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

[Demetrios1453]

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

It was an exercise in insanity trying to create a high level NPC using the PC rules as was expected in 3/3.5e. Even mid-level ones were tough.

 

[Epic Meepo]

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 you want learnable abilities to make sense in setting, you probably shouldn't be playing a D&D-style, class-and-level-based system. Outside of a few contrived narratives, the type of character advancement present in D&D and related games makes very little sense in any setting.

 

[Remathilis]

It was an exercise in insanity trying to create a high level NPC using the PC rules as was expected in 3/3.5e. Even mid-level ones were tough.

Mostly due to the fact that PC classes are designed to be part of a tactical unit of players over multiple types of challenges and NPCs are designed to be run by one player in a very specific type of challenge. The asymmetrical style play demands far greater abstraction to run smoothly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you want learnable abilities to make sense in setting, you probably shouldn't be playing a D&D-style, class-and-level-based system. Outside of a few contrived narratives, the type of character advancement present in D&D and related games makes very little sense in any setting.

Telling people who disagree with you to play a different game is not as effective a rhetorical tactic as one might suppose.

 

[Sorinth]

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.

In fiction any PC can become a Lich, but if by becoming a Lich that PC becomes an NPC and the player has to roll up a new character then you the player can't be a Lich and the claim that you can learn/do anything an NPC can do is false, you the player can't play as a Lich.

Or if it takes 10 years of dedicated training with a master to gain some fighter ability, then effectively the player has to roll up a new PC, and if you are also saying that PC can't have already put in those 10 years of training because they are limited to the class rules then the claim that a PC can learn and do anything an NPC can isn't true, the PC has to become an NPC to gain those abilities.

 

[the Jester]

Or if it takes 10 years of dedicated training with a master to gain some fighter ability, then effectively the player has to roll up a new PC, and if you are also saying that PC can't have already put in those 10 years of training because they are limited to the class rules then the claim that a PC can learn and do anything an NPC can isn't true, the PC has to become an NPC to gain those abilities.

On the other hand, 5e (2014) has downtime rules, and I have run and/or played in games that passed years in downtime. So I guess if you can get the party to buy in to the idea of taking ten years off....

 

[Micah Sweet]

In fiction any PC can become a Lich, but if by becoming a Lich that PC becomes an NPC and the player has to roll up a new character then you the player can't be a Lich and the claim that you can learn/do anything an NPC can do is false, you the player can't play as a Lich.

Or if it takes 10 years of dedicated training with a master to gain some fighter ability, then effectively the player has to roll up a new PC, and if you are also saying that PC can't have already put in those 10 years of training because they are limited to the class rules then the claim that a PC can learn and do anything an NPC can isn't true, the PC has to become an NPC to gain those abilities.

I wouldn't necessarily take away a player's character sheet if they became a lich. Heck, there's a 3pp necromancer class I favor that has becoming a lich as it's capstone!

 

[Distracted DM]

I wouldn't necessarily take away a player's character sheet if they became a lich. Heck, there's a 3pp necromancer class I favor that has becoming a lich as it's capstone!

and an A5e feat chain :'D

but yeah I'm on the side of "some things only come with retirement/npc-hood," because there have always been things that the PC's mechanics can't account for.. the classic is "how is the necromancer controlling 200 undead in this dungeon?" Answer for simulationists (and 3e) is usually "he has an amulet that only works if you sacrifice a ton of people and make a pact with orcus;" whereas the more gameist editions' reasons are "they're NPCs, they did bad stuff for power and it took a long time, you're a hero and not an NPC."

Both end up with the same result, but the simulationist version has extra steps to help explain it in the mechanics of the game world, which can include cool info, and the gameist version is usually a little more "it is what it is, let's get to the slayin'."

 

[Horwath]

For the record, I am not a fan of legendary actions without explanation.

ability to run a single big bad without dozens of adds, so it does not get "action economy-ed" to death by 5 PCs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

and an A5e feat chain :'D

but yeah I'm on the side of "some things only come with retirement/npc-hood," because there have always been things that the PC's mechanics can't account for.. the classic is "how is the necromancer controlling 200 undead in this dungeon?" Answer for simulationists (and 3e) is usually "he has an amulet that only works if you sacrifice a ton of people and make a pact with orcus;" whereas the more gameist editions' reasons are "they're NPCs, they did bad stuff for power and it took a long time, you're a hero and not an NPC."

Both end up with the same result, but the simulationist version has extra steps to help explain it in the mechanics of the game world, which can include cool info, and the gameist version is usually a little more "it is what it is, let's get to the slayin'."

I always want to go with option 1.