D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Spell Discussion

[Maxperson]

For example, the show Supernatural.

Neither of the brothers are mages, nor innately magical. But they do on occasion perform magical rituals successfully, because they have seen how magic works and have some familiarity.

In other words, both are proficient in the Arcana skill.

Anyone who participates in a sacred community, akin to a synagogue, church, temple, or household shrine, is performing a divine ritual.

So first, the brothers are fairly highly trained like those in that community are. Second, I acknowledge that there were relatively rare examples of what you are talking about.

For every example you come up with, though, 10 can be brought up where that isn't the case.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I do. But I would say, you can't randomly substitute them and still have a functioning game, despite being to be able to play by the rules with them.

So yes. They belong to the rules in a rather important way. I think monsters are a bit more removed from that. You could just theoretically build them with player rules, but this is unwieldy.
And siege weaponry rather falls under monsters than weapons. It usually is just something with hp and a to hit and a damage number used as adversary.

So in the end I am somewhere in the middle.

The PHB is the most important book as it contains the base rules, how the game works.
HB also contains necessary supplement lists that are needed to play the game by the rules.

MM has examples of adversaries and rules how to read and use them.

DMG has some important examples of magic items and rules for exploration (albeit spread over several chapters so it is so useless, that I just don't use them) and examples of alternate rules.

TLDR
You can play the game with PHB only. Having the MM is very useful, as you have premade adversaries.
The DMG is more inspirational material than anything else.

I would argue that you cannot randomly substitute monster rules either. If you purely randomized a statblock by taking the entire MM and shoving it through a randomizer, you would not have a functional piece of the rules, just as doing the same for a PC would lead to the same result.

I can agree that from a "learning the rules for the first time" perspective, or a computer game perspective, the PHB is the most important. It has the fundamental rules of the game. However, while you could in theory homemake every single monster in the game if the MM never existed... that's not how anyone actually plays the game. And it does contain rules text, it is a core rulebook after all. I'm not making any claims that someone without the MM cannot possibly play the game, simply that the book contains rules. I mean, if someone was cursed to have the gaze of a medusa.. you would be referencing rules text to apply that ability, in the same way you would if someone had the Bard's Bardic Inspiration.

The DMG might not have a as many fundamental rules, such as how to roll a D20, but it does contain rules. And while you are presenting this as a middle ground option... it isn't. My entire position was that these two books contain rule text. Rules for firearms and modern weapons, rules for businesses, rules for poisons, rules for siege weapons, rules for damaging objects, rules for the various planes of existence. If you want to argue how vital the rules are to the game, or how useful they are, or how easy they are to change, feel free. However, my argument was that these rules exist, and are rules. Quite simple.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We already know the 2024 Players Handbook will have a decent selection of Beasts.

Disagree, we know it will contain a selection of beasts, but we do not know an exact number, and even a relatively high number such as 40 would not be "decent" in terms of a Monster Manual.

If the 2024 Players Handbook is the only book one needs to play a complete game of D&D, then the DM needs information about NPCs to populate the world. A selection of NPCs and NPC creation is necessary for a game.

The 2024 PHB will not be the only book one needs to play a complete game of DnD. Firstly, a complete game of DnD includes the complete game, all the way to level 20. Many beasts are CR 0, 1/8, 1/4, and 1/2. If we had two beasts of every CR until CR 20 we would need 48 beasts... and in actuality, CR goes to 30. Additionally, beasts work like a pyramid, there are far more of lower CR that are needed for a proper use by Druids than there are of high level. Since a Druid cannot turn into them, I do not expect to see Beasts of a CR higher than 6 in the PHB.

There is no indication, and in fact they have repeatedly stated the opposite, that there are not going to be the other two books. All three books will be made, and marketed, and will cover their respective niches.

 

[Yaarel]

@Chaosmancer

The key to making the 2024 Players Handbook the ONLY core book to play a complete game of D&D, is to facilitate the DM to pit the adventuring party against Humanoid opponents.

The Players Handbook has enormous amounts information for Humanoid player characters. The DM can create full player characters to be adversaries against the party.

