Am i the only one who is annoyed at the idea of some spell features being unattainable for players despite having 0 differences between the two?
For example: even a rookie npc wizard has the abillity to cast arcane blast that is either 5 feet or 120 feet and does 1d10 damage at the very least!
Yet a wizard player. Even at level 20 cant get something similar. If they made these abillities based on spells like "fire bolt" than sure. I wouldnt bat an eye. But its the case of a repeated feature that is breaking my immersion and make me ask questions i cant answer.
You are not the only one, though I suspect you’ll have to go to other websites to find lots of people who agree with you. In my experience DDB Forum-goers are largely supportive of the post-Tasha’s changes to monsters.
I also hate it. It's not just pseudo-spells, either. There are also weapons that inexplicably deal force damage instead of their normal types of damage. But of course, only when the monster uses them.
Are the goblins allowed to complain when the PC party breaks out thirty-seven wildly divergent class abilities no NPC in the history of D&D has ever had access to in order to create a Rube Goldberg industrial accident machine that turns goblin flesh into Soylent Green?
NPC critters with Arcane Blast study magic a different way than PC wizards do. They belong to a different tradition, learned different methods, put their emphasis on something else, whatever you want to use to justify why the PC can just materialize two new spells out of thin air into their spellbook every week or two and copy any spells they find in less than a day like magical Taskmaster - both of which are things NPC spellcasters have never in the history of D&D been able to do.
The purpose of the new stat blocks is to make monsters/enemies/NPCs actually dangerous to PC parties. PC-style spellcasting does not allow magical enemies to be threats to a party, not when magical enemies don't get to pull all the insane tombuggery PCs keep trying to squeeze past the DM. If you really hate not being able to melee someone with Fire Bolt? Ask your DM if you can put some work into studying Arcane Burst and eventually produce a homebrew cantrip with broadly similar effects. Make it part of your game, instead of just complaining that the NPCs get toys you don't.
They need those toys, because they can't accomplish dick-all with PC toys.
IMO this is a good thing. As a GM I don't want to have to go through a character sheet of detail for an NPC who is going to die in 3 rounds. All I need is 30 seconds of "yup, couple of spells, arcane blast, got it."
I mean, a player gets so many more cantrips and spells then an npc ever does...giving them an arcane burst that deals 1d10 in melee and ranged vs a lvl 5 wizards 2d10 firebolt, or 2d8 shocking grasp isnt a bad thing, it gives them more of a chance to survive
but...fyi, you can do fire bolt in melee without dis, with the right builds, why couldnt the npc do the same?
A rookie apprentice wizard is a 3HD monster but can only cast 3 level 1 spells per day. Would you trade the ability to cast second level spells for the ability to cast arcane burst?
I do agree in one way, though: cantrips should probably add your spellcasting ability score to their damage by default, rather than requiring an eldritch invocation or higher level class features.
... I do agree in one way, though: cantrips should probably add your spellcasting ability score to their damage by default, rather than requiring an eldritch invocation or higher level class features.
Not adding modifier damage is just about the only thing keeping cantrips from being inarguably the best form of at-will damage in the game. Ranged cantrips may not have a 'Long Range' bracket, but 'Long Range' shots are generally a last-ditch effort or a meme anyways. Almost all typical D&D combat takes place well within the effective combat range of cantrips, which have zero ammo concerns, damage die equivalent or better to all but the most massive, bulky, cumbersome, and generally poor-performing ranged weapons in D&D, often come with highly beneficial secondary effects, and usually have better damage types than weapons.
Agonizing Doink is already the gold standard for at-will damage. Turning every single cantrip in the game into Agonizing Doink means there's not really any reason for anybody to ever bother with weapons again outside of flavor or memes. Why wade into the thick of battle and risk your own skin behind nothing but your family's ancestral longsword, only to watch it bounce off the three billion enemies in D&D with resistance/immunity to mundane weapon damage while the level one wizard behind you effortlessly bypasses those resistances/immunities with the most basic possible infinite-ammo magic?
