D&D 5E Concentration mechanic can ruin plots in adventures

[Helldritch]

Self imposed limitations...

And is there a problem in that? Of course not every NPC will follow the same building rules. It's 5th edition but an NPC able to concentrate on 20 spells at the same time would be stretching the rules way too far, be it by RAI or RAW. For all intent and purpose the concentration rules is there for everyone and for good reasons. Increasing the duration of a spell would be a far better and more elegant way to do it.

Here is a solution we found on our side and a bit inspired an earlier post here. Excapode has been researching in the Far Real for too long and he was touched by it. As a result, his charm spell duration is exceptionally long (it is now based on the old assumption of the second edition, that is, duration by the intelligence of the victim). With this insight from the Far Realm, Excapode is able of great things but the cost was high and his sanity went down the drain. In a flash of insight; he burned his research about the Far Realm but the damage to his sanity was already done.

Yes it is a small (well, not that small but at least not too big) bypass of the rules, but it is better than discarding the concentration rule (with the dominate person option). Thank you all for your posts. You have been quite an inspiration for me and my fellow DMs with which I am sharing this old adventure to adapt it to 5ed. Thank you all.

 

[the Jester]

??? There were plenty of NPCs built on the same basic rules as the PCs in 1e and 2e.

Sure, but far from all of them. For a couple of specific examples, in the 1e PH, certain race/class combinations, such as elven cleric, are explicitly allowed for npcs only. Or in the 2e Monstrous Manual, under "Human", under the description of berserker/dervishes, you get this: "Berserkers attack twice per round, or once at +2". This is not justified by anything- they have 1d6 hit points, so they aren't even first level fighters. The only justification is "These guys are berserkers!" This, of course, is a carryover from the 1e "Men" entry in the MM, which in turn is (probably?) a carryover of berserkers in Basic.

The point is, D&D has only slavishly held npcs to pc-creation rules (or even pc-like creation rules) in 3e. You have always been able to do them by pc rules if you want, but it has only ever been "the rule" in 3e.

 

[Helldritch]

Unfortunately Dear The Jester you're far from the reality.
Whenever an encounter called for an NPC party (which was a fairly common occurence) the DM had to create a group from the ground up using PC rules. No escape from that. Same thing in the 2nd edition. It became quite tedious in the 3.xEd era where the number bloating was at its maximum. The occasionnal non PC class such as the berserker or neanderthal were exceptions, not the norm. Only in 4ed did we see set stat block for pc class related NPCs which did not involved hours of preps.

Drow in the fiend folio:
no appearing: 5-50
AC: 4 or better
Move: 12" (15"females)
HD: 2 and better
No of att: 1 or 2
bla bla bla
If a drow party of more than 10 is encounter, in addition to the 3rd to 7th level fighter (do the stat yourself here) there will be an additional fighter/magic user of 3rd level (do the stat yourself). If 20 are encountered a female fighter cleric of no less than 6th level (do the stat yourself again...) will be there. And it goes on and on and on up to 50 drows encountered where in groups higher than 16 will always be at least 50% females.

Go watch the svirfnibli, same. Dwarves, same, Elves? Same again. Same thing in the 2nd edition. Yes some monsters had a stat block. But they were not the norm.

Berserker from MM1 1ed.
For every 10 berserker encountered there will be 1st level fighter (do the stat yourself), for every 20 add a 2nd level fighter, for every 30 add a 3rd level fighter. For every 40 add a 4th level fighter. For every 50 add a 5th level fighter. Berserker warband will be led by a 9th level fighter assisted by two 6th or 7th level fighters.

All additional fighters are of the type : Do the stat yourself.
In addition, for every 10 berserker you have 10% chance of a berserker cleric level 7 and 1-4 of his assistant which are 3-4th level cleric. Naturaly, all these are of the type: Do the stat yourself too.

That was the same thing in the 2ed. This is why prepping was so important in previous editions. It is still a good idea to prepare. But improvisation is way faster nowadays.

