Vaalingrade
Legend
that's just a good all-around philosophy for monster design.Player spells/abilities should be fun to use; monster spells/abilities should be fun to react against.
that's just a good all-around philosophy for monster design.Player spells/abilities should be fun to use; monster spells/abilities should be fun to react against.
Disagree. Way too gamist an argument for my tastes. Siloing abilities based on the narrative role played by the creature using them is terrible for verisimilitude, and goes against everything I prioritize in gaming.The solution is simple: the wizard didn't cast "Sickening Radiance". He cast "Lethargic Light", which in fact does the effect when a creature enters the space.
If I can get on a soapbox for a moment: Monster Spellcasters don't need to (and I'd argue, shouldn't) cast the same spells that the players have. It's something 4E did right: design-wise, player spells and monster spells should elicit different feelings and responses.
Player spells/abilities should be fun to use; monster spells/abilities should be fun to react against.
Disagree. Way too gamist an argument for my tastes. Siloing abilities based on the narrative role played by the creature using them is terrible for verisimilitude, and goes against everything I prioritize in gaming.
If the reason the caster NPC casts "firestorm" rather than fireball is because PCs and NPCs have different jobs in the game (even if they have the same job in the setting), that's not a good enough reason for me.If the reason the monster casts fireball rather than "voidstorm" is because voidstorm isn't in the PHB, I'd say that's silly, but I recognize your viewpoint - I just don't think it needs to suck up all the energy in the design space.
Sounds like you and I wouldn't have a fun time in each others' games, then. That's alright.If the reason the caster NPC casts "firestorm" rather than fireball is because PCs and NPCs have different jobs in the game (even if they have the same job in the setting), that's not a good enough reason for me.
I am not saying there cannot be a distinction, I am saying the distinction should not matter / make no difference wrt the spell effectI mean, I think one can draw a useful distinction
Sounds more like out-and-out stupidity--not madness--IMO.If I take damage when I walk into it, but not when I get shoved into it (or vice versa), that is the madness I was talking about
depends on how far down that path you go…Sounds more like out-and-out stupidity--not madness--IMO.
To me, it would only make sense if it's about the duration. Getting blown through it by a spell over the space of a second or an ally grabbing you by the lapel and hauling you out before you got singed, I could deal with. A round is ~6 seconds and everything that's happening in it isn't lock-step one action after the next but more-or-less all happening at once and we've got to use some sort of order to handle it without driving the DM insane when six people plus all the enemies try to do everything all at once.I am not saying there cannot be a distinction, I am saying the distinction should not matter / make no difference wrt the spell effect
If I take damage when I walk into it, but not when I get shoved into it (or vice versa), that is the madness I was talking about
. Yo-yoing someone in-and-out of a furnace doesn't do more than holding them in it.
.