That's fine, though. Nothing is actually stopping spellcasters from using weapons - even wizards and sorcerers can wield a d8 weapon by double-fisting their quarterstaves, and every other caster gets at least one martial weapon or "All simple weapons" if I recall correctly. No, they don't get a second bonk and most spellcasters deprioritize the physical stats needed to Weapon, but many casters also get access to Blade cantrips that can scale up to second-attack level damage. And unlike martials, where weapon attacks are pretty much the sum totality of their contribution to combat, spellcasters can spend their turns rewriting the fabric of reality in their team's favor instead.
I think cantrips are a huge improvement over no-cantrips. Spellcasters should always be able to use magic, nobody plays a spellcaster to 'run out' of spellcasting and be restricted to swiping with a dagger. But it's also fine for martials to have superior at-will damage to the average spellcaster, given that at-will damage is straight up the only thing a majority of martials can contribute to combat, ne?
I think cantrips are a huge improvement over no-cantrips. Spellcasters should always be able to use magic, nobody plays a spellcaster to 'run out' of spellcasting and be restricted to swiping with a dagger. But it's also fine for martials to have superior at-will damage to the average spellcaster, given that at-will damage is straight up the only thing a majority of martials can contribute to combat, ne?
While it's flattened a bit, 5e still suffers somewhat from the 'linear fighter, quadratic wizard' from 1e: spellcasters are pretty weak in tier 1, roughly balanced in tier 2, and start taking over in tier 3. Boosting cantrips only matters in tier 1; they probably should have their die type reduced by a step (as for high level balance... tempted to do things like changing indomitable from "reroll a failed save" to "succeed at a failed save" or "add 10 to a failed save").
I think cantrips are a huge improvement over no-cantrips. Spellcasters should always be able to use magic, nobody plays a spellcaster to 'run out' of spellcasting and be restricted to swiping with a dagger. But it's also fine for martials to have superior at-will damage to the average spellcaster, given that at-will damage is straight up the only thing a majority of martials can contribute to combat, ne?
While it's flattened a bit, 5e still suffers somewhat from the 'linear fighter, quadratic wizard' from 1e: spellcasters are pretty weak in tier 1, roughly balanced in tier 2, and start taking over in tier 3. Boosting cantrips only matters in tier 1; they probably should have their die type reduced by a step (as for high level balance... tempted to do things like changing indomitable from "reroll a failed save" to "succeed at a failed save" or "add 10 to a failed save").
Or treat Indomitable like Reliable Talent and treat all rolls of 1-9 as a 10.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Am i the only one who is annoyed at the idea of some spell features being unattainable for players despite having 0 differences between the two?
For example: even a rookie npc wizard has the abillity to cast arcane blast that is either 5 feet or 120 feet and does 1d10 damage at the very least!
Yet a wizard player. Even at level 20 cant get something similar. If they made these abillities based on spells like "fire bolt" than sure. I wouldnt bat an eye. But its the case of a repeated feature that is breaking my immersion and make me ask questions i cant answer.
Am i the only one frustrated by this?
You are not the only one, though I suspect you’ll have to go to other websites to find lots of people who agree with you. In my experience DDB Forum-goers are largely supportive of the post-Tasha’s changes to monsters.
I also hate it. It's not just pseudo-spells, either. There are also weapons that inexplicably deal force damage instead of their normal types of damage. But of course, only when the monster uses them.
Are the goblins allowed to complain when the PC party breaks out thirty-seven wildly divergent class abilities no NPC in the history of D&D has ever had access to in order to create a Rube Goldberg industrial accident machine that turns goblin flesh into Soylent Green?
NPC critters with Arcane Blast study magic a different way than PC wizards do. They belong to a different tradition, learned different methods, put their emphasis on something else, whatever you want to use to justify why the PC can just materialize two new spells out of thin air into their spellbook every week or two and copy any spells they find in less than a day like magical Taskmaster - both of which are things NPC spellcasters have never in the history of D&D been able to do.