 

[Beleriphon]

Unfortunately Dear The Jester you're far from the reality.
Whenever an encounter called for an NPC party (which was a fairly common occurence) the DM had to create a group from the ground up using PC rules. No escape from that. Same thing in the 2nd edition. It became quite tedious in the 3.xEd era where the number bloating was at its maximum. The occasionnal non PC class such as the berserker or neanderthal were exceptions, not the norm. Only in 4ed did we see set stat block for pc class related NPCs which did not involved hours of preps.

Drow in the fiend folio:
no appearing: 5-50
AC: 4 or better
Move: 12" (15"females)
HD: 2 and better
No of att: 1 or 2
bla bla bla
If a drow party of more than 10 is encounter, in addition to the 3rd to 7th level fighter (do the stat yourself here) there will be an additional fighter/magic user of 3rd level (do the stat yourself). If 20 are encountered a female fighter cleric of no less than 6th level (do the stat yourself again...) will be there. And it goes on and on and on up to 50 drows encountered where in groups higher than 16 will always be at least 50% females.

Go watch the svirfnibli, same. Dwarves, same, Elves? Same again. Same thing in the 2nd edition. Yes some monsters had a stat block. But they were not the norm.

In fairness the character classes were way less complicated in general. For a fighter you boosted HP, saves, and THAC0 and you were done. It wasn't that different that just ad hoc adding the numbers, but the designers for the most part just pulled level values from their butts and called it a day.

However, from a transparency standpoint nothing stopped you from saying: AC 2, Hp 52, THAC0 10, Saves vs stupid list of crap 14, Damage 1d8+3 twice per round. That was an NPC for AD&D, super, super simple. It isn't like the player would honestly know any different in the end. You can do that same thing in 3.x, but the expectation is that you don't because nothing is setup as completely arbitrary numbers.

3.x really went to town the idea that say a beholder had to have X "levels" in the abberation "monster class" so it could have a +x Will save, a +y Intimidation skill, and +z to hit. While the exact values didn't match concept applied mirrored building player characters. Where as if we look at AD&D it basically went with "here's a bunch of numbers, it's a beholder."

Nothing is wrong with either approach, but effectively saying NPCs follow the character creation rules is annoying, because I'm not creating a player character as the DM I'm creating a challenge for the players to over come. Sometimes I want to make things mirror the players characters, sometimes I don't. The numerical values and "abilities" I give that challenge don't really matter from a game perspective, because in the end you can justify and rationalize anything however you want.

As a GM if I did the double concentration I would explain it thus, "Want to concentrate on two spells at once? Super. this crazy wizard can do it, but learning how made him insane. He also didn't write it done, because he was insane and paranoid. So, good luck you go spend the next 20 or 30 years learning that same skill, and also end up insane. I'll take that character sheet and it is now an NPC. Oh, no, you changed your, sounds good to me."

 

[Lanefan]

In fairness the character classes were way less complicated in general. For a fighter you boosted HP, saves, and THAC0 and you were done. It wasn't that different that just ad hoc adding the numbers, but the designers for the most part just pulled level values from their butts and called it a day.

Pulling numbers out of thin air is fine as long as those numbers would be potentially achievable had the character been statted out the hard way.

However, from a transparency standpoint nothing stopped you from saying: AC 2, Hp 52, THAC0 10, Saves vs stupid list of crap 14, Damage 1d8+3 twice per round. That was an NPC for AD&D, super, super simple.

And, with one exception, completely achievable had you rolled it up longhand (the exception being the saves, which are never all the same value; I wouldn't bother writing them down and instead just check the chart when the NPC had to save just like I do for a PC).

3.x really went to town the idea that say a beholder had to have X "levels" in the abberation "monster class" so it could have a +x Will save, a +y Intimidation skill, and +z to hit. While the exact values didn't match concept applied mirrored building player characters. Where as if we look at AD&D it basically went with "here's a bunch of numbers, it's a beholder."

Here, you've jumped from NPC design to monster design which I think we all agree is a different ballgame (unless you have PC Beholders in your game, in which case I can't help ya... ).

