D&D 5E Apprentice Wizard- Arcane Burst power

[Mirrorrorrim]

I understand what you're saying – you're boomeranging back to "PCs and monsters are designed different." But I'm actually being a bit more nuanced than what you're responding to, and I'd invite you to try to understanding this from a Player's perspective.

From the GM side of things, you're right. This uses monster maths. PC and monster mechanical stat blocks are designed "differently."

EDIT: I actually think there's more grey area within that & that in 5e it's not exactly on/off switch (either you're doing the tedious 3.5e way or you're doing the 4e way), but we can circle back to that later. Putting a pin in that for now.

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.

There are lots of abilities that cannot be "taught." Not only can a Wizard not learn every spell in existence (there are arcane spells that are bard or warlock-specific, for example), but also not every magical ability is a spell.

There are people who want every ability to be a quantifiable, PC-accessible option that fits their version of the lore. That's fine. If there are no rules for it, then make it up. But the "balance" of the rules objects in monster stat blocks are balanced for monsters who get to use them during an encounter before they are defeated, not necessarily for PCs who can use them over the course of the campaign.

Monster/PC ability separation is not wrong. But it is the rules and some people (and apparently the designers) prefer it. For example, certain humanoid monsters wielding normal weapons deal more damage per swing, and/or more often, than a PC warrior, but it doesn't mean that the PC warrior should be able learn how to make that exact same attack at that damage level.

Monster/PC ability parity is not wrong. But it isn't supported by the rules, even if some people prefer it. Make it up yourself. It's your game. But don't expect the "balance" to work exactly as is. It may well be superior to normal options if allowed to be used over the course of a campaign. But if you change the effect to be more balanced for a PC, then it still won't work like the monster ability. If you nerf the monster ability, it may well be truly "nerfed" to be less dangerous/effective than intended.

 

[Quickleaf]

There are lots of abilities that cannot be "taught." Not only can a Wizard not learn every spell in existence (there are arcane spells that are bard or warlock-specific, for example), but also not every magical ability is a spell.

There are people who want every ability to be a quantifiable, PC-accessible option that fits their version of the lore. That's fine. If there are no rules for it, then make it up. But the "balance" of the rules objects in monster stat blocks are balanced for monsters who get to use them during an encounter before they are defeated, not necessarily for PCs who can use them over the course of the campaign.

Monster/PC ability separation is not wrong. But it is the rules and some people (and apparently the designers) prefer it. For example, certain humanoid monsters wielding normal weapons deal more damage per swing, and/or more often, than a PC warrior, but it doesn't mean that the PC warrior should be able learn how to make that exact same attack at that damage level.

Monster/PC ability parity is not wrong. But it isn't supported by the rules, even if some people prefer it. Make it up yourself. It's your game. But don't expect the "balance" to work exactly as is. It may well be superior to normal options if allowed to be used over the course of a campaign. But if you change the effect to be more balanced for a PC, then it still won't work like the monster ability. If you nerf the monster ability, it may well be truly "nerfed" to be less dangerous/effective than intended.

Uff. I appreciate you sharing all that, but you're really misreading the gist of what I've been saying. Even in what you quoted I'm not making a statement that "it should be like 3.5e where I can do anything the monsters can do." People are really hammering me as if I'm making that argument, and I am not. I can only presume it's the echoes of past internet arguments rearing their ugly heads.

What I've been trying to illustrate in my examples is that – for some players (as @NotAYakk and others point out this does not apply to all tables) – there's a world of difference between "Chimera" or "Eldritch Occultist" doing something beyond or different from a PC vs. an "Apprentice Wizard" doing something beyond or different from a PC (that the PC can not emulate).

As I mentioned, the potential issues are player-facing: (1) Narrative dissonance (the "wizard" part), and (2) Power scope expectation within the confines of that specific narrative (the "apprentice" part)

For me that's an interesting conversation.

However, argument about whether the game should encourage "monster/PC ability parity"? Personally, I find that a dull and uninspired discussion lacking in nuance because, on the face of it, the answer is of course there should NOT be parity and also "NPCs inspired by / intending to evoke the feel of class X" of course should consider the narrative when breaking from parity.

 

[Thommy H-H]

As I mentioned, the potential issues are player-facing: (1) Narrative dissonance (the "wizard" part), and (2) Power scope expectation within the confines of that specific narrative (the "apprentice" part)

For me that's an interesting conversation.

I think maybe you're getting hung up on the name of the statblock, which is basically a pretty neutral descriptor. Like the generic MM Mage, although the various MPMM 'Wizards' do technically count as members of the wizard class (for the purposes of attuning to items, whatever that's even worth...), I believe the intention is that they're just flavoured 'mages'. They don't have to literally be the thing they're described as, any more than the Knight has to literally be called 'Sir [Name]' and owe fealty to a baron or something. You use the NPC statblocks as rules frameworks to tell whatever story you're telling. The Apprentice Wizard might be a little twerp at Pigboils College of Magecraft and Sorcery, minoring in transphobia, or they might just be the spellcaster leader of a group of brigands the PCs run into during their first quest, with no implication that they're still learning their craft or memorising spells from a book like the PC wizard.

 

[Quickleaf]

I think maybe you're getting hung up on the name of the statblock, which is basically a pretty neutral descriptor. Like the generic MM Mage, although the various MPMM 'Wizards' do technically count as members of the wizard class (for the purposes of attuning to items, whatever that's even worth...), I believe the intention is that they're just flavoured 'mages'. They don't have to literally be the thing they're described as, any more than the Knight has to literally be called 'Sir [Name]' and owe fealty to a baron or something. You use the NPC statblocks as rules frameworks to tell whatever story you're telling. The Apprentice Wizard might be a little twerp at Pigboils College of Magecraft and Sorcery, minoring in transphobia, or they might just be the spellcaster leader of a group of brigands the PCs run into during their first quest, with no implication that they're still learning their craft or memorising spells from a book like the PC wizard.

Sure. When I mentor new GMs, there's certain patterns of questions I see popping up. Often the topic of monsters comes up, and I realize / have to remind myself that the adeptness with which I can adapt monster stat blocks – after 30 years of GMing – is not given, easy, or natural for all GMs.

Names and Descriptive Text have power, especially for newer GMs (and I think that's who the rules are focusing on, or I hope are focusing on).
I get what you're saying, but even the flavor text for the apprentice wizard in VGtM is working against your "leader of a group of brigands" example:

Apprentices are novice arcane spellcasters who serve more experienced wizards or attend school. They perform menial work such as cooking and cleaning in exchange for education in the ways of magic.

That's a very strong archetype – Harry Potter, Sorcerer's Apprentice, a dozen young adult novels. If it's arbitrary, why use "apprentice" and "wizard" at all? There's an intent to communicate something there, to lean into an archetype that is recognizable.

 

[Thommy H-H]

That's a very strong archetype – Harry Potter, Sorcerer's Apprentice, a dozen young adult novels. If it's arbitrary, why use "apprentice" and "wizard" at all? There's an intent to communicate something there, to lean into an archetype that is recognizable.

The same reason knights are called knights in the MM and have a description that refers to high medieval knight-type stuff, I suppose. What I mean to say is that - and I think this is explicit in the introduction to the MM - the descriptions aren't definitive. By default, this is a statblock for a precocious spellcasting nerd at magic school, or being tutored on a more individual basis by a mentor, because that is, as you say, a familiar archetype. You might want to use a character like that in your fantasy game, and this is how you go about doing it. But there's nothing there that says that is the path that every single "wizard" must follow, or that, as a matter of verisimilitude, every D&D setting must be the kind of place that has apprentice wizards that look suspiciously like Luke Skywalker, complete with holstered laser sword wand. It's just fodder.

And, to take a more prosaic view, if novice GMs are using this statblock and description as-is, they likely also have novice players who are significantly less likely to even realise an NPC is doing something they can't do themselves. That's if they even pick a fight with the mop-haired kid dusting the relics in the study belonging to the Abjurer Wizard™ in the first place.

Basically, I don't think it matters any more than the fact that hobgoblins do extra damage by fighting in formation, for example. If the players ask, you just shrug and tell them that's part of the training hobgoblins receive in their martial culture, and learning it requires spending years integrating into that society until it becomes second nature. Likewise, if they want to do an Arcane Burst, they presumably have to undergo whatever formal training the Apprentice Wizards in your world get, which is probably much less interesting than being an adventuring wizard. Again, if you're using the default description and if they even notice or ask about it.

 

[aco175]

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is a monster power. It is not a PC-facing power. There are very different rules for the creation of them.

Not sure what other thoughts to have. Entirely dissimilar thing using different rules that are not for PCs can be different than PC rules.