The purpose of the new stat blocks is to make monsters/enemies/NPCs actually dangerous to PC parties. PC-style spellcasting does not allow magical enemies to be threats to a party, not when magical enemies don't get to pull all the insane tombuggery PCs keep trying to squeeze past the DM. If you really hate not being able to melee someone with Fire Bolt? Ask your DM if you can put some work into studying Arcane Burst and eventually produce a homebrew cantrip with broadly similar effects. Make it part of your game, instead of just complaining that the NPCs get toys you don't.
They need those toys, because they can't accomplish dick-all with PC toys.
Please do not contact or message me.
It is because NPCs don't use PC rules.
IMO this is a good thing. As a GM I don't want to have to go through a character sheet of detail for an NPC who is going to die in 3 rounds. All I need is 30 seconds of "yup, couple of spells, arcane blast, got it."
If NPCs and Monsters couldn’t do stuff that PCs can’t do it would make the game less interesting.
I mean, a player gets so many more cantrips and spells then an npc ever does...giving them an arcane burst that deals 1d10 in melee and ranged vs a lvl 5 wizards 2d10 firebolt, or 2d8 shocking grasp isnt a bad thing, it gives them more of a chance to survive
but...fyi, you can do fire bolt in melee without dis, with the right builds, why couldnt the npc do the same?
A rookie apprentice wizard is a 3HD monster but can only cast 3 level 1 spells per day. Would you trade the ability to cast second level spells for the ability to cast arcane burst?
I do agree in one way, though: cantrips should probably add your spellcasting ability score to their damage by default, rather than requiring an eldritch invocation or higher level class features.
Not adding modifier damage is just about the only thing keeping cantrips from being inarguably the best form of at-will damage in the game. Ranged cantrips may not have a 'Long Range' bracket, but 'Long Range' shots are generally a last-ditch effort or a meme anyways. Almost all typical D&D combat takes place well within the effective combat range of cantrips, which have zero ammo concerns, damage die equivalent or better to all but the most massive, bulky, cumbersome, and generally poor-performing ranged weapons in D&D, often come with highly beneficial secondary effects, and usually have better damage types than weapons.
Agonizing Doink is already the gold standard for at-will damage. Turning every single cantrip in the game into Agonizing Doink means there's not really any reason for anybody to ever bother with weapons again outside of flavor or memes. Why wade into the thick of battle and risk your own skin behind nothing but your family's ancestral longsword, only to watch it bounce off the three billion enemies in D&D with resistance/immunity to mundane weapon damage while the level one wizard behind you effortlessly bypasses those resistances/immunities with the most basic possible infinite-ammo magic?
Please do not contact or message me.
Currently, with the exception of eldritch blast with agonizing blast, they're the worst at-will damage and it's not even close.
That's fine, though. Nothing is actually stopping spellcasters from using weapons - even wizards and sorcerers can wield a d8 weapon by double-fisting their quarterstaves, and every other caster gets at least one martial weapon or "All simple weapons" if I recall correctly. No, they don't get a second bonk and most spellcasters deprioritize the physical stats needed to Weapon, but many casters also get access to Blade cantrips that can scale up to second-attack level damage. And unlike martials, where weapon attacks are pretty much the sum totality of their contribution to combat, spellcasters can spend their turns rewriting the fabric of reality in their team's favor instead.
I think cantrips are a huge improvement over no-cantrips. Spellcasters should always be able to use magic, nobody plays a spellcaster to 'run out' of spellcasting and be restricted to swiping with a dagger. But it's also fine for martials to have superior at-will damage to the average spellcaster, given that at-will damage is straight up the only thing a majority of martials can contribute to combat, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
While it's flattened a bit, 5e still suffers somewhat from the 'linear fighter, quadratic wizard' from 1e: spellcasters are pretty weak in tier 1, roughly balanced in tier 2, and start taking over in tier 3. Boosting cantrips only matters in tier 1; they probably should have their die type reduced by a step (as for high level balance... tempted to do things like changing indomitable from "reroll a failed save" to "succeed at a failed save" or "add 10 to a failed save").
Or treat Indomitable like Reliable Talent and treat all rolls of 1-9 as a 10.