D&D 5E Apprentice Wizard- Arcane Burst power

[Quickleaf]

Or they find the spell and it is a first level spell. "At will" on a npc statblock does not mean it is a cantrip in the sense that PC at will spells are cantrips. It just means that over the lifetime of this combat the DM does not have to track resource usage for this npc. The apprentice mage you faced had 3 slots if they used 3 times, or cook up some other explanation if used more.

Sure, based on specific situation and playstyle, a skilled GM can solve this a bunch of ways. And the mechanical/behind-the-screen reasons for designing this way are clear – it's great not to have to track too many things as GM!

However, in this case, there is potential for a ripple effect that is narratively jarring for players. It might not happen at your table because there's no wizard PC, the players are casual, or you're just a hot pepper GM who can navigate these sticking points like a fighter pilot.

 

[NotAYakk]

And there are many, many ways a PC that wants to duplicate a "seemingly at-will force attack" that a monster has could be made to do so as a DM?

From the Player side:
1. Is there any way to know exactly how it works? Ie, 1d10+2, that just looks like a modest-low amount of damage.
2. Is there any way to tell it is at-will? You saw the apprentice wizard use it a lot. It could be a leveled spell.
3. Is there any way to know it is related to a higher level wizard's spell?

No, no and no.

So we should talk about exactly what monster is being used, what other monsters have the PCs seen, what kind of information the DM provided, etc -- all before we decide what kind of answer the DM could make to "I want to try to learn that spell".

If they have only seen the apprentice wizard? Well, a 1d10 force damage 100' range cantrip is reasonablely easy to create that scales up to 2d10 at level 5, 3d10 at level 11 and 4d10 at level 17. Unless the PC is looking at the monster stat block, or was keeping track of the exact damage the spell did and what dice the DM rolled, this matches what the apprentice wizard was doing.

Next, what happens when the PCs run into the other wizard using a similar ability, but doing 3d10+stat and making 2 attacks? Honestly, you can create a completely different leveled spell that does that. For spells up to level 3, there is no in-game mechanism to tell what level they are and distinguish them from cantrips, barring quicken spell use, from the non-caster side of things.

So crafting a spell that does that kind of effect isn't hard. You could go with the concentration variant I posted above, make a low level version a cantrip. You can also sneak in a feat or technique or boon that lets you add your attribute bonus to spell damage rolls.

We can also go the magic item route. A wand that lets you cast arcane blast for 1d10+int damage that requires attunement by someone capable of casting a 1st level spell is a pretty mediocre magic item - common tier. A higher level version could require being powered up by spell slots, sort of like the concentration spell.

Feel free to be creative, if and only if it comes up. But in 95% of use cases, what you need is a tier-appropriate magical combatant, and these stat blocks provide it. If your players are get interested in specific details, that is part of the job of DM to invent them as needed. Adding all those details to a stat block makes the stat block worse for other uses (clutter), and any balance issues are now the responsibility of WotC and not a single at-home table game issue.

 

[bedir than]

I'm encouraging you to look at a scene with an Apprentice Wizard using Arcane Blast from the Player's perspective instead of the GM. That was the point of my wordy examples.

I just ran the Archdruid for my tier 3 campaign. It's necrotic blast was reskinned to Primal, because Druid.
Even with 100% of the characters involved being casters who are trying to contain magic the conversation about learning that magic didn't come up (not because druid v wizard, since in my world all magic is learned).

 

[Quickleaf]

I just ran the Archdruid for my tier 3 campaign. It's necrotic blast was reskinned to Primal, because Druid.
Even with 100% of the characters involved being casters who are trying to contain magic the conversation about learning that magic didn't come up (not because druid v wizard, since in my world all magic is learned).

Necrotic blast…not sure which spell/power you are referring to on the MM archdruid…I don’t own MMotM so that might be what’s happening.

I can’t comment on specifics, but within certain parameters changing damage type is probably the least eyebrow raising.

And it may just be your group doesn’t care about that kinda stuff, or you’re very skilled at making it seamless. Which is great! I love groups/GMs like that!

To come at it from another direction… if the Apprentice Wizard was renamed Eldritch Disciple or Occultist, its spell list were changed up (at least burning hands to something creepier) or removed/trimmed in place of another non-spell magic power, and its flavor/aesthetic leaned into “weird powers”, I wouldn’t have any concern. Because the narrative has been changed to slipstream past wizard PC issues. EDIT: And it’s leaning into player assumptions about not-Eldritch blast implying warlock-esque narrative.

That could be getting into earlier conversation points about “stat blocks are just combat stuff” (implying they’re easily reskinned/renamed). For experienced GMs that’s mostly true, but for a new GM…my observation is that the name and implied flavor really impact how a newer GM presents a NPC/monster.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Sure, based on specific situation and playstyle, a skilled GM can solve this a bunch of ways. And the mechanical/behind-the-screen reasons for designing this way are clear – it's great not to have to track too many things as GM!

