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

[Distracted DM]

If that's truly the case then perhaps the game has designed PCs to be too powerful relative to their surroundings - and also relative to themselves.

Yep, that's how it feels.
I have found that increasing baddie damage by 35% and dropping their hp by the same amount helps a bit, at mearls' advice.
It's a bandaid but it's also a bit of a pain to do on a VTT.

 

[Remathilis]

And yet when during the D&D playtest, classes received substantial rebalancing nerfs (Sneak attack to 1/round, limits on paladin smites, wild shape limitations, concentration on spiritual weapon, and the death of twin spell) the community cried bloody murder. Luckily, some of those made it through anyway, but it is a constant reminder that once the smoke is out of the bottle, you can't get it back in so easily. Hence the arms-race in the MM for monsters that do far more consistent damage and can resist nova bursts.

 

[Lanefan]

Could just have them face their own clones in a battle (idea isn't mine, was in a book I read years ago).

There's a couple of TSR-era modules that set up this situation, where some or all of the party end up fighting their clones.

In terms of round count, the longest combat I've ever run was one of these: a defense-first Fighter fighting her own clone where each needed something like a natural 19 to hit the other and their damage output wasn't stellar.

38 rounds later.......

Which does poke a small hole in the PC-as-glass-cannon theory.

 

[Lanefan]

In 5e the PCS play and run exactly how you don't want a DM to run a monster nor build an encounter.

Which tells me loud and clear that the PCs need some serious toning down across the board in order to fit in better with their settings.

And that, sadly, won't happen: 5e is designed to let the players wade through the vast majority of their opposition, more like a scaled-back supers game than anything the least bit gritty.

 

[Lanefan]

But why tho?

This is where you're losing me. Mechanical consistency is useful, but not at the expense of playability. Representing an NPC the same way as you would a PC of the same level leads to multi-page statistics full of mostly-useless information that isn't going to even be relevant when representing a creature that dies in two or three rounds.

1 - you don't need every last detail of background etc. unless the PCs are likely to get to know the NPC beyond combat.
2 - if "multi-page statistics" are required, that tells me character generation has become vastly too complex.
3 - all that matters in the end is that the NPC fall within PC-available guidelines for the same class-species combination, regardless how you note it all down.

 

[Minigiant]

Which tells me loud and clear that the PCs need some serious toning down across the board in order to fit in better with their settings.

And that, sadly, won't happen: 5e is designed to let the players wade through the vast majority of their opposition, more like a scaled-back supers game than anything the least bit gritty.

It's more...
5e was designed on vibes after 4e was designed with a purpose and people reject it because it didn't have the correct vibes.

To have NPCs that can use PC logic you have to design your NPC system and PC system together.

Think of it like 4e a monster roles. If we say that PCs are strikers: they have high damage, high accuracy, low HP, and have a way to prevent themselves from being killed (mobility, High AC, defensive spells) but die if cornered or jumped.

Then we graph a typical type of monster that fits that role goblenoids and elves.

Goblin minion, Drow minion, hobgoblin minion, bugbear minion,, goblin Warrior, Drow warrior, hobgoblin Warrior, bugbear warrior, goblin leader elf leader, hobgoblin leader, bugbear leader.

Plot out their stats and put PC offense and defense near those benchmarks, then it could be done.

 

[Minigiant]

There's a couple of TSR-era modules that set up this situation, where some or all of the party end up fighting their clones.

In terms of round count, the longest combat I've ever run was one of these: a defense-first Fighter fighting her own clone where each needed something like a natural 19 to hit the other and their damage output wasn't stellar.

38 rounds later.......

Which does poke a small hole in the PC-as-glass-cannon theory.

The fact that some pieces can be built as defense tanks does not deny that the majority of PCs are glass cannons.

And really that was only from early editions and RPGs that seek to emulate earlier editions. Because in those editions you're saving throws massively increased with level compared to modern additions.

Your high AC tank in in modern dungeon caller games tend to get destroyed eventually by saving through attacks if you could get your turn off.

Once the enemy start casting spells, shooting magic rays, and breathing fire most of the tanks start falling down as well in editions past 2nd.

 

[Chaltab]

The fact that some pieces can be built as defense tanks does not deny that the majority of PCs are glass cannons.

And really that was only from early editions and RPGs that seek to emulate earlier editions. Because in those editions you're saving throws massively increased with level compared to modern additions.

Your high AC tank in in modern dungeon caller games tend to get destroyed eventually by saving through attacks if you could get your turn off.

Once the enemy start casting spells, shooting magic rays, and breathing fire most of the tanks start falling down as well in editions past 2nd.

Max level fighters saving on a 2 across the board in RC was nuts. You got a 95% chance of success. Even the 4E Fighter ain't that tough.

 

[GobHag]

Except aren't the game mechanics there to abstract and reflect that universe as best they can? Isn't that their job?

If so, then if in-universe there's no difference that should be reflected by there being no game-mechanical difference.

Honestly? I hope not. Game mechanics are there to be fun to use(or leads to fun) and are usable by their 'user'(Classes for Players and NPC/Monsters for GMs), verisimilitude should be a secondary concern over game feel and mechanical usability+balance.

 

[GobHag]

If the mechanics are not representing portions of the fiction, then they have failed at their job. If you have different mechanical representations for the same fictional circumstance, the game has failed at its job. The game should be coherent, not be fragmented into different ways to represent one thing in the game.

Yeah, the game. The world can be whatever it wants, people can change the setting if they so choose. If you use the Orc statblock for a tough and angry human, what's the harm?