D&D 5E Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I wish it was as easy to give NPCs class levels as it was in 3E...

Talk about "your mileage may vary". I thought the NPC building guidelines in 3E were the most onerous and overly complex such guidelines that D&D has ever had.

 

[Amrûnril]

NPCs with PHB class levels are fairly common. Even more common are NPCs with NPC class levels. So I voted the second choice in the poll.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by NPC class levels as opposed to PHB class levels. I know 3rd edition had classed specifically for NPCs in the DMG, but I'm not aware of anything comparable existing in 5th edition.

 

[Shasarak]

Yes, I tend to almost always give important NPCs class levels but unimportant ones not so much.

 

[thalmin]

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by NPC class levels as opposed to PHB class levels. I know 3rd edition had classed specifically for NPCs in the DMG, but I'm not aware of anything comparable existing in 5th edition.

Just tweeks to the 3E NPC classes. Use the NPCs in the back of the MM as a guide.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Talk about "your mileage may vary". I thought the NPC building guidelines in 3E were the most onerous and overly complex such guidelines that D&D has ever had.

But at least those rules existed! As compared to 5E, which amounts to "make up whatever you feel like, and the only math involved is figuring out how much experience it's worth".

Honestly, 5E is worse than 4E when it comes to NPCs! I mean, did you notice how the NPC archmage has a lower save DCs than its spell slots and Intelligence would suggest, because spell access is tied to hit dice but proficiency bonus is tied to challenge rating? At least 4E was honest with its shenanigans - it didn't try to pretend that PCs and NPCs were following the same rules at different granularity!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I’m curious as to how common it is for NPCs in various campaigns to be built using the classes presented in the Player’s Handbook. This question ties into both world building (How special is a 1^st level character?) and game prep (Is putting together stats for NPCs a worthwhile use of time? Do characters build using PHB rules make interesting adversaries?), so I’m interested in seeing not just the poll responses but the reasoning behind them.

For my part, I chose the second option: “Class levels are common for NPCs, but not universal.” In my world, first and second level characters, especially fighters and rogues, are fairly common. New recruits into the army might not be fighters, but most veterans will be (Spellcasters are somewhat rarer, as the world is relatively low magic, but anyone who does use magic was probably built using one of the PHB classes). This means that first level characters are competent but relatively unexceptional in their training but that they have the ability to distinguish themselves relatively quickly, as higher level NPCs become increasingly rare. I've found this philosophy to work very well but see how others with different worldbuilding assumptions or less interest in using prep time to build characters could have different preferences.

For me, there are essentially two kinds of NPCs: 0th level NPCs, and NPCs with class levels. My class level distribution is much as you describe yours: heavily weighted toward the low end. I do have a fair number of NPC bad guy wizards and such who are up to 8th or 9th level, and ancient liches and dragons are often 17th+ level, but they come in ones and twos, not large groups--there definitely aren't any high-level "adventuring parties" out there, because those trivialize the PCs. Having a whole party of cooperative heroes is their PCs' schtick, like the story of "the king and with six friends" (http://www.amazon.com/The-King-Six-Friends-Williams/dp/0819303429) or the Avengers.

I do use MM stats for 0th level NPCs such as guards, but I don't use their versions of higher-level characters like Priest/Veterans/etc. because I don't see any value in them. If I were to run Curse of Strahd, I would make Mordenkainen an actual high-level wizard with a specialty (Transmutation and Conjuration both seem appropriate), not an anemic MM "Archmage" who's missing half of his features for no good reason that I can see.

 

[Azzy]

annoying CR calculations

Oh, i it ever. I have an Excel sheet that handles that, and it's still something I hate doing.

 

[ccs]

I wish it was as easy to give NPCs class levels as it was in 3E, but due to the increased complexity of classes and the annoying CR calculations, I had to avoid the topic for this campaign.

Adding 5e class levels is easy. Certainly easier than in 3x/PF.
The CR calculations....

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Oh, i it ever. I have an Excel sheet that handles that, and it's still something I hate doing.

I just flatly rule that for human-based NPCs, CR = class level, and hand out XP accordingly. Yes, that might be a tiny bit more generous than the DMG would be if I followed its tables, but those tables are garbage anyway, and the players certainly aren't going to complain about getting slightly more XP than the book says they should get.

N PCs vs. N same-level NPCs is my baseline definition of what a genuinely deadly fight should be. Could go either way depending on who plays smarter. When I do the math, that makes it reasonable to treat Nth level NPCs as being CR N.

 

[Xeviat]

I often build NPCs using the PC classes, but I tend to drastically slash their long rest resources and their short rest resources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk