D&D 5E Spellcasting Monsters, Spell Slotlessness, Bonus Actions, and Intent

[Micah Sweet]

As I said before the work involved in creating a PC feat/subclass/replacement ability/etc.... is so much higher then doing it for an NPC. Like @Remathilis said take Legendary Actions, I have a master swordsman who has honed their craft to amazing levels they are super quick/strong and I give them LAs like extra attacks and movement to highlight that amazing quickness. A PC wants to train with said NPC to gain the same LAs how are you handling it? Because sure in fiction it's something that is teachable, but in practice we can't be giving PCs legendary actions without completely warping the game.

If the PC swordsman can't learn the NPC's swordsman technique because of "game balance", then IMO that technique shouldn't exist.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because the PCs have chosen the path that let's them master 20 levels of class features over the course of a hundred or so encounters?

Meanwhile, the NPCs of the setting have each devoted years of training to mastering one or two tricks that can't be learned by simply experiencing a few adventures. Any PC can learn those same tricks... by not not adventuring for a decade or so and effectively retiring from the campaign.

Fair enough. But it is learnable. Let's make that clear, and let's make sure all the restrictions you want to put on learning it make sense in the setting.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I would find it incredibly tedious to build all my NPCs with the same features from the PHB as PCs. No thank you. I have enough on my plate.
I'm glad that's not a thing in 5e.14 or 5e.24

 

[Sorinth]

If the PC swordsman can't learn the NPC's swordsman technique because of "game balance", then IMO that technique shouldn't exist.

Fair enough. But it is learnable. Let's make that clear, and let's make sure all the restrictions you want to put on learning it make sense in the setting.

If the cost to learn a skill is to effectively retire as an adventurer then it results in the same thing, an NPC only ability.

 

[Distracted DM]

Y'all are trying to reconcile and/or argue gameist vs. simulationist design... it's gonna be a matter of where each person's preference falls on that line, but in the end it has to land somewhere on said line. 4e was very gameist, 5e sort of straddled the middle but as it went on it has gone further over to gameist.

It seems like the sort of convo where people end up having to agree to disagree, because they just have different priorities.

 

[Chaltab]

The point is that no matter how simulationist or gamist you're making it, you're still abstracting things. Different mechanical representations of the same story exist because the above-game function of an NPC statblock usually to exist for a few rounds until the PCs leave or defeat them and it clutters the statblock by giving the gamerunner extraneous information. Even in a simulationist game like GURPS there's no reason for an NPC to be made in as much detail as a player character.

In exceptional cases, like the NPC is a party companion, it makes senes to use less abstraction and give them abilities more fully in-line with those of a PC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the cost to learn a skill is to effectively retire as an adventurer then it results in the same thing, an NPC only ability.

Recall that I said to make sure the cost to learn an ability (in time, money, or otherwise) makes setting sense. That to me is the most important thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The point is that no matter how simulationist or gamist you're making it, you're still abstracting things. Different mechanical representations of the same story exist because the above-game function of an NPC statblock usually to exist for a few rounds until the PCs leave or defeat them and it clutters the statblock by giving the gamerunner extraneous information. Even in a simulationist game like GURPS there's no reason for an NPC to be made in as much detail as a player character.

In exceptional cases, like the NPC is a party companion, it makes senes to use less abstraction and give them abilities more fully in-line with those of a PC.

Less detail is not the same as "can do things an equivalent PC can never do", or vice versa. I'm fine with less detail so long as it works out in the general range.

 

[Sorinth]

Recall that I said to make sure the cost to learn an ability (in time, money, or otherwise) makes setting sense. That to me is the most important thing.

Which is just pretending that there aren't PC vs NPC abilities when in fact there are. Like I can say any creature with LAs was gifted those abilities by the God of Legendary Actions who goes around arbitrarily giving out the Boon of Legendary Actions and all the PCs have to do is somehow impress this god and they too will be gifted LAs even though there is 0% chance of that ever happening. It's fake and will make the world feel fake as well and sure the justifications don't have to be as inane as the one I just gave but they will almost always be worse then it just being a mystery of you have no idea how this creature got so good to get access to LAs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is just pretending that there aren't PC vs NPC abilities when in fact there are. Like I can say any creature with LAs was gifted those abilities by the God of Legendary Actions who goes around arbitrarily giving out the Boon of Legendary Actions and all the PCs have to do is somehow impress this god and they too will be gifted LAs even though there is 0% chance of that ever happening. It's fake and will make the world feel fake as well and sure the justifications don't have to be as inane as the one I just gave but they will almost always be worse then it just being a mystery of you have no idea how this creature got so good to get access to LAs.

Why would that be fake? If you make that claim in the fiction, I think you should back it up when your players call you on it. Or maybe stop giving legendary actions to PC-equivalent in-fiction NPCs without an in-fiction reason the whole table can accept.