However, in this case, there is potential for a ripple effect that is narratively jarring for players. It might not happen at your table because there's no wizard PC, the players are casual, or you're just a hot pepper GM who can navigate these sticking points like a fighter pilot.

And where are you going with this. I have given my view and I clearly prefer the utility to the DM of keeping the simpler modern statblock. I believe the proposed solution would do in the case a query came up.
Do you believe differently? Do you prefer the older mage statblocks where the npc magic users had slots and regular spells?

 

[MarkB]

There is a tension here between the game's mechanics and the game's fiction, because regardless of NPCs being mechanically built differently than PCs, within the game's fiction the actual people that the players are portraying aren't fundamentally different from any other people within that world. And something like spellcasting is where you get a lot of friction between those perspectives, because spells are something that are very much built as very specific, discrete blocks with specific, predictable effects, both mechanically and within the game's fiction, so anything that's an exception to that has more of a feeling of 'wrongness' than other differences between PC and NPC mechanics.

Ultimately, though, NPC statblocks are just conveniences for DMs, a quick way to run a generic character in combat. If you want something that fits better into your world's fiction, you can and should customise them, and ripping out an at-will attack and replacing it with an attack cantrip is a very simple amendment.

 

[NotAYakk]

Now, all this being said, I would prefer it if my Apprentice Wizard cantrips felt more like PC spell casting. Emulation is important!

However, the +2 to damage (to me) just means it has a feature that adds int-to-damage on Cantrips.

Dropping melee range attack would be a good thing from my perspective. Using 4e style monster roles as design guides improves monsters.

Soldiers: Engages and locks down a target, protects allies. Usually high AC. Has a skilled feel.
Brute: Bag-o-HP-and-melee damage. Usually low AC. Has a smash smash feel.
Lurker: Engages and fades out. Should seek to disengage from combat and re-engage. Ambush.
Skirmisher: Hard to pin down, mobile, dashes in and attacks, disengages. Fast. Not sneaky usually, just mobile.
Artillery: Ranged attacker, weak if you manage to close with it.
Controller: Provides puzzles in the form of zones and conditions and the like. Usually ranged, but not damage focused like Artillery.

These provide a good set of distinct kinds of foes that behave differently and should feel different to fight.

Most archtypical Wizards should be Artillery or Controllers. Their melee range abilities should be focused on "getting out of melee".

 

[Quickleaf]

And where are you going with this. I have given my view and I clearly prefer the utility to the DM of keeping the simpler modern statblock. I believe the proposed solution would do in the case a query came up.
Do you believe differently? Do you prefer the older mage statblocks where the npc magic users had slots and regular spells?

Oh! Well, personally (and I don’t think my own approach really matters for our conversation) I don’t really care for either approach to spellcaster stat blocks. Both have advantages and disadvantages - the older style requires looking up/tracking too much, the newer style can lead to narrative dissonance. My own sweet spot borrows from both with more attention to narrative, both explicit and implied.

But, stepping aside from the “spell”caster monster question, I also do radically different stuff with my stat design. I incorporate roleplaying/exploration rules right in the stat block, I take more creative risks with effects, I rewrite legendary actions, I house rule how counterspell works, basically I hack monsters to pieces to get the feel I want.

So my personal kitbashed approach is definitely NOT the right thing to prop up as an example of how the game should proceed.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Oh! Well, personally (and I don’t think my own approach really matters for our conversation) I don’t really care for either approach to spellcaster stat blocks. Both have advantages and disadvantages - the older style requires looking up/tracking too much, the newer style can lead to narrative dissonance. My own sweet spot borrows from both with more attention to narrative, both explicit and implied.

But, stepping aside from the “spell”caster monster question, I also do radically different stuff with my stat design. I incorporate roleplaying/exploration rules right in the stat block, I take more creative risks with effects, I rewrite legendary actions, I house rule how counterspell works, basically I hack monsters to pieces to get the feel I want.

So my personal kitbashed approach is definitely NOT the right thing to prop up as an example of how the game should proceed.

Ok thank you for your response. I think that this is an occasion where not being coy about your preferences is a good thing. You are not claiming a one true way but you have a strong preference.

The published rules are a starting point it is perfectly legit to mould them to ones own style, if that is what you prefer.

 

[pukunui]

I'll admit I am uneasy about this myself for the reasons that @MarkB articulated above. The ship has obviously sailed for things like Monsters of the Multiverse, but there may yet be a chance to provide feedback for the upcoming revised Monster Manual. I doubt we will be able to change Jeremy's mind at this point, but you never know!

For what it's worth, I have been using some of the new spellcasters from MotM in my games, and no one has yet commented on them (other than that they hit hard). So far the only time "I want to learn that" has come up is when my Mad Mage party was fighting a spelljamming mind flayer arcanist with a lair action inside his ship that lets him create a duplicate of himself (similar to simulacrum but actually more powerful).