Has anybody talked about the change in resistance against spells and other magical effects yet?
I think they removed the “other magical effects” part to make the new monster design with new attacks that are not spells but magical effects more potent across the board. It would be really bad if only a handful races would still have a way to diminish the damage of these abilities.
What do you think?
I suspect, for no particular reason, that the effects you mentioned will end up getting some text that says they're spells. But no, I think these were probably changed to cut down on the constant "is it magic" debates and questions in game, and not for any power level reasons.
Has anybody talked about the change in resistance against spells and other magical effects yet?
I think they removed the “other magical effects” part to make the new monster design with new attacks that are not spells but magical effects more potent across the board. It would be really bad if only a handful races would still have a way to diminish the damage of these abilities.
What do you think?
Do you mean they've removed that from monsters' magic resistance or do you mean from races that had magic resistance-esque abilities?
Sad that they sugar-buffed a bunch of races and didn't think to even throw the poor ol' standard human a hand. I mean seriously, if you were going to make a whole book of updates and not even make the most "Why play this when the other option is clearly better?" race get an upgrade......
None of the PHB races are in this.
Comment still stands.
I guess the question is, when they do get around to the PHB group, whether humans will still be viewed as the baseline against which other races/lineages/whatever get compared
Considering the races in this book, I can see the 24 change being along these lines. I can see the baseline human changing from a +1 to each stat to a +2 in 3 stats and Variant human going to +1 to a stat with another stat getting a +2, that would get them on par with these.
Has anybody talked about the change in resistance against spells and other magical effects yet?
I think they removed the “other magical effects” part to make the new monster design with new attacks that are not spells but magical effects more potent across the board. It would be really bad if only a handful races would still have a way to diminish the damage of these abilities.
What do you think?
I suspect, for no particular reason, that the effects you mentioned will end up getting some text that says they're spells. But no, I think these were probably changed to cut down on the constant "is it magic" debates and questions in game, and not for any power level reasons.
I think the opposite. With the statblock of the Cleric that was shown a while back, we will see more and more magic like powers that aren't spells and can't be affected by magic resistance, dispel magic and counterspell in a further nerfing of the caster classes.
Has anybody talked about the change in resistance against spells and other magical effects yet?
I think they removed the “other magical effects” part to make the new monster design with new attacks that are not spells but magical effects more potent across the board. It would be really bad if only a handful races would still have a way to diminish the damage of these abilities.
What do you think?
Do you mean they've removed that from monsters' magic resistance or do you mean from races that had magic resistance-esque abilities?
The player races don't have it any longer. So the new monster abilities that we saw from the preview would hit them fully. These abilities also can't be counterspelled as they are not spells anylonger. That was a change they made to the caster monster blocks.
Has anybody talked about the change in resistance against spells and other magical effects yet?
I think they removed the “other magical effects” part to make the new monster design with new attacks that are not spells but magical effects more potent across the board. It would be really bad if only a handful races would still have a way to diminish the damage of these abilities.
What do you think?
I suspect, for no particular reason, that the effects you mentioned will end up getting some text that says they're spells. But no, I think these were probably changed to cut down on the constant "is it magic" debates and questions in game, and not for any power level reasons.
I think the opposite. With the statblock of the Cleric that was shown a while back, we will see more and more magic like powers that aren't spells and can't be affected by magic resistance, dispel magic and counterspell in a further nerfing of the caster classes.
I don't think they want to nerf caster classes but strengthen the monsters so that they are a threat again. If you run a magic user as a monster it often is hard to say how hard they hit. Will it be counterspelled or not? Has your player counterspell prepared at all? So I guess it is a try to make monsters easier to run. But it is of course a nerf to spellcasters with counterspell or to that races that had magic resistance.
Has anybody talked about the change in resistance against spells and other magical effects yet?
I think they removed the “other magical effects” part to make the new monster design with new attacks that are not spells but magical effects more potent across the board. It would be really bad if only a handful races would still have a way to diminish the damage of these abilities.
What do you think?
I suspect, for no particular reason, that the effects you mentioned will end up getting some text that says they're spells. But no, I think these were probably changed to cut down on the constant "is it magic" debates and questions in game, and not for any power level reasons.
I think the opposite. With the statblock of the Cleric that was shown a while back, we will see more and more magic like powers that aren't spells and can't be affected by magic resistance, dispel magic and counterspell in a further nerfing of the caster classes.
