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

[Hussar]

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

Which, frankly, you have.

TEN YEARS of getting exactly what you want. So, can it be someone else's turn now? Without the constant claims of how they are dumbing down the game, catering to incompetent DM's, and turning the game in a completely different direction?

 

[Hussar]

Or is it just a sore spot that gets brought up whenever martials are compared to casters?

Mostly this. The whole "Fighter's can't have nice things" schtick.

It really is annoying to see people whinge about verisimiltude and whatnot about casters but the martial characters completely get a pass for exactly the same thing.

 

[Minigiant]

The think about combat vs noncombat spell fudging.

Combat fudging has trackable math. A player will noticeable the drain and pace of a 5th level combat spell being used on them morethn a 1st level noncombat spell.

Noncombt spells are usually one of and not noticeable to the player in how many resources it drains. Especially since most noncombat spells are low level and don't dip into a 5e caster's attack power.

TLDR: It is unlikely a NPC cast enough noncombat spells in a day for a player question if the DM is fudging. After the 5th fireball, I'm counting the slots left.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which, frankly, you have.

TEN YEARS of getting exactly what you want. So, can it be someone else's turn now? Without the constant claims of how they are dumbing down the game, catering to incompetent DM's, and turning the game in a completely different direction?

They are changing their focus. Its their right to do it, but they are not doing what everyone wants any more than they were before.

 

[Voadam]

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?

For me, I think of spells and the magic slots as being an in-game thing. The magic stuff comes up as interactions in a lot of games (wizard spell trading, PCs planning based on their resources, etc.) I have played in and it would be a lot of work to narratively obscure the mechanics out to an abstract level that is not physically present. If someone asks the mage why they didn't cast another web out of spell slots is one easy answer, obscuring answers are other possible ones with some issues.

Superiority dice I don't think of as a discrete narrative element of the world but as more of just a mechanic. If someone asks a fighter why he did not hit the monster harder the response will be either 1) I am trying to, or 2) shut up. I can't imagine someone saying in-character why didn't you use a superiority die there. There is nothing physical in character there that is really identifiable as the bonus die the way a web spell is there.

I generally think of AC and hp this way as well. Characters do not know their numbers the way they know the number of arrows they are carrying or the number of first level slots they still have.

A DM could say that in-world there are not slots, that it is just a metagame pacing mechanic and narrative needs to be used to explain any places this would be jarring in the narrative. I don't see that as the default though or as easy as doing that with the martial powers resource management structure.

 

[Bill Zebub]

For me, I think of spells and the magic slots as being an in-game thing. The magic stuff comes up as interactions in a lot of games (wizard spell trading, PCs planning based on their resources, etc.) I have played in and it would be a lot of work to narratively obscure the mechanics out to an abstract level that is not physically present. If someone asks the mage why they didn't cast another web out of spell slots is one easy answer, obscuring answers are other possible ones with some issues.

Superiority dice I don't think of as a discrete narrative element of the world but as more of just a mechanic. If someone asks a fighter why he did not hit the monster harder the response will be either 1) I am trying to, or 2) shut up. I can't imagine someone saying in-character why didn't you use a superiority die there. There is nothing physical in character there that is really identifiable as the bonus die the way a web spell is there.

Except superiority dice aren’t just bonus damage; they let you do things that arent otherwise a legal move. Commander’s Strike? “Hey, Lancelot, do that thing again!” “Um, I can’t.” “Huh? Why not?” “Well, you know how Merlin can only create magic spider webs twice a day…?”

 

[Bill Zebub]

I generally think of AC and hp this way as well. Characters do not know their numbers the way they know the number of arrows they are carrying or the number of first level slots they still have.

And, again, that’s totally fine that you bucket things that way. I’m just saying it doesn’t have to be that way, and there isn’t as big of a barrier to overcome as some people (who haven’t even tried it?) suggest.

 

[Voadam]

Except superiority dice aren’t just bonus damage; they let you do things that arent otherwise a legal move. Commander’s Strike? “Hey, Lancelot, do that thing again!” “Um, I can’t.” “Huh? Why not?” “Well, you know how Merlin can only create magic spider webs twice a day…?”

"What thing?"

Commander's strike is a mechanical manipulation of trading a die and an attack for allowing someone else to use an attack out of turn and hit harder. There is nothing narratively to point to and say see the superiority die in action, that cannot be attributed to non-superiority die stuff narratively.

Narratively it is Lancelot saying "Get him!" and the ally attacking. That narrative could be a commander's strike or just Lancelot encouraging an ally in a melee as the ally attacks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

It is effectively fudging. And if it doesn't bother you, that's fine, but it is hardly news that it is not how a lot of people want to run their games.

 

[Reynard]

I think it is generally a mistake to try and create narrative explanations for ever mechanical element in the game. It is nonsensical, because of the game part. RPGs aren't stories and don't follow the rules for making stories. They RESULT in stories, but not ones that anyone would publish.