I have a question about the creature presented, it says summon devil 1/day and no time from so can he/she/it summon 1 devil every day for 60 days?
In general this is the issue I have seen in quite a few games trying to be as simply as possible, they assume that that name of the ability "Summon Devil" is the same as a spell...except when it is not (or the author or GM does not intend it to be).
I think between managing spell slots and GM license for dramatic effect, there's a multitude or even multiverse of possibilities that can't be easily sorted into the binary this argument drifting off topic is trying to set up as "sides" in a "dispute."
Generously reading, the thread's about the ramifications of something Crawford said regarding accommodating shorter play timeframes and the possible insight that comment may have into producing adventures that can be managed or segmented into shorter sessions or whether retooling the ways monsters play magic under WotC "more efficient management" justification. This really isn't a thread to again misinterpret Yuriel's umodulated hyperbole and devolve the discussion into a "what a good DM is" and "who in this thread is a bad DM."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I have a question about the creature presented, it says summon devil 1/day and no time from so can he/she/it summon 1 devil every day for 60 days?
In general this is the issue I have seen in quite a few games trying to be as simply as possible, they assume that that name of the ability "Summon Devil" is the same as a spell...except when it is not (or the author or GM does not intend it to be).
The reality is the answer to that is "Whatever you want the answer to be". As a homebrewed custom monster, limitations on language are simply things you resolve in real time. Do what you want.
After a few Con game I have asked the GM how they did this or that and they simply said it needed to happen for my story so it did.
There's a difference between making stuff up as you go along and making stuff up to prepare for a session. I'm not saying the former is necessarily a bad thing either, but the latter is basically what any homebrewing DM does. And there already are monsters with at-will spells and/or magical abilities that refresh on a randomized counter. If you don't enjoy playing with a DM who ignores spell slots on an NPC or monster that officially has them, hey, that's your prerogative. But what if your DM created a monster that doesn't have spell slots but uses a counter instead? Or changed an existing one to use a similar mechanic rather than spell slots? Would that be problematic to you, even if those exact things are part and parcel of official, by the book - the original book, not M³ - campaigns already?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The only way an NPC even has spell slots is if they have PC class levels, and the ones you find in officially published material generally do not.
I agree with the essence of your post, but this part isn't really correct. The Abjurer (Volo's) is a 13th level spellcaster NPC using spell slots, for instance; Acererak from ToA is a 20th level spellcaster with spell slots (as well as a number of at-will leveled spells); there's the Evil Mage from LMoP; Naxene Drathkala from Storm King's Thunder; and so on. Monster stat blocks do track spell slots. There's no absolute need to do that, however.
Please note my use of the word "generally." While there are stat blocks that use spell slots those are the exception and not the rule. And in D&D there are always exceptions. They can be found whenever and wherever the DM decides there should be exceptions. Or the module writer. Or even the game designers writing the core books, in a few cases. Often found in situations that can be summed up with "This guy's the boss baddie so he should be extra challenging and do stuff the players don't expect."
I for one have been rather critical of the sheer size of the (so called) “modules” this edition and regularly use the older shorter modules, and espouse their virtues regularly. If WotC published more generic, shorter (actually modular) modules, I might actually buy some.
Anything more streamlined or dumbed down is a breaking point for me. Something that's fast approaching with the way magic like attacks instead of spells...
No offense, but this seems like a strange hill to die on. Magic like attacks instead of spells is too streamlined or dumbed down? It's pretty much the same thing, aside from Counterspell (not) being applicable.
“Spell-like Abilities” have been in D&D longer than I have, and I got almost 30 years in the game.
I am firmly in Yurei's camp WRT monster/Boss/NPC design. I am not at all opposed to having NPCs/villains with actual spell slots and casting levels; at the same time, giving them magical actions DOES make running the game much, much easier...and it also presents the party with foes that are harder to anticipate and counter.
Colville did an entire video on this topic, and I found it really helpful.
Thanks Spidycloned and Pangarjan for your responses.
In general if a how the rules say a creature should/could/can be designed are important, and as a player in general I do not look at GM sections unless allowed to or unless I am going to run a game. But when I do I find it very important to have good to solid guidelines for creature creation that are in line with PC rules. If the rules are out of wack and the GM does not have solid house rules and he abuses them then I think about leaving the group or the game until they switch. I love gaming but there are games I will not play because of rule issues on the GM side as well as the players side.
