D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[Voadam]

cone of cold does about the same damage as a fireball (even being higher level) I would have to look up range but I assume that would work, but lightening bolt almost never hits the whole party (the way fireball will often) and he came in buffed so time stop buff would not have been much. the disintegrate and PW kill both were HUGE deals where the fireball was a small deal... and I think trading teleport, globe, time stop for big offensive spells is a problem.

Fireball upcast to a 5th level slot does 10d6=~35 points of damage. Cone of Cold does 8d8=~36 points of damage so yes about comparable, though further upcasting the CoC gets more of a slight edge of increasing by d8s instead of d6s. The 60 foot cone from CoC is fairly decent at getting a lot of the party, particularly after misty stepping or even better if flying above the party where presumably not all can maneuver to melee engage.

Had he stuck with the stock archmage it could have teleported away on round four and lived.

 

[Thommy H-H]

nm

 

[Bill Zebub]

I assume that after 2 or 3 days of finding that you can only use 2 1st level spells each of those days 1st level wizards know the limit... by level 5 he can cast 4 1st 3 2nd and 2 3rd... but things get a bit more complex with 'upcasting' so I assume most casters see it more as mana or strain or something like it, but they still understand more or less that 4/3/2 are what he can do.

Yeah, that’s the way I assume some people think about it.

But there is another way: that there are in-character reasons why he just never happens to cast more than two third level spells a day that has nothing to do with slots, or perhaps he would have liked to have cast Haste today, but didn’t for reasons that have nothing to do with preparation.

this is about resource management and while the character may not understand exact game mechanic words, they HAVE to understand that they have to manage there resources... if not why not try to use shield as if it was a cantrip and then be surprised when it doesn't work the 3rd time at 1st level?

Because the player knows that’s how it works. The character might have a totally different explanation.

I realize this is alien/strange/wrong to a lot of people, but I’m guessing that people who think so also think that NPC spellcasters should use the same rules as PCs.

 

[Reynard]

I realize this is alien/strange/wrong to a lot of people, but I’m guessing that people who think so also think that NPC spellcasters should use the same rules as PCs.

Not really. I think it would be difficult to think of your character not having the system limitations built into their in fiction abilities, since it affects choices in play, but I don't think NPCs and especially monsters should use ANY spells found in the PHB unless they are actually members of the PHB classes.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not really. I think it would be difficult to think of your character not having the system limitations built into their in fiction abilities, since it affects choices in play, but I don't think NPCs and especially monsters should use ANY spells found in the PHB unless they are actually members of the PHB classes.

I often say (although I didn't make it up...I read this somewhere) that the way to explain daily martial powers has nothing to do with resource management: the reason an ability like, say, "Whirlwind Attack" is limited to 1/day is for gamist balance reasons. But the warrior doesn't know this. He uses it every chance he gets. But the frequency with which he finds himself in the perfect position to use it, with enough energy to do so, without dangerously exposing his flank, just happens to be 1/day. If you pointed this out to him he would scratch his head and say, "Really? I could have sworn I've used it multiple times in a single battle before. Huh. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong." He is (or could be, if this is your preferred interpretation of game mechanics) completely oblivious to the 1/day restriction.

Casters can be interpreted the same way. Different spellcasters are tapping into totally different principles, but for gamist/balance reasons we restrict the actual expression of this to a shared set of limitations. The casters themselves don't know they are bound by these restrictions.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Because the player knows that’s how it works. The character might have a totally different explanation.

I realize this is alien/strange/wrong to a lot of people, but I’m guessing that people who think so also think that NPC spellcasters should use the same rules as PCs.

funny part is I am both liking the concept of the new NPC stats AND thinking that the characters know in game

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This might seem off-topic, but I'm wondering if it gets at the root of some of the disagreement:

When you "prepare" spells for the day, is your character aware of the # of slots, levels, etc.? That is, do the game rules map 1:1 to the principles of magic as understood by the characters?

My answer is no. But if one's answer is yes, then that would lead to different conclusions about stat blocks (and many other things).

Yeah, that is a good question to illuminate the difference in thinking. My answer would be a very strong yes. I dislike disassociated mechanics that break the connection of in-character and out-of-character decision making. And yes, this is the reason why a lot of people had an issue with how 4e powers worked.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, that is a good question to illuminate the difference in thinking. My answer would be a very strong yes. I dislike disassociated mechanics that break the connection of in-character and out-of-character decision making. And yes, this is the reason why a lot of people had an issue with how 4e powers worked.

I disagree, but respect the opinion as valid.

 

[Reynard]

I often say (although I didn't make it up...I read this somewhere) that the way to explain daily martial powers has nothing to do with resource management: the reason an ability like, say, "Whirlwind Attack" is limited to 1/day is for gamist balance reasons. But the warrior doesn't know this. He uses it every chance he gets. But the frequency with which he finds himself in the perfect position to use it, with enough energy to do so, without dangerously exposing his flank, just happens to be 1/day. If you pointed this out to him he would scratch his head and say, "Really? I could have sworn I've used it multiple times in a single battle before. Huh. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong." He is (or could be, if this is your preferred interpretation of game mechanics) completely oblivious to the 1/day restriction.

Casters can be interpreted the same way. Different spellcasters are tapping into totally different principles, but for gamist/balance reasons we restrict the actual expression of this to a shared set of limitations. The casters themselves don't know they are bound by these restrictions.

I see where you are coming from. probably because I started during BECMI and then AD&D, there weren't any "daily" abilities that weren't magical in nature so it is just sort of ingrained.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah, that is a good question to illuminate the difference in thinking. My answer would be a very strong yes. I dislike disassociated mechanics that break the connection of in-character and out-of-character decision making. And yes, this is the reason why a lot of people had an issue with how 4e powers worked.

that's also funny. I assume the wizard knows he has 4/3/2 but I had no issue with (and loved) 4e. I have no issue with disassociated mechanics, I just don't think PC wizards ARE that. I think PC wizards are pretty straight forward.

I also think that makeing a NPC wizard in the base set up of Vecna would be great... my issue is it just isn't done well... not that it shouldn't be done. I have no issue with "in game Vecna is a 26th level wizard with all the same things your PC would have...but the stat block is only simulating it with these at will, and daily and recharge abilities"