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

[Bohandas]

It's great design.

No it's not; it's like the cheating NPC karts in Mario Kart

 

[keynup]

No it's not; it's like the cheating NPC karts in Mario Kart

But D&D players are not competing with NPC like in a Mario race.
If you want to use a Mario race as an example it would be like the kart racer complaining that the guy who starts the race is flying on a cloud.

 

[Baumi]

ccs beat me to it. But I still want to point out that Players can have unique spells (find or create them, which strangely nearly no one seems to do), so a NPC can have one too without bending the rules compared to players.

Btw. how is a 10th Level Wizard in AD&D a wimp?

 

[Helldritch]

ccs beat me to it. But I still want to point out that Players can have unique spells (find or create them, which strangely nearly no one seems to do), so a NPC can have one too without bending the rules compared to players.

Btw. how is a 10th Level Wizard in AD&D a wimp?

2ed wizard.
St: 8, Dx:14 con: 8 int : 16 wis: 6 cha: 14
Hp: 19. AC: 4 (about 16 on 5ed).

With 5ed he should be at about 32HP. Considering that the adventure was meant for 7th to 8th level PCs; I think that Excapode qualifies as whimp for the characters.

Again the difficulty was not to beat him. It was to do so without killing the good NPCs that were charmed.

 

[Baumi]

Ok, the HPs certainly sucks for that level.

But his other stats are actually quite good and as a Spellcaster he should still be very dangerous if played smart.

 

[Helldritch]

Of course he is still dangerous. But remember that enchanters had forbidden schools of magic too. He is a whimp, but a dangerous whimp.

 

[jayoungr]

Again the difficulty was not to beat him. It was to do so without killing the good NPCs that were charmed.

Interestingly, I ran a 5E adventure last year with exactly the same challenge. In that case, the BBEG had an artifact that charmed a certain species, which none of the PCs belonged to. (I know you've said you don't want to do artifacts, but my campaign revolves around collecting them and using them to power a magical transport.)

 

[ad_hoc]

No it's not; it's like the cheating NPC karts in Mario Kart

Let me get this straight -

You think the game is only 'fair' if the only thing the PCs encounter are other characters made using PC rules? No monsters of course because players can't be monsters. And NPCs can't have lots of allies to fight with them as the PCs don't get that without a specific power. And for each encounter are there the exact same amount of NPCs to PCs? Are they the same level too? They must also be the same class right to be fair?

How do you avoid TPKs? If everything is 'fair' then a TPK is quite likely.

 

[the Jester]

Monsters don't necessarily follow PC character creation rules, but NPCs have to play close enough to rules that the players won't complain.

Honestly (and I don't look at a lot of things in this way), "NPCs don't have to follow the same rules as PCs" feels like adversarial DMing to me.

You've pointed out this glaring example of bad design in 5e a few times now.

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. This isn't a piece of 5e design, this isn't some unprecedented aberration of the latest edition- it's a return to form.

Look at the entry for "Men" in the 1e MM, or various things like "bandits" or "berserkers" before that. Check out any npc you'd care to mention from 4e. Those aren't all following the same rules as pcs. Sure, some do- but only some, and explicitly so.

Now, if you want your npcs to follow the same rules as pcs, that's fine, but let's be real- that is the position that isn't in line with the traditions of D&D. It's a 3eism. And like I said, that's fine, if it's what you want. It's a fine approach- but it's absolutely not the only one or inherently better than "I want an npc who can do x, so let's give her x as a special ability!" Neither way is better on the whole, though one or the other might be better for you.

Anyhow, that doesn't help the OP! (Although it seems like he's settled on geas as his answer, at least as of the part of the thread I've read.) I think my answer (were I in OP's position and not wanting to give him special powers) would be something along the lines of "there's something in the water". Rather than giving him an extra ability, I'd give him access to some kind of resource that dulls the minds of those consuming it. Something that makes them susceptible to suggestion, or that extends charm effects for a great length of time- a magic pool, some kind of weird gas, an idol before whom the broken-minded must be brought, a psionic effect that lingers in the chamber an elder brain once dwelt in. Something like that. That adds the potential for the pcs to get access to it, which means I would probably also add something that makes it obvious that using that resource will eventually corrupt/destroy the users, to encourage the pcs to destroy it rather than use it.

 

[jayoungr]

I think my answer (were I in OP's position and not wanting to give him special powers) would be something along the lines of "there's something in the water". Rather than giving him an extra ability, I'd give him access to some kind of resource that dulls the minds of those consuming it. Something that makes them susceptible to suggestion, or that extends charm effects for a great length of time- a magic pool, some kind of weird gas, an idol before whom the broken-minded must be brought, a psionic effect that lingers in the chamber an elder brain once dwelt in. Something like that. That adds the potential for the pcs to get access to it, which means I would probably also add something that makes it obvious that using that resource will eventually corrupt/destroy the users, to encourage the pcs to destroy it rather than use it.

That's a great idea! Depending on how you handle it, it could also add time pressure to the adventure, if being around it for too long would also make the PCs susceptible to the same influence.