So if it costs the same for an ability to summon a devil 1/day and have it stick around until it dies or if only 1 can be summoned at a time to me is huge difference. And one I know a few GM's would exploit to their benefit simply because it was allowed by the rules.
Note I have been a good an bad player and GM in my days and strive to be better every game, sometimes I am more successful then others.
Thanks Spidycloned and Pangarjan for your responses.
In general if a how the rules say a creature should/could/can be designed are important, and as a player in general I do not look at GM sections unless allowed to or unless I am going to run a game. But when I do I find it very important to have good to solid guidelines for creature creation that are in line with PC rules. If the rules are out of wack and the GM does not have solid house rules and he abuses them then I think about leaving the group or the game until they switch. I love gaming but there are games I will not play because of rule issues on the GM side as well as the players side.
So if it costs the same for an ability to summon a devil 1/day and have it stick around until it dies or if only 1 can be summoned at a time to me is huge difference. And one I know a few GM's would exploit to their benefit simply because it was allowed by the rules.
Note I have been a good an bad player and GM in my days and strive to be better every game, sometimes I am more successful then others.
Shitty DMs are going to do shitty things because they want to, not because of the current iterations of the rules. Hiding behind the rules in an(hopefully good) attempt to run a good game is a cheap way out. The rules are there to provide a guideline and a solid foundation for a table, but they aren't meant to be followed to a T. They just aren't.
It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule books upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons volumes, you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, you campaign next and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as it was meant to be.
Back on topic though.
Crawford honestly has a really good grasp(and I ******* hope he would, considering his position) on what D&D is, or fantasy roleplaying is.
A lot of these views on challenging encounters 15 years ago would be laughed at. Talking? In my combat encounter? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Crawford in this video literally says "Hey, its ok for DMs to just change shit in encounters when it makes sense!". Some are going to see that as FUDGING MECHANICS IN MY D&D? BLASPHEMY!
I agree but rules allow GM's to be better or worse also and I have seen good GM's follow the rules as written and be poorer for it. Also pointing out bad and poor performance is often easier then presenting how a rule takes time to cause issues in game 100 vs game 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
If a GM does not or cannot track spell slots I would also ask what else they were not tracking as to me this seems fairly basic. Do players track spell slots in their game? What else do players track or not track in their game? To me ruing multiple creatures that each have multiple abilities with different "cooldown timers" seems a lot more complicated then spell slots or some other system. If you use a PC then the PC can do that for you, if you have the software, if you are using a pen and paper you have to have dice, counters or marks on a page to track everything.
I have known/saw GM's who have not tracked hits or adjusted hits to provide more drama as they felt the game needed it and have seen 1 game in alpha development that tried to use this dynamic drama system of game play. I do not think the game made it to market and I did not see a whole lot of it being played except to think it had a lot in common with some other games on the market at that time.
Do I think monsters need a spell lot system for every ability? No. Just as I do not think the uses per day or "cooldown timer" idea will fit everything or be a good fit.
The important distinction is that DMs are expected to track spell slots on spellcasting monsters in addition to running the entire rest of the encounter. Conversely, a player only has to track spell slots for their character, their character that they use over multiple sessions and so get to time grow familiar with. A DM doesn't have that luxury of time to familiarise themselves to the same degree with each spellcasting monster.
Ultimately, the changes are an improvement in my opinion as it reduces the mental overhead for DMs, freeing up headroom for focusing on making the encounter interesting. I'd rather be concentrating on cool tactics and snappy one-liners than having to bookkeep spells slots. The 'cooldown timer' option, having used it a fair bit with other monsters, is orders of magnitude easier for me, and many other DMs as it's just a case of checking off how many times you've used a spell (or if you've used it at all in the case of 1/Day each). Compared to spell slots where in order to figure out if you can use a spell, you have to look up and down all the spell slots and see which ones you've used.
