The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Not trying to police anything but I think you are fighting the current of the game. You can do if you want but I believe it is going to cause you more issues than it will solve. I am not stopping you from doing. There is no practical way that I can. I do think there are games more suited to than 5e to that approach.
In terms of gameplay, the apprentice wizard is a character (in terms of something you perform as, not in terms of being a PC). The statblock is a tool that you can use to help portray that character. Maybe that character only needs to exist for 3-5 rounds of combat, but it's a character, just like a town guard or the surly old guy at the inn or the PC's sister. It's something you can imagine your PC wizard once was, and you can imagine that the apprentice wizard wishes to become a more powerful wizard.
The arcane burst breaks the fourth wall, hurts suspension of disbelief, and punishes player engagement with the world. It's artificial and kludgy. It's a wrestler looking at the audience and saying "Don't worry, we're not REALLY going to hurt each other, folks!" It's bad, and it doesn't have to be bad.
How bad this breaks kayfabe is up to the NPC's role in the world.
If the green recruit statblock includes a "martial strike" ability that works as a melee or ranged attack that deals 2d8+7 damage and can be used three times, yes, that would be a sign that the rules are made up and the points don't matter. Every new recruit knows how to do this and they suddenly lose the ability at some point. Feel free to disengage folks, we don't take our world seriously, either.
If the elite mercenary statblock has the same thing...it's less severe. Still a little weird (melee or ranged attack? So like some throwing weapon?), but less egregious.
If the horrible multi-armed monster statblock has the same thing, maybe it's even "Yeah, sure, okay," and we all go on with our day.
“I see” the PC wizard nods sagely as the apprentice showcases the attack.
“Arcane burst…a powerful combat magic. It takes a long time to harness such magic…long time indeed. It…shows why your lacking in so many other basic areas of magic study”
The apprentice blushes in embarrassment at the small rebuke.
“Sit down for a bit let’s have a chat. I’m curious to hear what drives a man to focus on such combat magic at the exclusion of all else”
The game has always had powers that the players can't get. A dragonborn doesn't breathe the same fire a red dragon does. PCs don't get lair actions.
Why is this spell different?
I think I understand what I'm a Banana is saying. And I think your question "why is this spell different?" is the perfect question to ask. Here's my take using two examples...
Our 3rd level party reaches the wizard school where we find there is an uprising led by Sinister Mage who've taken over the north wing. The wizard PC knows about this school, as their mentor was a graduate. Before venturing into the north wing they're warned that Sinister Mage has lured several apprentices to his cause, and they may be masquerading as allies of the good wizards using disguise self.
.....Soon enough the PCs get into a fight with some apprentice wizards. After a couple exchanges, the wizard PC inquires "Can I identify the spell they're using when they were shooting at me then used it in melee against the fighter?" The GM can concoct whatever answer they want, including that it's not a spell, but in the heat of the moment the GM says "It appears to be a spell unique to this wizard school."
.....After the fight, the party searches a ransacked library for details on the ritual that Sinister Mage is plotting. Naturally, wizard PC asks, "There are spellbooks, right? I want to look up that spell unique to this wizard school." Now, through no fault of their own and otherwise running a great adventure, the GM is in a spot. "You don't find the spell,"is the easiest answer but also a let down, and what if the wizard PC drops divination spells trying to find a copy of this spell?
Turning it on its head, let's use another example where the 7th level PCs are searching for a missing archmage Pontiferous and manage to rescue one of his low-ranking half-elven apprentices Shenisal. Realizing their objectives align, the party recruits Shenisal to join them on the quest, so the GM grabs the apprentice wizard stats to represent Shenisal. While descending a shaft, the party is swarmed by hundreds of stirges drawn to their magical light sources. Shenisal uses arcane blast to shoot a few at range, but soon the party is in close quarters with stirges, and Shenisal uses the arcane blast to knock one out of their hair.
.....After the trap, the wizard PC inquires, "What spell did you use Shenisal? That packed a wallop! I'd be interested in learning it if you'd be willing to trade?" The GM could answer "eldritch blast", but is concerned that (a) this might make false implications in the players' minds about the apprentice wizard having a pact with an extraplanar entity (which is not the case), and (b) that the astute wizard PC may have noticed that Shenisal's arcane blast worked equally well at range and at melee, unlike eldritch blast. Concerned with the implications of (a), the GM instead opts for, "Oh, it was a spell Pontiferous researched and taught me! I don't have enough tutelage to be able to teach it to you though. I'm only an apprentice still."
