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

[Paul Farquhar]

Why are they focus firing on the spellcaster?

Just about everyone in my worlds know enough about magic to identify spellcasters as "high threat" even if they don't understand how concentration works.

how could you tell which one?

I play the situation. And that may mean that, say an high elf fighter could use Prestidigitation to trick the orcs into attacking them instead of the concentrating wizard. But Vecna would be much harder to fool.

It's always a case of "what would the monster do", which does, of course, depend on "what does the monster see."

The important thing is to not give the monsters meta knowledge.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Or, to put it another way, would it be acceptable to leave blank spaces on the stat block that say something to the effect of, "Insert ability here when needed"?

Whether it is acceptable is a matter of preference. But yeah, it has same effect as fudging if you decide those things only after the creature has entered play. Like if you leave hit points blank and only decide how many they have once the battle has been going on a while, then that's fudging. This is why I say you're not getting it, how cannot you see that this sort of thing has the same effect than the GM deciding the dice results?

See, to me, the stat blocks are not rules at all.

No, I'm pretty sure they're rules. They definitely look like rules.

They're simply short hand for what I can use in the game. They're not rules in the sense that I'm somehow cheating if I change the stat blocks. I am SUPPOSED to change stat blocks. It's expected. Heck, I use random HP rolls that are generated when I put the monster in the Combat Tracker in Fantasy Grounds. I honestly do not know how many HP any of my NPC's have until initiative is rolled.

Yes, but you now the HP when the initiative has been rolled. And yes, you can change the statblock, I do it all the time. The issue only arises if you change/decide later as a response to PC actions/emerging situation.

Does that mean I'm fudging? Note, my players absolutely know this to be true since it applies to all NPC's - friendly or not. So, when they summon something, every single summoning will have different HP, every single time. Am I fudging or not?

It depends on when you decide those things.

I am really not a fundamentalist about this like some. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, and in practice it might be hard to decide everything beforehand. I get why one might want to do this, I'm sure I have sometimes. But more you do it more the game will proceed via GM fiat. Whether you think that is a bad thing or not is a matter of preference.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you had taken a time management course you would have filled in those details as part of session prep.

If on the other hand you were good at time management you'd know it wasn't worth bothering to fill out those details and save yourself a whole lot of time in session prep while not taking extra time in play.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, there are. So unless the DM uses a flowchart, or relies on dice, the "fudging" problem remains, because the DM has to make decisions. Does he make those decisions to help a party in trouble, or is he intentionally making it harder? Why did the 3-Int monster suddenly switch attacks to the Wizard who was concentrating on the polymorph spell?

The DM invariably makes decisions that makes things easier or harder. Where is the actual line drawn? Spells known? The number of minions that join the fight? Decisions made just before the fight begins, versus just after?

My line is with dice rolls: I don't like the DM altering dice rolls. But I also recognize that this is an arbitrary line, and a matter of personal preference. I'm not going to get up on a soapbox and claim it's qualitatively different than other DM decisions.

I don't disagree with you. The only things that actually qualify as "fudging" in D&D and other traditional RPGs to me is actually changing die roll results (and not all of them; it's not fudging to reroll a dumb random encounter for example). That's why I roll open on the table or with rolls visible on the VTT. Everything else is just GMing.

But I appreciate where some folks are coming from with a more stringent definition of "fudging" and if I was aware of that preference at a table I would do my best to make sure they knew my style so they could disinvite themselves if it was that big of a deal for them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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"

As it played out, it was quite bad. But the Idea that the epic evil with inhuman intelligence and ingenuity has something up its sleeve to counter something the players come up with is indeed justifical.

I think maybe high Int in DnD could actually allow the DM to swap out a spell.
Actually if a PC subclass allows such a feature (which is not totally unheard of), noone would object it.

 

[Reynard]

As it played out, it was quite bad. But the Idea that the epic evil with inhuman intelligence and ingenuity has something up its sleeve to counter something the players come up with is indeed justifical.

I think maybe high Int in DnD could actually allow the DM to swap out a spell.
Actually if a PC subclass allows such a feature (which is not totally unheard of), noone would object it.

