D&D 5E (2014) Concentration mechanic can ruin plots in adventures

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If a plot is based around a specific spell working in a specific way, you can't expect that plot to be easily ported to another edition. Why not port one of the the hundreds of other adventures that aren't so tightly coupled to the rules?

 

[the Jester]

Unfortunately Dear The Jester you're far from the reality.

Once again- in every edition, you could certainly use pc creation rules if you wanted to, and in some cases (e.g. "this guy's a 3rd level fighter") you more or less did. But even in a case like that, npcs didn't always follow the same rules as pcs. Quite a few had unusual abilities or powers that were not part of the pc process. To pick one example off the top of my head, you've got the npc bad guy in the A series who is blind but well-trained enough that it doesn't give him penalties (and this was well before any kind of blind-fighting ability was in the game for pcs). I'm not, and never have, said that you couldn't use pc methodology to make npcs; I'm saying that slavishly adhering to pc generation rules has never been in a thing in D&D except for in 3e. I don't know how you can argue against that when I've already posted several examples of npcs not using the rules for pcs. Do you want page numbers attached to those citations? Is the "Men" entry in the MM not specific enough? Do you need me to post the page number from the 1e Players Handbook where elven clerics were explicitly noted as npc only?

I mean, there were even whole products dedicated to npcs that explicitly laid out options for things the pcs couldn't have- I'm thinking the Complete Book of Necromancers here. Which was a blue (DM's) book, and went into great detail about abilities and weird side effects that npcs could have/gain. And it was explicitly for npcs only.

I'm not sure how to convince you if citing evidence from the books won't do it, but I assure you that I'm not "far from reality" here. I'm talking about the game as it was played, and as it was explicitly written.

 

[Helldritch]

Again you cite the book without the full extent of the citation or intent.

The entry of "Men" in the MM shows you the basic ones. Then IF you read the text wall under each type of "Men" you get that after x amount of "whatever men you wanted" you add 1 npc of X level. After another amount, you add another npc of "Y" level and so on. Yes you can extrapolate with made up numbers, but if you do it diligently (no insults intended here) you had to create each of these NPCs from scratch.

You cite Icar as an example. I'd put him as an exception, not the rule. He had the "Cool" concept attached to him. Even the book of necromancer was not to set an absolute rule but it was to add a "cool" aspect to a BBEG. As soon as a leveled day to day enemy NPC was needed. You were supposed to use the PC creation rules. All the Slave Lords were following PCs' generation rule. I don't remember exactly where, but it was clearly said in one of the old rule books to not over do it with NPCs with special powers. In the whole A serie, only Icar had such a special hability. As for the Necromancer handbook. I'd use such powers on BBEG type of enemy. These powers should not be the norm.

I do not say that you could not use the mooks in the Men entry of the MM. Far from it. They are generic enemies to be used in mass. They are minions of their classed leaders. And unfortunately, you had to create the classed leaders from scratch using PC rules. Yes you could make up the numbers, but it was an art of improvisation and if the numbers did not fit, you better be prepared to answer questions from the players. When every NPC is an exception, the players feel like they are pigeon holed into bad classes. They can accept and even expect that an exptional NPC has powers/feats/shenanigans that they might not be able to achieve for obscure reasons once in a while but to see it all the time is calling for trouble at the table.

The encounter tables in 1ed, 2nd and 3ed have NPC party at all levels of difficulty. And you had to create them from scratch, again using PC creation rule. Of course, again, you could take short cuts and make up some numbers but consistency was/is required.

 

[Bohandas]

I'm three pages into the thread and nobody has yet pointed out that 3e is the only version of D&D that made npcs by the same rules as pcs.

You mean 3e is the obly game that didn't cheat

 

[Chaosmancer]

You mean 3e is the obly game that didn't cheat

Hopefully you mean this as a joke, because it in no way reflects how game design works.

 

[Lanefan]

Once again- in every edition, you could certainly use pc creation rules if you wanted to, and in some cases (e.g. "this guy's a 3rd level fighter") you more or less did. But even in a case like that, npcs didn't always follow the same rules as pcs. Quite a few had unusual abilities or powers that were not part of the pc process. To pick one example off the top of my head, you've got the npc bad guy in the A series who is blind but well-trained enough that it doesn't give him penalties (and this was well before any kind of blind-fighting ability was in the game for pcs).

Excellent example.

In part because of this guy I had to develop rules (guidelines!) for blindfighting, as I got asked "hey, why can't we do this too?" The A-series guy in theory had many years of training, but it made sense that Thieves and Assassins could also have been exposed to similar in their training, so that's who I developed the guidelines for.

Do you want page numbers attached to those citations? Is the "Men" entry in the MM not specific enough?

It is what it is, and I've always largely ignored it. Ditto the MM entries for Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes and Hobbits (Halflings). The write-ups for these races in the PH trump the hell out of anything in the MM.

