D&D General What is a "spell"? What isn't?

[Hussar]

Sure, but it's redrawing the line which then actually expands the ability. The point is, it doesn't quite fit with the old order of rules.

Or you just leave it as a nerf. Not really having much problem with that either.

Most of the stuff that’s a “power” and not a spell is along the lines of a straight up attack anyway. The big stuff will still be spells.

 

[Mort]

Or you just leave it as a nerf. Not really having much problem with that either.

I just feel like it's a bit of a bait and switch - especially for relatively new players.

Aura says resistance against spells. Surprise, most of the monsters damaging spells are now no longer spells - they're abilities and not subject to the resistance. It's a bit mean. I would let a player repick or slightly rework the aura.

Most of the stuff that’s a “power” and not a spell is along the lines of a straight up attack anyway. The big stuff will still be spells.

Sort of. Much of the damage is now from abilities (so no resistance) and the "big stuff" an NPC caster can do isn't reliant on damage so wouldn't be affected anyway.

 

[James Gasik]

For example, the Yuan-Ti* had advantage on saves vs. spells and magic, just like monster magic resistance. Monsters of the Multiverse nerfs this to just spells, like other similar player abilities. Then turns around and "simplifies" monsters by turning attack abilities into "spell attacks" that aren't spells, further devaluing the ability.

*Arguments that the Yuan-Ti needed a nerf notwithstanding.

 

[Hussar]

See, but, again, I tend to look at this from a very practical point of view.

How often are monsters damaging PC's with spells? I mean, seriously. How often are monsters doing this? If it's not all that often anyway - after all most monsters don't have spells currently And, by the time you get into monsters that do have damaging spells, the party probably has Counterspell anyway, meaning that the enemy caster just gets shut down, and the DM reacts to this by not using enemy caster monsters.

It's all kind of on a loop. The more resistances the party has to enemy casters, the less likely the DM is going to use enemy casters because they aren't very interesting encounters. Having the baddy deal half damage and/or completely lose actions round after round isn't going to rock anyone's boat.

I guess my basic question is, how big of a deal is this actually? How many creatures, and how commonly used are they? Sure, we're nerfing the resistances to a Lich. Great. But, how many liches do you tend to see in a campaign? One? Two at the outside? So, it's not like these resistances mattered all that much anyway in the larger scheme of things.

Then again, I have a slightly different point of view since I am a big fan of using non-WotC monsters. Which means that having non-spell magical attacks was pretty common for me all the way along. This isn't something new for me. So, maybe that's why I'm not seeing it as a big change. It's just WotC falling in line with what everyone else is already doing.

 

[James Gasik]

My issue is simply, why give players a feature like magic resistance if you're going to present it as a big deal, then turn it into a "ribbon", that, like Natural Explorer, comes up every once in awhile. If a Halfling rolls a 1, they get a reroll. Every time. That happens a good 5% of the time or so.

If a Wood Elf is in the wilderness, he can Hide. That might be campaign dependent, but I would assume it's going to come up a decent bit.

If the 10th and 14th level abilities of the School of Abjuration are suddenly less useful because spellcasting monsters are given "not spells" to use, that seems a bit unfair.

 

[jmartkdr2]

See, but, again, I tend to look at this from a very practical point of view.

How often are monsters damaging PC's with spells? I mean, seriously. How often are monsters doing this? If it's not all that often anyway - after all most monsters don't have spells currently And, by the time you get into monsters that do have damaging spells, the party probably has Counterspell anyway, meaning that the enemy caster just gets shut down, and the DM reacts to this by not using enemy caster monsters.

The way I see it: if the resistance isn't going to come up much anyways, why would you want to make it not work on the rare occasions when it does?

Would you tell players they can't counterspell a demilich casting fireball because it's not technically a spell, it just uses all the same rules as a spell but from it's own statblock rather than requiring a cross-reference? (even though the creature in question was explicitly described as a spellcaster)?

It's all kind of on a loop. The more resistances the party has to enemy casters, the less likely the DM is going to use enemy casters because they aren't very interesting encounters. Having the baddy deal half damage and/or completely lose actions round after round isn't going to rock anyone's boat.

It's pretty cool when it comes up, though - it's probably a main reason why the player picked Ancients Paladin in the first place.

I guess my basic question is, how big of a deal is this actually? How many creatures, and how commonly used are they? Sure, we're nerfing the resistances to a Lich. Great. But, how many liches do you tend to see in a campaign? One? Two at the outside? So, it's not like these resistances mattered all that much anyway in the larger scheme of things.

So they're rare - which means if you further limit the effect, it becomes a non-ribbon, because even when it seems like it would apply, it doesn't. Why would you shut down lich resistance?

Then again, I have a slightly different point of view since I am a big fan of using non-WotC monsters. Which means that having non-spell magical attacks was pretty common for me all the way along. This isn't something new for me. So, maybe that's why I'm not seeing it as a big change. It's just WotC falling in line with what everyone else is already doing.

