I know that monsters typically don't get bonus actions, its just usually included in their multiattack for simplicity. However, what happens when a monster/spellcaster has a spell that requires a bonus action? Take Grasping Vine, how would a monster make use of this spell? Or how would you house-rule it to make it fair?
Monsters get bonus actions if their statblock gives them one, just like PCs. A spellcasting monster with a bonus action spell can use their bonus action to cast it. It is separate from actions, including multi-attack. If a creature had a bonus action ability / spell and multiattack, they could use both in one turn.
And just like PCs, casting a spell with their bonus action should prevent a monster from casting any other (non-cantrip) spell on the same turn.
Although it's a monster, so as long as he is giving spells cast through bonus actions to his monster, he can choose OR NOR to have that rule apply to the monster. The DM is not constrained by any rule, the PCs have capabilities that the monsters have and the other way around it true as well.
Sure, but every time the DM does this the monster gets more powerful. Unless you want its CR to explode, you should at least start with the thing following the rules. Then you can scale it as you see fit, but you should be careful. Improving its action economy is pretty huge.
CR system for 5e is pretty bad at judging actual difficulty as well....what spells are available to a creature can dramatically affect difficulty as well.
If you have a creature that can cast Hold Person then do a BA attack spell to Auto-Crit then you have ramped the difficulty up a lot.
If the creature has Counterspell you have just completely taken a PCs action away for the turn. Even bigger dick move if you Counterspell a Healing Word...now they can't bring that PC back up and they can only cast a cantrip as an action AND they can't counterspell you back.
These create powerful situations but also can be seen as not very fun from a player perspective. Ensure you talk with the table about creatures playing by a different set of rules before you introduce it into the game.
And just like PCs, casting a spell with their bonus action should prevent a monster from casting any other (non-cantrip) spell on the same turn.
Although it's a monster, so as long as he is giving spells cast through bonus actions to his monster, he can choose OR NOR to have that rule apply to the monster. The DM is not constrained by any rule, the PCs have capabilities that the monsters have and the other way around it true as well.
Sure, but every time the DM does this the monster gets more powerful. Unless you want its CR to explode, you should at least start with the thing following the rules. Then you can scale it as you see fit, but you should be careful. Improving its action economy is pretty huge.
I don't agree. I should start by what makes the monster interesting as a challenge to the players. And I don't care if that includes changing the player rules. I have created CR 4 monsters with legendary actions because they make a nice challenge for low level parties, for example, it's much more a question of action economy. After that, I will adjust the power of the spells to make the CR reasonable, but I find much more interesting (and less dangerous in terms of balance) to have a monster that does lots of small attacks and cantrips than a monster that deals a ton of damage in just one attack.
Yup.
A good DM can and should take any stat bloc for a monster, then gauge the relative strength of said monster to the party. The most important factor in creating a challenging encounter, a least against a solo BBEG, is Action Economy.
Also, there is no reason that two monsters of the same type have to have the same abilities . An Iron Shadow a group faces at 6th level might be radically different in abilities than an Iron Shadow the group faced at 4th level.
Now, altering stat blocs is not trivial, and only comes with experience. I don't believe it is something new DM's should fool with much. That is how TPK's happen.
My general rule of thumb is for Team Monster to get roughly the same number of turns as the party (including companions and summoned creatures). Sometimes that means bonus action attacks, sometimes it means legendary actions, sometimes it means henchmen. You do these things to even out the action economy, not to break it.
And just like PCs, casting a spell with their bonus action should prevent a monster from casting any other (non-cantrip) spell on the same turn.
Although it's a monster, so as long as he is giving spells cast through bonus actions to his monster, he can choose OR NOR to have that rule apply to the monster. The DM is not constrained by any rule, the PCs have capabilities that the monsters have and the other way around it true as well.
Yes, I agree that this is an option, but it should be done with caution. The main complication here is that it risks confusing or annoying the players. The bonus action spell rules are pretty confusing at the best of times and the players will deserve an explanation of what's going on at least if a monster starts whipping spells out at a rate the players can't match.
I would personally avoid, particularly, changing this rule for any "normal" lower level humanoid monster. If the players wandered into a regular mage guild and fought two random low level wizards, it would be inexplicable if those guys could use Misty Step and Fireball in one turn. However, if they were lost in the Feywild and fought a ethereal faerie prince, then such powers might feel less shocking and unfair.
