D&D 5E Explain: Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse

[Blue]

And yet, the game survived, and thrived, with its first two editions having no means of magical counterspelling, and its third edition by only counterspelling if you cast the exact same spell as the one being cast at the same time. Are you saying that the game existed its first 25 - 30 years without having its own spirit of the game?

It's pretty cheap rhetoric to take one of a long list of examples of a general concept and then try to twist my words that if this one example doesn't exist, neither does the spirit of the game. You do not seem to be arguing in good faith, I will not further engage with you on this.

 

[Blue]

Magic Resistance would help. It says it's a magical ability.

Good catch, it does.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's the other way around. They have no levels to interact with something like Counterspell or Globe of Invulnerability. It doesn't need anything explicit saying it doesn't interact any more than an axe does.

Here's a sample - the old Derro Savant had a bunch of spells, including Chromatic Orb. This has less spells, and Chromatic Orb is turned into a attack power Chromatic Beam.



It doesn't even pass the "Is this a spell?" test in the SA Compendium.

An Oath of the Ancients paladin with an aura granting resistance to spell damage won't affect this, though it would for Chromatic Orb. A Globe of Invulnerability, or monster-like equivilents like the Rakshasa's Limited Magic Immunity, don't stop it as written. Heck, there's not even anything that says a resistance to magic would help, though a DM could make a ruling.

and again was this the intent or an unintended side effect

 

[Blue]

and again was this the intent or an unintended side effect

Sorry, I don't know.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Are there actually DMs out there that would like their players to be able to Counterspell these new "spell-ish" abilities of the monsters in this new book, but actually won't let them because they aren't listed as spells or have slots anymore? And that DM will be unwilling to just make a ruling to do so at the time the attempted Counterspell occurs? That seems an odd methodology to take.

 

[Reynard]

and again was this the intent or an unintended side effect

The video posted above explicitly says these decisions were intentional -- prior to the book coming out. So lacking evidence that this is some sort of cover up, can't we assume that, yes, they intentionally built abilities into some creatures that aren't subject to anti-magic and counterspelling?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The video posted above explicitly says these decisions were intentional -- prior to the book coming out. So lacking evidence that this is some sort of cover up, can't we assume that, yes, they intentionally built abilities into some creatures that aren't subject to anti-magic and counterspelling?

thank you i did not watch all of them

 

[renbot]

Clarification is necessary regardless.

Yeah but it isn't. I don't know how often you read Sage Advice, but one thing Jeremy Crawford is famous/notorious for is not actually answering questions directly but pointing out that the rules have already answered the question. It's like the old "teach a man to fish..." proverb: JC seems determined to teach players how to fish (read the rules) rather than handing them a fish...I mean an answer.

Recent example:
Q: When you summon a Elemental (Conjure Elemental), do you need to speak its language to command it?

JC: Some spells say you summon something and it obeys you. If the spell has no language requirement, there's no language requirement.

Note that a simple "No" would have been much easier. But instead JC tries to educate us on how to answer the questions ourselves. When you take the rules at face value and assume that the developers have thought about how they interact with each other, the answers are usually clear. People seem to ask for "clarification" when they are making non-rules assumptions about the rules.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah but it isn't. I don't know how often you read Sage Advice, but one thing Jeremy Crawford is famous/notorious for is not actually answering questions directly but pointing out that the rules have already answered the question. It's like the old "teach a man to fish..." proverb: JC seems determined to teach players how to fish (read the rules) rather than handing them a fish...I mean an answer.

Recent example:
Q: When you summon a Elemental (Conjure Elemental), do you need to speak its language to command it?

JC: Some spells say you summon something and it obeys you. If the spell has no language requirement, there's no language requirement.

Note that a simple "No" would have been much easier. But instead JC tries to educate us on how to answer the questions ourselves. When you take the rules at face value and assume that the developers have thought about how they interact with each other, the answers are usually clear. People seem to ask for "clarification" when they are making non-rules assumptions about the rules.

He's said that a lot of the questions that he gets are people trying to apply AD&D, 3E or 4E assumptions.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah but it isn't.

The particular issue at hand has been resolved, so I won't belabour that, but I do think that it is the responsibility of a game designer to present information as completely and concisely as is possible.

RPGs have frankly been getting away with half asses rules for decades, mostly because there is a GM in there to make calls when the rules aren't clear. Now, i am not saying an RPG needs to have comprehensive rules. That's neither possible nor desirable. but the rules that are there should be clear and easy to look up. It is still a game. And while you don't need to reiterate a rule with every game element the rule interacts with, if you present a new element that interacts with a rule, you should certainly point out how that interaction works.

Again, this isn't related to the spell abilities thing: we have hashed that out and it seems to fall well within existing rules structure (even if some abilities were changed from spells to not-spells). They did not invent a new category of ability, which is what I originally though. But if they did -- say the book added "Psionic Powers" as a category -- I would expect to be told how exactly that new category interacts with abilities and spells that affect or are affected by magic.

 

[TwoSix]

Are there actually DMs out there that would like their players to be able to Counterspell these new "spell-ish" abilities of the monsters in this new book, but actually won't let them because they aren't listed as spells or have slots anymore? And that DM will be unwilling to just make a ruling to do so at the time the attempted Counterspell occurs? That seems an odd methodology to take.

I think the problem is more from the opposite direction. I think players who attempts to counterspell a "firebolt" cast by a NPC "spellcaster" only to find out that this NPC's firebolts can't be counterspelled because it's not really "a spell" are going to experience some narrative dissonance. And then that becomes the DM's fault, despite them trying to play in good faith and simply follow the rules as presented. That's not a good presentation of the rules, in my opinion.

