D&D (2024) Wizards have a problem with Spellcasting stat blocks

[Reynard]

Fair enough. So how would you respond to a player who asked why all the other wizards only ever seem to use Arcane Burst and not any of the other cantrips? And why is Arcane Burst not something they can pick as an option from the book but I’d rather something you will require them to figure out in-game?

That probaby wouldn't happen in my game. Enemy casters last 4 or 5 rounds, tops. I bring the hurt, every time. If I have resorted to a cantrip with a NPC mage, I have [redacted] it up badly.

But to be less elusive: NPOCs and PCs are different. That is the way it is.

 

[pukunui]

But to be less elusive: NPOCs and PCs are different. That is the way it is.

It doesn’t have to be that way, though. It wasn’t as much that way at the start of 5e, for instance.

I feel like this is a gamist v simulationist issue. (As an aside, I feel like I don’t see those terms bandied about as much anymore.)

 

[Maxperson]

I build my spells in the Stat block when I build a caster. Like this.

Looks good. I especially like his ability to save vs. saves.

PC: "15! I made my save against his spell."
DM: "Oh, bad luck. I rolled a 17, so he saved against your save and it affects you anyway."

 

[Distracted DM]

It doesn’t have to be that way, though. It wasn’t as much that way at the start of 5e, for instance.

I feel like this is a gamist v simulationist issue. (As an aside, I feel like I don’t see those terms bandied about as much anymore.)

I use gamist and simulationist often,

 

[Maxperson]

Looks good. I especially like his ability to save vs. saves.

PC: "15! I made my save against his spell."
DM: "Oh, bad luck. I rolled a 17, so he saved against your save and it affects you anyway."

I very rarely quote myself, but while I wrote the above as humor, I have been giving it some more thought. It might make an interesting alternative/addition to Legendary Resistance. It could be called Legendary Power or something.

 

[Reynard]

It doesn’t have to be that way, though. It wasn’t as much that way at the start of 5e, for instance.

Are you sure? there weren't NPC abilities inaccessible to PCs?

 

[grimmgoose]

Literally the first monster in the 2014 monster manual has an ability that PCs can't obtain (Dive Attack).

 

[Zaukrie]

I'd be sort of okay with it if it were just "Bonus Action: 1/day-Healing Word" and that was it. (Not really okay).

But instead we get three lines of text wasting valuable space rather than giving us information useful at the table.

That second sentence is so true. Why not just say Wisdom, rather than more words that make me look on another line?

WotC statblocks are just about the worst of all the blocks I look at, across many PDFs (games). I just don't get it at all. Truly bad.

 

[pukunui]

Are you sure? there weren't NPC abilities inaccessible to PCs?

Yes, of course there were. That’s why I said “as much”. The main thing being that initially spellcasting NPCs mostly conformed to the same rules as PCs insofar as they had spell slots and lists of spells per level (and could do things like upcast spells).

 

[grimmgoose]

The main thing being that initially spellcasting NPCs mostly conformed to the same rules as PCs insofar as they had spell slots and lists of spells per level (and could do things like upcast spells).

A monster doesn't need 20+ spells. It just doesn't. It'll cast three spells, maybe, before the barbarian kills it.

The DM has enough nonsense to worry about. Simplifying spellcasting monsters is a good thing.