.....At the end of the adventure, the PCs liberate Pontiferous from temporal stasis! As a reward, the wizard PC asks, "Pontiferous, could you teach me the spell you taught to Shenisal?" Now, despite playing the apprentice interestingly and using their combat powers effectively, and doing their best to defer the wizard player's questions, the GM is in a spot.
I think I understand what I'm a Banana is saying. And I think your question "why is this spell different?" is the perfect question to ask. Here's my take using two examples...
Our 3rd level party reaches the wizard school where we find there is an uprising led by Sinister Mage who've taken over the north wing. The wizard PC knows about this school, as their mentor was a graduate. Before venturing into the north wing they're warned that Sinister Mage has lured several apprentices to his cause, and they may be masquerading as allies of the good wizards using disguise self.
.....Soon enough the PCs get into a fight with some apprentice wizards. After a couple exchanges, the wizard PC inquires "Can I identify the spell they're using when they were shooting at me then used it in melee against the fighter?" The GM can concoct whatever answer they want, including that it's not a spell, but in the heat of the moment the GM says "It appears to be a spell unique to this wizard school."
.....After the fight, the party searches a ransacked library for details on the ritual that Sinister Mage is plotting. Naturally, wizard PC asks, "There are spellbooks, right? I want to look up that spell unique to this wizard school." Now, through no fault of their own and otherwise running a great adventure, the GM is in a spot. "You don't find the spell,"is the easiest answer but also a let down, and what if the wizard PC drops divination spells trying to find a copy of this spell?
Turning it on its head, let's use another example where the 7th level PCs are searching for a missing archmage Pontiferous and manage to rescue one of his low-ranking half-elven apprentices Shenisal. Realizing their objectives align, the party recruits Shenisal to join them on the quest, so the GM grabs the apprentice wizard stats to represent Shenisal. While descending a shaft, the party is swarmed by hundreds of stirges drawn to their magical light sources. Shenisal uses arcane blast to shoot a few at range, but soon the party is in close quarters with stirges, and Shenisal uses the arcane blast to knock one out of their hair.
.....After the trap, the wizard PC inquires, "What spell did you use Shenisal? That packed a wallop! I'd be interested in learning it if you'd be willing to trade?" The GM could answer "eldritch blast", but is concerned that (a) this might make false implications in the players' minds about the apprentice wizard having a pact with an extraplanar entity (which is not the case), and (b) that the astute wizard PC may have noticed that Shenisal's arcane blast worked equally well at range and at melee, unlike eldritch blast. Concerned with the implications of (a), the GM instead opts for, "Oh, it was a spell Pontiferous researched and taught me! I don't have enough tutelage to be able to teach it to you though. I'm only an apprentice still."
.....At the end of the adventure, the PCs liberate Pontiferous from temporal stasis! As a reward, the wizard PC asks, "Pontiferous, could you teach me the spell you taught to Shenisal?" Now, despite playing the apprentice interestingly and using their combat powers effectively, and doing their best to defer the wizard player's questions, the GM is in a spot.
Except that doesn't explain why this spell is different form the Ogre's Greatclub, which isn't the same as a great club in the equipment list, doesn't follow the PC rules for enlargement and isn't meant for PC use at all.
If a PC picks up that Greatclub why would it not act like the thing with the exact same name in the PHB?
Except that doesn't explain why this spell is different form the Ogre's Greatclub, which isn't the same as a great club in the equipment list, doesn't follow the PC rules for enlargement and isn't meant for PC use at all.
If a PC picks up that Greatclub why would it not act like the thing with the exact same name in the PHB?
Sure, I gotcha. As you know, the DMG p.277 rules cover the PC fighter wielding the ogre's Greatclub (2d8), basically the fighter suffers disadvantage to attack with it.
So... there is a trade-off. The fighter can immediately use the Large Greatclub to deal more damage at the expense of suffering disadvantage to hit.
OTOH, there's no such rule covering a not-spell like Arcane Blast. So defaulting to the general "wizard learning new spells", the trade-off is...spend time and gold... record the spell in spell book which you may then prepare. A found spell cannot be used immediately like the Greatclub.
There's a trade-off in both situations, just it looks different.
There are two issues...
The 1st issue is Arcane Blast is set up such that a player would assume it functions like a spell (and thus subject to "wizard learning new spells"). Why? Because the NPC is called an Apprentice Wizard and casts wizard spells like burning hands, disguise self, and mage armor.
