A spellbook isn't an arcane focus unless the monster stats specifically say so. And if not, then there's no reason the monster needs to hold its spellbook during combat -- the art probably shows it holding the book simply to indicate it's a Wizard. (I still haven't seen this monster or its art.) Anyway, you can certainly cast spells that don't require objects while you're holding a two handed weapon, and then use your two handed weapon. That's always been allowed. The only thing that might be messed up here is if the spell list has a bunch of combat spells that have material components and it doesn't use its weapon as an arcane focus.
The statblock actually doesn't give the creature any spellcasting at all, and it's the only one of the three "Scholars of Allsight" that doesn't. The excavator does have a "Telekinetic Toss" ability which is a slightly souped-up version of the telekinetic shove from the feat, though
To me, that's all the more reason to think the thunder damage is their magical "thing" and it's not coming from the weapon
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There is a difference between a monster's weapon and the attack action and the effects it does with it. While the weapon may be dropped upon death, it is not automatic that another creature picking it up will do the same with it.
You should be careful with this. It's an explanation that technically works, but feels really bad. Make sure you're describing how the monster is using its own powers rather than the weapon's.
Monster statblocks usually say when it has a Magic item. Otherwise its actions effects are the fruit of its own capabilities. DM can describe in great or little detail the effect of any attack actions. It could describe how thunder seems to erupt out of each of its blows or just say the hit does 12 thunder damage and that's it. It may not even be obvious where the thunder originate from. The DM doesn't have to be transparent about monsters though.
There is a difference between a monster's weapon and the attack action and the effects it does with it. While the weapon may be dropped upon death, it is not automatic that another creature picking it up will do the same with it.
You should be careful with this. It's an explanation that technically works, but feels really bad. Make sure you're describing how the monster is using its own powers rather than the weapon's.
Monster statblocks usually say when it has a Magic item. Otherwise its actions effects are the fruit of its own capabilities. DM can describe in great or little detail the effect of any attack actions. It could describe how thunder seems to erupt out of each of its blows or just say the hit does 12 thunder damage and that's it. It may not even be obvious where the thunder originate from. The DM doesn't have to be transparent about monsters though.
There is no description, no reason, no explanation. Just what I posted. And yes, the DM has to be transparent. Especially when most of the other players are also DM's. Not during the session, but afterwards it helps. Here I will just go: Meh CR, they get away with what we wouldn't. There is also no Magic Item in the index to explain this. No spell, nor is there an ability. Just poof, 1d12 Thunder damage.
A spellbook isn't an arcane focus unless the monster stats specifically say so. And if not, then there's no reason the monster needs to hold its spellbook during combat -- the art probably shows it holding the book simply to indicate it's a Wizard. (I still haven't seen this monster or its art.) Anyway, you can certainly cast spells that don't require objects while you're holding a two handed weapon, and then use your two handed weapon. That's always been allowed. The only thing that might be messed up here is if the spell list has a bunch of combat spells that have material components and it doesn't use its weapon as an arcane focus.
The statblock actually doesn't give the creature any spellcasting at all, and it's the only one of the three "Scholars of Allsight" that doesn't. The excavator does have a "Telekinetic Toss" ability which is a slightly souped-up version of the telekinetic shove from the feat, though
To me, that's all the more reason to think the thunder damage is their magical "thing" and it's not coming from the weapon
It also says it's a medium or small humanoid. So it's open to all races. If I have to go with your idea, it needs this in black and white on the statblock. Otherwise, it drops it, as that's the simplest and most logical explanation. Is it a summoned creature that takes it shit with it when killed, no. It's a humanoid, meaning everything from a Faery to Firbolg and all permutations in between. The statblock as written is not clear or finished.
A spellbook isn't an arcane focus unless the monster stats specifically say so. And if not, then there's no reason the monster needs to hold its spellbook during combat -- the art probably shows it holding the book simply to indicate it's a Wizard. (I still haven't seen this monster or its art.) Anyway, you can certainly cast spells that don't require objects while you're holding a two handed weapon, and then use your two handed weapon. That's always been allowed. The only thing that might be messed up here is if the spell list has a bunch of combat spells that have material components and it doesn't use its weapon as an arcane focus.
