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

[GMforPowergamers]

The DM swapping out spells mid combat: this definitely feels like cheating to me. The cunning PC traps the enemy spellcaster behind a wall of force. The DM, annoyed at the player's cleverness, swaps out one of the enemy's spells for Disintegrate.

It doesn't matter that the players would never know, it goes against the unwritten rule to give the players a fair fight.

Swapping spells and abilities before the encounter: absolutely fine, I do it all the time.

depends on what your goal is (and by your I mean the general player and DM) if your goal is a fun climatic encounter, and the PCs would have a board encounter that lasts less then a minute out of game and be a downer... then it isn't cheating it's making the game fun.

I can have it happen twice in a campaign and think it cheating once and not another...

we have a wight warlock in a dungeon and the PCs shut it down in 1 action and everyone cheers it was a great quick thinking moment... if I do it there I would consider it cheating... but the opposite, if I DID have the counter (disintegrate in your example) and at that moment mid play I decide "nope he has no way out, here is your easy XP and way to go" isn't cheating. Later in the same dungeon we get to the ELdritch Knight lich/Deathknight hybrid that has been the quest for 4 months out of game and a year and a half in game... it is the climax of the game and someone pulls a 1 round end... and everyone just pauses like 'wait, is that it' and I then give him the counter... no that isn't cheating.

As teh DM it is (IMO) my job to make the game fun. that wight warlock was fun to one shot... the quest ender not so much.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If I were to try and create a narrative justification for things like superiority dice and maneuvers -- which, to be clear, I generally wouldn't since it's okay in my mind for the game to have game elements -- I would just assume (in fiction) that successful maneuvers are just particularly spectacular results. that is, the fighter isn't (in fiction) doing anything different but the results are better -- a prone foe, more damage, disarming, etc... it fits how cinematic fights go better and avoids the "why can't you do that again" problem.

same. I have 0 problems with somethings being ingame (spell slots on wizards) somethings being quisy ingame (a sorcerer knows howmany sorcery pts and spellslots but may see them together as mana or strain) or purely out of game (a fighter with come and get it and commander strike)

 

[Reynard]

depends on what your goal is (and by your I mean the general player and DM) if your goal is a fun climatic encounter, and the PCs would have a board encounter that lasts less then a minute out of game and be a downer... then it isn't cheating it's making the game fun.

This is the thing. I totally get that some people are playing D&D for a deep tactical challenge, while others are playing for a rollicking adventure, and others for other reasons. All are valid. What is important is that the GM and players at the table at the time need to be on the same page. It would be irritating to know the DM was "cheating" if I was there to pit my intellect and character stats and against theirs and the monster's. But it would also be irritating if I was there for the big set piece battle of good versus evil and it ended in one round because save or die.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

depends on what your goal is (and by your I mean the general player and DM) if your goal is a fun climatic encounter, and the PCs would have a board encounter that lasts less then a minute out of game and be a downer... then it isn't cheating it's making the game fun.

In my opinion, yes it is. If the players defeat a boss quickly and easily, that's good on them. This is a game not a movie.

And anyway, I consider stories where the protagonist wins by a clever move more interesting than ones with epic battles.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is the thing. I totally get that some people are playing D&D for a deep tactical challenge, while others are playing for a rollicking adventure, and others for other reasons. All are valid. What is important is that the GM and players at the table at the time need to be on the same page. It would be irritating to know the DM was "cheating" if I was there to pit my intellect and character stats and against theirs and the monster's. But it would also be irritating if I was there for the big set piece battle of good versus evil and it ended in one round because save or die.

exactly... and I will be honest. I have run and played in both types of games (and I am sure I will again) and my only complaint is when the table is NOT all on the same page.

My go to example isn't D&D but a Vampire Larp I played in. We spent the better part of 6 months getting a group of PC and NPCs together to take out the sabbot (more bad vampire) leader. We not only knew exactly what the NPC could do but came up with counters. When we hit the NPC with our plan the guy playing him (co head story teller) paused game, spent xp, and gave the NPC a power that stopped the whole plan cold. His argument was "Race is an elder with a 7 (in a system were human max is 5) in intelect and a specialization in forethought planning... he saw this coming. He then killed our favorite NPC (by the way starting an argument with his co head story teller cause it was HIS primary character) and 3 of the 9 PCs involved... his argument (right before campaign ended when half of the players...even those that were not in on the scene... walked) was "come on, it wouldn't be fun if you could take him"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In my opinion, yes it is. If the players defeat a boss quickly and easily, that's good on them. This is a game not a movie.

And anyway, I consider stories where the protagonist wins by a clever move more interesting than ones with epic battles.

again... it depends on the game the table wants. If game ends at 615 when we didn't start until 6 (cause we spent 5-6 BSing) and now we just have a few minutes of wrap up... that isn't a fun night for some. If the table isn't having fun then the DM isn't doing there job right.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

again... it depends on the game the table wants. If game ends at 615 when we didn't start until 6 (cause we spent 5-6 BSing) and now we just have a few minutes of wrap up... that isn't a fun night for some. If the table isn't having fun then the DM isn't doing there job right.

The players wouldn't be having fun if they where aware the DM was cheating to keep the fight going. And don't you think that if enemies make a habit of suddenly having just the right ability to counter whatever cunning strategy the players throw at them they might start to twig that the fights are rigged? There is no point in playing if the outcome is the same no matter what you do.

Winning a fair fight is fun. Winning a rigged one is not.

Lesson from teaching: always prepare extension work for students who finish ahead of schedule.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But, in any case, how is adding in elements that the NPC has by the rules, fudging?

Are those elements in the NPC datasheet? No they aren't. Thus by the rules they don't have them.

I'm not giving this NPC some made up power that it couldn't have if it was a PC. I'm straight up following the rules.

Then build the NPC like that from the get go! I alter the datasheets all the time and make custom creatures. I just usually do it before the game. If the players then during the game come up with a clever plan to counter the enemy, or an idiotic one that due the NPC's features is sure to fail, I don't then alter the NPC's rules to change the outcome.

Since when is straight up following the rules fudging?

When you alter the rules once the creature has already entered the play.

And to be absolutely clear, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it makes the outcomes more reliant on GM fiat and thus it is a thing some people (completely understandably) want to avoid or minimise.

 

[Vaalingrade]

To some people, adding cumbersomeness to a game is vital for shaping how it feels. For example...

Mmm... 'all my mistakes are art, actually'. It's been a while since I've savored that rancid taste.

 

[Undrave]

The DM swapping out spells mid combat: this definitely feels like cheating to me. The cunning PC traps the enemy spellcaster behind a wall of force. The DM, annoyed at the player's cleverness, swaps out one of the enemy's spells for Disintegrate.

It doesn't matter that the players would never know, it goes against the unwritten rule to give the players a fair fight.

Swapping spells and abilities before the encounter: absolutely fine, I do it all the time.

You should only swap spells like that if it makes for a cool moment, not to deny the PC their victory.

You know what.
Would the problems be alleviated in Alternative magic like Invocations and Infusions become core in D&D?

Instead of Everything is Slot Based Spellcasting.

Not as good as dropping "THE Spell List" but it's a start