I don't think they want to nerf caster classes but strengthen the monsters so that they are a threat again. If you run a magic user as a monster it often is hard to say how hard they hit. Will it be counterspelled or not? Has your player counterspell prepared at all? So I guess it is a try to make monsters easier to run. But it is of course a nerf to spellcasters with counterspell or to that races that had magic resistance.
When you give magic like attacks that can't be counter spelled it is a direct nerf to casters. Wizards and Sorcerers in 5th have a CC and buff/debuff role when you start to knibbel at that you're removing paret of their viability. Maybe that's a bit too dramatic of a way to put it, but hey it's Sunday and I'm in a good mood :)
When you give magic like attacks that can't be counter spelled it is a direct nerf to casters.
They also aren't giving the monsters counterspell, which is a direct buff to casters. If the change seems like a net nerf, that indicates the DM wasn't using counterspell against you enough.
When you give magic like attacks that can't be counter spelled it is a direct nerf to casters.
They also aren't giving the monsters counterspell, which is a direct buff to casters. If the change seems like a net nerf, that indicates the DM wasn't using counterspell against you enough.
No monster I've ever seen has Counterspell. They *can,* if you modify them, but you can modify these theoretical new monsters too.
When you give magic like attacks that can't be counter spelled it is a direct nerf to casters.
They also aren't giving the monsters counterspell, which is a direct buff to casters. If the change seems like a net nerf, that indicates the DM wasn't using counterspell against you enough.
No monster I've ever seen has Counterspell. They *can,* if you modify them, but you can modify these theoretical new monsters too.
When you give magic like attacks that can't be counter spelled it is a direct nerf to casters.
They also aren't giving the monsters counterspell, which is a direct buff to casters. If the change seems like a net nerf, that indicates the DM wasn't using counterspell against you enough.
No monster I've ever seen has Counterspell. They *can,* if you modify them, but you can modify these theoretical new monsters too.
My mistake. I've definitely seen each of these. Though, that's not a lot, and they're basically all in the upper range of CR for no apparent reason. Having it on hags feels weird to me. I'm veering off topic here.
When you give magic like attacks that can't be counter spelled it is a direct nerf to casters.
They also aren't giving the monsters counterspell, which is a direct buff to casters. If the change seems like a net nerf, that indicates the DM wasn't using counterspell against you enough.
No monster I've ever seen has Counterspell. They *can,* if you modify them, but you can modify these theoretical new monsters too.
My mistake. I've definitely seen each of these. Though, that's not a lot, and they're basically all in the upper range of CR for no apparent reason. Having it on hags feels weird to me. I'm veering off topic here.
There aren't actually that many monsters where Counterspell is particularly valuable, and most of them are fairly high CR.
When you give magic like attacks that can't be counter spelled it is a direct nerf to casters.
They also aren't giving the monsters counterspell, which is a direct buff to casters. If the change seems like a net nerf, that indicates the DM wasn't using counterspell against you enough.
I use it on casters against the party. You're twisting my words. Not the first time.
I think the spell change to Genasi is mainly a publisher one.
Their utility cantrip was a compendium option and later a Xanathar option. Now it's probably a PHB option instead. Triton got the same treatment, it's to eliminate cross-reference with other books, that are not PHB.
Essentially is you just want mechanics, as a new group, you get the new book and the PHB and you are set.
If you then want to expand, you can grab setting specific books or something. It's makes a decent amount of sense I guess. It might make the initial buy-in for new groups a bit more manageable.
I suspect a similar product will arrive for spells and for Magic the Gathering.
I use it on casters against the party. You're twisting my words. Not the first time.
No, I'm not twisting your words, I'm just pointing out that "You get to counterspell less but also get counterspelled less" is not a net nerf.
Are players getting magical attacks that can't be dispelled, counter spelled or stopped by Globe of Invulnerability? Isn't this what people are complaining about 4th always harping about? Every class had magical attacks ,I never played 4th, So I don't have a yardstick.
Are players getting magical attacks that can't be dispelled, counter spelled or stopped by Globe of Invulnerability?
They already have them. For example, Storm Herald and Wild Magic barbarians, a couple Channel Divinity effects such as Radiance of the Dawn, Arcane Archers and Rune Knights, Sun Soul monks, Divine Smite, ...