The important distinction is that DMs are expected to track spell slots on spellcasting monsters in addition to running the entire rest of the encounter. Conversely, a player only has to track spell slots for their character, their character that they use over multiple sessions and so get to time grow familiar with. A DM doesn't have that luxury of time to familiarise themselves to the same degree with each spellcasting monster.
Ultimately, the changes are an improvement in my opinion as it reduces the mental overhead for DMs, freeing up headroom for focusing on making the encounter interesting. I'd rather be concentrating on cool tactics and snappy one-liners than having to bookkeep spells slots. The 'cooldown timer' option, having used it a fair bit with other monsters, is orders of magnitude easier for me, and many other DMs as it's just a case of checking off how many times you've used a spell (or if you've used it at all in the case of 1/Day each). Compared to spell slots where in order to figure out if you can use a spell, you have to look up and down all the spell slots and see which ones you've used.
I think this is honestly the start of where a lot of great dms think from.
My stance is that dms need structure for encounters and that structure helps the game flow. I'm not saying abandon all forms of it. Davyd prose comes from the place of player experience. I'd love to sit at the same table if that's where their mindset is because I know two things will come from it: The stories will be player centric and challenging.
Stat blocks should exist. Monsters should be challenging. Abilities should be fair. The Crawford video doesn't say just flat make shit up on the fly in terms of what an ability does, but it does suggest tweaks if that makes sense.
I honestly like the fact of spell casting abilities because counterspell sucks for the game. It's a resource drain specifically for that sake and just passes the onus back to the next enemy or player. When I look at this change in 5th though, I can see it from two lenses. It's to make the game easier to parse and it's for a less experienced crowd. I have no issue adding another goblin or three into a module if I feel my players are steamrollers. My players also don't mind because they want it to be they way.
It's worth noting that "rigorous application of the rules" is a wargamer thing. Wargaming relies, one hundred percent, on ironclad, inflexible rules that work the same for everybody, and whoever's the best at using those rules wins. A lot of people with a strongly gamer mindset, or who came into tabletop from wargaming, are all about rigorous application of the rules and ensuring everybody is using the same rules or as close to the same rules as they can, because that provides a fair, impartial, and more-or-less level playing field and lets people kn ow that when they score a victory they earned it.
That's not a bad mindset. There are wargamer DMs who meticulously track dozens/hundreds of monster abilities/cooldowns/spell slots in a fight and consider the idea of fudging dice or streamlining blocks to be a very besmirchment of the game itself and deepest dishonor for the DM, and they can run splendid games their players love.
New DMs who're struggling just to keep track of a basic tier 1 goblin fight don't need that kind of hassle, though. And frankly, the DM playing by different rules than the players is the only thing that makes sense because the DM isn't running a PC, they're running everything else. The world doesn't get a character sheet or class levels or background features or any of that junk. The World doesn't get any of that either. PC character sheets are designed the way they are because they need to be - because the characters grow in strength and capability with extreme rapidity over the course of an adventure, and also because their sheet tells them who they are and where they fit into the world. A DM's NPCs or monsters have no such onus. A DM limiting themself to the PC rules is denying themself a great deal of the flexibility that being the DM provides and shutting off a lot of the more interesting challenges they can offer to players in the doing. Every trick is fair game, both to make the game easier to run and to make it more engaging for the table.
DMing is a sucky time-intensive thankless job as it is, why not do whatever's in your power to make it better for you?
There is one very good counter, ahem, for counterspell.
Villainous spellcasters - specifically liches - are going to prep scrolls, thus saving their own spell slots while potentially burning their opponents'.
Imagine the look on the players' faces when they realize they're out of 7th level or higher spell slots...when the lich hasn't used any yet.
I agree DM's have more to do then players and that is why prep time is very important as well as learning a few tricks to help you GM. For example a simple trick is to have a set of numbers to represent spell slots that you mark off after use, or a computer program to track things. So if you have 4 first level spells, 3 second level spells and 2 third level spells; you create a chart like this 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3 and you mark them off after use. If you use another system such as spell points or power points you keep track of them just as you would HP. To me if you are playing pen and paper you need some type of counters or dice to track all of the cooldowns for each creature and would be more work then simple prep work and crossing off numbers.
