D&D 5E NPCyclopedia

[fjw70]

Well to each his own but I don't have consider 1/2e XP and HD any more accurate than 5e CR/XP. In old school and 5e just eyeing it work fine for me.

 

[Quickleaf]

We have a lot of options, but I am still concerned how can I gauge the results, for example how can I estimate the CR or XP of such NPC.

I admit I have neglected the DMG so far compared to the PHB and MM, but I am still confused.

For example, if I would like to make an NPC using the PC rules, and I have a target CR, what character level should it have? It's a simple enough question, is there a simple enough answer in the DMG?

I've done a bunch of NPC creation in this manner: Using mostly PC creation rules with a few unique touches, holding a goal CR roughly in mind, and then using the DMG to determine actual CR, and adjusting as needed.

What I've found is that there is no hard and fast rule to equate level to CR, but there are some guidelines you can use to "eyeball it":

Non-caster CR ~ level *.33 OR level * 0.5

Caster CR ~ level * 0.5 OR level *0.75

This is just a guideline to get you in the right ballpark. For example, I made an optimized half-orc 13th level barbarian (berserker) and he ended up a CR 8 because his defenses were just that good. Likewise, a caster without serious offensive power would have a significantly lower CR. My 13th level diviner ended up somewhere around CR 4 or 5. In both cases, my goal was an NPC of about CR 6-9, so I was on target with the barbarian but the diviner needs some more offensive / area effect spells to bring her CR up .

You'll need to run the actual numbers, however.

As a quick check against the Monster Manual NPCs, take the Knight and the Mage.

The Knight is CR 3, similar to 8th level fighter. My guideline gives you an expected CR of 2.64 - 4.
The Mage is CR 6, similar to a 9th level wizard. My guideline gives you an expected CR of 3 - 6.75.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, what's your point?

Just asking. You said it was tough to design balanced encounters. So I was asking if you design encounters specifically to be unbalanced.

Since that's the case, you can trial and error things a bit without worry of the margin of error you mentioned. Just don't do so when the encounter is unavoidable.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's easy enough to make a wizard villain of the wanted level - give them the required AC, HP, DPR, and attack bonus/save DC, and you're done!

I am aware of that, but I wanted to point out that the DMG explicitly tells you that using PC race and class is one of the three ways to make NPCs suitable for an encounter, the other ways being the "quick way" (minimal stats, basically fixed AC/HP/attack/damage/DC) and the "monster way" (full stat block, built from the ground up). It doesn't tell you that the "PC levels" way doesn't work.

And of course the problem is not in building the NPC. In fact it's about as easy (or even easier) than creating is the "monster way". The problem is that the DMG tools work more for figuring out the CR after the design, while the CR is supposed to be your starting point.

 

[S'mon]

As for nobles being CR 15... that's a great thought, but the only way to get such a creature is to level up a 1/8 CR Noble. Right?

Heh. When I stat the noble Ghinarian Lords IMC, I'm more likely to begin with the CR 5
Gladiator and work from there. The Knight is another good base for a noble fighter.

CR 15 is REALLY high for an NPC BTW, the Archmage is only CR 12. CR 15 would be something like the Invincible Overlord, 40 hit dice and the DPR of a 20th level Fighter PC.

 

[S'mon]

XP and HD were the main tools. And monsters weren't as complicated, so it was much easier to judge their "CR".

Back in the day, more people seemed to be on somewhat similar pages re how difficult encounters should be. In 5e there is a HUGE disparity between what people consider to be a proper challenge. Back in 1e/2e days, gamers were more "hardcore' and wanted tough challenges. Nowadays you have more casual gamers used to respawn video games where you dont have to be that careful to get through an encounter.

The problem w/5e's CR system is that it is based on flawed mathematical formulas rather than on real gaming experience. Its like they hired a guy to do the math and assign the ratings w/o having some senior playtesters check it over to make sure it made sense.

And then the decision to make NPCs different than PCs is....bad. In my world, and many, NPCs and monsters are encountered just as frequently as each other, or at least 30% of encounters. There is a 5e MM I can refer to in order to get monsters, but just a few handfulls of pages of npcS. So I have to create the vast majority of them from scratch - that's a time sink. Not to mention then having to figure out their CR

Fights in pre-3e were generally LESS threatening, not more, in my experience.

NPC casters - the sample ones have CRs of 2/3 their caster level. Just use that - assign a
caster level, give hit dice equal to caster level, multiply level by 2/3 to get CR. Very easy.

NPC non-casters - generally have CR around 1/3 of their hit dice. Start with one of the samples and add or subtract hit dice to get appropriate CR. Modify attack bonus according to new CR. Add or
reduce DPR proportionately. Add or remove class abilities from similar classes to get DPR
right.