It only takes a few pages to show the DM how to make a monster statblock for a Humanoid NPC (instead of a full player character). There can be examples of typical Humanoid NPC statblocks, including sidekicks, hired spellcasters, hired bodyguards, shopkeepers, etcetera, and possibly Bastion hirelings.

It is the Humanoid antagonists that can make a complete game of D&D.

 

[Asisreo]

Conjure Woodland Beings with Shared Spell with Ranger could be pretty effective. You essentially have two instances of that spell. Let's be grateful that Rangers don't have access to conjure minor elementals.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you want to argue how vital the rules are to the game, or how useful they are, or how easy they are to change, feel free. However, my argument was that these rules exist, and are rules. Quite simple.

Depends on the definition. I get behind your reasoning.
But if someone asks me to explain the D&D rules to them, i don't cite anything of the DMG or the MM.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think you need to read and watch more fantasy more. Most cannot perform magical rituals. Can they perform unmagical religious rituals? Sure. I'd let the PCs perform all the non-magical rituals they want.

You're wrong here, and I say that as someone who demonstrably reads and watches an absolute ton of fantasy.

One of the key things about rituals in the vast majority of fantasy settings is that you don't need to be special to do them. You just need to follow the instructions precisely. This is because the magic is of the world, not the individual. Sometimes you need magical objects or the like, but again, the requirement that the ritual caster themselves be magic is rare.

Training is necessary for some rituals, but for many others, they can be performed somewhere between by accident, by a very simple action/prayer, or by carefully following instructions in a book. Converse to your claim, rituals which require innate magical power limited to a few tend to the exception, not the rule. This is a staple of the fantasy genre, and acting like it's not is bizarre. It's also a major part of horror, which crosses over heavily with fantasy.

 

[James Gasik]

You're wrong here, and I say that as someone who demonstrably reads and watches an absolute ton of fantasy.

One of the key things about rituals in the vast majority of fantasy settings is that you don't need to be special to do them. You just need to follow the instructions precisely. This is because the magic is of the world, not the individual. Sometimes you need magical objects or the like, but again, the requirement that the ritual caster themselves be magic is rare.

Training is necessary for some rituals, but for many others, they can be performed somewhere between by accident, by a very simple action/prayer, or by carefully following instructions in a book. Converse to your claim, rituals which require innate magical power limited to a few tend to the exception, not the rule. This is a staple of the fantasy genre, and acting like it's not is bizarre. It's also a major part of horror, which crosses over heavily with fantasy.

Upthread, I mentioned John Bellairs, one of the inspirations for D&D magic, and how in his books, the practice of magic doesn't require talent as much as special study and practice. Talent certainly helps, but isn't precisely required.

 

[Maxperson]

You're wrong here, and I say that as someone who demonstrably reads and watches an absolute ton of fantasy.

One of the key things about rituals in the vast majority of fantasy settings is that you don't need to be special to do them. You just need to follow the instructions precisely. This is because the magic is of the world, not the individual. Sometimes you need magical objects or the like, but again, the requirement that the ritual caster themselves be magic is rare.

Training is necessary for some rituals, but for many others, they can be performed somewhere between by accident, by a very simple action/prayer, or by carefully following instructions in a book. Converse to your claim, rituals which require innate magical power limited to a few tend to the exception, not the rule. This is a staple of the fantasy genre, and acting like it's not is bizarre. It's also a major part of horror, which crosses over heavily with fantasy.

I'm saying trained, not special. You don't need to be trained to ATTEMPT a ritual, but without training you are far more likely to fail or end up dead than succeed. The mystical words don't come with a mystical word to reader's language translator, so the person reading it won't know how to pronounce words that need very precise pronunciation and enunciation. Bulenoanthrayek. How exactly are all of those syllables pronounced? It's not bound to follow the rules of any language known to man.

A lot of times these untrained people end up summoning the wrong thing or calling it uncontrolled and ending up dead, or if not dead trying to get rid of it before it kills too many people.

That's why a feat exists. It's so you can perform the ritual, not attempt it with a high likelihood of failure or death.

 

[James Gasik]

The potential for catastrophic failure is real.