Do you need me to post the page number from the 1e Players Handbook where elven clerics were explicitly noted as npc only?

Another one I've ignored since day 1 - any race that worships deities can have clerics, and if said race is open to PCs then PC Clerics of that race are playable based on what that race's deities will support (e.g. no Dwarven Nature Clerics).

I mean, there were even whole products dedicated to npcs that explicitly laid out options for things the pcs couldn't have- I'm thinking the Complete Book of Necromancers here. Which was a blue (DM's) book, and went into great detail about abilities and weird side effects that npcs could have/gain. And it was explicitly for npcs only.

Complete Book of ... - those were all 2e, weren't they? So, let's not forget that 2e had a bug up its butt about evil characters, courtesy of the satanic panic, and as Necromancers would most likely be evil the marketing department probably forced this to be an NPC-only book.

I'm talking about the game as it was played, and as it was explicitly written.

You're talking about it as it was written, no doubt there. Whether you're talking about it as it was actually played at any given table is a very open question, given the wonderful variances we saw from one group to another at the time (and still!).

 

[Lanefan]

Hopefully you mean this as a joke, because it in no way reflects how game design works.

A sad commentary in and of itself.

What it means is that (usually) game design is specifically trying to fight against building an internally consistent setting, world, and game rather than helping with such.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A sad commentary in and of itself.

What it means is that (usually) game design is specifically trying to fight against building an internally consistent setting, world, and game rather than helping with such.

Not quite.

Let us start extreme. Gods and Demon Princes. Completely NPCs, and they use rules that are not available to the PCs.

Is that cheating? No, Player's are not meant to have the sort of far reaching cosmic power that those ancient entities are supposed to have access to.

Bodaks are worshippers of Orcus that have turned themselves into monsters using a dark ritual. Same with Liches (the dark ritual part at least) these are not PC options. Turning yourself into a Bodak would immediately place you into the realm of NPCs. Again, is this cheating? I don't think so.

Hags have powers that players don't have, Dragons, Aboleths, ect.

So, it is perfectly reasonable to not bind yourself to PC rules when creating an NPC. It is not "cheating" to do so. Because that implies breaking the rules, and you aren't. You are just working under a different paradigm and expectations.


Now, I agree, if an enemy wizard uses a spell, and the players find that wizard's spellbook, the players should have the potential to learn that spell. It is possible they could follow a similiar path to power. But, to build NPCs with no regard to player rules meant to enforce metagame balance on the system, is not cheating.

 

[Lanefan]

Not quite.

Let us start extreme. Gods and Demon Princes. Completely NPCs, and they use rules that are not available to the PCs.

Is that cheating? No, Player's are not meant to have the sort of far reaching cosmic power that those ancient entities are supposed to have access to.

Bodaks are worshippers of Orcus that have turned themselves into monsters using a dark ritual. Same with Liches (the dark ritual part at least) these are not PC options. Turning yourself into a Bodak would immediately place you into the realm of NPCs. Again, is this cheating? I don't think so.

Hags have powers that players don't have, Dragons, Aboleths, ect.

I think, given these examples, you might be kinda missing my point.

None of the creatures you reference are generally considered to be playable as PCs, and therefore one doesn't have to worry about any comparison. I don't need to concern myself at all with giving my NPC Demons and Bodaks and Aboleths the same abilities as PC Demons and Bodaks and Aboleths as there will never be such a thing. (exception: if a PC temporarily polymorphs into a usually non-playable creature it goes the other way: the PC then has to conform to the monster write-up unless the effect that generates the polymorph specifically overwrites that)

When I talk of NPCs here I'm specifically referring to those of a normally-PC-playable race or species.

Now, I agree, if an enemy wizard uses a spell, and the players find that wizard's spellbook, the players should have the potential to learn that spell. It is possible they could follow a similiar path to power. But, to build NPCs with no regard to player rules meant to enforce metagame balance on the system, is not cheating.

Whether or not it's cheating (which is probably an overstatement anyway) depends on one's view of setting fidelity and consistency, I suppose.

I like to think of it as in a given setting all Humans* operate within the same mechanical parameters e.g. 3-18 attributes on a more-or-less bell curve distribution, can't see well in the dark, normal lifespan maxing out at 80-100 years, stuff like that. Further, any Human* has the ability to gain xp and advance in levels, though not all do so for a variety of reasons; and we happen to play some that do.

* - or Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit, Gnome, Part-Elf or Part-Orc; changing the examples to suit the race.

Thus, PCs are much less special from everyone else that some people would have them. Yes they use a more generous method of stat generation, but all in all that's about it for their "cut above" status; anything else comes from what they do in play.

 

[CleverNickName]

The more I read it, the more I like the Clockwork sorcerer. It would be perfect for the sci-fi campaign I'm working on. I'm imagining a cloud of nanobots, rather than a swarm of modrons...