If a stat block has a list of spells that a monster can cast, then the default rules will apply to that set of spells until a special ruling/change is made.
Look, I agree with all the comments, it should be done with caution, with balancing in mind, etc.
Still, for me it's an extremely strong principle that makes games memorable at least for the players in our groups: Just as PCs are exceptional, so are their adversaries. And just as the PCs are defined by both their roleplay and their powers, so are their NPCs adversaries. Int erms of story, some adversaries of course stand out, but in terms of fights (yes, we spend much les time fighting than roleplaying at our tables, still this is high fantasy and there are often BBEg fights), having some extraordinary power that shocks the PCs also makes the fight fun and memorable. Recently, they really enjoyed my Glabrezu that had somehow merged with the chaotic nature of the Infinite Staircase to become a mythic monster with "staircase" features in his powers, which occurred more or less at random during the fights, because of the chaos unleashed.
Its not wrong to say the DM can break the rules regarding their homebrew to create a memorable experience, but it's also not exactly productive to tell new DMs that they can break them at a whim. One important part of "breaking the rules" in creative pursuits (of which I would include the game design inherent in DM'ing) is knowing the rules in the first place well enough, in this case to 1) know what will or won't create issues with balance, 2) be able to communicate to players that might question the deviation from the rules, and 3) keep it fun for both DM and players.
If someone is asking for understanding on a "D&D 101" basic question, they need a basic D&D 101 answer, not the 500 level course answer (forgive me if that metaphor doesn't translate).
Look, I agree with all the comments, it should be done with caution, with balancing in mind, etc.
Still, for me it's an extremely strong principle that makes games memorable at least for the players in our groups: Just as PCs are exceptional, so are their adversaries. And just as the PCs are defined by both their roleplay and their powers, so are their NPCs adversaries. Int erms of story, some adversaries of course stand out, but in terms of fights (yes, we spend much les time fighting than roleplaying at our tables, still this is high fantasy and there are often BBEg fights), having some extraordinary power that shocks the PCs also makes the fight fun and memorable. Recently, they really enjoyed my Glabrezu that had somehow merged with the chaotic nature of the Infinite Staircase to become a mythic monster with "staircase" features in his powers, which occurred more or less at random during the fights, because of the chaos unleashed.
Its not wrong to say the DM can break the rules regarding their homebrew to create a memorable experience, but it's also not exactly productive to tell new DMs that they can break them at a whim.
The problem is that you see this as "breaking the rules" whereas I see this exactly as applying the spirit of the rules (and without breaking any of them), which is about the DM doing exactly what he wants especially with monster traits, as long as it helps the game being fun.
One important part of "breaking the rules" in creative pursuits (of which I would include the game design inherent in DM'ing) is knowing the rules in the first place well enough, in this case to 1) know what will or won't create issues with balance, 2) be able to communicate to players that might question the deviation from the rules
Which they should not, ever, during the sessions.
and 3) keep it fun for both DM and players.
If someone is asking for understanding on a "D&D 101" basic question, they need a basic D&D 101 answer, not the 500 level course answer (forgive me if that metaphor doesn't translate).
I don't get the impression that these forums are D&D 101 only, for once, and second for me, as part of D&D 101 I think it's much more important for the DM to understand that the intent of the game captured in the rules totallyu supersedes the detailed RAW, and that he does not need to feel constrained by the "boardgame" version of the RAW.
MANY people feel that players having expectations on how the world works creates a more rich environment for them and that having the DM suddenly remove those expecations on the world is not really fun for them...some people like it.
Again its about setting expectations with players. Doing that you should be fine.
Even then as you mentioned its not something to do a lot...I would do mostly on epic fights with fewer creatures to edge out the action economy.
Yeah, I find that creating an interesting ability is much more creative than just letting a monster break the basic rules.
Lyxen, your examples aren’t aligned:
1) Letting all creatures break the bonus action spell rule at the DMs whim (the first time you posted), vs
2) I create monster effects that aren’t bound by rules (your other posts)
I agree with 2 wholeheartedly, but 1 is just disingenuous if it’s not properly discussed in session 0 that you might be just breaking basic rules on a whim to make the game interesting. Nothing inherently wrong about it, but a game usually has defined rules that good guys and bad guys align with, with the understanding that there may be unique situations in the game.