We used to have a rule during the 2E era that you could cast any spell in your book as a scroll but if you did it was gone just like a scroll. I remember multiple pitched battles where wizard players really fretted over whether to "burn" a spell.

 

[Hussar]

Whether it is acceptable is a matter of preference. But yeah, it has same effect as fudging if you decide those things only after the creature has entered play. Like if you leave hit points blank and only decide how many they have once the battle has been going on a while, then that's fudging. This is why I say you're not getting it, how cannot you see that this sort of thing has the same effect than the GM deciding the dice results?

Because it's not. It's really not the same thing at all. Because the HP of the creature would be established after the first hit. I mean, heck, I'm so open about this, the creatures have a HP bar running down the side of their token. The players know pretty well how many HP a creature has as soon as it takes damage. So, I couldn't actually do that, and it would be fudging, because I am contradicting established fiction. The creature has been hit, the creature has taken damage, and the players can literally see that.

But, deciding that my Deathlock has a particular invocation, which it absolutely could have according to the rules, at any point in time isn't fudging in the slightest. It is not contradicting anything in the game rules, nor is it contradicting any established fiction. There is no fudging going on here when I am not, in any way, contradicting anything. Even the most basic form of fudging - changing die rolls- is fudging because established facts are being changed - a hit is turned into a miss, or a creature is suddenly less damaged than it was before, that sort of thing.

No, I'm pretty sure they're rules. They definitely look like rules.

How so? You are encouraged to change anything and everything in that stat block. You, the DM, are 100% allowed to change every single thing in that stat block. This isn't suddenly deciding that the PC's attack bonus is lower than it is or the baddie's established AC is suddenly higher. Until it's established in the fiction of the game, every single thing on that stat block is 100% up for grabs.

/snip
It depends on when you decide those things.

I am really not a fundamentalist about this like some. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, and in practice it might be hard to decide everything beforehand. I get why one might want to do this, I'm sure I have sometimes. But more you do it more the game will proceed via GM fiat. Whether you think that is a bad thing or not is a matter of preference.

No, it really, really doesn't. It doesn't matter when you decide these things. Well, actually, the only time it does matter is if you are changing things that are previously established. That's fudging and I agree that's bad. It leads to the players being very confused about the game and often leads to some pretty bad feelings all the way around.

But before it's established? Every single thing you do is DM fiat. You change the stat-blocks. You said that you do. That's 100% DM fiat. You have decided that you will not change them after they hit the table. Fair enough. That's great. But, there's no particular reason why that's required. You ignore stat blocks every single time you sit down to run the game because there are things missing in the stat blocks. Deciding where the monsters attack is 100% DM fiat. Deciding monster tactics - fiat. Does that monster run out of arrows? No? Fiat. On and on and on.

Suddenly complaining about DM fiat is too little too late. The game is based on rulings not rules for a reason. It's not "rulings not rules unless it's a stat block of a monster you've introduced in play". This notion that timing suddenly makes all the difference doesn't carry any water for me. If I decided that the caster monster had a familiar (something virtually any caster monster certainly could have), it doesn't matter when I decided that. So long as I am not contradicting anything previously established, you can't raise the fudging flag.

Fudging is always about contradicting established game elements. Nothing in a stat block is established unless it's established in play.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, I'm pretty sure they're rules. They definitely look like rules.

That's an interesting claim. In my opinion, rules tell you what to do with stat blocs, character sheets, and adventure descriptions. Rules operate on..."content"?

Is the map of a dungeon "rules"? If the DM spontaneously decides, "I think I'll take that secret door out" is it the same as adding a spell to a spell list?

Is the configuration of a chess board at an arbitrary point in a game "rules"? (In before "Hah! And would you arbitrarily change that configuration!?!?!": No. D&D isn't chess.)

 

[Voadam]

I barely write out stats at all. It's fudge all the way down.

So, you are saying your DMing approach is . . . full of fudge?

 

[Vaalingrade]

So, you are saying your DMing approach is . . . full of fudge?

It is seriously fudged up.