D&D 5E Bounded Accuracy and Higher Level Background NPCs

[SkidAce]

A rambling thought;

For most of the 2nd through 3rd era, I kept my NPCs very low level. Being a king didn't mean you had to be 10th level or anything, it was based on your training. On king might be high level, another may be 1st level.

This was done to keep the heroes relevant for the most part, and to avoid having too many high level casters. But it was also done so the monsters could be a threat to the NPCs.

However, a high level fighter could still get his butt handed to him by a horde of goblins with 5e's bounded accuracy. So I could revise my guidelines on NPC distribution a bit.

The thought occurred to me in context of the EK. Who gets a signature ability at level 7, War Magic. I use that class as the base for an organization called The Magi, inspired by White Knight Chronicles and older games. Fighter/Mages who use combat and warfare magic.

Using my old NPC distribution, 95% of the members of that org would never get the ability to use War Magic. But if I change my NPC guidelines to have higher levels, then it recreates the feel of the campaign organization and because of bounded accuracy, they stay "relevant".

Here's a quote that is also relevant;

Or how about a flight of enemy knights, mounted on adult dragons? No gods needed.

From what I'm seeing in my Wilderlands game, 5e is exceptionally favourable to high level play where the PCs are powerful but still 'grounded'. My 11th-14th level group can storm a castle (with luck), but for taking on an enemy army they still reckon they need their own army.
Quite unlike 3e/PF.

In Summary of Ramble;

My old method (99% NPCs are 1st to 3rd) may be modified to a new method (99% NPCs are 1st to 10th).

This will of course result in more spellcasters, but as long as they are singular, or the leaders of organizations etc, it should work out fine.

/end ramble

Thanks for listening.

 

[SkidAce]

This leaves 11-20 for adventurers, players characters, etc.

For some reason I thought there were three "tiers", anyone know if this is referenced anywhere or given as adventure guidelines?

 

[Krachek]

In the Monster manual the veteran has 9 hit dice, 50 hit point, and a CR 3.
It is presented as a professional soldier, but not an extraordinary one.

You can imagine that once a war is over there is plenty of veteran available.
If the army also hire cleric, ranger, wizard you can have a lot of character around this strength.

Bound accuracy change a lot of thing in world assumption.
High level character are more fragile, and they will take less risk.
A group of 50 veterans can do a lot of damage to a single target.
DM will have to redesign the geo-npc-politic-warfare of their world.

 

[Jediking]

I found this product on DMs Guild: D&D 5e NPC Foe Expansion by Scott Metzger. It has different 'tiered' NPCs for different roles. A good example is how the MM has the Bandit (CR 1/8) and Bandit Captain (CR 2), which is a good way to harass or waylay Apprentice Tier heroes, but then the threat is nothing later in the game. The expansion adds the Brigand (CR 1), Outlaw (CR 7), and Brigand King (CR 12) to keep groups of bandits dangerous to high level parties. There are a bunch of mid-high CR NPCs who are not spellcasters if you want to keep them rare.
[MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION]: This is from the Adventurer's League Player Guide:
"Adventures for the D&D Adventurers League are broken into four tiers of play—first tier (levels 1–4), second tier (levels 5–10), third tier (levels 11–16), and fourth tier (levels 17–20)"

I think it was also mentioned in the PHB about different tiers somewhere but am away from the book. (Apprentice, Heroic, Paragon, Epic if I recall correctly)

 

[Istbor]

Where were you in my youth Skid? I would have totally preferred your worlds to the ones I played in. This was back before I DMed. The NPCs were of all levels and classes. And a lot of what we did felt less because our benefactor was of such an impressive level.

This may be why I have shaped my worlds differently. And I agree that since say, 3rd edition, I have noticed that same need to dial up some of the levels used. I guess the tiers that I use are 1-3, 4-9, 10-15, 16-20. The middle two being the largest and of course the apprentice tiers being small and usually short lived.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In Summary of Ramble;

My old method (99% NPCs are 1st to 3rd) may be modified to a new method (99% NPCs are 1st to 10th).

From a game balance/challenge perspective, that works just fine.

From a simulationist/in-world perspective, it's quite a bit more problematic to justify. When you've got a whole slew of 8th level Eldritch Knights sitting around, and an XP system which emphasizes positive feedback, you hit two big problems: (1) why didn't these guys continue on to 20th level? (2) why does anyone need the PCs?

In 2nd edition this wasn't a problem, because "most NPCs are 1st-3rd level" is actually really easy to justify in a game where trying to go from 3rd to 8th level takes ages and is quite likely to get you killed by some save-or-die effect long before you hit 8th. In relatively tame 5E where adventuring is quick, easy, and profitable, it's quite a bit harder to justify. I think I've hit upon the right combination by:

1.) Multiplying XP requirements by 10x. E.g. 2nd level takes 3000 XP, not 300.

2.) Allowing gold to be spent for XP gain on a 1 gp = 1 XP basis. E.g. one PC currently is a Folk Hero and he gets 1 XP per gp he sends back home to his village to support the fight against tyranny; another is a pirate and he gets XP for spending gold on his love interest. I've also declared that at a certain point they will get other benefits, e.g. 50,000 gold is enough that the love interest begins to reciprocate with warm feelings towards the pirate.

3.) You get half XP for dealing with a monster temporarily (e.g. sneaking past a monster, persuading an army to disband) and the other half XP only when you deal with it permanently (e.g. killing a monster, annihilating an army and/or banishing it to another plane).

4.) You get reduced XP for dealing with low-CR threats, in a ratio of [monster CR shifted by 2 levels up]:[your level], capped at 100%. So for example, a CR 1/4 creature gives full XP to a 1st level character but only 1/2 XP to a 2nd level character and 1/3 to a 3rd level character. A CR 1 creature gives full XP to 1st-3rd level characters but only 3/4 XP to a 4th level character and half XP to a 6th level character. Etc.

The net effect that I want to encourage is that:

(i) PCs don't feel a strong need to kill everything they come across just because it's there.
(ii) PCs are driven to seek out strong foes to challenge and/or steal from, instead of fighting hordes of mooks who teach you relatively little.
(iii) PCs are rewarded for CAW thinking that lets them, for example, infiltrate enemy headquarters and impersonate/kidnap/kill the enemy leaders instead of fighting their way through the whole army, and still get about the same total amount of XP.
(iv) I can therefore use mooks to shape the plot/tempo/sense of urgency. If the "adventure" is supposed to be "rescue the princess from hobgoblins" and I want four or five notional encounters without a rest, I can have a battalion of 800 hobgoblins camped out in the area, acting realistically (e.g. not fully armed and armored 100% of the time), which mostly don't affect the main four or five encounters but would come into play if the players retreat into a Rope Trick or Leomund's Tiny Hut.

So far it seems to be working out pretty well and advancement has a lot of that good old AD&D feel. For example, one of my players was delighted that after two sessions with his 1st level character, he was still (barely) first level, whereas playing strictly by 5E rules he would probably be 4th level by now.

Anyway, that's a long tangent that may or may not be valuable to you, but it's currently working well for me.

TLDR; your proposed tweak sounds fine from a game-balance perspective where monsters and PCs play by different rules, but from a immersive, simulationist perspective you might consider tweaking the XP system instead.

 

[feartheminotaur]

I always thought of the world in terms of levels, just like the PCs. The King is 20th level and the poor blacksmith's boy is 1st.

Thing is, the levels are in classes not in the PHB. By this I don't mean literal classes with features and such, because I'm lazy and stating that would be a PITA. But classes in rough proportion to the PCs.

So, the King is a 20th level Noble, the blacksmith's boy is a 1st level Apprentice. The King has a +6 proficiency bonus and 20 stats and gained levels by doing kingly stuff, not killing goblins with a crossbow. The apprentice and his lowly single hit die gains XP by working on his craft, not by delving some lost tomb.

That sort of psuedo-equalizing means the King is more powerful than PCs, just not at what the PCs do, and the blacksmith's boy is nowhere near the PCs league, but has skills that they don't for an adventure path the PCs don't care about.

Example:

King John II, Lvl18, +6 prof, +5 Cha, +3 Wis, +3 Int. Magic Crown - Immune to the charmed or frightened condidtion. Personality Stuff. -> That's all I need to roll any interaction w/ PCs

ETA: An example

 

[Krachek]

Rules of thumbs.
One level per per one or two years.
That make the veteran of 35 years old.

For artisan you can do the same.
A skillfull artisan at the top of its art may have +5 prof +4 ability and a +5 for a kind of expertise. Make a +14 at one or two skill.
20 hit point is quite enough for an not not combatting npc.

 

[SkidAce]

Thanks for all the thoughts and inputs. Good viewpoints.