D&D 5E Apprentice Wizard- Arcane Burst power

[Blue]

There are numerous posters on this very board who would vehemently dispute the idea that PCs and NPCs should ever use distinct sets of rules. To them, there is an inherent design requirement: If a power exists, in any form, for any creature, anywhere, then it must conceivably be something a player could use, and vice-versa.

Irrelevant in the cases where the designers don't share that agreement.

And the monster rules are separate, using criteria like CR that players don't have. In some cases where there's a bit closer like-to-like they actively contradict PC-facing rules, like some of the monster weapon size rules.

People denying a truth does not stop it from being a truth. That doesn't mean that they could not add rules to make it work either official or not, like 3ed
added Savage Species, but in 5e they are and have been distinct.

 

[bedir than]

This. There was a brief time (around the release of Descent into Avernus) where 5e NPC spellcasters had their full slotted allotment of spells but their heavy-hitters like cantrips and fireballs and the like were written out in full in their actions:

Like the Skull Lasher of Myrkul has:

Ray of Sickness (1st-Level Spell; Requires a Spell Slot). Ranged Spell Attack: +5 to hit, range 60 ft., one creature. Hit: 9 (2d8) poison damage, and the target must succeed on a DC 13 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned until the end of the skull lasher’s next turn. If the skull lasher casts this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 1st.


And the Black Gauntlet of Bane has:

Guiding Bolt (1st-Level Spell; Requires a Spell Slot). Ranged Spell Attack: +7 to hit, range 120 ft., one creature. Hit: 14 (4d6) radiant damage, and the next attack roll made against the target before the end of the black gauntlet’s next turn has advantage. If the black gauntlet casts this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 1st.

Meanwhile the Meletian Hoplite from Theros has:

Ray of Frost (Cantrip). Ranged Spell Attack: +5 to hit, range 60 ft., one creature. Hit: 4 (1d8) cold damage, and the target’s speed is reduced by 10 feet until the start of the hoplite’s next turn.


I liked that (and it was something I was doing with my own statblocks before WotC started doing it). I would have preferred they keep doing it that way for MotM and now the revised MM.

And still, the Akroan Hoplite has a non-spell melee ability that is not something any Fighter can learn to do.

Hold the Line. While the hoplite is holding a spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from the hoplite when they move within 5 feet of it. When the hoplite hits a creature with an opportunity attack using its spear, the creature takes an extra 4 (1d8) piercing damage, and the creature’s speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.

 

[cbwjm]

And still, the Akroan Hoplite has a non-spell melee ability that is not something any Fighter can learn to do.

Hold the Line. While the hoplite is holding a spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from the hoplite when they move within 5 feet of it. When the hoplite hits a creature with an opportunity attack using its spear, the creature takes an extra 4 (1d8) piercing damage, and the creature’s speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.

Much like the spell, if a player expressed interest in this ability, I'd make it a feat or even just an ability that the fighter could learn through training with the hoplites.

To be honest, the changes wotc has made to spellcaster NPCs was one of the things that put me off the game, it's why I'm unlikely to buy the new books.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Irrelevant in the cases where the designers don't share that agreement.

And the monster rules are separate, using criteria like CR that players don't have. In some cases where there's a bit closer like-to-like they actively contradict PC-facing rules, like some of the monster weapon size rules.

People denying a truth does not stop it from being a truth. That doesn't mean that they could not add rules to make it work either official or not, like 3ed
added Savage Species, but in 5e they are and have been distinct.

I have been rather aggressively told that it is not a truth (even though I agree with you that it is), that 5e does in fact work like that (even though I agree with you that it doesn't), and that any deviation from this is either an isolated aberration, a mistake, or a bad trend that needs to be eliminated posthaste (even though I agree with you that they're none of those things, but very intentional choices on the designers' parts.)

Just saying that stating it so stridently tends to be a lightning rod for the folks who feel D&D is only D&D when it's simulation-first, everything else at best a nice bonus, and generally a distraction or even a nuisance.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Much like the spell, if a player expressed interest in this ability, I'd make it a feat or even just an ability that the fighter could learn through training with the hoplites.

To be honest, the changes wotc has made to spellcaster NPCs was one of the things that put me off the game, it's why I'm unlikely to buy the new books.

If I may ask for the latter part: Why?

We already recognize that there can be many different traditions of magic, both on the grand scale (e.g. arcane vs divine, cleric vs druid) and the small scale (different subclasses within a single class). If one desires a diegetic explanation for stuff like this, surely the simplest way is just to quote the Bard: “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Magic secrets hidden from others is sort of par for the course with the faux-Hermetic way D&D wizards work.

Or is the issue that some things, which would otherwise be just spells, have been implement as (effectively) "class features" for these spellcasters? Because I honestly don't understand what's the problem with printing core, useful, distinctive stuff on the creature itself. Doing so saves a lot of tedious page-flipping, or needing to print out an extra sheet with all the spells you need to know.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And still, the Akroan Hoplite has a non-spell melee ability that is not something any Fighter can learn to do.

Hold the Line. While the hoplite is holding a spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from the hoplite when they move within 5 feet of it. When the hoplite hits a creature with an opportunity attack using its spear, the creature takes an extra 4 (1d8) piercing damage, and the creature’s speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.

Hold The Line is real close to the Sentinel feat, and fills the same functionality, so I'd be interested in why that feat doesn't work for the player. And if the character had a history of being an Akroan Hoplite, I'd probably want a diegetic reason for the difference. I mean, this mechanic is not exactly ideal, either, but it's a lesser offender.

The only (very, very tiny) difference is that you add the requirement that the NPC should, in some way, resemble a PC.

