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

[Helldritch]

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.

That Sir! Summerize my whole approach and view on the discussion. An NPC is not a monster, it's a non player character. It should normaly follow the same rules as a PC. PCs are heroes (well... usually...) and have a small advantage in creation from the vast majority. But so are the opponent NPCs. The thing players and NPCs have in common are the rules. Bringing monsters as an example for special powers unavailable to players is kinda of missing the point. And by monsters, you can put the gods in there too. But it was possible to play gods and they had their rules too! It was called the Immortal Set for ODD.

We played it back then and it was fun for a few sessions. It showed us that even gods had some rules in their behavior and capacity to do things. If even the non players god/immortals and the players playing gods/immortals had to follow some rules, so should their mortal equivalent the NPCs and PCs.

There is a synergy in the rules. Most if not all rules are shared by the PCs, NPCs and Monsters. Be it concentration, saves, skills, movements or whatever else, the vast majority will follow the rules. Once in a while, you will see an exception. But it will be an exception nonetheless and not the normality. And putting an exceptional power on an NPC and making it unavailable to the PC is something that should not be done often. Any players worth their salt will ask questions. And the higher in level, the clearer the question will be. If the power is so game defining, you can bet that the players will try to duplicate it for themselves unless the drawback is too costly.

 

[CleverNickName]

A monster certainly can follow the rules for character creation, if you prefer.
A monster certainly can deviate from the rules for character creation, if you prefer.

Both are equally correct; I like to mix and match the two methods in my campaign to keep my players guessing.

Also, NPCs and boss monsters make great test pilots for new homebrew feats I'm working on, new Unearthed Arcana subclasses that just came out, non-Core spells that I'm considering adding, "broken" exploits and character builds that folks were complaining about online...you know, stuff that isn't available to the players yet (and might not ever be).

 

[Helldritch]

This would not work at my table. Before adding anything, we discuss the implications. For a one shot, an exceptions or something non permanent, it is quite ok to do as you do. But to put a permanent rule/hability/path/etc... requires me to talk about it with my players. It is our games, our stories. But to each his own.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

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.

I'm not missing the point as much as you might think. Because, to me, NPC refers to anything that is not a PC.

Legendary talking sword? NPC. Demon Lord? NPC. I don't really use the terms "Monster" and "NPC" separately.

And again, I was mainly focused on the idea accusation of "cheating", because assuming that all NPCs, even all "humanoid" NPCs, should be required to follow the same rules as players misses the vast array of differences and routes to power.

Zarg, The Voice of the Maw, First Priest of Sh'Go'TpZeloph, can cast a spell that poisons a great lake, causing all who drink it to fall into subservience to the Dread Lord of Waters.

This spell is not a player option. It is not something they can gain, because they don't have the title and haven't undergone the foul rituals that Zarg did.

Am I cheating? No.

And, I do occasionally make up new abilities, powers, and boons that players and villains can earn. If I was bound by the rules of character creation, then those options couldn't exist.

Yes, I prefer to have options that closely follow what players can earn. I prefer to let clever players gather strange powers that are outside of the realm of the game, that they couldn't see coming until they earned them as part of the story. But that doesn't mean I want to be bound by only the options presented to players in the official materials. And there is nothing wrong with letting new powers fall out of the convergence between areas that the game doesn't explore.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

So, what about Orcs? They are playable in Eberron, so should they be forced to follow the "rules for PCs" or "the rules for monsters". What about goblins? Should they all get "Fury of the Small" added to their stat block?

The truth is, there is no difference between "NPC" and "monster", this is made clear in the 1st edition DMG and has been true ever since.

Player character classes are meant to describe some of the career and power curves adventurers might follow. They have never been intended to be exclusive, or you could never add additional classes or subclasses. And they where never meant to describe non-adventurers*.


