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

[GMforPowergamers]

The players wouldn't be having fun if they where aware the DM was cheating to keep the fight going.

Not all players... again know the table. I have games where they would say "thank you for the fun encounter" and ones where they would throw dice... know the table.

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?

habbit of it... okay while how often do you need to do this? especially since I just said it isn't for EVERY fight it for the climatic ones that SHOULD be longer...ones that would be disappointing for it to work as an "I win" instead of a moment delay... if it comes up 3 times a year that is ALOT. if it comes up once every 3 campaigns it would be hard to call that a habbit.

There is no point in playing if the outcome is the same no matter what you do.

if 1 fight once or heck if 3 fights over 16 levels of play (about 18 months in my exp) are 'rigged' not to make you loose but for you to have more time in them and have fun... yeah I think there is still a point in that 18 months. and again 3 in 18 months would be ALOT for me.

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

winning a fight is fun. looseing a fight is fun. the fun is in the game. if the game ends early cause one player got a lucky shot it ISN'T fun for everyone...

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

um... what? now you expect filler work to be as cool as a built up climatic fight?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

My main issue with this thinking: Who defines what gets to be a "cool moment"? By definition, you're never going to tell your players you do this. You're almost certainly going to work to prevent them from ever knowing it. Hence, you are not merely doing it secretly, you are actively preventing the possibility of feedback. The only opinion that matters is, thus, yours. I don't really care for that kind of DMing, for exactly the same reason as why I don't care for railroading or pixelb!+@#ing or false choices, or various other DMing approaches.

It's exactly equivalent to, "I know better than you do what will be cool." I don't trust myself with that kind of power.

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

This is why I have my "when it has entered play" standard. If the creature has already cast spells, then at least spells of that type shouldn't change. It could, however, enter play earlier. Frex, the party researches the spellcaster, doing what they can to prepare for possible spells they could face. If they've done that, I absolutely would not make changes to the spellcaster's list without building a justification that the players can learn about and respond to (whether by exploiting the same powers themselves or learning ways to oppose it).

Things that have actually entered play are immutable unless I do the work to justify why they should be mutable. I owe it to my players to be that scrupulous.

 

[Hussar]

/snip


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.

But, I'm not altering any rules. That is a 10th level Warlock. I haven't written down his extra spells or his invocations, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have them. So, I'm not actually adding or altering any rules after the creature has entered play.

This notion that for some reason following the rules of the game is somehow the DM fudging is bizarre. I'm flat out following the rules of the game. I'm not adding anything, nor am I changing the creature one iota. Nothing. Nothing is being changed about this creature. So, again, what DM fiat? What fudging? I'm actually following the rules of the game.

Heck, anyone running that stat block is literally fudging because they are NOT following the rules of the game. Same with every single humanoid monster in the game which has a "class" but not the actual abilities of that class.

Unless you accept that NPC's don't work the same as PC's. In which case, all bets are off. I can add, change, modify or otherwise rewrite anything on the stat block so long as I am not contradicting anything previously established in game and not be fudging one bit. If it has been established that the baddy has an AC of 15, then his AC is always 15. Fair enough. But, it was never established what invocations that NPC had, so, any invocation I want to use is fair game.

 

[Voadam]

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.

I don't think it is just as easy. Martial powers are generally designed to be narratively indistinguishable from doing things they normally can do, just doing them well.

You could turn it into a supernatural ability where he erupts into a glow that transfers onto the ally empowering them but the glow gets expended and recovers corresponding to the mechanical use limits and that would fit into a narrative expenditure and limits situation, but it is fairly difficult to come up with a narrative for the limits as a consciously known limited use resource for most martial powers as martial powers.

I can't easily come up with one for Lancelot's commander strike ability.

Spell prep in contrast has been an established in-game narrative thing throughout the editions. With the separation of slots and prep you have a narrative choice to go 1-to-1 with people knowing and talking about slots or to elide that mechanic and talk about a looser connection narratively about how casting spells takes energy or effort or whatever. It is possible but much harder to elide slots completely in the narrative and come up with other explanations of in-game coincidentally trying but failing when asked to cast a spell when out of character out of slots.

It is easy narratively to be in-character aware of a specific mechanical limit for a made up supernatural thing, but harder to come up with a narrative for knowledge of such a specific mechanical limit for pushing yourself x times per long rest for most martial abilities.

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.