For example, for Option 1 consider these situations:
- a creature can’t quite reach the good guy with his 30ft movement so you just tell the PCs this creature uses its willpower to move 40ft this turn instead.
- you have two PCs grappled and hit a third with an auto grapple attack. Normally the creature can’t grapple without a spare hand but you decide it would be cool if this one did right now
- an enemy spell caster is getting wrecked so you decide part way through that you really want it’s Meteor Strike to work and decide that this spell is not counterable to make the battle more balanced.
Whereas option 2 would look like this:
- You’ve created a stat block for this creature that uses its reaction to move further in a turn than normal. Or can move further on a turn every so often.
- You create an extra large enemy that can grapple more than 1 creature per arm because of its strength.
- You create a spellcaster stat block that can cast one spell per day that is not counterable.
See how different these are, and how different they feel? I agree it’s the DMs job to create a fun and challenging game, but option 1 will often come off as “the DM wasn’t really prepared for us to be so good, so he broke the rules to make it interesting”. And that might not sit as well with people.
Look, I agree with all the comments, it should be done with caution, with balancing in mind, etc.
Still, for me it's an extremely strong principle that makes games memorable at least for the players in our groups: Just as PCs are exceptional, so are their adversaries. And just as the PCs are defined by both their roleplay and their powers, so are their NPCs adversaries. Int erms of story, some adversaries of course stand out, but in terms of fights (yes, we spend much les time fighting than roleplaying at our tables, still this is high fantasy and there are often BBEg fights), having some extraordinary power that shocks the PCs also makes the fight fun and memorable. Recently, they really enjoyed my Glabrezu that had somehow merged with the chaotic nature of the Infinite Staircase to become a mythic monster with "staircase" features in his powers, which occurred more or less at random during the fights, because of the chaos unleashed.
Its not wrong to say the DM can break the rules regarding their homebrew to create a memorable experience, but it's also not exactly productive to tell new DMs that they can break them at a whim.
The problem is that you see this as "breaking the rules" whereas I see this exactly as applying the spirit of the rules (and without breaking any of them), which is about the DM doing exactly what he wants especially with monster traits, as long as it helps the game being fun.
By definition, any use of a Bonus action contrary to the rules for Bonus actions is "breaking the rules." I'm not saying a DM can't do that (they can), but that is not the same as homebrewing new abilities that may not conform to existing rules. These are two different things, and the OPs post was not about homebrew (or at least not explicitly about homebrew) but about the mechanics of the Bonus action rules applied to monsters.
One important part of "breaking the rules" in creative pursuits (of which I would include the game design inherent in DM'ing) is knowing the rules in the first place well enough, in this case to 1) know what will or won't create issues with balance, 2) be able to communicate to players that might question the deviation from the rules
Which they should not, ever, during the sessions.
OK, how about after? It doesn't change how they will feel to delay the discussion. Again you are commenting to make a point sideways of my statement as if that rebuts it, but I never specified when players might question the rules. Whether they do it in session (which is less acceptable, generally) or out of session, players may still question a deviation (if only to make sure the deviation was intended) and the DM should have an understanding of the rules enough to know how to provide an answer, even if that answer is "that creature can just do that"
and 3) keep it fun for both DM and players.
If someone is asking for understanding on a "D&D 101" basic question, they need a basic D&D 101 answer, not the 500 level course answer (forgive me if that metaphor doesn't translate).
I don't get the impression that these forums are D&D 101 only, for once, and second for me, as part of D&D 101 I think it's much more important for the DM to understand that the intent of the game captured in the rules totallyu supersedes the detailed RAW, and that he does not need to feel constrained by the "boardgame" version of the RAW.
The forums are not "101 only" and I never said that, but it doesn't take but a modicum of awareness to understand that this particular thread was asking what basically amounts to a "101" question. Not every thread needs the 500 level answer, and a new DM absolutely should start by playing within the rules, even if they eventually branch out of them once they are comfortable with the game.
Yeah, I find that creating an interesting ability is much more creative than just letting a monster break the basic rules.
