Search results

It's a good example of a NPC that annoyingly does stuff no PC bard can.

BTW, regarding the diegetic specificity of subclasses, I finds it odd that some people implied they are not specific enough. My issue with many of the newer ones is that they are weirdly specific. Like a barbarian that reveres animal totems and draws power to them seems to me like a clear...

More reasons to combine warlocks and sorcerers! And make bards half casters while we are at it!

By what? A pack of tarrasques?

I think subclasses are pretty good answer to this. You need less main classes when the subclasses can add the specificity. Though I still strongly feel that the main classes should have defining fiction too, but that can be a more of a broad archetype.

Well, if we are not going to discuss things like that, you might as well shut the place down.

Sure. But this is literally a discussion forum for D&D. People are going to voice their their complaints about how the things are handled in the official product.

But this is Oberone fallacy stuff. And more rules I need to rewrite, less incentive I have to buy the official rules in the first place.

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

@Ruin Explorer given how rude you have been I have little desire to discuss this further with you, but to me the point of rules is to represent fiction mechanically. That is why we have rules. Classes have associated fiction, that class represents specific fiction. So if you ignore the fiction...

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.

No, I mostly agree with @Lanefan. There could be rare cases where conditions of being able to acquire the capability are so specific, that it would be unlikely* that a PC could be able to repeat them, but such things should be extremely rare. We are talking about basic stock opponents, those...

We are talking about how NPC rules are written in general. Of course we are talking about multiple NPCs. I mean there is rather obvious middle ground where the NPCs are streamlined, but still use same spells, weapons etc than the PCs. Small disparities are not usually apparent. A bunch of NPCs...

There is no reason one could not make these exceptional people as characters. Also, if someone is exceptional and rare, I would imagine it is the PCs, rather than the CR 2 Mage Apprentice with their Arcane Burst. Like c'mon, it is a basic enemy that often appears in large numbers. They are not...

I agree with this as well. I've said many times that CR is a joke.

It is pretty reasonable take that a class based on Faustian bargain implies that such bargain matters. Like that is the core of the identity of the class. And it doesn't need to be a conflict, but yes, it should matter. And indeed if cleric's religion never matters or if nature does not matter...

One thing about the NPCs using same spells, same weapon stats etc than the PCs is that it makes modifying them easier and more intuitive. Swap one martial weapon to another, swap a spell to another of the same level and so forth.

Then again, having a patron is what sets warlock apart from the sorcerer, so if the patron is just some random even in the past that is no longer relevant, then thematically you might as well be a sorcerer. And it does not help that the books do not do much to clarify how the relationship with...

What product is that?

Yeah, this is annoying. I often end up modifying NPC statblocks to make them more PC-like, and I do not love that the 5.5 design has taken PCs and NPCs even further apart. I would really like to have simplified PC-like statblocks for NPCs of various classes and levels. You can streamline things...