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. It might be extremely difficult, or locked to a specific physiology, or a lost art, or...(etc., etc., ad nauseam), but at least in theory it should be accessible. Anything that creates disparate mechanics for NPCs vs PCs is anathema.

I share your criticisms of these ideas, to be clear. But there are lots of people who consider this a necessary prerequisite for the game to be worth playing at all.

 

[Quickleaf]

Basically, I don't think it matters any more than the fact that hobgoblins do extra damage by fighting in formation, for example. If the players ask, you just shrug and tell them that's part of the training hobgoblins receive in their martial culture, and learning it requires spending years integrating into that society until it becomes second nature. Likewise, if they want to do an Arcane Burst, they presumably have to undergo whatever formal training the Apprentice Wizards in your world get, which is probably much less interesting than being an adventuring wizard. Again, if you're using the default description and if they even notice or ask about it.

Sure, I see what you're saying.

I can imagine a detail-oriented wizard player's response to what you just said: "Formal training? What are you talking about? I'm 3rd level! My apprenticeship is behind me. How is this hard-hitting Arcane Blast suitable for a boring apprentice wizard? I want to be able to do that!"

You can say "oh that doesn't come up at my table", which is great, but doesn't mean it cannot come up at another table. I've sat at both tables – the one where this would be a non-issue, and the one were it would be a sore point for a player.

You can respond however you like to the player, maybe do a great job of it and mollify them. Or maybe it breaks the fourth wall like @I'm A Banana mentioned, and it's kinda awkward, and then you're passed the speed bump and onto the next thing.

But why even design so that potential hiccup is possible? It's so easily avoidable with very minor design moves.

EDIT: As an aside, I think to have a meaningful expansive conversation – in the sense that our thinking is more broadly applicable than just at our own tables – about anything in the game we have to assume the game is being used as presented, right? Otherwise I can solve anything with house rules, I can describe a cleric as an alchemist, I can call a monster a displacer beast but describe it as a hydra-like thing, I can change anything with flavor that I want to. But then we're no longer discussing the game-as-written, we're discussing the cool stuff that we implement as individual GMs. That's a cool sharing of ideas which I enjoy, but it's a very different type of conversation than discussing the written game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is the wrong way to think of monsters.

In terms of gameplay, the apprentice wizard is a character (in terms of something you perform as, not in terms of being a PC). The statblock is a tool that you can use to help portray that character. Maybe that character only needs to exist for 3-5 rounds of combat, but it's a character, just like a town guard or the surly old guy at the inn or the PC's sister. It's something you can imagine your PC wizard once was, and you can imagine that the apprentice wizard wishes to become a more powerful wizard.

The arcane burst breaks the fourth wall, hurts suspension of disbelief, and punishes player engagement with the world. It's artificial and kludgy. It's a wrestler looking at the audience and saying "Don't worry, we're not REALLY going to hurt each other, folks!" It's bad, and it doesn't have to be bad.



How bad this breaks kayfabe is up to the NPC's role in the world.

If the green recruit statblock includes a "martial strike" ability that works as a melee or ranged attack that deals 2d8+7 damage and can be used three times, yes, that would be a sign that the rules are made up and the points don't matter. Every new recruit knows how to do this and they suddenly lose the ability at some point. Feel free to disengage folks, we don't take our world seriously, either.

If the elite mercenary statblock has the same thing...it's less severe. Still a little weird (melee or ranged attack? So like some throwing weapon?), but less egregious.

If the horrible multi-armed monster statblock has the same thing, maybe it's even "Yeah, sure, okay," and we all go on with our day.

You say that it's a strawman to refer to your argument as "PCs should have the same stats as NPCs and vice-versa," but...I don't see how that's not precisely what you're arguing here. The only (very, very tiny) difference is that you add the requirement that the NPC should, in some way, resemble a PC.

But is resemblance enough to actually justify what you're claiming here? Does your rather extreme "every green recruit knows this and then somehow forgets it" thing actually apply?

Because from where I'm sitting, no. Absolutely not. Just because this particular "green recruit" has some action, you cannot argue that absolutely every green recruit that has ever existed or will ever exist has known this, and then also that they necessarily and specifically forgot it at some point when they stopped being a "green recruit."

When we take out that element, all that remains is a rather weak "actions should be diegetic and make sense for the creature making them." That's pretty much trivial, something essentially everyone, even dyed-in-the-wool gamists, grant as an important part of monster design.

 

[pukunui]

But why even design so that potential hiccup is possible? It's so easily avoidable with very minor design moves.

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.