Nothing is wrong with either approach, but effectively saying NPCs follow the character creation rules is annoying, because I'm not creating a player character as the DM I'm creating a challenge for the players to over come. Sometimes I want to make things mirror the players characters, sometimes I don't. The numerical values and "abilities" I give that challenge don't really matter from a game perspective, because in the end you can justify and rationalize anything however you want.

That's just it, though - I'd like to keep the instances of having to justify and-or rationalize inconsistencies down to as dull a roar as possible, such that they're the exception rather than the norm.

Put another way, I'd like things to be consistent enough that when something is different the players will notice it and - if I'm lucky - question it. (this is what can be so much fun about putting them on a different plane for a while: many things might not work the way they're used to, and the figuring-out process is part of the exploration)

As a GM if I did the double concentration I would explain it thus, "Want to concentrate on two spells at once? Super. this crazy wizard can do it, but learning how made him insane. He also didn't write it done, because he was insane and paranoid. So, good luck you go spend the next 20 or 30 years learning that same skill, and also end up insane.

This is actually kinda cool - I've certainly seen worse ideas. (though I think the OP was looking to have his NPC be able to concentrate on a whole bunch of spells at once, which in 5e-world is a bit over-the-top without some major butchery to the system)

I'll take that character sheet and it is now an NPC.

But this isn't cool at all - a character always belongs to its player even in retirement; and who knows - the player might later want to have that character do some adventuring to break up the tedium of study...or to help pay for it!

 

[prabe]

But this isn't cool at all - a character always belongs to its player even in retirement; and who knows - the player might later want to have that character do some adventuring to break up the tedium of study...or to help pay for it!

It's not cool as a surprise, but it's not inherently uncool and it might be part of the table contract (for lack of a better way to put it). I know that one of my PCs showed up more than a decade later in a different campaign that DM ran (the DM asked if I was OK with it first, but far as I was concerned that wasn't entirely necessary).

 

[Lanefan]

It's not cool as a surprise, but it's not inherently uncool and it might be part of the table contract (for lack of a better way to put it). I know that one of my PCs showed up more than a decade later in a different campaign that DM ran (the DM asked if I was OK with it first, but far as I was concerned that wasn't entirely necessary).

Fair enough, but having been in one or two situations where my characters were used as NPCs without my knowing about it till later - situations where had someone simply called me I could have gone over and played my own character either right then or at a later time - I've come to a somewhat harder line on this question.

The one exception is when the situation is something that can't have any long-term ramifications for the character e.g. having it appear in a dream dungeon where, say, if you die you just wake up instead.

And note that this is quite different from when a character is played when its player misses the session. Here the player knows the character will be played and - by table convention - has OKed it.

 

[prabe]

Fair enough, but having been in one or two situations where my characters were used as NPCs without my knowing about it till later - situations where had someone simply called me I could have gone over and played my own character either right then or at a later time - I've come to a somewhat harder line on this question.

The one exception is when the situation is something that can't have any long-term ramifications for the character e.g. having it appear in a dream dungeon where, say, if you die you just wake up instead.

And note that this is quite different from when a character is played when its player misses the session. Here the player knows the character will be played and - by table convention - has OKed it.

Sure. Different experiences are different. It helped in my case that I knew and trusted that DM a lot, and the character in question had been retired. If/when any campaigns I run end, I might ask if players mind if their characters continue to exist in the setting as NPCs; I won't use any if I don't ask or any where the player says no.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It should never be done without the player's knowledge, of course, but even in the 5E core rulebooks there are one or two places where it says something to the effect of "the PC goes insane and is now an NPC under the DM's control". So it's not exactly unprecedented. It's effectively just character death with extra bells and whistles.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

For example, a CR 12 archmage is a level 18 wizard. So adjust a monster/npc from the books based on what CR you think is appropriate and go from there. Ignore the specifics from previous editions, they don't really apply.

From a worldbuilding standpoint, it raises the question of how common 18th-level wizards are, and whether the status and power level of an 18th-level wizard is consistent with this NPC's characterization as (so I understand it) a nobody and pushover.