Lyxen, your examples aren’t aligned:
1) Letting all creatures break the bonus action spell rule at the DMs whim (the first time you posted), vs
I'm going to cut all the rest, because if you read what I wrote, it's actually completely different: "Although it's a monster, so as long as he is giving spells cast through bonus actions to his monster, he can choose OR NOR to have that rule apply to the monster. The DM is not constrained by any rule, the PCs have capabilities that the monsters have and the other way around it true as well."
See how different these are, and how different they feel? I agree it’s the DMs job to create a fun and challenging game, but option 1 will often come off as “the DM wasn’t really prepared for us to be so good, so he broke the rules to make it interesting”. And that might not sit as well with people.
And again this shows a view of the game which is not consistent with its intent. Players are not supposed to know about monsters limits and capabilities. If they are making that kind of comment, they are clearly metagaming. For me, that's a worse sin than a DM choosing which rules he applies and when, as he is clearly allowed to do this, by the rules themselves.
As for players claiming to be good because they went through an encounter designed for them to win, please...
"Designed for them to win"? You design encounters with the intent for the players to lose?
"DMs dont have to follow the rules" is at best problematic to state is 101 rules....that statement requires a lot of nuisance and is not 100% always in the best interest is what we are all saying.
Its not nearly as cut and dry as that and to state so, especially to a new player, should be called out as potentially problematic.
Yeah, I find that creating an interesting ability is much more creative than just letting a monster break the basic rules.
Lyxen, your examples aren’t aligned:
1) Letting all creatures break the bonus action spell rule at the DMs whim (the first time you posted), vs
I'm going to cut all the rest, because if you read what I wrote, it's actually completely different: "Although it's a monster, so as long as he is giving spells cast through bonus actions to his monster, he can choose OR NOR to have that rule apply to the monster. The DM is not constrained by any rule, the PCs have capabilities that the monsters have and the other way around it true as well."
See how different these are, and how different they feel? I agree it’s the DMs job to create a fun and challenging game, but option 1 will often come off as “the DM wasn’t really prepared for us to be so good, so he broke the rules to make it interesting”. And that might not sit as well with people.
And again this shows a view of the game which is not consistent with its intent. Players are not supposed to know about monsters limits and capabilities. If they are making that kind of comment, they are clearly metagaming. For me, that's a worse sin than a DM choosing which rules he applies and when, as he is clearly allowed to do this, by the rules themselves.
As for players claiming to be good because they went through an encounter designed for them to win, please...
"Designed for them to win"? You design encounters with the intent for the players to lose?
Ummm...yeah.
A good DM will create all kinds of encounters that the players can "lose" if they don't play intelligently. I had a group of 4th level chars face an Elder Oblex, which was going to give them key information, if they negotiated with it. (it wanted memories). Those that played intelligently, they did well. Others, well, "they chose poorly".
And for the "intent of losing", absolutely. Sometimes the axiom from War Games is true. Sometimes avoiding a fight/ encounter is "winning".
Yeah, I find that creating an interesting ability is much more creative than just letting a monster break the basic rules.
Lyxen, your examples aren’t aligned:
1) Letting all creatures break the bonus action spell rule at the DMs whim (the first time you posted), vs
I'm going to cut all the rest, because if you read what I wrote, it's actually completely different: "Although it's a monster, so as long as he is giving spells cast through bonus actions to his monster, he can choose OR NOR to have that rule apply to the monster. The DM is not constrained by any rule, the PCs have capabilities that the monsters have and the other way around it true as well."
See how different these are, and how different they feel? I agree it’s the DMs job to create a fun and challenging game, but option 1 will often come off as “the DM wasn’t really prepared for us to be so good, so he broke the rules to make it interesting”. And that might not sit as well with people.
And again this shows a view of the game which is not consistent with its intent. Players are not supposed to know about monsters limits and capabilities. If they are making that kind of comment, they are clearly metagaming. For me, that's a worse sin than a DM choosing which rules he applies and when, as he is clearly allowed to do this, by the rules themselves.
As for players claiming to be good because they went through an encounter designed for them to win, please...
But you’re making the exact same intention you did previously - maybe it’s a language issue? It literally sounds like you are proposing that the DM throws out rules for a monster on a whim mid combat.
Designing rules is more fun than just improving rules was my point.
And meta gaming is unavoidable. The reality is, we all have players to at have been DMs, there’s no “sin” in DND, just bad judgment and using information out of character. Both of which are easy to resolve through creative efforts by the DM.