I agree GM's have a lot to track and I have found that it is often beneficial to have players GM 1 or more rooms so they know and remember all of the things a GM has to do. You can do this as a board game night or encounter test for house rules or in case someone cannot make it. Having a player create an encounter or have the GM create and encounter they can run with them is also a good way to pass along knowledge just what a GM does.
Crazy GM ideas:
I had a few people contact me with what they call crazy GM ideas over the years (often their term not mine) and one of them was a store bought module in which every encounter/room was run by a different player. After 1 encounter the book was passed to the next person in line and they had 10 min to prep for the encounter for the rest of the party. Note the group had been playing together for many years and they did some research on what modules this style worked with and which would be problematic. In general they said, it was a lot of fun and a nice change but not something they wanted to do every time.
I agree DM's have more to do then players and that is why prep time is very important as well as learning a few tricks to help you GM. For example a simple trick is to have a set of numbers to represent spell slots that you mark off after use, or a computer program to track things. So if you have 4 first level spells, 3 second level spells and 2 third level spells; you create a chart like this 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3 and you mark them off after use. If you use another system such as spell points or power points you keep track of them just as you would HP. To me if you are playing pen and paper you need some type of counters or dice to track all of the cooldowns for each creature and would be more work then simple prep work and crossing off numbers.
I don't think we're on different pages, at all, but you seem very determined to make a DM use spell slots. I just don't understand why?
It's worth noting that "rigorous application of the rules" is a wargamer thing. Wargaming relies, one hundred percent, on ironclad, inflexible rules that work the same for everybody, and whoever's the best at using those rules wins. A lot of people with a strongly gamer mindset, or who came into tabletop from wargaming, are all about rigorous application of the rules and ensuring everybody is using the same rules or as close to the same rules as they can, because that provides a fair, impartial, and more-or-less level playing field and lets people kn ow that when they score a victory they earned it.
That's not a bad mindset. There are wargamer DMs who meticulously track dozens/hundreds of monster abilities/cooldowns/spell slots in a fight and consider the idea of fudging dice or streamlining blocks to be a very besmirchment of the game itself and deepest dishonor for the DM, and they can run splendid games their players love.
New DMs who're struggling just to keep track of a basic tier 1 goblin fight don't need that kind of hassle, though. And frankly, the DM playing by different rules than the players is the only thing that makes sense because the DM isn't running a PC, they're running everything else. The world doesn't get a character sheet or class levels or background features or any of that junk. The World doesn't get any of that either. PC character sheets are designed the way they are because they need to be - because the characters grow in strength and capability with extreme rapidity over the course of an adventure, and also because their sheet tells them who they are and where they fit into the world. A DM's NPCs or monsters have no such onus. A DM limiting themself to the PC rules is denying themself a great deal of the flexibility that being the DM provides and shutting off a lot of the more interesting challenges they can offer to players in the doing. Every trick is fair game, both to make the game easier to run and to make it more engaging for the table.
DMing is a sucky time-intensive thankless job as it is, why not do whatever's in your power to make it better for you?
In general I agree that GM's have a lot to do and keep track of but that is part of being a GM and learning the game. And it is a good thing for the new GM to tell the group they are new and are learning just like they are. Unfortunately every person is not cut out to be a GM and every person who plays D&D 5e as a player will play more then one game. This is one area that I think the net and computer aided RPing is huge and can match players with GM's and hopefully bring some happiness to both.
I have found that loose rules cause problems with GM's and players that is not to say "wargame' ideology has never been seen by me being abused but often I have seen the lack of knowing the rules or highly storytelling GMing being a problem.
For example, I believe it was James Haddock (I may have the name wrong as I am going from memory) that wrote encounters and articles for D&DB about a skeleton shark that carried other skeletons in a cold ocean. In the adventure the shark jumps up onto a ship from the ocean and releases it cargo of skeletons. In general liked the inventiveness of the encounter but found the idea that the shark automatically jumped onto the ship problematic. I would bet a PC would have to use magic or make a skill roll to jump like the shark did automatically. To me this reminds me of why I and others I played with stopped buying AD&D adventures in the mid-80's and early 90's and moved to other game products. game systems and eventually modified what ever system we were using with rules from other systems that we found we needed and would fit.
