D&D (2024) Monster manual Fey video up

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Sure, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the idea that an NPC Archmage has an "arcane blast" that a PC can't learn because it's presented as a monster feature in the statblock, not a spell.

The lich in the original 5e Monster Manual had the Paralyzing Touch spell attack. However, it’s not a spell available to the PCs. Since you care about verisimilitude so much, whenever the first time you came across that obvious error, did you immediately homebrew a Paralyzing Touch spell for your players to learn once they ran into the lich.

What about the Necromancer from Volo’s Withering Touch melee spell attack? Or the Dusk Hag’s Nightmare Touch? Why aren’t there rules for turning yourself into a lich or creating a Beholder Zombie? Hell, why are spellcasting monsters held to this standard, but martial ones aren’t? Why can’t a Fighter learn to use the Knight monster’s Leadership action? Or the Tribal Warrior’s Pack Tactics? Or the Bandit Captain’s multiattack? Why does the breath weapon of a Drakewarden Ranger deal less damage than a typical dragon breath? Why are the Assassin’s attacks automatically and permanently covered in poison that deals 7d6 poison damage if you fail a Con save? Isn’t it unfair to the Rogue that they can’t learn to do that? Why do monsters get Legendary and Lair actions but the PCs don’t? It’s not consistent or verisimilitudious. That is what makes good game design according to you, right? Everything has to be internally consistent and follow the same rules?

Monsters and player characters do not follow the same rules in 5e and never have. I’m not sure if you haven’t noticed that before, but you’re not holding the original 5e books to the same standard you’re holding the newer ones to. And you’ve mentioned several times that you haven’t read the newer books. You won’t even watch these videos about the newer books to hear their explanations for the changes and their design philosophy, yet you spend so much time complaining about them in these threads.

Yes, 5e always had this sort of spell attack that the PCs couldn’t learn. Yes, post-MotM 5e has more spell attacks for NPC spellcasters that the PCs can’t learn than it did before. No, Monsters and PCs do not use the same rules. No, internal consistency doesn’t make good monster design. I’m glad that I don’t have to ask my players for the Player’s Handbook to look up a spell in the middle of combat as much as I used to using the older version of monster spellcasting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is probably not dissimilar to the ones in 2014. Do you think those were a problem?
ETA: Even LevelUp does it that way.

I don't expect it to be a problem, mechanically, if they actually provide the species templates. My issue with all this simply that the creature type change only makes sense to me as motivated by forces outside the game, and I'm irritated that WotC won't admit to it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would you ever trust it? For all you know they are being 100% "straight." You just assume they are not. I don't think they can do anything to dissuade you from your assumptions.

They could admit that their design choices are affected by forces outside design and the game itself.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Patience. just 10 days or so left. Then you can read it yourself... or better said: get the info everywhere else but from the book.

Yup. Why would I spend $50 on a book I'm just curious about?

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's fine. Fey, and most/many monsters having roots in Folk lore and Fairy Tales, isn't the issue.

What is the issue?

 

[Scribe]

What is the issue?

You tell me, you are the one with the problem it seems with monsters becoming Fey?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I must say I don't get the point of complaining about something for 10 years when you can change it yourself in year 1 and have 9 years of happy gaming instead. We made our house rules for 5e in mostly the first year and have had enjoyed more than any edition (or RPG we have tried) since. Do what works for you and complain less is my moto!

I agree. None of this affects my game at all. It just doesn't make sense to me as a design decision made to improve the game, and I like to engage about stuff like that, especially if everyone in the community is talking about it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yup. Why would I spend $50 on a book I'm just curious about?

Yeah. Better to get second hand knowledge.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Look I appreciate where you're coming from in a general sense. I also have no intention of buying into the new update and find that A5E and TOTV and homebrew stuff fulfill my needs. But this kind of snide aside that suggests those who like the new books are just dumb rubes enamored of pretty art is really unwarranted.

I'm not suggesting anything with that comment. A lot of people really care about art. It is important to them, and WotC is probably making a good business decision to add a lot more art and use it strongly in their marketing. I don't really care about art in RPG books much beyond its illustrative properties. That's really all.

I understand it's hard to express one's disagreement with the majority without it coming off as a value judgement, but it isn't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah. Better to get second hand knowledge.

Better than spending $50 on a book I probably won't use. Maybe you and I are in different places regarding money, but that's not an insignificant amount to me.