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

[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.