*They have been used to describe non-adventurers, but this is the actual cheat - it's a convenient short-hand to describe the guard captain as a "3rd level fighter", but it's not RAW - he can't be an actual fighter because he is not an adventurer.

 

[Helldritch]

A monster is not an NPC by default. It's a monster.
A humanoid can be treated as a monster, but it can also be a playable character.
An NPC is by definition a Non Player Character (or if you don't mind a character that can't be played by the players). Here the word character refers to class and to a minor extent to race. It was so in 1ed and it still is. Humanoids of all sorts can be classed. Only in 3.xed did we see monsters getting an extension of their definition to encompass character class. The idea was dropped for a reason.

Again, giving a special power once in while to NPC is not bad, quite the contrary. But if the exception becomes the norm... well you know my stance on that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A monster is not an NPC by default. It's a monster.

Wrong. According to the first edition DMG "NPC" and "monster" are synonymous.

 

[Helldritch]

On which page of the DMG? It is stated that the DM is responsible to play the monsters and NPC. The word creature is used for spell effect for PC, NPC and monsters alike. We have attack matrix for various type. Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Thief and ... Monsters! The DM is reponsible to roll the NPC stats... Where did you see that the terms were synonymous? I have never read that.

P100 of the 1ed DMG talks about NPC... only humanoids in there... and only player races. It even goes as far as talking about non human troops...

 

[Lanefan]

So, what about Orcs? They are playable in Eberron, so should they be forced to follow the "rules for PCs" or "the rules for monsters". What about goblins? Should they all get "Fury of the Small" added to their stat block?

Orcs are just as capable of earning xp (in classes they qualify for) as any other sentient race, therefore an Orc opponent would have to end up built in such a way as to be achievable if rolled up as a PC.

The truth is, there is no difference between "NPC" and "monster", this is made clear in the 1st edition DMG and has been true ever since.

That was the RAW definition, yes, but to me there's three things: an NPC - something of a PC-playable race with which the PCs can interact in a variety of ways; a monster, with which the PCs can interact only in limited ways mostly due to either the monster's lack of intelligence or lack of ability (or willingness) to communicate; and what I see as NPC monsters, intelligent enough to communicate and be interacted with in ways that don't involve combat, but of races not available as PCs (e.g. Dragons, various of the smarter homanoids, etc.)

Player character classes are meant to describe some of the career and power curves adventurers might follow. They have never been intended to be exclusive, or you could never add additional classes or subclasses.

I'd never add a class in mid-campaign anyway unless there was a rock-solid in-fiction rationale to back it up.

And they where never meant to describe non-adventurers*.

*They have been used to describe non-adventurers, but this is the actual cheat - it's a convenient short-hand to describe the guard captain as a "3rd level fighter", but it's not RAW - he can't be an actual fighter because he is not an adventurer.

And here we run completely aground.

In my view the gaining of xp is not limited only to adventurers - and there's no good internally consistent rationale that says otherwise. Adventurers gain them much faster than anyone else, to be sure, but having the guard captain be a F-3 merely tells me she's a veteran who has spent years grinding her way up to that level a very few xp at a time.

Otherwise how do you explain all the high-level non-adventuring NPCs in any typical large D&D city? They can't all be past adventurers; if they were there'd be no adventures left for the PCs to do! The answer, of course, is simple: these non-adventurers gain their xp in other ways, much more slowly but still able to add up to mighty levels in the long run. Lab mages, stay-at-home temple clerics, street thieves, soldiers in armies - they all gain xp for what they do, very slowly by adventurers' standards but they still add up. And maybe some of these people did do some adventuring at some point...but surely not all of them.

And how did high-level replacement PCs (who up until their introduction were just "out there" in the NPC pool) gain their levels?

 

[Lanefan]

Wrong. According to the first edition DMG "NPC" and "monster" are synonymous.

Unless you can find a quote to the contrary, the impression I've always got is that NPCs can be monsters and monsters can be NPCs but it's more of a partial overlap rather than completely synonymous.