D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[Bill Zebub]

"What thing?"

Commander's strike is a mechanical manipulation of trading a die and an attack for allowing someone else to use an attack out of turn and hit harder. There is nothing narratively to point to and say see the superiority die in action, that cannot be attributed to non-superiority die stuff narratively.

Narratively it is Lancelot saying "Get him!" and the ally attacking. That narrative could be a commander's strike or just Lancelot encouraging an ally in a melee as the ally attacks.

I will acknowledge that there is a difference:
1) The fighter might not "know" he/she did anything special, if you want to regard the mechanic as a pure metagame construct, invoked by the player controlling the marionette strings.
2) The wizard, on the other hand, "knows" they performed some magic that resulted in the web spell.

And I don't think that makes a difference for what we are discussing: that is, whether or not the character is aware of a restriction that has a 1:1 correlation with the rules. The fighter's player could just as easily fluff expertise dice so that they do represent a player decision. That is, Lancelot knows exactly what that "thing" is, and from there he might also know that...because of "reasons"...he can't do it more than 3 times before he has to take a nap. Now, I recognize that some people hate this idea because of that "dissociative mechanics" canard, but it's logically consistent and valid.

So regarding a fighter you can imagine it works either way...the character is or is not aware of the restrictions...and while you may have an aesthetic preference, that's all it is.

The same is equally true of the wizard: your wizard can be aware of the "rules", or not, and it all still works. It's just a matter of aesthetic preference. Anybody who insists that the wizard has to be aware of the limitation, and the fighter can't be aware of the limitation, is confusing their preferences with facts.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It is effectively fudging. And if it doesn't bother you, that's fine, but it is hardly news that it is not how a lot of people want to run their games.

The problem I have with the word "fudging" is that it carries a value judgment. If your approach as a DM is to always be improvising to keep the players on the edge of the seats, and you don't think there's anything magical about having NPC abilities written down prior to the start of the gaming session, then it's not "fudging" it's "DMing".

And recognize that this same DM (and their players) might see strict adherence to what was pre-written in the NPC stat bloc, even if the players figured out a tactic that trivialized the fight, or even just made it less exciting, as poor/lazy DMing. It's not, of course, it's just a different style, with different values/objectives.

 

[Hussar]

They are changing their focus. Its their right to do it, but they are not doing what everyone wants any more than they were before.

Yes. They are addressing the concerns of all the people who were not being addressed for the past ten years. Let's not pretend that the change in focus somehow erases the past ten years. IOW, how much more do you want? You have pretty much every book and module up to about 2021's releases completely focused on your play preferences while anyone who doesn't share your preferences gets ignored. Now, finally, they are going to swing things the other way for a while and address everyone else.

So, the question needs to be asked, how much more do you need? When is it okay to not focus on your playstyle? They're changing their focus because you already got TONS of material.

But, now, because they are finally addressing other concerns than yours, you've repeatedly stated that not only are they changing their focus, but, they've somehow excluded you from the game and you're no longer going to buy or participate in what WotC has to offer. FFS, how is that compromise? Focus exclusively on your playstyle or you'll leave? That's not compromise, like, at all. That's petulance.

 

[Hussar]

It is effectively fudging. And if it doesn't bother you, that's fine, but it is hardly news that it is not how a lot of people want to run their games.

How is it fudging to use elements that actually exist for that character, but just aren't listed in the stat block? After all, a warlock has many powers that a Deathlock isn't listed as having. So, is it a warlock or not? Does it have invocations? Can it have a familiar?

The idea that I must be locked into only what the stat block stats is ridiculous and isn't even supported by the intent of the game. We already accept stat blocks that are truncated and do not list every possible thing for that NPC. So, how is this fudging? The NPC didn't use his familiar in combat because, well, he kept it in reserve just in case he got captured. And, again, unless the players are reading my notes, they can't actually know if that is "true" or not. It's not contradicting anything that has been established in game, so, AFAIC, it's fair game.

Rulings not rules is fudging. That's right there in the tag line. Adding something that in no way contradicts anything established previously in the game is never fudging.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. They are addressing the concerns of all the people who were not being addressed for the past ten years. Let's not pretend that the change in focus somehow erases the past ten years. IOW, how much more do you want? You have pretty much every book and module up to about 2021's releases completely focused on your play preferences while anyone who doesn't share your preferences gets ignored. Now, finally, they are going to swing things the other way for a while and address everyone else.

So, the question needs to be asked, how much more do you need? When is it okay to not focus on your playstyle? They're changing their focus because you already got TONS of material.

But, now, because they are finally addressing other concerns than yours, you've repeatedly stated that not only are they changing their focus, but, they've somehow excluded you from the game and you're no longer going to buy or participate in what WotC has to offer. FFS, how is that compromise? Focus exclusively on your playstyle or you'll leave? That's not compromise, like, at all. That's petulance.

At this point this is an academic argument. As you say, I have what I want. I was just arguing your assertion that this move is a compromise; it is a shift to a new way of doing things, and I've made my peace with that. There are bound to be stuff coming up that will interest me,, even if i don't care for the general direction. I expect I'll be picking up Spelljammer, for example.

It is, as you say, your turn, and I'm sorry the past 10 years have not been to your liking.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I was just arguing your assertion that this move is a compromise;

I heard a comedienne say something like: "When we were planning the wedding, he wanted a huge wedding and I wanted a small one. But, you know, marriage is all about finding compromises. So we talked it over and agreed to compromise, and we had a small wedding."

 

[Undrave]

I think, at this point, the best solution is clear:

Get rid of all the spells! No spellcasting for PCs and just let the NPCs have unique abilities.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think, at this point, the best solution is clear:

Get rid of all the spells! No spellcasting for PCs and just let the NPCs have unique abilities.

When I'm playing not DMing I mostly play fighters, rogues, and monks anyway.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The problem I have with the word "fudging" is that it carries a value judgment. If your approach as a DM is to always be improvising to keep the players on the edge of the seats, and you don't think there's anything magical about having NPC abilities written down prior to the start of the gaming session, then it's not "fudging" it's "DMing".

And recognize that this same DM (and their players) might see strict adherence to what was pre-written in the NPC stat bloc, even if the players figured out a tactic that trivialized the fight, or even just made it less exciting, as poor/lazy DMing. It's not, of course, it's just a different style, with different values/objectives.

I do not intend it as value judgement. It is a valid technique. But some people don't want to use it, and I just wanted to be clear that in effect giving an NPC new abilities in mid combat is no different than changing the dice rolls.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How is it fudging to use elements that actually exist for that character, but just aren't listed in the stat block? After all, a warlock has many powers that a Deathlock isn't listed as having. So, is it a warlock or not? Does it have invocations? Can it have a familiar?

The idea that I must be locked into only what the stat block stats is ridiculous and isn't even supported by the intent of the game. We already accept stat blocks that are truncated and do not list every possible thing for that NPC. So, how is this fudging? The NPC didn't use his familiar in combat because, well, he kept it in reserve just in case he got captured. And, again, unless the players are reading my notes, they can't actually know if that is "true" or not. It's not contradicting anything that has been established in game, so, AFAIC, it's fair game.

Rulings not rules is fudging. That's right there in the tag line. Adding something that in no way contradicts anything established previously in the game is never fudging.

You can add those things before the NPC enters it play and it is not fudging, but if you do so later it absolutely is. And yes, of course the players won't know, and they don't know your dice rolls behind your screen either.

But if you keep doing this, you're basically running the game by fiat and it lessens the agency the players have. And if that results a fun game and everyone likes it, then that's absolutely fine. But let's not try to pretend that there isn't a trade-off happening.