The statblock actually doesn't give the creature any spellcasting at all, and it's the only one of the three "Scholars of Allsight" that doesn't. The excavator does have a "Telekinetic Toss" ability which is a slightly souped-up version of the telekinetic shove from the feat, though
To me, that's all the more reason to think the thunder damage is their magical "thing" and it's not coming from the weapon
It also says it's a medium or small humanoid. So it's open to all races. If I have to go with your idea, it needs this in black and white on the statblock. Otherwise, it drops it, as that's the simplest and most logical explanation. Is it a summoned creature that takes it shit with it when killed, no. It's a humanoid, meaning everything from a Faery to Firbolg and all permutations in between. The statblock as written is not clear or finished.
At no point did I say it wouldn't drop its perfectly ordinary warhammer
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There is a difference between a monster's weapon and the attack action and the effects it does with it. While the weapon may be dropped upon death, it is not automatic that another creature picking it up will do the same with it.
You should be careful with this. It's an explanation that technically works, but feels really bad. Make sure you're describing how the monster is using its own powers rather than the weapon's.
Monster statblocks usually say when it has a Magic item. Otherwise its actions effects are the fruit of its own capabilities. DM can describe in great or little detail the effect of any attack actions. It could describe how thunder seems to erupt out of each of its blows or just say the hit does 12 thunder damage and that's it. It may not even be obvious where the thunder originate from. The DM doesn't have to be transparent about monsters though.
There is no description, no reason, no explanation. Just what I posted. And yes, the DM has to be transparent. Especially when most of the other players are also DM's. Not during the session, but afterwards it helps. Here I will just go: Meh CR, they get away with what we wouldn't. There is also no Magic Item in the index to explain this. No spell, nor is there an ability. Just poof, 1d12 Thunder damage.
I disagree the DM doesn't have to be transparent about monsters statblocks traps or anything behind the DM curtain to the players or their character, other than what they can perceive, It sure can if it want to but has no obligation here.
I disagree the DM doesn't have to be transparent about monsters statblocks traps or anything behind the DM curtain to the players or their character, other than what they can perceive, It sure can if it want to but has no obligation here.
Choir made a good point about DMs managing expectations for their players, and trying to avoid making them think they're getting magical rewards from an encounter when they won't
In this specific case though, that can be as simple as having the excavator mutter an incantation as they swing their off-the-rack, completely mundane warhammer and somehow doing thunder damage with it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There's a distinction between DM obligation and good practice. My opinion is that a DM should, whenever possible, be consistent.
If your description is like, "he raises his strange, thrumming hammer and releases an earsplitting crash," then you just described a special hammer. If you said, "he channels some strange thrumming energy from his body into his hammer before releasing an earsplitting crash," then you described a special power.
Because you've decided the hammer isn't special, you shouldn't describe the hammer as special.
I wouldn't call DMs that dont narrate to satisfy players expactations as bad practice. Not all Will do especially new ones The thing is players should not expect magic items from monsters abilities. They must keep in mind that effects may be due to monster powers and more rarely magic items Statblocks rarely mention monster's weapon having anything special, yet it produce a special effect. If a party find out after that its nonmagical, they can just deduce it was its power. To me blaming the DM's narration would be bad practice though.
do note that in the tier of 1 - 4, where you'd be more likely to fight this CR creature and encounter his weapon, here are the stats for how many times the damage change might come up:
1529 - CR 0 to 4 100 with conditional B/P/S resistance | plurality are CR 4, next goes CR 3, then CR2, then CR 1, six CR 1/2, two CR 1/4 45 with resistance to either/any combo of B/P/S 33 with conditional B/P/S immunity | plurality are CR 4, next goes CR 3, then CR2, then two CR 1's, one CR 1/2, one CR 0 9 with immunity to slashing (all ooze) 17 with vulnerability to either/any combo of B/P/S
32 with thunder resistance 1 with vulnerability
2847 total statblocks/monsters in the entire game (sans UA/Plane-Shift PDFs).
