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

[Crimson Longinus]

Note, you've got two points here - want to communicate AND escape - but, fair enough. My question would be, why not?

Unless the party specifically knows (and how could they?) that this caster doesn't have things like Message or various other magical means of communication, how could they possibly know that the caster couldn't do that? Maybe the caster has a familiar. There are a million and one reasons and means that this caster could use to contact allies, and very, very few ways outside of killing the caster of stopping it. So, no, it's not "understandable". It's limiting and frankly, rather pointless. The stat block should not be considered the sum total of what that creature can do.

Ok. But the players probably don't know what combat spells the NPC caster has either. So are you fine with adding new spells to the NPC in mid combat?

 

[Hussar]

Strictly speaking, it most definitely is a loss, if you liked things as they were. Whether or not it is fair to be unhappy about it is the question. Your answer seems to be no.

The compromise is moving in a direction toward what some people like and away from what other people like. You can't expect those in group A to just be happy about it. Its actively making the game worse for them.

Maybe. But, I can expect people in Group A not to actively try to poop all over Group B every single time. If people actually do care about the game being a "big tent", then accepting that the game isn't always going to be designed with you in mind is a pretty big thing.

And, I'm sorry, but, taking out the spell list in a couple of monsters, is not "actively making the game worse" for anyone. After all, there's no loss here because the older versions of the monsters STILL EXIST. No one is taking your older books away from you. Yes, you won't use some of the monsters in the new books. Or, if you do, you have to do the work instead of me. I'm really not having a lot of sympathy for anyone who is basically insisting that the game only cater to their tastes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Trying to cover all the bases is how we get caster stat blocks that are two pages long.

I have made BBEG and even friendly NPC that were pages... but boy do I prefer the condensed stat block most times... I really think I like haveing both options... do I make a 2 page full spellbook with custum spells, or do I make a 3 at will 2 daily + 1 always on buff stat block... both can be a 12th level wizard

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok. But the players probably don't know what combat spells the NPC caster has either. So are you fine with adding new spells to the NPC in mid combat?

I have "Oh, he has 150hp instead of 80" thoughts when the paliden/hexblade opens with a crit smite... I have added spells, regeneration (it only kicks in at half hp wink wink) to keep fight from going to easy or too fast.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have made BBEG and even friendly NPC that were pages... but boy do I prefer the condensed stat block most times... I really think I like haveing both options... do I make a 2 page full spellbook with custum spells, or do I make a 3 at will 2 daily + 1 always on buff stat block... both can be a 12th level wizard

Both options would be great. Hard to complain if they're doing what everyone wants.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have "Oh, he has 150hp instead of 80" thoughts when the paliden/hexblade opens with a crit smite... I have added spells, regeneration (it only kicks in at half hp wink wink) to keep fight from going to easy or too fast.

Right. And that is effectively fudging. And I have no issue with you doing that, but a lot of people don't want to do it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Right. And that is effectively fudging. And I have no issue with you doing that, but a lot of people don't want to do it.

yeah even I rail against it from time to time

 

[Voadam]

I guess I don't really understand your point.

Because we are talking about spellcasting limits, what I'm saying is that when the wizard who is otherwise capable of casting web does not cast it, what's the in-game explanation? One is that he is out of spell slots. But there could be myriad other reasons. "Casting spells is dangerous and I just don't feel it's safe right now." "The Weave ebbs and flows like a river; you can't catch a fish any time and place you choose, and casting spells works the same way." "Imagine a clock with 10 hands moving at different speeds; you can only channel magic when all the hands are in the right places, and each type of magic requires a different configuration. This is NOT the time for conjuring magical spider webs! Don't you know anything?"

It would be fairly rare for someone narratively or as a player to make a plan that has to take into account resource management limits of a martial power. The most likely one that I can think of that could come up would be an ammunition type of limitation. Second Wind and Action Surge are limited resources but not the kind of thing you would in world say "put on the gas here". Mostly martial powers are not utility powers narratively distinct from things a character could normally do that will get involved in PC planning. Getting advantage on athletics checks from a martial power is not generally narratively distinct from being good at athletics checks from a high proficiency bonus or a high strength bonus.

Most magical powers and their limits show up narratively distinct. Fly is usually narratively different from athletics check climbing. Magic can be reskinned to obscure the resource management aspects, but it is more work to do so than for most martial powers.

If a plan involves using webs as safety nets it would be a different planning conversation if the character knew about their slot limits or if they believed the caster just often fails at casting coincidentally and unknowingly in line with the slot system slots being expended. The latter can lead to a disconnect of in-character planning versus out of character planning, or scrapping reasonable out of character planning to accommodate the in-character knowledge paradigm.

At the planning stage if someone comes up with a safety net web plan for the whole party jumping out of the top of a tower and the mage said it was not up to him whether the conditions were right or not to cast it when they came out I think most would then go with a different plan. If instead he said he just had to remember to keep one second level slot open the party would probably go with the plan and remind the mage to not expend all his second level slots.

It is possible to do the obscured magical knowledge method and have the character coincidentally not expend a second level slot so they can enact the plan later while never verbalizing that intention or in-character considering slot resource management, but that can be work and have a disconnect of in-character and out of character stuff that can be an inhibition to immersion.

All things being equal I would generally not advise doing it as a default as it would generally be work for no real return, but go for it if you want to achieve a specific goal. If for example you think it would be fun to play out a nervous mage who fails a lot, or if you want to avoid talking about slots in character, then that is a way to get there.

