D&D 5E NPCyclopedia

[Li Shenron]

Just checked the NPC gallery at the end of the MM for examples, and tried to notice any possible trend. It's hard to tell because there are not many spellcasters there:

Druid: CR 2, HD 5, level 4
Cult fanatic: CR 2, HD 6, level 4
Priest: CR 2, HD 5, level 5
Mage: CR 6, HD 9, level 9
Archmage: CR 12, HD 18, level 18

Very hard to tell with only 5 specimen... notice that all these actually say what is their spellcaster's level. This could be used as a reference. But then the similarities with PC classes end because:

- none of these have other class abilities (e.g. wildshape, channel divinity etc.), just spells and weapons
- they all have somewhat inferior ability scores compared to PCs
- they generally seem to have buffed hit points

Notice how the two pseudo-Wizards (Mage and Archmage) have HD = level. However their HD is not d6 but d8. But then, considering that the PC generally have higher Constitution score, I don't think there is a significant difference. Overall it seems CR = 2/3 of level = HD.

The other three caster NPCs don't all have same HD as their spellcasting level, their HP slightly buffed. They all have CR 2. The ratio there looks more like CR = 1/2 of level, and CR = 1/2.5 or 1/3 HD.

All the other NPCs don't cast spells, but some trends can be noticed there too. Those who have interesting CRs (let's say higher than 2) seem to have a ratio around CR = 1/3 HD --> notice that here I am comparing it with the HD. All of them actually have d8 hit dice, and since they are more similar to Fighter-types, this actually means that they definitely have less hit points than a PC of a level equal to their HD.

A notable exception is the Assassin which has sneak attack as an 8th level Rogue, CR 8 and 12 HD. So definitely more hit points than an 8th level Rogue, but otherwise here CR = level = 2/3 HD.

Given the previous considerations on all the extras that the PC classes get (including higher ability scores), if we re-designed these 5 NPCs using PC classes (of the same spellcasting level when applicable, or of the same HD otherwise), the CRs would obviously increase... and it would increase most for non-casters (because they have more class features that these NPCs do not have), something less for 'divine' casters (who have some class features in addition to spells) and least for mages (who have very few class features beside spells).

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the most simple possible formula i.e. CR = class level is actually fairly close to reality

 

[whaddon]

It seems like there are people who have tips about how to work AROUND the lack of NPCs presented, but does anyone actually disagree that it would be useful/wonderful to just have a compendium of NPCs of various kinds at various CR levels? Of ones that have actually been reviewed, balanced, statted and finalized, possibly even by the people behind the scenes who know how the background mechanics work?

It feels like most people run us vs. monsters games, so maybe for them its not that useful, but even **SPOILERS*** Princes of the Apocalypse you are fighting lots of "people" rather than nasties.

 

[shoak1]

It seems like there are people who have tips about how to work AROUND the lack of NPCs presented, but does anyone actually disagree that it would be useful/wonderful to just have a compendium of NPCs of various kinds at various CR levels? Of ones that have actually been reviewed, balanced, statted and finalized, possibly even by the people behind the scenes who know how the background mechanics work?

It feels like most people run us vs. monsters games, so maybe for them its not that useful, but even **SPOILERS*** Princes of the Apocalypse you are fighting lots of "people" rather than nasties.

Yes, it would be wonderful. I am going to start a thread.

 

[S'mon]

Just checked the NPC gallery at the end of the MM for examples, and tried to notice any possible trend. It's hard to tell because there are not many spellcasters there:

Druid: CR 2, HD 5, level 4
Cult fanatic: CR 2, HD 6, level 4
Priest: CR 2, HD 5, level 5
Mage: CR 6, HD 9, level 9
Archmage: CR 12, HD 18, level 18

Very hard to tell with only 5 specimen...

Also the Acolyte, 2 hd and casts as Cleric-1.

 

[Li Shenron]

Also the Acolyte, 2 hd and casts as Cleric-1.

Yes, I was just ignoring NPCs with CR<1, but also the Acolyte is an interesting case.

You can clearly see that its HP are basically the same as a PC Cleric of 1st level, because the PC would have full HP (and often some Con bonus) while all the NPC in the DMG have HP equal to average of HD 'rolls' (2d8 = 9).

