D&D 5E Advancing NPC's

[mips42]

I have not yet seen any rules for advancing NPC's. (eg: level 3 expert, level 2 commoner, etc). Do such things currently exist or no?

 

[MerricB]

I have not yet seen any rules for advancing NPC's. (eg: level 3 expert, level 2 commoner, etc). Do such things currently exist or no?

No. Most likely in the DMG. (Some rules might turn up in the DM Basic Rules, but it is very, very likely they want to finalize the DMG before including them).

Cheers!

 

[Crothian]

Are there any rules or talk in the PHB of gaining XP in any other way then through killing monsters?

 

[pming]

Hiya.

No, I don't think I've seen anything either. I'm primarily posting this as a suggestion to try not thinking in "3e/4e/PF" terms. Thinking like a "0e/1e/BECMI" DM will probably serve you *much* better with the new 5e rule set. What that means, in regards to your topic...is that you don't "advance" an NPC. You create him whole-cloth for exactly what you want him to do. There are no 'rules', no 'advancement', no 'NPC classes', no 'templates', etc. that you simply tack on to a base and add the numbers.

Now, I suspect there will be stuff about NPC's in the DMG, but I seriously doubt there will be anything you might think of as "advancement". I'm guessing that an NPC will basically have a very simplified stat block that has his name, race, sex, age, stats, Proficiency Bonus and skills.

IMHO, this is a GOOD thing! A DM shouldn't spend an hour writing up two innkeepers just to try and have said innkeepers be "appropriately balanced". I've found that the way 5e plays is heavily leaning towards DM's actually doing DM stuff and not bookkeeping stuff. (re: a helluva lot easier to 'wing it' without worrying about stepping on anyones toes or otherwise messing up the system balance).

If you are talking opponent NPC's (re: ones with classes and such, like the PC's)...then just make them as PC's. Feel free to add what you want and take away what you don't. With the more simplified systems, which 5e is, its a lot harder to screw things up beyond repair; ex: take an NPC Fighter with Dueling Style...take his +2 damage away and sub it with +2 to his AC to simulate 'expert parrying'. Done. You won't break anything, I promise. It will make for a memorable NPC and you don't need any sort of template/class/whatever to do it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Are there any rules or talk in the PHB of gaining XP in any other way then through killing monsters?

Not that I've heard. That said, the system is very OSR in style. Meaning that it is pretty dang modular and easy to manipulate. For my game, I'm cutting Monster XP in half (maybe more...maybe one-quarter). I'm giving out XP for GP value of treasure, and XP for accomplishing goals for story, party and personal. So far? Not a hitch of a problem.

I do suspect that the DMG will have suggestions for different XP rates and how they are gained/used. But at least they didn't put that all in the basic rules! They stuck (mostly) to the basics...thus, allowing experienced DM's like me to easily adjust my game to what I like. Without the system suddenly exploding.

^_^

 

[Grazzt]

Hiya.

No, I don't think I've seen anything either. I'm primarily posting this as a suggestion to try not thinking in "3e/4e/PF" terms. Thinking like a "0e/1e/BECMI" DM will probably serve you *much* better with the new 5e rule set. What that means, in regards to your topic...is that you don't "advance" an NPC. You create him whole-cloth for exactly what you want him to do. There are no 'rules', no 'advancement', no 'NPC classes', no 'templates', etc. that you simply tack on to a base and add the numbers.

Now, I suspect there will be stuff about NPC's in the DMG, but I seriously doubt there will be anything you might think of as "advancement". I'm guessing that an NPC will basically have a very simplified stat block that has his name, race, sex, age, stats, Proficiency Bonus and skills.

IMHO, this is a GOOD thing! A DM shouldn't spend an hour writing up two innkeepers just to try and have said innkeepers be "appropriately balanced". I've found that the way 5e plays is heavily leaning towards DM's actually doing DM stuff and not bookkeeping stuff. (re: a helluva lot easier to 'wing it' without worrying about stepping on anyones toes or otherwise messing up the system balance).

If you are talking opponent NPC's (re: ones with classes and such, like the PC's)...then just make them as PC's. Feel free to add what you want and take away what you don't. With the more simplified systems, which 5e is, its a lot harder to screw things up beyond repair; ex: take an NPC Fighter with Dueling Style...take his +2 damage away and sub it with +2 to his AC to simulate 'expert parrying'. Done. You won't break anything, I promise. It will make for a memorable NPC and you don't need any sort of template/class/whatever to do it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

That does appear to be the way they are going. And I'm good with it. Makes it hella easier and quicker to build NPCs quickly when needed or desired.

 

[mips42]

Primarily I was thinking about what used to be the NPC classes like Expert and Warrior and such but, if they don't really exist, that's okay.

 

[fanboy2000]

Are there any rules or talk in the PHB of gaining XP in any other way then through killing monsters?

Not in the PHB. However, the adventures published show that there is another way: milestones. With milestones, you assign a set xp amount after the PCs have completed a goal or quest.

Also, HotDQ has XP for meeting specific goals. In one episode, it says to give xp for every piece of info the PCs find.

 

[pming]

Hiya

Primarily I was thinking about what used to be the NPC classes like Expert and Warrior and such but, if they don't really exist, that's okay.

I suspect the DMG will have "competency level" examples. So we may have a simple stat block for a "Guardsman". There would be, say, four Competency stages for them; "Recruit", "Experienced", "Leader", "Professional". We'd then have "Guardsman - Recruit", "Guardsman - Experienced", etc. Each one would have a slightly updated statblock to reflect his competency level. I think this would be the best way to go. It gives solid 'ranges' for low, medium, high, and very high capabilities, but keeps all the number crunching and fiddling out of the picture. It allows a DM to quickly grab whatever is closest to what he needs, and then easily tweak a bit to fine tune (drop this, add that sort of thing), based on what he needs, without having to go into "statistician mode". It would also likely not take up dozens of fricken pages. Whit I don't want, is a base "Guardsman" and then a half-dozen "templates" that I then have to manually add together to finally get my NPC. If I need an experienced guardsman, I can just use the "Guardsman - Experienced" stat block and go with it...modifying on the fly if needed.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[mips42]

Hiya
I suspect the DMG will have "competency level" examples. So we may have a simple stat block for a "Guardsman". There would be, say, four Competency stages for them; "Recruit", "Experienced", "Leader", "Professional". We'd then have "Guardsman - Recruit", "Guardsman - Experienced", etc. Each one would have a slightly updated statblock to reflect his competency level. I think this would be the best way to go. It gives solid 'ranges' for low, medium, high, and very high capabilities, but keeps all the number crunching and fiddling out of the picture. It allows a DM to quickly grab whatever is closest to what he needs, and then easily tweak a bit to fine tune (drop this, add that sort of thing), based on what he needs, without having to go into "statistician mode". It would also likely not take up dozens of fricken pages. Whit I don't want, is a base "Guardsman" and then a half-dozen "templates" that I then have to manually add together to finally get my NPC. If I need an experienced guardsman, I can just use the "Guardsman - Experienced" stat block and go with it...modifying on the fly if needed.

I'd be okay with this.