Are players getting magical attacks that can't be dispelled, counter spelled or stopped by Globe of Invulnerability?
They already have them. For example, Storm Herald and Wild Magic barbarians, a couple Channel Divinity effects such as Radiance of the Dawn, Arcane Archers and Rune Knights, Sun Soul monks, Divine Smite, ...
Meh, not to the damage output we saw on the Priest. And all of the PC ones are limited in usage by or a point system or a times of day system. Because using a monk as an example is being very generous. Maybe if they had double the number of KI points. The priest one was more like a boosted non stoppable cantrip.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I suspect, for no particular reason, that the effects you mentioned will end up getting some text that says they're spells. But no, I think these were probably changed to cut down on the constant "is it magic" debates and questions in game, and not for any power level reasons.
Do you mean they've removed that from monsters' magic resistance or do you mean from races that had magic resistance-esque abilities?
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Considering the races in this book, I can see the 24 change being along these lines. I can see the baseline human changing from a +1 to each stat to a +2 in 3 stats and Variant human going to +1 to a stat with another stat getting a +2, that would get them on par with these.
With the Hobgoblin change, are they losing their war like background for the fae theme? Or is it going to be a subrace?
I think the opposite. With the statblock of the Cleric that was shown a while back, we will see more and more magic like powers that aren't spells and can't be affected by magic resistance, dispel magic and counterspell in a further nerfing of the caster classes.
The player races don't have it any longer. So the new monster abilities that we saw from the preview would hit them fully. These abilities also can't be counterspelled as they are not spells anylonger. That was a change they made to the caster monster blocks.
I don't think they want to nerf caster classes but strengthen the monsters so that they are a threat again. If you run a magic user as a monster it often is hard to say how hard they hit. Will it be counterspelled or not? Has your player counterspell prepared at all? So I guess it is a try to make monsters easier to run. But it is of course a nerf to spellcasters with counterspell or to that races that had magic resistance.
When you give magic like attacks that can't be counter spelled it is a direct nerf to casters. Wizards and Sorcerers in 5th have a CC and buff/debuff role when you start to knibbel at that you're removing paret of their viability. Maybe that's a bit too dramatic of a way to put it, but hey it's Sunday and I'm in a good mood :)
I will say, if that ends up being the case, I will strongly dislike it.
Imagine how cool it would be as a Wizard to be able to take the enemy's Necrotic Fireball or whatever and put it in your spellbook.
They also aren't giving the monsters counterspell, which is a direct buff to casters. If the change seems like a net nerf, that indicates the DM wasn't using counterspell against you enough.
No monster I've ever seen has Counterspell. They *can,* if you modify them, but you can modify these theoretical new monsters too.
Just in the monster manual there is:
My mistake. I've definitely seen each of these. Though, that's not a lot, and they're basically all in the upper range of CR for no apparent reason. Having it on hags feels weird to me. I'm veering off topic here.
There aren't actually that many monsters where Counterspell is particularly valuable, and most of them are fairly high CR.
I use it on casters against the party. You're twisting my words. Not the first time.
I think the spell change to Genasi is mainly a publisher one.
Their utility cantrip was a compendium option and later a Xanathar option. Now it's probably a PHB option instead. Triton got the same treatment, it's to eliminate cross-reference with other books, that are not PHB.
Essentially is you just want mechanics, as a new group, you get the new book and the PHB and you are set.
If you then want to expand, you can grab setting specific books or something. It's makes a decent amount of sense I guess. It might make the initial buy-in for new groups a bit more manageable.
I suspect a similar product will arrive for spells and for Magic the Gathering.
No, I'm not twisting your words, I'm just pointing out that "You get to counterspell less but also get counterspelled less" is not a net nerf.
Are players getting magical attacks that can't be dispelled, counter spelled or stopped by Globe of Invulnerability? Isn't this what people are complaining about 4th always harping about? Every class had magical attacks ,I never played 4th, So I don't have a yardstick.
They already have them. For example, Storm Herald and Wild Magic barbarians, a couple Channel Divinity effects such as Radiance of the Dawn, Arcane Archers and Rune Knights, Sun Soul monks, Divine Smite, ...
Meh, not to the damage output we saw on the Priest. And all of the PC ones are limited in usage by or a point system or a times of day system. Because using a monk as an example is being very generous. Maybe if they had double the number of KI points. The priest one was more like a boosted non stoppable cantrip.