It says it's a 1st-level spellcaster, but it has 3 daily slots instead of the usual 2, not sure why. It's the only advantage vs a PC Cleric.

Prof.bonus is +2 (as a 1st-level PC), but much lower ability scores. Also miserable weapon/armor choices (club, no armor).

The PC Cleric will also have the Domain's first-level benefits, and all the racial benefits!

Overall at least we can say that the final CR of a PC-like Cleric-1 just cannot be as low as the Acolyte's 1/4.

 

[Li Shenron]

It seems like there are people who have tips about how to work AROUND the lack of NPCs presented, but does anyone actually disagree that it would be useful/wonderful to just have a compendium of NPCs of various kinds at various CR levels?

I am not sure it would buy it, but overall why not? If it's useful to someone, then it's a good thing.

Probably it would be a gallery similar to the one in the DMG, meaning NPCs not built like PCs. Simpler than PC-like NPCs.

By the way, we already have a compendium of PCs available, which can of course be used also as PC-like NPCs. Not every race-class combination is there, but all levels from 1-10, which is a lot:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/character_sheets

It feels like most people run us vs. monsters games, so maybe for them its not that useful, but even **SPOILERS*** Princes of the Apocalypse you are fighting lots of "people" rather than nasties.

It's hard for me to believe that most people use monsters and not NPCs! Even more so after considering that every time a poll asks 'what is your favourite villain', typically humans win the chart.

Then the favourite way of representing NPCs is a different thing, and I can understand most people favor simplicity, and would rather have a minimal set of statistics needed at the table rather than a 'full' (N)PC.

 

[Delazar]

I use the NPCs from the Monster Manual for "unnamed" enemies, but I use the full PHB rules when I want to make a recurring villain (or ally).

Regarding CR, I use this table:



I think I calculated this values based on the assumption that a party of 4 PCs fighting a party of exactly the same 4 PCs would be a deadly (or was it hard?) encounter.

Then some basic math and some approximation gave me these results.

It's worked so far...

 

[Li Shenron]

I use the NPCs from the Monster Manual for "unnamed" enemies, but I use the full PHB rules when I want to make a recurring villain (or ally).

Regarding CR, I use this table:

View attachment 71774

I think I calculated this values based on the assumption that a party of 4 PCs fighting a party of exactly the same 4 PCs would be a deadly (or was it hard?) encounter.

Then some basic math and some approximation gave me these results.

It's worked so far...

That's interesting, but I don't get how you end up with CRs that are even lower than DMG NPCs who actually have less features and lower stats than the PC classes

 

[Delazar]

why, the CR in the MM are poppycock, of course!

 

[Li Shenron]

why, the CR in the MM are poppycock, of course!

It's possible, I've only run the game at low levels so it's hard to tell. Mostly I have heard people complain that the CRs are higher than they should be, however.

Let's keep in mind that CR is said to serve two (related) purposes:

1- to decide if a single monster is too risky
2- to determine the XP

IIRC somewhere already in Basic says not to use monsters with CR > party level, unless you are willing to risk some death. This is supposed to be independent on how many, so the focus here perhaps should be on specifically what kind of abilities does the monster have. High damage output or high AC are also part of this, but special effects play a more important role. For example, if a monster is invisible, then it might be almost impossible if the party at the current level has no tricks around invisibility, and a lot simpler once the party gets access to them. However, nothing in the DMG's CR estimation guidelines relates to assessing these kind of special abilities.

Then purpose 2 is actually itself two-fold:

2a- XP as award, for levelling up
2b- XP to assess the encounter difficulty

As much as I don't particularly care for XP awards since I'm probably going to always just control level advancement directly, I still need to figure out how potentially deadly the encounters are. In theory, the older 3e system was a bit easier to use: from each monster's CR you could figure out the whole encounter CR, and compare it straight with party level. In 5e we are supposed from each monster's CR to figure out the encounter XP, and then use a table to compare it to party level (there's a sort of double conversion, from CR to XP then from XP back to level, while in 3e CR and level were somewhat similar units of measurement). Part 2a was however a lot more tedious in 3e.

But this is actually why I am speculating that for NPCs built with PC classes, the truth might be a lot more simple than it looks, and that it could really be just a matter of comparing the NPC level directly with the PC level, skipping all conversions to CR and XP.