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

[Raduin711]

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

I no longer have my copy of the first edition rules, but it said something along the lines of "the term monster is used to refer to anything that isn't a player character". It may have been in the PHB, but I think it was in the DMG.

In my view the gaining of xp is not limited only to adventurers - and there's no good internally consistent rationale that says otherwise.

RAW, xp is gained by killing monsters, so everyone who isn't an adventurer would be permanently stuck at 1st level.

But it's not really about xp and levels, it's about skillsets. A 10th level farmer or librarian or bank manager or sheepdog isn't going to have the same skills as a 10th level adventurer. Adventuring classes ONLY DESCRIBE ADVENTURERS. They are not meant to describe the general population. Most notably, RAW all medium creatures use a d8 hit dice. This is reflected in the "sidekicks" rules in the Essentials Kit (which actually work well if you want to give non-adventurers levels).

 

[Helldritch]

I reread the DMG and the PHB 1ed. From what I read, an NPC can be a monster but the monster can't be a character. Gygax wording, as usual, can be quite ambiguous. Different tables for characters and monsters.

From the monster manual:
"The therm "monster" is used throughout this work in two manners. Its first and most important meaning is to designate any creature encountered - hostile or otherwise, human, humanoid or beasts. Until the encountering party determines what they have come upon, it is a monster. The secondary usage of the therm is in the usual sense: a horrible or wicked creature of some sort. Thus a monster is encountered during the course of a dungeon expedition and it is discovered to be an evil high priest who just might turn out to be a monster in the other sense as well. Note, however, that despite the terminology, humans (and such kin as dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves and halfling) always use the matrix for humans when attacking, even if such humans were encountered as "monsters" in the course of the adventure." MM 1ed p5.

From what you can read: The word monsters can be applied to NPC. But not the reverse. