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

[SkidAce]

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

I "think" the difference is that we expect an evoker wizard (to continue the example) while not built on exactly the same chassis, to have similar abilities to the pc class.

Monsters/Creatures having abilities that players dont is fine. (there was a 1e (?) fire hawk that basically shot fireballs but it was an ability, not a spell)

Many many of my NPC wizards have abilities that the PCs dont. (This is fine and expected) If players question it I tell them if they want to spend their lifetime researching special abilities like the Dark Lord did, go for it. Might take longer than you think, or might be feasible.

But if every time I grab an Evoker mage stat block they all have Arcane Burst...not as fine and feels off.

Sure I can fix it in the story/home game, but its created a disparity that wasn't there. Just so Counterspell wouldn't shut them down.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

I agree. Simplyfy.

Evoker Wizard can cast Firebolt at will, Fireball 2 per day. Done and Done.

But they just didn't simplify, they changed the basic attack spell to a be an ability.

And that's what opened the can of worms.

 

[Reynard]

I agree. Simplyfy.

Evoker Wizard can cast Firebolt at will, Fireball 2 per day. Done and Done.

But they just didn't simplify, they changed the basic attack spell to a be an ability.

And that's what opened the can of worms.

Actions:
Firebolt (cantrip): +6, 1d10 fire, range 120'

 

[mamba]

It doesn’t have to be that way, though.

no it doesn’t, but I prefer that it is

It wasn’t as much that way at the start of 5e, for instance.

not so sure about that one

I feel like this is a gamist v simulationist issue.

I see it as a usability issue, but you can see it as the above as well

 

[mamba]

So even less convenience for the DM with regard to stat blocks! We're moving this thread in the right direction.

having several stat blocks for a whole factions sounds good to me, I am not expecting that in the MM though

 

[sevenbastard]

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."

Definitely not a copy and paste error but a very specific ability for Ol' Preston granted by drinking four potions at once during his fraternity hazing.

Surprised you didn't call out his 1st level spell slots. That's actually legit, based on a house rule I use where clerics don't get cantrip but two extra 1st level spell slots.

 

[Azzy]

Oh, no, there's no need for such cynicism.

They've been screwing up monster statblocks since...hmmm. When did D&D Next start again?

D&D Next? Since 3e.

 

[Weiley31]

even if it's very easy to math out. (PB plus Casting ability so 16 in the case of the Gold Dragon)

Good to know.

 

[Weiley31]

I'm gonna be that crazy guy who gives boss characters/rivals/certain NPCs spell slots in a Post 2024 5th Edition world.

 

[Maxperson]

having several star blocks for a whole factions sounds good to me, I am not expecting that in the MM though

Of course not. That's what the Hollywood Walk of Fame is for.