D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Weiley31]

How do you handle that, assuming it was just an ability in the stat block and not a written up spell?

Me as the DM: "You cannot comprehend the true nature of this spell"

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes, but In creating 5ed, they went on by asking us through survey and playtests what WE wanted.

And they ignored ME, so I don't know who we is except the very specific group they catered to in the end.

At this point, they have a.moral obligation to keep their word that this is our edition.

Seriously? Just because they asked your opinion doesn't meant they're obligated to follow it. If Baskin-Robbins asks what flavors we like and I say 'Sawmill Gravy', even if they somehow end up producing it doesn't mean they're stuck with it until they burn down the building and try again.

But a major rework of the 5ed principles such as these (and it goes way deeper than mere npc and monsters) should, no must warrant a new edition.

They're improving their product in (frankly) minor ways for the audience they now have. Again, they decide when to call a thing a new edition and at this point the difference is so minor calling it a new edition would be unprecedented. Like calling 3.5 4e because of Book of 9 Swords; just because you made a minor improvement doesn't mean it's a full edition.

 

[Monayuris]

Let's say for example that the party defeats Balkalathe the Indomitable, Sorcerer-Priest of the Outer Dark, who cast The Soul Rending Shriek of Mal'athazar -- 18d6 necrotic damage (DC 19 Con save for half) plus 2d6 charisma drain (DC 21 Wis save for half). The party wizard says, "I want to learn that spell!"

How do you handle that, assuming it was just an ability in the stat block and not a written up spell?

I'd allow the PC to perform magical research to learn that spell. If they spend the time and money and adventure for the right components, I'd let the player design a spell that matches this.

They would have to compromise because they wouldn't be able to learn the spell at this power level. 5e has scalable spells so perhaps this sorcerer was 20th level and that ability is to cast the spell upscaled. The base spell may be much more in line with what actually already exists in the spell lists.

 

[Helldritch]

And they ignored ME, so I don't know who we is except the very specific group they catered to in the end.

No did not. 5ed was made specifically to cater to both the traditionalists and progressists or the new and the old generation of gamers. They had to make compromise to both groups to make 5ed. Seeing how successful it was, it was the only way to do it. And though I was unhappy with some decisions, I swallowed my pride and accepted them because they were "necessary" to keep younger or progressists gamers.

Note: Here the words progressists and traditionnalists are refering to the general approach. Neither is godly and saintly in their approach.

Seriously? Just because they asked your opinion doesn't meant they're obligated to follow it. If Baskin-Robbins asks what flavors we like and I say 'Sawmill Gravy', even if they somehow end up producing it doesn't mean they're stuck with it until they burn down the building and try again.

Haaaaa. But if you order chicken at the King of Chicken restaurant (because they are reknown for it) and you are given beef you can say that is not what you wanted. This is exactly what they are doing right here and now. The 5ed was the reunification edition (as they had said in the forum before it went down).

They're improving their product in (frankly) minor ways for the audience they now have. Again, they decide when to call a thing a new edition and at this point the difference is so minor calling it a new edition would be unprecedented. Like calling 3.5 4e because of Book of 9 Swords; just because you made a minor improvement doesn't mean it's a full edition.

What you consider minor, starts to add up to quite a lot. They are in fact, building a new edition but they do not want to lose the golden goose. So they keep calling it 5ed where it is more and more appearing that it is no longer the truth.

 

[Helldritch]

I'd allow the PC to perform magical research to learn that spell. If they spend the time and money and adventure for the right components, I'd let the player design a spell that matches this.

They would have to compromise because they wouldn't be able to learn the spell at this power level. 5e has scalable spells so perhaps this sorcerer was 20th level and that ability is to cast the spell upscaled. The base spell may be much more in line with what actually already exists in the spell lists.

And with consistent spell slots mechanics you would exactly know what level and what had happened with that spell (upscaled or not). The players would be able to reproduce the effect (however costly you'd make it). But they could do it without breaking the pattern.

 

[Cadence]

What you consider minor, starts to add up to quite a lot. They are in fact, building a new edition but they do not want to lose the golden goose. So they keep calling it 5ed where it is more and more appearing that it is no longer the truth.

No disagreement.

Was that true in 1 (UA), 2 (Skills and Powers), and 4 (Essentials)? Does it happen with just splat creep too, like 3.5?

 

[Reynard]

And with consistent spell slots mechanics you would exactly know what level and what had happened with that spell (upscaled or not). The players would be able to reproduce the effect (however costly you'd make it). But they could do it without breaking the pattern.

I do not find this a desirable outcome.

 

[Helldritch]

No disagreement.

Was that true in 1 (UA), 2 (Skills and Powers), and 4 (Essentials)? Does it happen with just splat creep too, like 3.5?

That is exactly it. UA was power creep at the highest.
Did not even cared to buy the Skills and Powers.
Essentials, did not buy it. I read it and said to myself... time to change or to stall. I liked my 4ed as it was.

TCoE has the very sound of the power creep I feared would come and now the "minor" changes with this other books are adding more deviations from the original PHB, MM and DMG. They no longer follow their own pieces of advice. That is something to muse on don't you think?

If they want to put a 6ed. They really should do it. I would give it a go, just as I did with the other editions.

 

[Helldritch]

I do not find this a desirable outcome.

But I do. I told you my reasons. What are yours? Only preferences or are they based on logic and strong game designs and intents as mine? I am curious to hear about your motivations.

 

[Charlaquin]

I prefer that NPCs model the same fiction as PCs, but I don’t think they need to use the same rules to do it. What I mean by that is, an NPC wizard should feel like a PC wizard. They don’t necessarily need to use the same spellcasting mechanics, because a lot of stuff in the rules for the PC class is irrelevant for an NPC - I as DM don’t need a full spellbook with a bunch of spells the NPC will never use, and a subset of those that are prepared, fueled by spell slots that recover on a long rest. This character is probably only going to be alive for three rounds of combat, I just need to know what he can do in that time. However, I still want the NPC wizard’s spellcasting mechanics to reflect the same reality as the PC wizard. If the PC’s fireball spell is resisted by satyrs and can be countered by counterspell, so should the NPC’s fiery blast ability be, even though it isn’t cast with a spell slot.

Likewise, I don’t really mind PC orcs only being able to dash as a bonus action PB times per long rest, while NPC orcs can do it at-will. As long as they’re both modeling the orcish burst of speed in combat, I’m cool with the specifics varying. But it bugs the hell out of me that NPC orcs have sunlight sensitivity but PC orcs don’t. If orcs are sensitive to sunlight, they should be sensitive to sunlight; doesn’t matter if the orc is a PC or an NPC. I don’t mind if the specific mechanics reflecting that sensitivity are different, but both should model it in some way, otherwise they don’t feel like they’re modeling the same creature.