D&D 5E What a foe can do rather than what a foe is - humans with punch?

[Reynard]

Make factions.

Human beings are social creatures by nature. We are at our most successful when we collaborate to achieve ends. Factions enable a bunch of stuff that is very useful for antagonists narratively and mechanically:

• A shared identity. This both makes it easier to figure out who you're fighting/how to fight them (though surprises are always good here), and helps the players build an emotional connection to the faction as a group of antagonists.
• Common goals. Instead of the scattershot goals of every random bandit and thug, factions provide something to rally around. They also let you differentiate opponents by method, not just by appearance.
• Inter- and intra-faction politics. TONS of juicy stuff here. Two factions hate each other, so both court the PCs. One faction has a simmering internal resentment the players can leverage to their advantage. Etc. Great stuff.
• Reputation. The factions don't always need to be villainous or even antagonistic. They can be more complicated, and the players may actually want to curry favor with a faction they've opposed in the past (or vice-versa.)
• Long-term potential. Factions outlast individual members. This enables stories that would otherwise end when a given important bad guy dies. Further, the actual defeat of a faction--striking it down so it can't rise again, at least not in the foreseeable future--is a wonderful major accomplishment or campaign capstone.

If you want your enemies to be more about what they can do and who (rather than what) they are, make factions.

I don't think this is what OP meant.they were talking about having as robust choices for enemies along all CRs with human types rather than having to rely on monsters.

 

[Tonguez]

3x was great for giving any creature a way to gain new feats and levels of awesome

 

[Reynard]

3x was great for giving any creature a way to gain new feats and levels of awesome

Yeah, but it took SO LOOOOONG.

 

[TheSword]

I don't think this is what OP meant.they were talking about having as robust choices for enemies along all CRs with human types rather than having to rely on monsters.

Yes precisely. I already have all the motivations and three dimensional personalities - it’s trying to make them engaging and interesting in combat now.

 

[TheSword]

3x was great for giving any creature a way to gain new feats and levels of awesome

I agree 3e and by extension pathfinder was very good at having human/humanoid threats at all levels. If you look at the enemies in Pathfinder APs, particularly end bosses they are often human or humanoid. Personality driven. We kinda lost that with 5e. I think it’s the action economy that hits them hardest. Human NPCs need reactions, bonus actions, and bloodied actions. With the possibility of legendary actions (even if just one or two) for the BBEG.

 

[James Gasik]

I agree 3e and by extension pathfinder was very good at having human/humanoid threats at all levels. If you look at the enemies in Pathfinder APs, particularly end bosses they are often human or humanoid. Personality driven. We kinda lost that with 5e. I think it’s the action economy that hits them hardest. Human NPCs need reactions, bonus actions, and bloodied actions. With the possibility of legendary actions (even if just one or two) for the BBEG.

Unfortunately, all those elements made combats too complicated for some, and definitely could become lengthy and tedious. And that's speaking as someone who enjoys that sort of thing!

Simple, easy to run enemies require few moving parts. Moving parts are what make enemies interesting and dynamic.

Like, a truly interesting foe would have multiple recharge abilities, and a pool of resources that could be employed over the course of the encounter, like Battlemaster maneuvers, so that they couldn't just use the same move over and over again.

But you'd also have to give them dynamic ways to avoid player damage and shenanigans, otherwise it's just a lengthy list of resistances and immunities random advantage on some saves and Legendary "oh I save because I want to" that isn't interesting at all.

Legendary and Lair actions kind of do this, but really there's not much reason not to use the most effective one each round, unless the ability actually says "you can't do this every round", lol.

 

[TheSword]

Unfortunately, all those elements made combats too complicated for some, and definitely could become lengthy and tedious. And that's speaking as someone who enjoys that sort of thing!

Simple, easy to run enemies require few moving parts. Moving parts are what make enemies interesting and dynamic.

Like, a truly interesting foe would have multiple recharge abilities, and a pool of resources that could be employed over the course of the encounter, like Battlemaster maneuvers, so that they couldn't just use the same move over and over again.

But you'd also have to give them dynamic ways to avoid player damage and shenanigans, otherwise it's just a lengthy list of resistances and immunities random advantage on some saves and Legendary "oh I save because I want to" that isn't interesting at all.

Legendary and Lair actions kind of do this, but really there's not much reason not to use the most effective one each round, unless the ability actually says "you can't do this every round", lol.

I really like bloodied actions - something a foe gets to do out of turn sequence on reaching half hp. These could be quite cinematic. A rogue might withdraw and hide when they reach half hp. Or a spellcaster might activate a protective spell like mirror image or fire shield. A bigger monster like a dragon might withdraw into the air and then recharge their breath automatically.

 

[James Gasik]

I really like bloodied actions - something a foe gets to do out of turn sequence on reaching half hp. These could be quite cinematic. A rogue might withdraw and hide when they reach half hp. Or a spellcaster might activate a protective spell like mirror image or fire shield. A bigger monster like a dragon might withdraw into the air and then recharge their breath automatically.

I'd like it if player characters had these sorts of clutch abilities as well- not that I think they need the power boost, but because I think the game would be better balanced if some abilities could only be used under certain circumstances (and of course, because then it would make more narrative sense when monsters often had such abilities).

For example, I think people would be far less irked by shield if it could only be used when bloodied.

 

[Quickleaf]

I don't have any resources for NPCs – I tend to make my own from scratch – but here's a couple ideas I use when designing my own:

Principle #1:
Reducing cognitive load on the GM should be the priority of monster/NPC design, equal to a nice marriage of narrative and mechanics. 2-5 things happening in one stat block is pleeennnty, except in the cases of bosses. This is why using player classes and heavy reliance on lists of spells is typically not the best fit for NPCs - because player-facing rules tend to involve more decisions and micro-management.

Principle #2:
As much as possible, you want features/power that pull double duty / have multiple functions. It's not just a defense but it's also an offense. It's not just a summons but it also allows the NPC to move. This helps compress the stat block & helps mitigate action economy shortcomings.

Principle #3:
Imagine the hell out of it. Be inspired by existing implementations & use touchstones of rules familiarity to ease the cognitive load, but don't feel beholding to them – feel free to make bold moves.

Example (see below):
The spellthief is a meant to be a minion encountered with other monsters/NPCs/spellthieves. The idea is to tweak Sneak Attack (that a GM is likely already familiar with), but make it work in a different way that surprises players and could be either offensive or defensive in nature depending on PC's active magics & spell load-out.

Spellthief
Medium humanoid (any), neutral or chaotic evil
Armor Class 13 (leather armor)
Hit Points 39 (6d8+12)
Speed 30 ft.

STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
10 (+0) 15 (+2) 14 (+2) 12 (+1) 12 (+1) 12 (+1)

Skills Acrobatics +4, Deception +5, Perception +3, Stealth +6, Sleight of Hand +4
Senses passive Perception 13
Languages Common, Thieves’ Cant
Challenge 1 (200 XP)

Cunning Action. The spellthief can take a bonus action to Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object.

Innate Spellcasting. The spellthief’s innate spellcasting ability is Charisma (+3 to hit with spell attack, spell save DC 11). It can innately cast detect magic at will, requiring no components.

Spellthief’s Sneak Attack. Once per turn, the spellthief can deal an extra 10 (3d6) damage to one creature its hits with an attack if it has advantage on the attack roll. The spellthief doesn’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and the spellthief doesn’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.

The spellthief can opt to reduce this extra damage by up to the entire 3d6, attempting to drain a spell slot of a level corresponding to the number of d6’s the damage is reduced by (e.g. reduce by 2d6 to drain a 2nd level spell slot). The target loses that spell slot, while the spellthief gains it for one minute, during which the spellthief can use it to cast one spell of its choice from the target’s available spells.

Alternately, if the target has an ongoing spell effect (e.g. bless), the spellthief may instead reduce its extra damage by a number of dice equal to the level of the ongoing spell effect, transferring it to itself instead. The spell duration and who concentrates are unchanged.

ACTIONS
Multiattack. The spellthief makes two attacks: one shortsword and one dagger attack.

Shortsword. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d6+2) piercing damage.

Dagger. Melee or Ranged Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft. or ranged 20/60 ft., one target. Hit: 4 (1d4+2) piercing damage.

 

[ClusterFluster]

Because you can play as other races, the result is that everyone wants to play anything other than humans, so why should so much work be done for a "monster" that you may never encounter?

Humans will always be comparatively weak to dwarves, elves, orcs, and aaracockra, and this largely has to do with a rejection of the race-as-class mechanics of older editions. The newer rules have to be written to reflect this, and now anyone will look at a human and think "vanilla."

You could restrict playable races in your campaigns, but will get you sour looks, or you can desperately try to make humans more interesting, which is still plausible.

Or, follow the money and just write humans out of the game instead. This is far easier, and no one will really complain.