In my 5e game there is a PC robot artificer and we are using a bit of a Mage the Ascension technocracy paradigm for his magic so he in character does not think of it as magic and his arficier magic manifests as tech super device such as levitate rocket boots or levitate antigrav platforms for pushing Han Solo in carbonite. In my last session they were discussing crazy plans for using these to get over a wall into a compound and so the resource limits of the options came up. It is effort to reskin things and make the resource management model and rules of magic work in a tech paradigm, but we are achieving the desired aesthetic goal in a bunch of ways and enjoying it so we do it.

In contrast when I played a martial 4e ranger the limits of my 1/encounter and 1/day martial powers never came up as an in-character issue. Hitting someone as a reaction or an interrupt or shifting away from them as they close once per encounter never came up as a consideration of planning the way the number of levitates the artificer could pull off came up.

 

[Hussar]

Ok. But the players probably don't know what combat spells the NPC caster has either. So are you fine with adding new spells to the NPC in mid combat?

Why not?

Granted, IMO, it's less likely, simply because the DM is too busy to add stuff in the middle of combat. Or, at least, I know that I am. There's is zero chance I'm going to start futzing with adding more spells to the monster in the middle of combat. I want less already. Like I said, 5 is a good number. If the caster can do 5 different things? Yeah, I'm good. Anything more than that is, again, purely for me, pointless. I'm not going to use those extra options.

Now, the compromise here is that we're getting about a dozen different actions for the creature as opposed to two dozen or more. So, at least they're cutting stuff in half to make it easier on the DM to run - something people have been asking for for rather a long time. And, since this mostly applies to higher level games, where things are already very hard to run, anything that makes it simpler is a good thing. Again, IMO.

One of the most consistent complaints in D&D since early 3e days is that the high level game is too hard to run and there's no material for it. Well, if they actually want to address that, this is a good start.

But, to roll back to your question, again, why not? Why should't I switch out a spell or just add one in the middle of combat? The player's won't know, and the combat block is not supposed to be the entirety of the character. Can't be considering that a stat block, even an lengthy one, is still very truncated compared to a PC sheet. That Deathlock MasterMind has to be at least a 9th level Warlock to have 2 5th level spell slots - yet has no invocations. The Mastermind could easily have more spells than what's on his list. So, poof, instant Invocation and now he drops Conjure Elemental, or Confusion or Polymorph, or turns invisible multiple times.

Justifying something after the fact, despite it not being in the stat block is DMing 101.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It would be fairly rare for someone narratively or as a player to make a plan that has to take into account resource management limits of a martial power. The most likely one that I can think of that could come up would be an ammunition type of limitation. Second Wind and Action Surge are limited resources but not the kind of thing you would in world say "put on the gas here". Mostly martial powers are not utility powers narratively distinct from things a character could normally do that will get involved in PC planning. Getting advantage on athletics checks from a martial power is not generally narratively distinct from being good at athletics checks from a high proficiency bonus or a high strength bonus.

Most magical powers and their limits show up narratively distinct. Fly is usually narratively different from athletics check climbing. Magic can be reskinned to obscure the resource management aspects, but it is more work to do so than for most martial powers.

If a plan involves using webs as safety nets it would be a different planning conversation if the character knew about their slot limits or if they believed the caster just often fails at casting coincidentally and unknowingly in line with the slot system slots being expended. The latter can lead to a disconnect of in-character planning versus out of character planning, or scrapping reasonable out of character planning to accommodate the in-character knowledge paradigm.

At the planning stage if someone comes up with a safety net web plan for the whole party jumping out of the top of a tower and the mage said it was not up to him whether the conditions were right or not to cast it when they came out I think most would then go with a different plan. If instead he said he just had to remember to keep one second level slot open the party would probably go with the plan and remind the mage to not expend all his second level slots.

It is possible to do the obscured magical knowledge method and have the character coincidentally not expend a second level slot so they can enact the plan later while never verbalizing that intention or in-character considering slot resource management, but that can be work and have a disconnect of in-character and out of character stuff that can be an inhibition to immersion.

All things being equal I would generally not advise doing it as a default as it would generally be work for no real return, but go for it if you want to achieve a specific goal. If for example you think it would be fun to play out a nervous mage who fails a lot, or if you want to avoid talking about slots in character, then that is a way to get there.

In my 5e game there is a PC robot artificer and we are using a bit of a Mage the Ascension technocracy paradigm for his magic so he in character does not think of it as magic and his arficier magic manifests as tech super device such as levitate rocket boots or levitate antigrav platforms for pushing Han Solo in carbonite. In my last session they were discussing crazy plans for using these to get over a wall into a compound and so the resource limits of the options came up. It is effort to reskin things and make the resource management model and rules of magic work in a tech paradigm, but we are achieving the desired aesthetic goal in a bunch of ways and enjoying it so we do it.

In contrast when I played a martial 4e ranger the limits of my 1/encounter and 1/day martial powers never came up as an in-character issue. Hitting someone as a reaction or an interrupt or shifting away from them as they close once per encounter never came up as a consideration of planning the way the number of levitates the artificer could pull off came up.

Ok, I follow that martial powers are just what they normally do, but more so. Whereas caster powers are, to a large extent, different things. It’s not like a wizard who is out of Fly spells can still hover, right?

I understand that, and frequently hear that gripe from people (@Garthanos comes to mind) who want martials to be able to do epic, maybe even supernatural things.

I just don’t understand the connection to whether or not characters think in terms of game mechanics like superiority dice or spell slots. Is there a connection, or was that a subject change that I missed? Or is it just a sore spot that gets brought up whenever martials are compared to casters?