For example, I believe it was James Haddock (I may have the name wrong as I am going from memory) that wrote encounters and articles for D&DB about a skeleton shark that carried other skeletons in a cold ocean. In the adventure the shark jumps up onto a ship from the ocean and releases it cargo of skeletons. In general liked the inventiveness of the encounter but found the idea that the shark automatically jumped onto the ship problematic. I would bet a PC would have to use magic or make a skill roll to jump like the shark did automatically.
In the case of an undead shark with a swim speed, even if a skill check was necessary I'd probably feel like it'd have to be easy enough for such a creature that rolling would be superfluous. Especially with checks like those it's not always a matter of just waiving them as DM prerogative: if the NPC/monster can't fail or is extremely unlikely to fail, the RAW suggest not bothering with a roll to begin with (same as for the PCs). And the opposite side of the coin here is that a skeletal shark really has no other ways of boarding a ship ("look ma, no hands" doesn't work for a shark, but PCs actually do have access to magic, climb checks, tossing a rope, etc) so if you do require a check there's a chance your shark never gets to make it into the fray, which would be a pretty disappointing outcome.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
PC rules are meant for PCs. You are correct that if I had a PC make that jump, there are going to be rolls for it and there should be. I think that within reason, the DM has latitude to do whatever they want and it's been that way by design, since original. It sounds like you want a very mechanically intense game where both the PCs and the DM play by the same exact rules and roll for the same exact things. This just doesn't exist in 5th, and frankly hasn't existed in any form of D&D. From jump street monsters have been able to do things without question that the PCs can't and from a very broad perspective that has to be that way from a game design standpoint. From jump the DM has the latitude to make sure the game runs in their world, that the table makes sense, and then that the players are happy.
It's not just "highly storytelling" dms, its just storytelling. There is somewhat of a suspension of rules knowledge when it comes to the DM setting a table, again and as I have always said in this thread, within reason. In short, I don't know what DM hurt you, but it's ok for there to not have to be rolls for certain things to set the stage as long as it doesn't present a challenge to the PCs that will be inherently unfair OR that the players would get to act in.
Sauron in LoTR once he loses corporeal form and becomes the bbeg, his old stats are gone. His old ways are gone. He has to play by a new set of rules and a lot of it is done through these heavily veiled shrouds of secrecy. Sephiroth in FF7 is a player character and then isn't, and once he isn't his old stats are gone and uses spellcasting abilities instead of spell slots, and once he transforms isn't playing by nearly the same rules.
Dungeons and Dragons isn't seen as an antagonistic game, and the way it seems you're describing it wound lend to that very fast where every single thing would be opposed rolls. That once I design a big bad, every action of theirs was dictated by the same RNG that the players would experience, the same rules and rolls and that just doesn't work and if you look at most forms of traditional media, just isn't the case.
I have a question about the creature presented, it says summon devil 1/day and no time from so can he/she/it summon 1 devil every day for 60 days?
In general this is the issue I have seen in quite a few games trying to be as simply as possible, they assume that that name of the ability "Summon Devil" is the same as a spell...except when it is not (or the author or GM does not intend it to be).
I think between managing spell slots and GM license for dramatic effect, there's a multitude or even multiverse of possibilities that can't be easily sorted into the binary this argument drifting off topic is trying to set up as "sides" in a "dispute."
Generously reading, the thread's about the ramifications of something Crawford said regarding accommodating shorter play timeframes and the possible insight that comment may have into producing adventures that can be managed or segmented into shorter sessions or whether retooling the ways monsters play magic under WotC "more efficient management" justification. This really isn't a thread to again misinterpret Yuriel's umodulated hyperbole and devolve the discussion into a "what a good DM is" and "who in this thread is a bad DM."
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The reality is the answer to that is "Whatever you want the answer to be". As a homebrewed custom monster, limitations on language are simply things you resolve in real time. Do what you want.
