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

[Reynard]

Probably not. As I pointed out above, we’ve had the same guy in charge of game mechanics for the entirety of the game’s lifespan. While individuals have come and gone, all content will have been vetted and approved by Crawford.

This is why I think the playtests, such that they were, were a mistake. They obviously had ideas on how to make the game better. they should have just designed and implemented them and given us a good game.

 

[Distracted DM]

One thing I miss from the 3.5e days was how the designers would include little “behind the curtain” sidebars to explain their design methodology a little.

I adore this in games. And yeah the 3.5 days had the best of it- I point to Red Hand of Doom all the time, one of the reasons is because it's full of "so here's why we did this and how it went down for us, but it might go differently for you so consider this:...."

 

[Maxperson]

You think maybe this is a deliberate action on WotC's part to make sure we buy the PHB?

I think that maybe they did it to make the stat blocks look and feel more different from the 2014 MM.

 

[billd91]

The kinds of magic that are needed for use in combat encounters are almost universally provided with no more text than your average trait, action or reaction. And you don't even need to conform to existing spells. In fact, shouldn't. NPC caster should scare the crap out of PCs because they don't understand the magic coming at their face.

That just makes every NPC spell caster a black box that you can't really learn from, plan for, or basically make very meaningful decisions about. And that's... not very helpful. I'm probably just picking my best generic option and hoping to roll well enough over the course of the encounter that he dies before I do because I can't know enough to do differently.

I don't agree. If the NPC is basically a PC not being played by a player, then they should conform to the same rules as the PCs. Let's say you're playing an evoker wizard, and your PC meets some classmates from the Evokers Academy. I would expect those NPC evoker wizards to work the same way as your PC. Sure, one or two of them might have learned something that your PC didn't learn, but they should still operate using the same underlying structure (leveled spells and spell slots).

Instead, going by the way WotC has done it, your PC is the only evoker wizard from the Evokers Academy who didn't learn the Arcane Burst cantrip. Even the piddly NPC apprentice wizards just starting out at Evokers Academy know that one!

Yeah, arcane burst is one of those features they added that sticks out like a sore thumb. I get why they did it, but between a 9th level(-ish) caster having 22d8 hit dice AND a cantrip attack better than a 17th level wizards, it's putting a heavy emphasis on the NPC as a token on the game board rather than an integrated part of the setting. That may make for a more satisfying game challenge for some, but it comes with a cost as well.

There's a lot of worldbuilding assumptions there (that class is something that exists within the fiction, and that all PCs and NPCs follow those development tracks) that a lot of 5e games don't use.

True, but the alternative comes with the assumption that you cannot learn anything about the world because no world building is happening with magical powers at all. And that's kind of disappointing. There's no more "Where did THAT from? How did they DO that?!?" that actually leads anywhere. It just is.

 

[pukunui]

This is why I think the playtests, such that they were, were a mistake. They obviously had ideas on how to make the game better. they should have just designed and implemented them and given us a good game.

Yes, I think in retrospect I would agree. Open playtests are a nice idea but they tend to provide middling “design by committee” results.

I think that maybe they did it to make the stat blocks look and feel more different from the 2014 MM.

Which I find irksome! Perhaps it’s just inertia but I like the 2014 stat block format. I do not like the new format’s color-coded boxes for the ability scores. Blech. That is not aesthetically pleasing graphic design.

I also don’t like how they’ve tucked the proficiency bonus away in the same set of parentheses as the XP value. I found it easier to spot when it was further to the right and the “PB” abbreviation was in bold. I get their reasoning in that CR determines both XP and PB but I don’t think it makes for a better UX.

 

[SkidAce]

Instead, going by the way WotC has done it, your PC is the only evoker wizard from the Evokers Academy who didn't learn the Arcane Burst cantrip. Even the piddly NPC apprentice wizards just starting out at Evokers Academy know that one!


Technically you don't have to click on the link because DDB has pop-up tooltips when you hover over links but I get what you're saying. It would be nice if you didn't even have to do that!

I assume the convo has carried on since this post, but this bothers me also.

 

[TwoSix]

True, but the alternative comes with the assumption that you cannot learn anything about the world because no world building is happening with magical powers at all. And that's kind of disappointing. There's no more "Where did THAT from? How did they DO that?!?" that actually leads anywhere. It just is.

I think there's a middle ground where the frameworks of magic (arcane, divine, primal, psionic, other stuff that exists in the specific campaign) can be understood, but the exact progression and usage varies from individual to individual.

You can have arcane magic in your world without every NPC being a "wizard" or "sorcerer". That's certainly how I do it, unless I'm experimenting with some LitRPG ideas (which I am currently doing at some tables.)

 

[Reynard]

That just makes every NPC spell caster a black box that you can't really learn from, plan for, or basically make very meaningful decisions about. And that's... not very helpful. I'm probably just picking my best generic option and hoping to roll well enough over the course of the encounter that he dies before I do because I can't know enough to do differently.

Are you studying the MM and assuming your GM is only using the spells listed in the entry?

Every NPC caster IS a black box. You don't know what spells they have prepared or access to, and you don't know what resources your GM used to populate that list. Your characters heard that they are going to face a Fire Wizard or whatever. That should give them a general idea of what the NPC is capable of, but not a list of their spells.

 

[pukunui]

I assume the convo has carried on since this post, but this bothers me also.

This is one area where we could really do with some “under the hood” commentary from Crawford.

Many of us assume that Arcane Burst is meant to be shorthand for a variety of cantrips, and we can just tweak it on the fly. Sure, experienced DMs can do that. A melee Arcane Burst can be shocking grasp and deal lightning damage instead of force. A ranger Arcane Burst can be a fire bolt or a ray of frost or whatever. But is a new DM going to realize that they can do that?

I hesitate to use the word “permission” here; however, I feel like some DMs might want reassurance at least from the designers that that is what they intended (or not!).

But maybe they’re counting on the horses of new players not caring / knowing enough to complain if NPC spellcasters don’t work the same way.

I, however, have a group of veteran players who track the spells NPCs cast so they can try to guess how many spell slots the NPC had left.

Luckily none of them seem to have noticed the new NPC spellcaster design, so I just quietly avoid giving them any indication that the paradigm has shifted.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Agree that open playtests are worthless and tend to lead to design that is simultaneously bland, middling, and incoherent (because not everyone in the open playtest agrees on a direction).