D&D 5E Explain: Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse

[Reynard]

I think they’re asking if it has been confirmed that they don’t count as spells and are therefore immune to counterspell and such. To which the answer is still yes, but the stat block alone doesn’t tell us that. Jeremy Crawford confirmed it in some video or other though.

How could that be a piece of information that isn't explicitly noted in the book -- like, in that front section before all the monsters and stuff? I started this thread partly because the book has been out for months, just not able to be purchased as a stand alone thing, no?

 

[overgeeked]

How could that be a piece of information that isn't explicitly noted in the book -- like, in that front section before all the monsters and stuff? I started this thread partly because the book has been out for months, just not able to be purchased as a stand alone thing, no?

The problem isn't with the stat blocks as written, it's with the wording of counterspell. As written, counterspell doesn't effect these new abilities. Unless WotC erratas that or releases a Sage Advice on it. Or updates it in 5.5.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes, we have seen the monster stat blocks.

I think they’re asking if it has been confirmed that they don’t count as spells and are therefore immune to counterspell and such. To which the answer is still yes, but the stat block alone doesn’t tell us that. Jeremy Crawford confirmed it in some video or other though.

How could that be a piece of information that isn't explicitly noted in the book -- like, in that front section before all the monsters and stuff? I started this thread partly because the book has been out for months, just not able to be purchased as a stand alone thing, no?

yes that is what I am asking. Has aanyone confrimed the intent (weather it is written in book or not I am not even sure) that these new special ability spell replacements skip over spell immunity and counterspell

last I heard we were still waiting on player faceing rules for this

 

[the Jester]

How could that be a piece of information that isn't explicitly noted in the book -- like, in that front section before all the monsters and stuff? I started this thread partly because the book has been out for months, just not able to be purchased as a stand alone thing, no?

I suspect the thinking is, "If it doesn't say it's a spell, it's not a spell" combined with "Why would something that's not a spell be a spell?" -ignoring the confusion over abilities that look, sound, and smell very much like spells.

 

[Reynard]

I suspect the thinking is, "If it doesn't say it's a spell, it's not a spell" combined with "Why would something that's not a spell be a spell?" -ignoring the confusion over abilities that look, sound, and smell very much like spells.

But wouldn't the designers know it might be an issue? Why not answer the question in the actual text.

"Spell Like Abilities: These abilities are considered spells for the purpose of counterspell, dispel and anti-magic shell. If the level of the spell must be determined, use CR/2." Or whatever the appropriate mechanics would be (I'm just making stuff up off the top of my head). My point is: why isn't this information in the book that introduces the new mechanics?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I suspect the thinking is, "If it doesn't say it's a spell, it's not a spell" combined with "Why would something that's not a spell be a spell?" -ignoring the confusion over abilities that look, sound, and smell very much like spells.

i aalso think that part of it is (IMO) the creatores can't think of every combo. If counterspell, globe of invun and things like it didn't come up, they may just not of thought of it.

 

[Oofta]

The problem isn't with the stat blocks as written, it's with the wording of counterspell. As written, counterspell doesn't effect these new abilities. Unless WotC erratas that or releases a Sage Advice on it. Or updates it in 5.5.

Or conversely is killed, it's body burned, the ashes spread to the 4 winds and never spoken of again.

Counterspell is intriguing in theory, in practice it's just boring. As long as it's removed from the enemies as well I don't see a problem.

 

[overgeeked]

Or conversely is killed, it's body burned, the ashes spread to the 4 winds and never spoken of again.

Counterspell is intriguing in theory, in practice it's just boring. As long as it's removed from the enemies as well I don't see a problem.

Oh. I agree. Any version of "your turn is wasted" or "lose a turn" are all terrible mechanics and should be stripped from the game and killed with fire. Unfortunately, that's a basic and assumed part of the game for many.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Or conversely is killed, it's body burned, the ashes spread to the 4 winds and never spoken of again.

Counterspell is intriguing in theory, in practice it's just boring. As long as it's removed from the enemies as well I don't see a problem.

I mean... that is as likely... my understanding is we have not heard.

this change may mean no counterspell in the 2024 books (I would shed no tears) or it could be rewritten to accommodate this.

It might even be the Devs have not decided.

 

[Helldritch]

Or conversely is killed, it's body burned, the ashes spread to the 4 winds and never spoken of again.

Counterspell is intriguing in theory, in practice it's just boring. As long as it's removed from the enemies as well I don't see a problem.

Oh. I agree. Any version of "your turn is wasted" or "lose a turn" are all terrible mechanics and should be stripped from the game and killed with fire. Unfortunately, that's a basic and assumed part of the game for many.

I could not agree more. Both of what you say is true. Counterspell should never have seen the day.
On the other hand, Dispel Magic is quite fine.
But I will surely miss the spell slot system for foes. I much prefer that.