Yeah, I find that creating an interesting ability is much more creative than just letting a monster break the basic rules.
Lyxen, your examples aren’t aligned:
1) Letting all creatures break the bonus action spell rule at the DMs whim (the first time you posted), vs
I'm going to cut all the rest, because if you read what I wrote, it's actually completely different: "Although it's a monster, so as long as he is giving spells cast through bonus actions to his monster, he can choose OR NOR to have that rule apply to the monster. The DM is not constrained by any rule, the PCs have capabilities that the monsters have and the other way around it true as well."
See how different these are, and how different they feel? I agree it’s the DMs job to create a fun and challenging game, but option 1 will often come off as “the DM wasn’t really prepared for us to be so good, so he broke the rules to make it interesting”. And that might not sit as well with people.
And again this shows a view of the game which is not consistent with its intent. Players are not supposed to know about monsters limits and capabilities. If they are making that kind of comment, they are clearly metagaming. For me, that's a worse sin than a DM choosing which rules he applies and when, as he is clearly allowed to do this, by the rules themselves.
As for players claiming to be good because they went through an encounter designed for them to win, please...
"Designed for them to win"? You design encounters with the intent for the players to lose?
Ummm...yeah.
A good DM will create all kinds of encounters that the players can "lose" if they don't play intelligently. I had a group of 4th level chars face an Elder Oblex, which was going to give them key information, if they negotiated with it. (it wanted memories). Those that played intelligently, they did well. Others, well, "they chose poorly".
And for the "intent of losing", absolutely. Sometimes the axiom from War Games is true. Sometimes avoiding a fight/ encounter is "winning".
What is with the miscommunication here? You design encounters that players CAN lose, yes. But he asked if you design encounters designed to make the characters lose? No.
And winning and losing is not defined by just defeating an enemy, nobody claimed that.
Yeah, I find that creating an interesting ability is much more creative than just letting a monster break the basic rules.
Lyxen, your examples aren’t aligned:
1) Letting all creatures break the bonus action spell rule at the DMs whim (the first time you posted), vs
I'm going to cut all the rest, because if you read what I wrote, it's actually completely different: "Although it's a monster, so as long as he is giving spells cast through bonus actions to his monster, he can choose OR NOR to have that rule apply to the monster. The DM is not constrained by any rule, the PCs have capabilities that the monsters have and the other way around it true as well."
See how different these are, and how different they feel? I agree it’s the DMs job to create a fun and challenging game, but option 1 will often come off as “the DM wasn’t really prepared for us to be so good, so he broke the rules to make it interesting”. And that might not sit as well with people.
And again this shows a view of the game which is not consistent with its intent. Players are not supposed to know about monsters limits and capabilities. If they are making that kind of comment, they are clearly metagaming. For me, that's a worse sin than a DM choosing which rules he applies and when, as he is clearly allowed to do this, by the rules themselves.
As for players claiming to be good because they went through an encounter designed for them to win, please...
"Designed for them to win"? You design encounters with the intent for the players to lose?
Ummm...yeah.
A good DM will create all kinds of encounters that the players can "lose" if they don't play intelligently. I had a group of 4th level chars face an Elder Oblex, which was going to give them key information, if they negotiated with it. (it wanted memories). Those that played intelligently, they did well. Others, well, "they chose poorly".
And for the "intent of losing", absolutely. Sometimes the axiom from War Games is true. Sometimes avoiding a fight/ encounter is "winning".
There is a massive difference between creating situations that overtly challenging and ones that they will "lose" no matter what they do. Thats why I ask because it seems that you are putting them into a situation that is unwinnable and trying to justify that as normal? I do not see it that way at all.
"DMs dont have to follow the rules" is at best problematic to state is 101 rules....that statement requires a lot of nuisance and is not 100% always in the best interest is what we are all saying.
Its not nearly as cut and dry as that and to state so, especially to a new player, should be called out as potentially problematic.
You are absolutely free to play the game your way, but again the sacrosanct RAW say, amongst the first sentences so as to make sure that they are read by everyone: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game." and "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play".
For me, that's more 101 than almost everything else in the game, wouldn't you say ?
I would say the more “101” than this is:
”
The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them, and help steer the campaign through their characters’ actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you’ve created, and to let their characters do awesome things.
Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players’ preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.”