There's a difference between making stuff up as you go along and making stuff up to prepare for a session. I'm not saying the former is necessarily a bad thing either, but the latter is basically what any homebrewing DM does. And there already are monsters with at-will spells and/or magical abilities that refresh on a randomized counter. If you don't enjoy playing with a DM who ignores spell slots on an NPC or monster that officially has them, hey, that's your prerogative. But what if your DM created a monster that doesn't have spell slots but uses a counter instead? Or changed an existing one to use a similar mechanic rather than spell slots? Would that be problematic to you, even if those exact things are part and parcel of official, by the book - the original book, not M³ - campaigns already?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Please note my use of the word "generally." While there are stat blocks that use spell slots those are the exception and not the rule. And in D&D there are always exceptions. They can be found whenever and wherever the DM decides there should be exceptions. Or the module writer. Or even the game designers writing the core books, in a few cases. Often found in situations that can be summed up with "This guy's the boss baddie so he should be extra challenging and do stuff the players don't expect."
I for one have been rather critical of the sheer size of the (so called) “modules” this edition and regularly use the older shorter modules, and espouse their virtues regularly. If WotC published more generic, shorter (actually modular) modules, I might actually buy some.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
“Spell-like Abilities” have been in D&D longer than I have, and I got almost 30 years in the game.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I am firmly in Yurei's camp WRT monster/Boss/NPC design. I am not at all opposed to having NPCs/villains with actual spell slots and casting levels; at the same time, giving them magical actions DOES make running the game much, much easier...and it also presents the party with foes that are harder to anticipate and counter.
Colville did an entire video on this topic, and I found it really helpful.
Thanks Spidycloned and Pangarjan for your responses.
In general if a how the rules say a creature should/could/can be designed are important, and as a player in general I do not look at GM sections unless allowed to or unless I am going to run a game. But when I do I find it very important to have good to solid guidelines for creature creation that are in line with PC rules. If the rules are out of wack and the GM does not have solid house rules and he abuses them then I think about leaving the group or the game until they switch. I love gaming but there are games I will not play because of rule issues on the GM side as well as the players side.
So if it costs the same for an ability to summon a devil 1/day and have it stick around until it dies or if only 1 can be summoned at a time to me is huge difference. And one I know a few GM's would exploit to their benefit simply because it was allowed by the rules.
Note I have been a good an bad player and GM in my days and strive to be better every game, sometimes I am more successful then others.
Shitty DMs are going to do shitty things because they want to, not because of the current iterations of the rules. Hiding behind the rules in an(hopefully good) attempt to run a good game is a cheap way out. The rules are there to provide a guideline and a solid foundation for a table, but they aren't meant to be followed to a T. They just aren't.
Back on topic though.
Crawford honestly has a really good grasp(and I ******* hope he would, considering his position) on what D&D is, or fantasy roleplaying is.
A lot of these views on challenging encounters 15 years ago would be laughed at. Talking? In my combat encounter? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Crawford in this video literally says "Hey, its ok for DMs to just change shit in encounters when it makes sense!". Some are going to see that as FUDGING MECHANICS IN MY D&D? BLASPHEMY!
Everything is presented with the goal of fun.
Spideycloned,
I agree but rules allow GM's to be better or worse also and I have seen good GM's follow the rules as written and be poorer for it. Also pointing out bad and poor performance is often easier then presenting how a rule takes time to cause issues in game 100 vs game 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
If a GM does not or cannot track spell slots I would also ask what else they were not tracking as to me this seems fairly basic. Do players track spell slots in their game? What else do players track or not track in their game? To me ruing multiple creatures that each have multiple abilities with different "cooldown timers" seems a lot more complicated then spell slots or some other system. If you use a PC then the PC can do that for you, if you have the software, if you are using a pen and paper you have to have dice, counters or marks on a page to track everything.
I have known/saw GM's who have not tracked hits or adjusted hits to provide more drama as they felt the game needed it and have seen 1 game in alpha development that tried to use this dynamic drama system of game play. I do not think the game made it to market and I did not see a whole lot of it being played except to think it had a lot in common with some other games on the market at that time.
Do I think monsters need a spell lot system for every ability? No. Just as I do not think the uses per day or "cooldown timer" idea will fit everything or be a good fit.
The important distinction is that DMs are expected to track spell slots on spellcasting monsters in addition to running the entire rest of the encounter. Conversely, a player only has to track spell slots for their character, their character that they use over multiple sessions and so get to time grow familiar with. A DM doesn't have that luxury of time to familiarise themselves to the same degree with each spellcasting monster.
