D&D 5E (2024) NPCs, and the poverty of the core books

[Li Shenron]

When I want to make an important NPC myself, I pretty much always make it using PC rules, i.e. race + class + background in 5e. I may skim on some details like not filling up all its known spells and proficiencies allowance. I may on the other hand also give it some extras if it fits.

I consider pre-written NPCs from the MM mere commodities for  unimportant NPCs.

These considerations apply only to NPC which the PCs may have to fight against, otherwise I wouldn't even stat them up, important or unimportant to the story as they may be.

 

[dave2008]

But why?

You do accept 100% "Monsters" can do lots of things PCs can never, ever do. But when it's NPC, they must follow the PC rules? Why? The PC rules are for Players.

What is the point of the "theoretical"? Like NPC Bob is a Servant of the Dark One.....so if a player is will to do the exact build they can "copy Bob". But as Bob is made to be an evil bad guy...not an adventurer the player might find the character very lacking in day to day play.

If you choose to engage with the hobby as a game primarily, that's fine. To me, that simply isn't enough to hold my interest. I want a reasonably consistent setting that feels like a place that could exist for my players to explore and interact with through their PCs. That's what fun about the hobby for me.

That's all the "why" I can give you.

I am going to second @Micah Sweet on this one. I, as DM, enjoy world building first, time with my friends 2nd, and engaging adventures/campaigns 3rd. They are interrelated and I value all of them, but that is my personal order of enjoyment.

So I want my world to make sense as a world first and a game 2nd (as much as is reasonably possible and within my capability). Now, I don't think the PCs and NPCs have to follow the same rules 100% as long as they feel similar. So I don't mind if an NPC has a spell the PCs don't, to me that is expected in a living world. Could the PCs learn that spell, potentially. That is what downtime is for in my game.

 

[TheSword]

I guess I’m glad that I have never played with anyone like that and if that became a regular thing I’d have to suggest that we don’t have compatible play styles. But I did a lot of adapting/homebrewing/grandfathering when running 3e and never had even the most rules-familiar player challenge me what an NPC or monster could do.

As with many discussions like this. It was an Internet forum problem and certainly not one I saw with my players. They know that as a DM I’m a gift, munificent even. I’ve seen many discussions where DMs found it frustrating though and that sentiment often pervaded the boards.

Don’t get me wrong, this was one of Paizo’s aims. The same rules applied to both Players and NPCs/Monsters. It was their schtick. They owned it. I just think a side effect of it was negative. As is often the case with good intentions.

 

[Chaltab]

I am going to second @Micah Sweet on this one. I, as DM, enjoy world building first, time with my friends 2nd, and engaging adventures/campaigns 3rd. They are interrelated and I value all of them, but that is my personal order of enjoyment.

So I want my world to make sense as a world first and a game 2nd (as much as is reasonably possible and within my capability). Now, I don't think the PCs and NPCs have to follow the same rules 100% as long as they feel similar. So I don't mind if an NPC has a spell the PCs don't, to me that is expected in a living world. Could the PCs learn that spell, potentially. That is what downtime is for in my game.

I agree with this in general but I do have to wonder about the long-term effects to both game and lore of the specific implementation. Arcane Burst as depicted in the monster manual is an absurdly powerful ability compared to any PC-facing at-will power, able to do 108 damage a round without crits when used by an Archmage. How do you scale that for a PC?

One of the reasons I don't like it just from a game perspective is that spamming it often just feels like the 'correct' answer for the mage tactically.

 

[TheSword]

You know what, the more I consider it, the more I think ‘Poverty’ is such a poor choice of words to describe any of the Core Books. They are rich, lush and abundant. I’ve never seen such generous core books for art, inspiration, and choice. Pretty much every aspect I’ve seen improves on what came before. NPC breadth and depth included.

 

[TiQuinn]

You know what, the more I consider it, the more I think ‘Poverty’ is such a poor choice of words to describe any of the Core Books. They are rich, lush and abundant. I’ve never seen such generous core books for art, inspiration, and choice. Pretty much every aspect I’ve seen improves on what came before. NPC breadth and depth included.

It is very dramatic.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Ok. So the PCs defeat this enemy wizard with this unique spell. The wizard of the party takes the enemy wizard's spellbook and wants to copy this unique spell to their own spellbook. Can they, and if not, why? Same thing if they just befriend a NPC wizard and ask to copy the spell.

If it really mattered that much to the player that they get this "magic spell" that the NPC had that they didn't, then I'd write it up the effect as a spell and let them have it. No big deal. And if I felt the spell needed "re-balancing" or "re-leveling" or any of that stuff as part of writing it up, then I'd do that too. I don't see any of that as anything to be that concerned about.

Or if I didn't want to go through any of that effort of making a new spell for whatever silly reason, then I just wouldn't use that magical effect as part of the Wizard NPC statblock and instead replace it with an actual spell for them to use. Again, not that hard, not that big a deal. Changing statblocks or just not using parts of a statblock is such an easy thing that I cannot fathom getting worked up about it.

 

[TheSword]

I agree with this in general but I do have to wonder about the long-term effects to both game and lore of the specific implementation. Arcane Burst as depicted in the monster manual is an absurdly powerful ability compared to any PC-facing at-will power, able to do 108 damage a round without crits when used by an Archmage. How do you scale that for a PC?

One of the reasons I don't like it just from a game perspective is that spamming it often just feels like the 'correct' answer for the mage tactically.

It’s a +9 to hit so realistically you can half that number at the levels that an Archmage kicks in. It’s a versatile power but a well placed cone of cold could do more depending on the size of the party. It might vary with various protections and damage soaks.

Honestly I would be customizing my archmages, using the MM version as a base and applying my own theme.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think it's fair, and realistic, to assume people only know what's on the page.

Needless to say, I disagree. But that's fine.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If it really mattered that much to the player that they get this "magic spell" that the NPC had that they didn't, then I'd write it up the effect as a spell and let them have it. No big deal. And if I felt the spell needed "re-balancing" or "re-leveling" or any of that stuff as part of writing it up, then I'd do that too. I don't see any of that as anything to be that concerned about.

Or if I didn't want to go through any of that effort of making a new spell for whatever silly reason, then I just wouldn't use that magical effect as part of the Wizard NPC statblock and instead replace it with an actual spell for them to use. Again, not that hard, not that big a deal. Changing statblocks or just not using parts of a statblock is such an easy thing that I cannot fathom getting worked up about it.

How is all this more convenient than the NPCs just having the same spells than the PCs in the first place?