Still seems to be some misunderstanding.

If the NPC is being designed to be a common element of the world, then it should not have abilities that are not common elements of the world.

If we design the Commoner statblock to use for "basic NPC with no special abilities or qualities," then they shouldn't have the ability to shoot tiny versions of themselves out of their fingertips.

If we design the Green Recruit statblock to use for "newbie soldier," then they shouldn't have the ability to become magically handsome for eight seconds.

If we design the Apprentice Wizard statblock to use for "newbie wizard," then they shouldn't have rainbow tears, prehensile eyes, or the ability to spontaneously combust marmosets.

This isn't about NPC/PC equivalence, this is about taking the world and story you are building with your buddies seriously enough to care about what happens to it and the creatures in it. A sword isn't just a mechanism for dealing 1d8 damage, it's a prop in a scene in your imagination. An Apprentice Wizard's arcane burst isn't just a mechanism for dealing damage to a PC to threaten a bad ending, it's a character in the scene in your imagination performing an action. As designed, it's a little like Poochie returning to his home planet - just baldly artificial. My issue isn't that this fails to live up to some abstract principle in my head, it's that the game mechanic isn't taking the diegetic context it occurs in seriously, thus leading to a worse play experience than I would otherwise have.

And in the grand scheme of things, it's not enough to entirely wreck my enjoyment of the game, it's just worse than it has to be, and it could be different.

 

[Leatherhead]

Ironically, every NPC Wizard has some equivalent to Arcane Burst, which mean PC Wizards are the oddity in universe.

 

[Quickleaf]

Ironically, every NPC Wizard has some equivalent to Arcane Burst, which mean PC Wizards are the oddity in universe.

Haha. Apprentice Wizard meets 1st level PC Wizard: "Ah, Mortimer, I see you're still thin-boned as ever. Never could finish that pasty gruel the chef would conjure up, could you? Shall I regale your adventuring friends with the story of how you mastered the most basic of cantrips, The Arcane Burst?"

"Hey everyone, meet Apprentice Dinder. Still getting charmed at the drop of a wand in Bartleby's Principles of Enchantment class?"

This. There was a brief time (around the release of Descent into Avernus) where 5e NPC spellcasters had their full slotted allotment of spells but their heavy-hitters like cantrips and fireballs and the like were written out in full in their actions:

Like the Skull Lasher of Myrkul has:

Ray of Sickness (1st-Level Spell; Requires a Spell Slot). Ranged Spell Attack: +5 to hit, range 60 ft., one creature. Hit: 9 (2d8) poison damage, and the target must succeed on a DC 13 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned until the end of the skull lasher’s next turn. If the skull lasher casts this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 1st.


And the Black Gauntlet of Bane has:

Guiding Bolt (1st-Level Spell; Requires a Spell Slot). Ranged Spell Attack: +7 to hit, range 120 ft., one creature. Hit: 14 (4d6) radiant damage, and the next attack roll made against the target before the end of the black gauntlet’s next turn has advantage. If the black gauntlet casts this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 1st.

Meanwhile the Meletian Hoplite from Theros has:

Ray of Frost (Cantrip). Ranged Spell Attack: +5 to hit, range 60 ft., one creature. Hit: 4 (1d8) cold damage, and the target’s speed is reduced by 10 feet until the start of the hoplite’s next turn.


I liked that (and it was something I was doing with my own statblocks before WotC started doing it). I would have preferred they keep doing it that way for MotM and now the revised MM.

Yeah, that approach is solid. I actually find these examples a little too conservative in trying to emulate player-facing mechanics. Especially when you're diving deep into specific nouns like "Black Gauntlet of Bane" or "Skull Lasher of Myrkul", I think there's more slack there to incorporate suitably flavorful spells/magic not in any of the player books.

 

[Distracted DM]

I can see the dissonance- the players expect the world to have rules that they can understand, and for things to be predictable in a fashion.

I've had questions from players regarding arcane burst- I get it. It's easier for the GM to run, but it can confuse the players.

There's a long history of monsters and NPCs not playing by the same rules as the player characters. See: big bad evil guys doing crazy rituals or being able to call forth hordes of the undead.

Ultimately you need to talk to the players, not the characters, and explain that it's an ability, not a spell that they can learn. It's there to save the GM a headache and speed gameplay. if they still give you a hard time... It sounds like your problem is the players, not the game.
But I guess "the way to learn this is to become an NPC" is another response :')

Tangent: "Can arcane burst be counterspelled?" is a better question. RAW no, RAI is up to you... I'd like to say yes but that creates a headache of a precedent down the line.
I thought "check 4e's counterspell" but googling that, 4e didn't have counterspell. In 3e, counterspell didn't work on spell-like abilities... But in 3e an apprentice wizard wouldn't have SLAs.

 

[Quickleaf]

Tangent: "Can arcane burst be counterspelled?" is a better question. RAW no, RAI is up to you... I'd like to say yes but that creates a headache of a precedent down the line.
I thought "check 4e's counterspell" but googling that, 4e didn't have counterspell. In 3e, counterspell didn't work on spell-like abilities... But in 3e an apprentice wizard wouldn't have SLAs.

Yeah, it's goofy. There was a video – wish I had saved the link – where Jeremy Crawford iirc mentioned how "counterspell-proofing" certain monster magical abilities made their damage more reliable.

And then I look at something like not-eldritch blast...ahem, I mean Arcane Burst... and I just roll my eyes. Perfect example of D&D creating problems with fundamental design choices (how counterspell works) that have a ripple effect that channel solutions to issues into ridiculous territory.