759 - CR 5 to 10 142 with resistance to conditional or all B/P/S 38 with immunity to conditional or all B/P/S 8 with vulnerability
17 with conditional/all thunder resistance 1 with thunder immunity 1 with vulnerability
296 - CR 11 to 16 102 with any form of B/P/S resistance 27 with any form of immunity 6 with vulnerability
9 with any form of thunder resistance 16 with immunity 2 with vulnerability
Overall, the damage type doesn't matter until much later levels anyway. I don't want to bother to look at 17+ CR because y'all should get the idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The statblock actually doesn't give the creature any spellcasting at all, and it's the only one of the three "Scholars of Allsight" that doesn't. The excavator does have a "Telekinetic Toss" ability which is a slightly souped-up version of the telekinetic shove from the feat, though
To me, that's all the more reason to think the thunder damage is their magical "thing" and it's not coming from the weapon
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Monster statblocks usually say when it has a Magic item. Otherwise its actions effects are the fruit of its own capabilities. DM can describe in great or little detail the effect of any attack actions. It could describe how thunder seems to erupt out of each of its blows or just say the hit does 12 thunder damage and that's it. It may not even be obvious where the thunder originate from. The DM doesn't have to be transparent about monsters though.
There is no description, no reason, no explanation. Just what I posted. And yes, the DM has to be transparent. Especially when most of the other players are also DM's. Not during the session, but afterwards it helps. Here I will just go: Meh CR, they get away with what we wouldn't. There is also no Magic Item in the index to explain this. No spell, nor is there an ability. Just poof, 1d12 Thunder damage.
It also says it's a medium or small humanoid. So it's open to all races. If I have to go with your idea, it needs this in black and white on the statblock. Otherwise, it drops it, as that's the simplest and most logical explanation. Is it a summoned creature that takes it shit with it when killed, no. It's a humanoid, meaning everything from a Faery to Firbolg and all permutations in between. The statblock as written is not clear or finished.
At no point did I say it wouldn't drop its perfectly ordinary warhammer
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I disagree the DM doesn't have to be transparent about monsters statblocks traps or anything behind the DM curtain to the players or their character, other than what they can perceive, It sure can if it want to but has no obligation here.
Choir made a good point about DMs managing expectations for their players, and trying to avoid making them think they're getting magical rewards from an encounter when they won't
In this specific case though, that can be as simple as having the excavator mutter an incantation as they swing their off-the-rack, completely mundane warhammer and somehow doing thunder damage with it
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There's a distinction between DM obligation and good practice. My opinion is that a DM should, whenever possible, be consistent.
If your description is like, "he raises his strange, thrumming hammer and releases an earsplitting crash," then you just described a special hammer. If you said, "he channels some strange thrumming energy from his body into his hammer before releasing an earsplitting crash," then you described a special power.
Because you've decided the hammer isn't special, you shouldn't describe the hammer as special.
I wouldn't call DMs that dont narrate to satisfy players expactations as bad practice. Not all Will do especially new ones The thing is players should not expect magic items from monsters abilities. They must keep in mind that effects may be due to monster powers and more rarely magic items Statblocks rarely mention monster's weapon having anything special, yet it produce a special effect. If a party find out after that its nonmagical, they can just deduce it was its power. To me blaming the DM's narration would be bad practice though.
do note that in the tier of 1 - 4, where you'd be more likely to fight this CR creature and encounter his weapon, here are the stats for how many times the damage change might come up:
1529 - CR 0 to 4
100 with conditional B/P/S resistance | plurality are CR 4, next goes CR 3, then CR2, then CR 1, six CR 1/2, two CR 1/4
45 with resistance to either/any combo of B/P/S
33 with conditional B/P/S immunity | plurality are CR 4, next goes CR 3, then CR2, then two CR 1's, one CR 1/2, one CR 0
9 with immunity to slashing (all ooze)
17 with vulnerability to either/any combo of B/P/S
32 with thunder resistance
1 with vulnerability
2847 total statblocks/monsters in the entire game (sans UA/Plane-Shift PDFs).
759 - CR 5 to 10
142 with resistance to conditional or all B/P/S
38 with immunity to conditional or all B/P/S
8 with vulnerability
17 with conditional/all thunder resistance
1 with thunder immunity
1 with vulnerability
296 - CR 11 to 16
102 with any form of B/P/S resistance
27 with any form of immunity
6 with vulnerability
9 with any form of thunder resistance
16 with immunity
2 with vulnerability
Overall, the damage type doesn't matter until much later levels anyway. I don't want to bother to look at 17+ CR because y'all should get the idea.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
