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

[GMforPowergamers]

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

yeah... but we remember it as a crappy game. One I (and the DM although he mostly throws it back on me) get called out as having been toxic for (cause I shouldn't have unloaded so much up front I should have let others have the spot light espicely since I just took out the super magic door)

We remeber it as the ending we NEVER want again if we can help it

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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...

Then you aren't actually getting feedback on whether they're okay with you modifying stuff in combat.

You are actively concealing from them what's going on; they believe a certain thing is the case, when it is not.

Let me put it this way. How would you feel if you found out that a DM you were playing with straight-up ignored any dice you rolled for saving throws and skill checks and decided purely based on how she felt the roll should end up? Now, keep in mind, this hypothetical DM actively worked to prevent you from knowing she did this. Doesn't matter if you've worked hard to be particularly good at some skill or whatever. 100% purely DM fiat. Would you be bothered by this?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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...

It doesn't matter in what direction the fight is rigged, the fact that it is rigged at all means your decisions don't matter.

winning a fight is fun.

It is if you have a sense of achievement. If the outcome was the same no matter what you did, then winning is not fun because you haven't achieved anything.

looseing a fight is fun. the fun is in the game.

If your decisions have no effect it isn't a game, it's a play.

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

You always skip The Scouring of the Shire?

What happens after the villain is defeated is more important than the fight itself, especially in a narrative heavy game*. What was the cost? Was it worth it? Will the victors set the world to rights, or will they squabble over the spoils?


*And if it's a combat-heavy game, then a fair fight that could go either way is even more important.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Then you aren't actually getting feedback on whether they're okay with you modifying stuff in combat.

yes I am... again, I wont just matter of fact as soon as the fight ends give a report of what I did and didn't change, but I do always talk and I am quite open about what style I am useing both in session 0 and as we talk about how things are going.

You are actively concealing from them what's going on; they believe a certain thing is the case, when it is not

what part of "Yeah that ring only exsited to extend the fight" did you miss?

Let me put it this way. How would you feel if you found out that a DM you were playing with straight-up ignored any dice you rolled for saving throws and skill checks and decided purely based on how she felt the roll should end up?

it would depend on if they did it on occasion to keep the game fun or if they did it all the time and took away fun... I would need more details to know. Is it a game we all agreed no fudgeing and dice fall where they may, or is it a game were we knew going in this would happen on occasion?

Now, keep in mind, this hypothetical DM actively worked to prevent you from knowing she did this.

that would be an issue... I mean if I out right ask they should answer honestly (and again I do)

Doesn't matter if you've worked hard to be particularly good at some skill or whatever. 100% purely DM fiat. Would you be bothered by this?

again more details please... give an example...


I will try one that would. I play a rouge. I have prof and expertise in Arcana and put stat increases in Int instead of dex. I have the sage background and a house rule modified arcane trickster (divination and illusion instead of enchantment) and I get to a point where I try to use my knowledge and the DM decided I shouldn't get to... so no matter what even if I roll a nat 20 getting a 31 I can't know it... I would much rather the DM say "no roll" not "roll," then disregard my 31...

I would be even more mad if the DM tried to hide why my 31 failed.... If I found out I would DEMAND to know what 'fun' he was preserving... and his answer would matter as to weather I played under him again (maybe HE DID have a good reason)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It doesn't matter in what direction the fight is rigged, the fact that it is rigged at all means your decisions don't matter.
It is if you have a sense of achievement. If the outcome was the same no matter what you did, then winning is not fun.
If your decisions have no effect it isn't a game, it's a play.

if 98% of your choices effect the game and the 2% that don't are there to make the game more fun for both you and others... I think you can say your choices still matter AND you are happy that you and the table had fun (again it only matters you are all on the same page)

I don't understand how it is you think NOBODY plays diffrently? again I play and run at tables like yours (dice fall were they may) just not every time... know your table

You always skip The Scouring of the Shire?

no but a lot of DM fiat gets you there... that was NOT a natural progrssion of player choice

What happens after the villain is defeated is more important than the fight itself, especially in a narrative heavy game*.

it CAN be more important... but it normally (especially if it is end of an arc or end of a campaign) IME goes way more high level overview and less moment to moment rolls... it is a great way to end AFTER a big fight but a boaring way to end if you skip the big fight.

What was the cost? Was it worth it? Will the victors set the world to rights, or will they squabble over the spoils?

again... high level over view epilog.

*And if it's a combat-heavy game, then a fair fight that could go either way is even more important.

IT
DEPENDS
ON
THE
TABLE

 

[Maxperson]

A car that merely moves forward at decent speed, having the other flaws you have mentioned, is not a functional car. It is in fact extremely unsafe and should not be used unless in a serious emergency.

Like you literally included an example that is outright lawbreaking: if the windows can't roll down and the turn signals don't work, you are physically incapable of signalling your intentions to other drivers, and that's a punishable offense.

Sure, but it's still functional and will get me where I want to go. And by punishable offense, you mean get a fix-it ticket. No charge if I fix it, which is still the same as D&D

Functional, but needs a bit of fixing to work better.

And this is exactly why I don't care for this stuff. It's buying a brand-new car from the dealership and finding out that it has all these patchwork fixes, nonfunctional or incomplete components, and a manual that leaves out half the important information needed for fixing any of it. When I buy a brand-new thing, I expect it to work as advertised, to have all of its basic components functional. Making some of them intentionally dysfunctional is incredibly frustrating.

You don't like it, but 5e is working as advertised. They advertised it as a rulings over rules edition.

 

[Undrave]

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).

If the PCs research an NPC, then, to me, that NPC has already 'entered play'.

Oooh! Let's call it 'Quantum DMing' where the world is in a state of uncertainty until the PC observe it, collapsing the wave function the opposite could be called 'Tolkien DMing' maybe?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, they have never been cagey about the fact that they're charging DM's ~$150 to do most of the designers' work for them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure, but it's still functional and will get me where I want to go. And by punishable offense, you mean get a fix-it ticket. No charge if I fix it, which is still the same as D&D

Functional, but needs a bit of fixing to work better.

I'm not sure where you live, but most locations have a legal requirement that the driver must signal others. If you intentionally drive a car where you cannot signal using the lights and cannot singal using the hand signs (which most people don't even know anymore), you have in fact broken laws in a wide variety of jurisdictions and can get much, MUCH more than a "fix-it ticket."

This isn't hard, you can look this stuff up online. Certainly, in the state where I live, the law actually requires you to use your signals. (Technically speaking if you know for certain you are completely alone on the road--no pedestrians, motorists, cyclists, nothing--then you don't have to. But if there is even one pedestrian nearby, you do.)

You don't like it, but 5e is working as advertised. They advertised it as a rulings over rules edition.

...yes. That's literally what I said.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the PCs research an NPC, then, to me, that NPC has already 'entered play'.

Oooh! Let's call it 'Quantum DMing' where the world is in a state of uncertainty until the PC observe it, collapsing the wave function

Okay.

I consider it "having entered play" when the creature, y'know, starts casting spells. Unless there's a very good reason why the players wouldn't have a clue what capabilities the caster has, my options for changing it without notice or chance to learn of the change are limited at best and often nonexistent.

If a creature can be actively casting spells, how does that not mean they (and, necessarily, their spellcasting) have entered play? The players have literally observed them casting spells! If "oh well they just haven't seen them cast THIS spell" is your standard, then I won't mince words. That standard is crap.