Ultimately, the changes are an improvement in my opinion as it reduces the mental overhead for DMs, freeing up headroom for focusing on making the encounter interesting. I'd rather be concentrating on cool tactics and snappy one-liners than having to bookkeep spells slots. The 'cooldown timer' option, having used it a fair bit with other monsters, is orders of magnitude easier for me, and many other DMs as it's just a case of checking off how many times you've used a spell (or if you've used it at all in the case of 1/Day each). Compared to spell slots where in order to figure out if you can use a spell, you have to look up and down all the spell slots and see which ones you've used.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I think this is honestly the start of where a lot of great dms think from.
My stance is that dms need structure for encounters and that structure helps the game flow. I'm not saying abandon all forms of it. Davyd prose comes from the place of player experience. I'd love to sit at the same table if that's where their mindset is because I know two things will come from it: The stories will be player centric and challenging.
Stat blocks should exist. Monsters should be challenging. Abilities should be fair. The Crawford video doesn't say just flat make shit up on the fly in terms of what an ability does, but it does suggest tweaks if that makes sense.
I honestly like the fact of spell casting abilities because counterspell sucks for the game. It's a resource drain specifically for that sake and just passes the onus back to the next enemy or player. When I look at this change in 5th though, I can see it from two lenses. It's to make the game easier to parse and it's for a less experienced crowd. I have no issue adding another goblin or three into a module if I feel my players are steamrollers. My players also don't mind because they want it to be they way.
It's worth noting that "rigorous application of the rules" is a wargamer thing. Wargaming relies, one hundred percent, on ironclad, inflexible rules that work the same for everybody, and whoever's the best at using those rules wins. A lot of people with a strongly gamer mindset, or who came into tabletop from wargaming, are all about rigorous application of the rules and ensuring everybody is using the same rules or as close to the same rules as they can, because that provides a fair, impartial, and more-or-less level playing field and lets people kn ow that when they score a victory they earned it.
That's not a bad mindset. There are wargamer DMs who meticulously track dozens/hundreds of monster abilities/cooldowns/spell slots in a fight and consider the idea of fudging dice or streamlining blocks to be a very besmirchment of the game itself and deepest dishonor for the DM, and they can run splendid games their players love.
New DMs who're struggling just to keep track of a basic tier 1 goblin fight don't need that kind of hassle, though. And frankly, the DM playing by different rules than the players is the only thing that makes sense because the DM isn't running a PC, they're running everything else. The world doesn't get a character sheet or class levels or background features or any of that junk. The World doesn't get any of that either. PC character sheets are designed the way they are because they need to be - because the characters grow in strength and capability with extreme rapidity over the course of an adventure, and also because their sheet tells them who they are and where they fit into the world. A DM's NPCs or monsters have no such onus. A DM limiting themself to the PC rules is denying themself a great deal of the flexibility that being the DM provides and shutting off a lot of the more interesting challenges they can offer to players in the doing. Every trick is fair game, both to make the game easier to run and to make it more engaging for the table.
DMing is a sucky time-intensive thankless job as it is, why not do whatever's in your power to make it better for you?
Please do not contact or message me.
There is one very good counter, ahem, for counterspell.
Villainous spellcasters - specifically liches - are going to prep scrolls, thus saving their own spell slots while potentially burning their opponents'.
Imagine the look on the players' faces when they realize they're out of 7th level or higher spell slots...when the lich hasn't used any yet.
Davyd,
I agree DM's have more to do then players and that is why prep time is very important as well as learning a few tricks to help you GM. For example a simple trick is to have a set of numbers to represent spell slots that you mark off after use, or a computer program to track things. So if you have 4 first level spells, 3 second level spells and 2 third level spells; you create a chart like this 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3 and you mark them off after use. If you use another system such as spell points or power points you keep track of them just as you would HP. To me if you are playing pen and paper you need some type of counters or dice to track all of the cooldowns for each creature and would be more work then simple prep work and crossing off numbers.
I agree GM's have a lot to track and I have found that it is often beneficial to have players GM 1 or more rooms so they know and remember all of the things a GM has to do. You can do this as a board game night or encounter test for house rules or in case someone cannot make it. Having a player create an encounter or have the GM create and encounter they can run with them is also a good way to pass along knowledge just what a GM does.