I don’t think anyone is saying the other side is doing it wrong, just making it clear that our tables are all different and that as long as the PCs are having fun, it’s all good 🙂
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey all!
I know that monsters typically don't get bonus actions, its just usually included in their multiattack for simplicity. However, what happens when a monster/spellcaster has a spell that requires a bonus action? Take Grasping Vine, how would a monster make use of this spell? Or how would you house-rule it to make it fair?
Monsters get bonus actions if their statblock gives them one, just like PCs. A spellcasting monster with a bonus action spell can use their bonus action to cast it. It is separate from actions, including multi-attack. If a creature had a bonus action ability / spell and multiattack, they could use both in one turn.
What icon said. Multiattack is an action. NPCs/monsters that have bonus actions, use them as normal.
And just like PCs, casting a spell with their bonus action should prevent a monster from casting any other (non-cantrip) spell on the same turn.
Sure, but every time the DM does this the monster gets more powerful. Unless you want its CR to explode, you should at least start with the thing following the rules. Then you can scale it as you see fit, but you should be careful. Improving its action economy is pretty huge.
CR system for 5e is pretty bad at judging actual difficulty as well....what spells are available to a creature can dramatically affect difficulty as well.
If you have a creature that can cast Hold Person then do a BA attack spell to Auto-Crit then you have ramped the difficulty up a lot.
If the creature has Counterspell you have just completely taken a PCs action away for the turn. Even bigger dick move if you Counterspell a Healing Word...now they can't bring that PC back up and they can only cast a cantrip as an action AND they can't counterspell you back.
These create powerful situations but also can be seen as not very fun from a player perspective. Ensure you talk with the table about creatures playing by a different set of rules before you introduce it into the game.
Yup.
A good DM can and should take any stat bloc for a monster, then gauge the relative strength of said monster to the party. The most important factor in creating a challenging encounter, a least against a solo BBEG, is Action Economy.
Also, there is no reason that two monsters of the same type have to have the same abilities . An Iron Shadow a group faces at 6th level might be radically different in abilities than an Iron Shadow the group faced at 4th level.
Now, altering stat blocs is not trivial, and only comes with experience. I don't believe it is something new DM's should fool with much. That is how TPK's happen.
My general rule of thumb is for Team Monster to get roughly the same number of turns as the party (including companions and summoned creatures). Sometimes that means bonus action attacks, sometimes it means legendary actions, sometimes it means henchmen. You do these things to even out the action economy, not to break it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Yes, I agree that this is an option, but it should be done with caution. The main complication here is that it risks confusing or annoying the players. The bonus action spell rules are pretty confusing at the best of times and the players will deserve an explanation of what's going on at least if a monster starts whipping spells out at a rate the players can't match.
I would personally avoid, particularly, changing this rule for any "normal" lower level humanoid monster. If the players wandered into a regular mage guild and fought two random low level wizards, it would be inexplicable if those guys could use Misty Step and Fireball in one turn. However, if they were lost in the Feywild and fought a ethereal faerie prince, then such powers might feel less shocking and unfair.
If a stat block has a list of spells that a monster can cast, then the default rules will apply to that set of spells until a special ruling/change is made.
Its not wrong to say the DM can break the rules regarding their homebrew to create a memorable experience, but it's also not exactly productive to tell new DMs that they can break them at a whim. One important part of "breaking the rules" in creative pursuits (of which I would include the game design inherent in DM'ing) is knowing the rules in the first place well enough, in this case to 1) know what will or won't create issues with balance, 2) be able to communicate to players that might question the deviation from the rules, and 3) keep it fun for both DM and players.
If someone is asking for understanding on a "D&D 101" basic question, they need a basic D&D 101 answer, not the 500 level course answer (forgive me if that metaphor doesn't translate).
MANY people feel that players having expectations on how the world works creates a more rich environment for them and that having the DM suddenly remove those expecations on the world is not really fun for them...some people like it.
Again its about setting expectations with players. Doing that you should be fine.
Even then as you mentioned its not something to do a lot...I would do mostly on epic fights with fewer creatures to edge out the action economy.
Yeah, I find that creating an interesting ability is much more creative than just letting a monster break the basic rules.