What you're doing, maybe, but in a dozen campaigns with several dm's, not using any enemy spellcasters for a whole campaign is an oddball to me. Especially if you replace spells with spell-like abilities, and especially especially if the only difference between a spell and a spell-like ability is it makes one subclass less cool.

Even custom monsters usually use spells or abilities that don't work like spells in the first place.

 

[SkidAce]

... But, how many liches do you tend to see in a campaign? One? Two at the outside? So, it's not like these resistances mattered all that much anyway in the larger scheme of things. ...

Five.

...but your point is valid.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I guess my basic question is, how big of a deal is this actually? How many creatures, and how commonly used are they? Sure, we're nerfing the resistances to a Lich. Great. But, how many liches do you tend to see in a campaign? One? Two at the outside? So, it's not like these resistances mattered all that much anyway in the larger scheme of things.

Then again, I have a slightly different point of view since I am a big fan of using non-WotC monsters. Which means that having non-spell magical attacks was pretty common for me all the way along. This isn't something new for me. So, maybe that's why I'm not seeing it as a big change. It's just WotC falling in line with what everyone else is already doing.

Reasonable question.

I found counterspell itself to be too generic. That's why I went with the known or opposing spell to counter (e.g. knowledge of wall of fire or wall of ice to counter a wall of fire). If there was a discernable magical effect and a magician wanted to try to counter it, I would be game if there was some parallel that the player could explain. In the past, a wizard tried to counter a strafing dragon's breath with a cone of cold. This seemed completely appropriate to me and they made the roll. For monstrous abilities, the trick would be understanding it enough to describe an appropriate spell to counter it.

So the difference between a spell and an abilities is that there is a penalty to the roll to counter and ability since the magician is trying to make the ability fit the magical theory on the fly.

(A bit tangential, but seemed appropriate to the question.)

 

[Hussar]

It's pretty cool when it comes up, though - it's probably a main reason why the player picked Ancients Paladin in the first place.

Really? The point of playing an Ancients paladin is so you get resistance to spell damage at 7th level? That's a bit sad to be honest.

What you're doing, maybe, but in a dozen campaigns with several dm's, not using any enemy spellcasters for a whole campaign is an oddball to me. Especially if you replace spells with spell-like abilities, and especially especially if the only difference between a spell and a spell-like ability is it makes one subclass less cool.

Who said not "any" spellcasters? I certainly didn't say that. I said that enemy spell casters don't come up all that often. I mean, I just played Storm King's Thunder, for example, and there were barely any enemy spell casters in the entire campaign. My current Candlekeep Mysteries campaign has a couple, but, again, it's not that common. Non "spell" magical attacks are far more common. Going by memory, it's not until the fifth module that there are any actual caster monsters. I'm now into the 10th adventure, and 3 have had a strongly featured caster enemy. And, even then, it's only one or two (well ok, 3 in one case) enemies in the entire adventure.

I'm not really convinced that it's that big of a deal. Most monsters don't cast spells. The ones that do, often don't cast spells that deal damage. Of the ones that do cast damaging spells, they aren't seen all that often.

 

[jgsugden]

...So -- remembering we are talking about the fiction, not the rules -- what is a spell in D&D, and what isn't?

Just to mention it: I'm not currently adopting the Mordy's changes and am sticking with the designs to the monsters/NPCs that feature more spells and less abilities. If I do, I will likely generally be 'homebrewing' to add more spells to those creatures and then give some of their abilities a 'spell' tag so that those abilities can be counterspelled, etc...

I know what they intended to do with these new designs, but I consider them major missteps. They messed with the mechanics of the game in a way that does not work with existing rules. It smacks of an 'end of edition' mass playtest, so we've begun to enter the phase where I am less likely to purchase new materials. It disappoints me as I think we could run 5E for another 5 to 10 years ... it is a good edition.

I wish they'd just kept the monster sheets as they were but bolded the options they'd recommend using first. Eliminating monster options on such a massive scale has been a huge mistake every time they've done it - and they've done it over and over. By 7E we're going to end up with only one monster with one attack in the monster manual at this rate.

That being said, historically, magical monster abilities in my campaign come from Supernatural Magics as a general rule.

In my setting there are 5 types of magic: Arcane, Divine, Nature, Psionic and Supernatural. Arcane, Divine and Nature magics utilize the Magical Weave that extends from the Positive Energy Plane to the Negative Energy Plane (each in a different way). Psionic magic originates within the creater of the magics.

Supernatural magic, however, is drawn from the universe around you, but it does not come from the weave. It covers things like undead, curses, chemistry, and monster abilities not identified as a spell. Historically, most of these are not cast are manipulated into existence. They tend to just happen. There are exceptions, but that is the general rule.