Crazy GM ideas:
I had a few people contact me with what they call crazy GM ideas over the years (often their term not mine) and one of them was a store bought module in which every encounter/room was run by a different player. After 1 encounter the book was passed to the next person in line and they had 10 min to prep for the encounter for the rest of the party. Note the group had been playing together for many years and they did some research on what modules this style worked with and which would be problematic. In general they said, it was a lot of fun and a nice change but not something they wanted to do every time.
I don't think we're on different pages, at all, but you seem very determined to make a DM use spell slots. I just don't understand why?
In general I agree that GM's have a lot to do and keep track of but that is part of being a GM and learning the game. And it is a good thing for the new GM to tell the group they are new and are learning just like they are. Unfortunately every person is not cut out to be a GM and every person who plays D&D 5e as a player will play more then one game. This is one area that I think the net and computer aided RPing is huge and can match players with GM's and hopefully bring some happiness to both.
I have found that loose rules cause problems with GM's and players that is not to say "wargame' ideology has never been seen by me being abused but often I have seen the lack of knowing the rules or highly storytelling GMing being a problem.
For example, I believe it was James Haddock (I may have the name wrong as I am going from memory) that wrote encounters and articles for D&DB about a skeleton shark that carried other skeletons in a cold ocean. In the adventure the shark jumps up onto a ship from the ocean and releases it cargo of skeletons. In general liked the inventiveness of the encounter but found the idea that the shark automatically jumped onto the ship problematic. I would bet a PC would have to use magic or make a skill roll to jump like the shark did automatically. To me this reminds me of why I and others I played with stopped buying AD&D adventures in the mid-80's and early 90's and moved to other game products. game systems and eventually modified what ever system we were using with rules from other systems that we found we needed and would fit.
In the case of an undead shark with a swim speed, even if a skill check was necessary I'd probably feel like it'd have to be easy enough for such a creature that rolling would be superfluous. Especially with checks like those it's not always a matter of just waiving them as DM prerogative: if the NPC/monster can't fail or is extremely unlikely to fail, the RAW suggest not bothering with a roll to begin with (same as for the PCs). And the opposite side of the coin here is that a skeletal shark really has no other ways of boarding a ship ("look ma, no hands" doesn't work for a shark, but PCs actually do have access to magic, climb checks, tossing a rope, etc) so if you do require a check there's a chance your shark never gets to make it into the fray, which would be a pretty disappointing outcome.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah, this is just an agree to disagree thing.
PC rules are meant for PCs. You are correct that if I had a PC make that jump, there are going to be rolls for it and there should be. I think that within reason, the DM has latitude to do whatever they want and it's been that way by design, since original. It sounds like you want a very mechanically intense game where both the PCs and the DM play by the same exact rules and roll for the same exact things. This just doesn't exist in 5th, and frankly hasn't existed in any form of D&D. From jump street monsters have been able to do things without question that the PCs can't and from a very broad perspective that has to be that way from a game design standpoint. From jump the DM has the latitude to make sure the game runs in their world, that the table makes sense, and then that the players are happy.
It's not just "highly storytelling" dms, its just storytelling. There is somewhat of a suspension of rules knowledge when it comes to the DM setting a table, again and as I have always said in this thread, within reason. In short, I don't know what DM hurt you, but it's ok for there to not have to be rolls for certain things to set the stage as long as it doesn't present a challenge to the PCs that will be inherently unfair OR that the players would get to act in.
Sauron in LoTR once he loses corporeal form and becomes the bbeg, his old stats are gone. His old ways are gone. He has to play by a new set of rules and a lot of it is done through these heavily veiled shrouds of secrecy. Sephiroth in FF7 is a player character and then isn't, and once he isn't his old stats are gone and uses spellcasting abilities instead of spell slots, and once he transforms isn't playing by nearly the same rules.
Dungeons and Dragons isn't seen as an antagonistic game, and the way it seems you're describing it wound lend to that very fast where every single thing would be opposed rolls. That once I design a big bad, every action of theirs was dictated by the same RNG that the players would experience, the same rules and rolls and that just doesn't work and if you look at most forms of traditional media, just isn't the case.