same ways? Real, playable wizards don't work like that. You can take zero spells that do damage, if you want. You can take only spells that do damage. You can hyper-specialize in spells of only one or two schools (depending on which school, some are more dense than others.) You can ultra-generalize, intentionally avoiding over-emphasis on any narrow set of schools. Etc.

Likewise, why should the "Green Recruits" of Yuxia, the Jade Home, have any meaningful resemblance to the "Green Recruits" of Al-Rakkah, the Jewel of the Desert? Sociocultural differences, economic differences, fighting style differences...there not only could but should be a mountain of differences for why one group might favor archery and horse-riding (as the steppe barbarians do) over heavy armor and metal shields (as the remnant population to the south does) or lightweight armor and "CURVED. SWARDS!" as the blademasters of Yuxia do.

Enforced conformity and uniformity has just as many diegetic problems. And if we aren't enforcing uniformity...why should we expect every narratively "person who is green, and also a recruit" to always, 100% of the time, use the first creature statistics published under the name "Green Recruit"?