Personally I've found creating and modifying 5e NPCs to be delightfully easy, a blessed
release from 3e/PF. OK 4e does combat-with-spellcasters better by integrating spells into
the stat block, but for general purposes 5e is excellent.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am aware of that, but I wanted to point out that the DMG explicitly tells you that using PC race and class is one of the three ways to make NPCs suitable for an encounter, the other ways being the "quick way" (minimal stats, basically fixed AC/HP/attack/damage/DC) and the "monster way" (full stat block, built from the ground up). It doesn't tell you that the "PC levels" way doesn't work.

It works fine, it's just less smooth to start with a CR in that case.

And of course the problem is not in building the NPC. In fact it's about as easy (or even easier) than creating is the "monster way". The problem is that the DMG tools work more for figuring out the CR after the design, while the CR is supposed to be your starting point.

It's fair to say that it's hard to start with a CR and get an on-target PC-style NPC, but I think that criticizing 5e for that fails to appreciate that this was likely one of the prices the designers paid for having PC rules that are more flexible.

It might be useful to contrast 4e's ADEU powers system with its strict, granular balance - every power of a given level and usage doing fairly comparable initial damage (before role considerations are brought in), and players locked into taking a certain number of "attack" powers vs. other powers. This system could allow for easy level-to-CR determination - a character of a given level has a certain damage output, HP, AC, attack rolls, etc. that is within fairly consistent norms, so you can say Level 14 is roughly CR 10 or whatever.

But the moment you have the ability to swap mage armor and magic missile for comprehend languages and charm person (or even greatswords and shields for twin daggers) you're looking at a game where character combat capability is not on a tight curve. You can only say that a character of a given level with particular abilities is a given CR. Which means that you need to build the NPC anyway - you need to choose its abilities before you can determine what CR it is. Simple level isn't going to tell you much.

So you have a trade-off: how flexible do you want character creation to be vs. how easy you want it to be for level to be a precise measure of hp/ac/attacks/save DCs/dpr.

With those competing interests, I think flexible character creation is the appropriate winner, given that it is the more exposed mechanic (meaning, everyone who's not just a DM is going to interact with character creation at an early point in their game experience, but only DMs going beyond the MM will need to worry about the CR of classed NPC's). This is especially true with a broad CR range - where if you have to whip up an enemy mage and she's too weak, you can maybe just throw two or three or add some orcs or whatever and it'll be fine.

I'd still appreciate an "MM of NPC's," personally, but I don't fault 5e for not being able to say "A level X character is CR Y" in a simple and obvious way. In order to achieve that, more important goals like character flexibility would need to be sacrificed.

 

[Hussar]

Why would you bother giving a full class to an NPC? CR only refers to combat and combat is likely only about four rounds. Give your big bad NPC three effects and you're done. Easy peasy.

 

[shoak1]

It works fine, it's just less smooth to start with a CR in that case.



It's fair to say that it's hard to start with a CR and get an on-target PC-style NPC, but I think that criticizing 5e for that fails to appreciate that this was likely one of the prices the designers paid for having PC rules that are more flexible.

It might be useful to contrast 4e's ADEU powers system with its strict, granular balance - every power of a given level and usage doing fairly comparable initial damage (before role considerations are brought in), and players locked into taking a certain number of "attack" powers vs. other powers. This system could allow for easy level-to-CR determination - a character of a given level has a certain damage output, HP, AC, attack rolls, etc. that is within fairly consistent norms, so you can say Level 14 is roughly CR 10 or whatever.

But the moment you have the ability to swap mage armor and magic missile for comprehend languages and charm person (or even greatswords and shields for twin daggers) you're looking at a game where character combat capability is not on a tight curve. You can only say that a character of a given level with particular abilities is a given CR. Which means that you need to build the NPC anyway - you need to choose its abilities before you can determine what CR it is. Simple level isn't going to tell you much.

So you have a trade-off: how flexible do you want character creation to be vs. how easy you want it to be for level to be a precise measure of hp/ac/attacks/save DCs/dpr.

With those competing interests, I think flexible character creation is the appropriate winner, given that it is the more exposed mechanic (meaning, everyone who's not just a DM is going to interact with character creation at an early point in their game experience, but only DMs going beyond the MM will need to worry about the CR of classed NPC's). This is especially true with a broad CR range - where if you have to whip up an enemy mage and she's too weak, you can maybe just throw two or three or add some orcs or whatever and it'll be fine.

I'd still appreciate an "MM of NPC's," personally, but I don't fault 5e for not being able to say "A level X character is CR Y" in a simple and obvious way. In order to achieve that, more important goals like character flexibility would need to be sacrificed.

I agree with most of what you say, except that I believe that while it is harder to estimate CRs in 5e than 4e, I still expected the designers to do the work fully and more accurately (and yes that is NOT entirely subjective), rather than leave it for me. inc/anticipating that many many DMs would want PC style NPCs, and they could have inc/a table of CRs for that purpose..

 

[shoak1]

Because that is more subjective, and difficult to gage as a comparison to PC strength.