Lyxen, your examples aren’t aligned:
1) Letting all creatures break the bonus action spell rule at the DMs whim (the first time you posted), vs
2) I create monster effects that aren’t bound by rules (your other posts)
I agree with 2 wholeheartedly, but 1 is just disingenuous if it’s not properly discussed in session 0 that you might be just breaking basic rules on a whim to make the game interesting. Nothing inherently wrong about it, but a game usually has defined rules that good guys and bad guys align with, with the understanding that there may be unique situations in the game.
For example, for Option 1 consider these situations:
- a creature can’t quite reach the good guy with his 30ft movement so you just tell the PCs this creature uses its willpower to move 40ft this turn instead.
- you have two PCs grappled and hit a third with an auto grapple attack. Normally the creature can’t grapple without a spare hand but you decide it would be cool if this one did right now
- an enemy spell caster is getting wrecked so you decide part way through that you really want it’s Meteor Strike to work and decide that this spell is not counterable to make the battle more balanced.
Whereas option 2 would look like this:
- You’ve created a stat block for this creature that uses its reaction to move further in a turn than normal. Or can move further on a turn every so often.
- You create an extra large enemy that can grapple more than 1 creature per arm because of its strength.
- You create a spellcaster stat block that can cast one spell per day that is not counterable.
See how different these are, and how different they feel? I agree it’s the DMs job to create a fun and challenging game, but option 1 will often come off as “the DM wasn’t really prepared for us to be so good, so he broke the rules to make it interesting”. And that might not sit as well with people.
By definition, any use of a Bonus action contrary to the rules for Bonus actions is "breaking the rules." I'm not saying a DM can't do that (they can), but that is not the same as homebrewing new abilities that may not conform to existing rules. These are two different things, and the OPs post was not about homebrew (or at least not explicitly about homebrew) but about the mechanics of the Bonus action rules applied to monsters.
OK, how about after? It doesn't change how they will feel to delay the discussion. Again you are commenting to make a point sideways of my statement as if that rebuts it, but I never specified when players might question the rules. Whether they do it in session (which is less acceptable, generally) or out of session, players may still question a deviation (if only to make sure the deviation was intended) and the DM should have an understanding of the rules enough to know how to provide an answer, even if that answer is "that creature can just do that"
The forums are not "101 only" and I never said that, but it doesn't take but a modicum of awareness to understand that this particular thread was asking what basically amounts to a "101" question. Not every thread needs the 500 level answer, and a new DM absolutely should start by playing within the rules, even if they eventually branch out of them once they are comfortable with the game.
"Designed for them to win"? You design encounters with the intent for the players to lose?
"DMs dont have to follow the rules" is at best problematic to state is 101 rules....that statement requires a lot of nuisance and is not 100% always in the best interest is what we are all saying.
Its not nearly as cut and dry as that and to state so, especially to a new player, should be called out as potentially problematic.
Ummm...yeah.
A good DM will create all kinds of encounters that the players can "lose" if they don't play intelligently. I had a group of 4th level chars face an Elder Oblex, which was going to give them key information, if they negotiated with it. (it wanted memories). Those that played intelligently, they did well. Others, well, "they chose poorly".
And for the "intent of losing", absolutely. Sometimes the axiom from War Games is true. Sometimes avoiding a fight/ encounter is "winning".
But you’re making the exact same intention you did previously - maybe it’s a language issue? It literally sounds like you are proposing that the DM throws out rules for a monster on a whim mid combat.
Designing rules is more fun than just improving rules was my point.
And meta gaming is unavoidable. The reality is, we all have players to at have been DMs, there’s no “sin” in DND, just bad judgment and using information out of character. Both of which are easy to resolve through creative efforts by the DM.
Its not meant to be adversarial.
What is with the miscommunication here? You design encounters that players CAN lose, yes. But he asked if you design encounters designed to make the characters lose? No.
And winning and losing is not defined by just defeating an enemy, nobody claimed that.
There is a massive difference between creating situations that overtly challenging and ones that they will "lose" no matter what they do. Thats why I ask because it seems that you are putting them into a situation that is unwinnable and trying to justify that as normal? I do not see it that way at all.
I would say the more “101” than this is:
”
The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them, and help steer the campaign through their characters’ actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you’ve created, and to let their characters do awesome things.
Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players’ preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.”
I don’t think anyone is saying the other side is doing it wrong, just making it clear that our tables are all different and that as long as the PCs are having fun, it’s all good 🙂