The 2nd issue is that of power scale. In the fiction we readily buy into "that's a big ogre, it's gonna wreck things with its club." Whereas an apprentice wizard being better than our 3rd level wizard at slinging a cantrip? There's a narrative jarring there because wasn't our 3rd level wizard also once an apprentice? (The fighter was never once an ogre in their backstory - unless it's a wild backstory!) This 2nd issue is why I'd say Arcane Blast is objectionable on an apprentice wizard NPC, but the higher-level Evoker wizard NPC it works just fine for.
EDIT: I shouldn't have to restate this since I used it in my preceding example, but for completeness I'm restating it. From the player's perspective there's a 3rd issue: It's very possible they'll perceive the Apprentice Wizard as casting eldritch blast (since Arcane Blast resembles it closely), which could evoke false narrative concept for the PCs theorizing why these apprentices are in league with an extraplanar entity.
I'll add that I'm not taking into account potential 5.5e changes. Maybe they're boosting a lot of cantrips, or how classes interact with cantrips, or even making Arcane Blast a cantrip. Any of those design choices would require me to reevaluate the way I'm thinking about Arcane Blast currently.
If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, it deals damage appropriate to the weapon. For example, a greataxe in the hands of a Medium monster deals 1d12 slashing damage plus the monster’s Strength modifier, as is normal for that weapon.
Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it’s Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it’s Gargantuan. For example, a Huge giant wielding an appropriately sized greataxe deals 3d12 slashing damage (plus its Strength bonus), instead of the normal 1d12.
A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.
I think I understand what I'm a Banana is saying. And I think your question "why is this spell different?" is the perfect question to ask. Here's my take using two examples...
Our 3rd level party reaches the wizard school where we find there is an uprising led by Sinister Mage who've taken over the north wing. The wizard PC knows about this school, as their mentor was a graduate. Before venturing into the north wing they're warned that Sinister Mage has lured several apprentices to his cause, and they may be masquerading as allies of the good wizards using disguise self.
.....Soon enough the PCs get into a fight with some apprentice wizards. After a couple exchanges, the wizard PC inquires "Can I identify the spell they're using when they were shooting at me then used it in melee against the fighter?" The GM can concoct whatever answer they want, including that it's not a spell, but in the heat of the moment the GM says "It appears to be a spell unique to this wizard school."
.....After the fight, the party searches a ransacked library for details on the ritual that Sinister Mage is plotting. Naturally, wizard PC asks, "There are spellbooks, right? I want to look up that spell unique to this wizard school." Now, through no fault of their own and otherwise running a great adventure, the GM is in a spot. "You don't find the spell,"is the easiest answer but also a let down, and what if the wizard PC drops divination spells trying to find a copy of this spell?
Turning it on its head, let's use another example where the 7th level PCs are searching for a missing archmage Pontiferous and manage to rescue one of his low-ranking half-elven apprentices Shenisal. Realizing their objectives align, the party recruits Shenisal to join them on the quest, so the GM grabs the apprentice wizard stats to represent Shenisal. While descending a shaft, the party is swarmed by hundreds of stirges drawn to their magical light sources. Shenisal uses arcane blast to shoot a few at range, but soon the party is in close quarters with stirges, and Shenisal uses the arcane blast to knock one out of their hair.
.....After the trap, the wizard PC inquires, "What spell did you use Shenisal? That packed a wallop! I'd be interested in learning it if you'd be willing to trade?" The GM could answer "eldritch blast", but is concerned that (a) this might make false implications in the players' minds about the apprentice wizard having a pact with an extraplanar entity (which is not the case), and (b) that the astute wizard PC may have noticed that Shenisal's arcane blast worked equally well at range and at melee, unlike eldritch blast. Concerned with the implications of (a), the GM instead opts for, "Oh, it was a spell Pontiferous researched and taught me! I don't have enough tutelage to be able to teach it to you though. I'm only an apprentice still."
.....At the end of the adventure, the PCs liberate Pontiferous from temporal stasis! As a reward, the wizard PC asks, "Pontiferous, could you teach me the spell you taught to Shenisal?" Now, despite playing the apprentice interestingly and using their combat powers effectively, and doing their best to defer the wizard player's questions, the GM is in a spot.
Or they find the spell and it is a first level spell. "At will" on a npc statblock does not mean it is a cantrip in the sense that PC at will spells are cantrips. It just means that over the lifetime of this combat the DM does not have to track resource usage for this npc. The apprentice mage you faced had 3 slots if they used 3 times, or cook up some other explanation if used more.
Sure, I gotcha. As you know, the DMG p.277 rules cover the PC fighter wielding the ogre's Greatclub (2d8), basically the fighter suffers disadvantage to attack with it.
So... there is a trade-off. The fighter can immediately use the Large Greatclub to deal more damage at the expense of suffering disadvantage to hit.
OTOH, there's no such rule covering a not-spell like Arcane Blast. So defaulting to the general "wizard learning new spells", the trade-off is...spend time and gold... record the spell in spell book which you may then prepare. A found spell cannot be used immediately like the Greatclub.
There's a trade-off in both situations, just it looks different.
There are two issues...
The 1st issue is Arcane Blast is set up such that a player would assume it functions like a spell (and thus subject to "wizard learning new spells"). Why? Because the NPC is called an Apprentice Wizard and casts wizard spells like burning hands, disguise self, and mage armor.
The 2nd issue is that of power scale. In the fiction we readily buy into "that's a big ogre, it's gonna wreck things with its club." Whereas an apprentice wizard being better than our 3rd level wizard at slinging a cantrip? There's a narrative jarring there because wasn't our 3rd level wizard also once an apprentice? (The fighter was never once an ogre in their backstory - unless it's a wild backstory!) This 2nd issue is why I'd say Arcane Blast is objectionable on an apprentice wizard NPC, but the higher-level Evoker wizard NPC it works just fine for.
EDIT: I shouldn't have to restate this since I used it in my preceding example, but for completeness I'm restating it. From the player's perspective there's a 3rd issue: It's very possible they'll perceive the Apprentice Wizard as casting eldritch blast (since Arcane Blast resembles it closely), which could evoke false narrative concept for the PCs theorizing why these apprentices are in league with an extraplanar entity.
I'll add that I'm not taking into account potential 5.5e changes. Maybe they're boosting a lot of cantrips, or how classes interact with cantrips, or even making Arcane Blast a cantrip. Any of those design choices would require me to reevaluate the way I'm thinking about Arcane Blast currently.
If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, it deals damage appropriate to the weapon. For example, a greataxe in the hands of a Medium monster deals 1d12 slashing damage plus the monster’s Strength modifier, as is normal for that weapon.
Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it’s Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it’s Gargantuan. For example, a Huge giant wielding an appropriately sized greataxe deals 3d12 slashing damage (plus its Strength bonus), instead of the normal 1d12.
A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.
This apprentice Wizard doesn't use Wizard HD (the HD for this creature prove that your assumptions about their weakness are wrong). Doesn't use the Wizard spell slot system. Doesn't use the Wizard skill system. Doesn't use the Wizard cantrip system.
So why are you insisting that they are weaker than the 3rd level Wizard when the evidence provided is that they are stronger and weaker at the same time?
It is much easier to note the explicitly stated standard that NPCs are not created using PC rules.
EDIT: I shouldn't have to restate this since I used it in my preceding example, but for completeness I'm restating it. From the player's perspective there's a 3rd issue: It's very possible they'll perceive the Apprentice Wizard as casting eldritch blast (since Arcane Blast resembles it closely), which could evoke false narrative concept for the PCs theorizing why these apprentices are in league with an extraplanar entity.
I'll add that I'm not taking into account potential 5.5e changes. Maybe they're boosting a lot of cantrips, or how classes interact with cantrips, or even making Arcane Blast a cantrip. Any of those design choices would require me to reevaluate the way I'm thinking about Arcane Blast currently.
....
There is no particular reason that a clever wizard could not reverse engineer EB as a wizard cantrip but they forgo 2 point of increased Int take a feat "Mage Initiate" and gain enough magical insight to learn another cantrip and a level 1 spell.
Strangely they may or may not have issues scaling the power as they level.
This apprentice Wizard doesn't use Wizard HD (the HD for this creature prove that your assumptions about their weakness are wrong). Doesn't use the Wizard spell slot system. Doesn't use the Wizard skill system. Doesn't use the Wizard cantrip system.
So why are you insisting that they are weaker than the 3rd level Wizard when the evidence provided is that they are stronger and weaker at the same time?
It is much easier to note the explicitly stated standard that NPCs are not created using PC rules.
I understand what you're saying – you're boomeranging back to "PCs and monsters are designed different." But I'm actually being a bit more nuanced than what you're responding to, and I'd invite you to try to understanding this from a Player's perspective.
From the GM side of things, you're right. This uses monster maths. PC and monster mechanical stat blocks are designed "differently."
EDIT: I actually think there's more grey area within that & that in 5e it's not exactly on/off switch (either you're doing the tedious 3.5e way or you're doing the 4e way), but we can circle back to that later. Putting a pin in that for now.
I'm encouraging you to look at a scene with an Apprentice Wizard using Arcane Blast from the Player's perspective instead of the GM. That was the point of my wordy examples.