I'll certainly just house rule anything that looks like "a spell" within the fiction as able to be counterspelled, it's not like it's a difficult house rule. But to me, this change creates a proud nail like barkskin, where the rules are simultaneously easy to interpret and yet cause narrative incoherence when that interpretation is followed.

 

[Reynard]

I think the problem is more from the opposite direction. I think a player who attempts to counterspell a "firebolt" cast by a NPC "spellcaster" only to find out that this NPCs firebolts can't be counterspelled because it's not really "a spell" are going to experience some narrative dissonance. And then that becomes the DM's fault, despite them trying to play in good faith and simply follow the rules as presented. That's not a good presentation of the rules, in my opinion.

Emphasis mine.

I am with you up to that last bit. That is completely a GM problem and one of those infuriating "gotcha" moments I do my best to avoid when running a game. If a players says they want to counter the firebolt, that's when the GM says "They aren't casting a spell, so you can't use counterspell. it looks like some sort of magical ability, though" because who knows they might have something else up their sneaker player sleeve. But it is completely out of line to let the player use that resource when their spellcasting character would certainly know the difference between the two. The rules are perfectly clear on the matter -- it isn't a spell -- so the GM needs to pass that clarity onto the player.

 

[TwoSix]

Emphasis mine.

I am with you up to that last bit. That is completely a GM problem and one of those infuriating "gotcha" moments I do my best to avoid when running a game. If a players says they want to counter the firebolt, that's when the GM says "They aren't casting a spell, so you can't use counterspell. it looks like some sort of magical ability, though" because who knows they might have something else up their sneaker player sleeve. But it is completely out of line to let the player use that resource when their spellcasting character would certainly know the difference between the two. The rules are perfectly clear on the matter -- it isn't a spell -- so the GM needs to pass that clarity onto the player.

Agreed, in that I also would never let the player waste a resource in that manner.

My concern is more that the awkward conversation of "DM: Yes, it looks like a fire bolt, but it's not a spell, it's some sort of other magical ability. Player: OK, what kind of an ability is it?" puts the DM in the position of having to do some off-the-cuff worldbuilding they may not have been ready for when they selected a spur-of-the-moment NPC from an official book. And since lots of NPCs have these kind of abilities now, it's not like the answer will be a one-off with no downstream effects in the game.

I don't want to make it sound like more than it is (it's hardly a game-breaking flaw), it just seems like one of those changes where the negative effects outweigh the positives (certainly for my play priorities).

 

[James Gasik]

Agreed, in that I also would never let the player waste a resource in that manner.

My concern is more that the awkward conversation of "DM: Yes, it looks like a fire bolt, but it's not a spell, it's some sort of other magical ability. Player: OK, what kind of an ability is it?" puts the DM in the position of having to do some off-the-cuff worldbuilding they may not have been ready for when they selected a spur-of-the-moment NPC from an official book. And since lots of NPCs have these kind of abilities now, it's not like the answer will be a one-off with no downstream effects in the game.

I don't want to make it sound like more than it is (it's hardly a game-breaking flaw), it just seems like one of those changes where the negative effects outweigh the positives (certainly for my play priorities).

Before the new change to Yuan-Ti, I had this conversation many a time with the DM regarding my Yuan-Ti Paladin. Advantage on saves against "magic" means what in a world where dragons breathe fire, or Beholders launch friggin' laser beams at you?

What is, or is not "magical"? And now, by giving monsters supernatural abilities that mimic spells, but aren't, the value of player magic resistance seems to be dropping rapidly.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Are there any DMs out there that will see all these spell-ish abilities that they know are just spells written as monster features so that you don't have to spend time flipping through the PHB to find their info, and not just treat them as counterspellerable spells? Just because the monster block doesn't use the same spell name as the PHB and it doesn't list spell slots? That seems an odd methodology to take.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Are there any DMs out there that will see all these spell-ish abilities that they know are just spells written as monster features so that you don't have to spend time flipping through the PHB to find their info, and not just treat them as counterspellerable spells?

yes

to be fair the guy I know is newish to DMing (although he has played long enough) but he just assumed they were cool NON MAGICAL throwing of fireballs... down to them working in a dead magic zone.

Just because the monster block doesn't use the same spell name as the PHB and it doesn't list spell slots? That seems an odd methodology to take.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Before the new change to Yuan-Ti, I had this conversation many a time with the DM regarding my Yuan-Ti Paladin. Advantage on saves against "magic" means what in a world where dragons breathe fire, or Beholders launch friggin' laser beams at you?

What is, or is not "magical"? And now, by giving monsters supernatural abilities that mimic spells, but aren't, the value of player magic resistance seems to be dropping rapidly.

I have seen some arguments over what is and is not magic... even before this change over (Is a vampire gaze, or a incubus charm, or undead death stare?)

 

[DEFCON 1]

yes

to be fair the guy I know is newish to DMing (although he has played long enough) but he just assumed they were cool NON MAGICAL throwing of fireballs... down to them working in a dead magic zone.

And I presume either you enlightened him, or else you just accepted his ruling then? In either case the problem is solved?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And I presume either you enlightened him, or else you just accepted his ruling then? In either case the problem is solved?

we have not as of this week (it is a monthly game and we just played) stopped playing but it is far from solved

 

[DEFCON 1]

we have not as of this week (it is a monthly game and we just played) stopped playing but it is far from solved

Sounds like it's about a month from solved.