While I think there is a continuum of options and it is not completely black and white with an absolute dividing line, I don't think it is just a matter of aesthetic preference. Some mechanics are designed to correspond to discrete in world elements that characters would know about, others are designed to instead blend into existing narrative elements. This mostly corresponds to a supernatural-martial power divide.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

let me add the WORST ending to a game I can remember (and people still bring it up as me ruining the moment) was in 1997... and I know the year exactly even that it was winter cause I get this thrown in my face by 3 current and 1 ex player to this day... I wans't the DM (the DM is one of those current players that still blames me although also admits maybe it was PART his fault)

in 2e I was a spellfire (a broken concept on it's own from Volo's guide) I had a 17 con. I had a handful of levels in ranger then duel classed into wizard. We had been tracking this villian for years in game and atleast 6 months out of game... he was a lich, we just broke his phylactry and entered his dungeon/Demiplane and fought through a handful of rooms... I kept absorbing spells... we got to a super arcane locked door and called it for the night...

the next session started with me trying Knock, it failed, so I absorbed tha magic. I opened the door and got hit with a chain lightning... that fizzeled and brought me WAY over the 1/2 conx10 so I started to glow and said "Magic blast, here's one from a pro" and launched a 17d6 auto hit spellfire blast. I rolled so high... I one shoted him. campaign over.

by the way the reason we were hunting said lich was he killed 2 other PCs home town including there families... they didn't even get to roll initiative... opps

if the DM had said "Oh he has a super special anti spellfire thing" and let the fight go 2 or 3 rounds we wouldn't remember it as the dumbest ended campaign ever... and I would not be made to feel bad regularly

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My main issue with this thinking: Who defines what gets to be a "cool moment"? By definition, you're never going to tell your players you do this. You're almost certainly going to work to prevent them from ever knowing it. Hence, you are not merely doing it secretly, you are actively preventing the possibility of feedback. The only opinion that matters is, thus, yours. I don't really care for that kind of DMing, for exactly the same reason as why I don't care for railroading or pixelb!+@#ing or false choices, or various other DMing approaches.

It's exactly equivalent to, "I know better than you do what will be cool." I don't trust myself with that kind of power.

I mean you can ask for feed back... I do all the time. I don't understand why you think you can't?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean you can ask for feed back... I do all the time. I don't understand why you think you can't?

So you straight-up tell your players, "I edited the spells this creature could cast while in the middle of the combat. How did you feel about that?"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But, I'm not altering any rules. That is a 10th level Warlock. I haven't written down his extra spells or his invocations, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have them. So, I'm not actually adding or altering any rules after the creature has entered play.

So you're not using the monster stat block? It's a fully statted NPC? Expect you didn't actually stat them, instead you ad hoc stat them on the fly? This allows you to by fiat give them capabilities that counter what the PCs are doing or alternatively by fiat give them useless capabilities so the PCs succeed. Thus the success or failure of the PCs is not due their actions, it if by your fiat.

This notion that for some reason following the rules of the game is somehow the DM fudging is bizarre. I'm flat out following the rules of the game. I'm not adding anything, nor am I changing the creature one iota. Nothing. Nothing is being changed about this creature. So, again, what DM fiat? What fudging? I'm actually following the rules of the game.

Heck, anyone running that stat block is literally fudging because they are NOT following the rules of the game. Same with every single humanoid monster in the game which has a "class" but not the actual abilities of that class.

Unless you accept that NPC's don't work the same as PC's. In which case, all bets are off. I can add, change, modify or otherwise rewrite anything on the stat block so long as I am not contradicting anything previously established in game and not be fudging one bit. If it has been established that the baddy has an AC of 15, then his AC is always 15. Fair enough. But, it was never established what invocations that NPC had, so, any invocation I want to use is fair game.

The NPCs have rules, be it monster stat blocks or full PC-like rules generated via PC generation methods, or some homebrew mix of the two. All of these are fine methods of generating the NPC stats. But if you decide what rules the NPCs actually has only after they're entered the play, then that is effectively fudging. You're deciding the outcome by fiat instead of following pre-established rules. I often give more elite or solo monsters maxed HP (the max they could theoretically roll if I rolled their HP,) but if I decide that only after the combat has begun, then that is same as fudging. I am increasing the enemy resilience by fiat. Same with giving them multiattack, same with giving them any other capability. What part of this you do not get? I am genuinely perplexed.

Then again, in a recent thread you didn't see the issue with the GM deciding the DC of as kill check only after the player has rolled and announced their result, so perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised with you not getting this...

 

[billd91]

if the DM had said "Oh he has a super special anti spellfire thing" and let the fight go 2 or 3 rounds we wouldn't remember it as the dumbest ended campaign ever... and I would not be made to feel bad regularly

Chances are you would barely even remember it at all if it hadn't ended in such a unusual way.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So you straight-up tell your players, "I edited the spells this creature could cast while in the middle of the combat. How did you feel about that?"

I would start with "How did you like the fight" but sure... why not?

Normally it would be more organic a conversation though not just a matter of fact statement. Like when someone says "Oh man when I disintegrated him and you said 'use my last charge on my ring of 9 lives' I was like 'damn...' I would normally say "yeah, that ring only existed to keep the fight going." and see what they said.

in fact the ring of 9 lives example happened with a 3e game... and 1 player (not even the one who threw the dis) was a bit annoyed and thought like you, but when the other players asked what we would have done if the fight ended round 1 he did come around a bit...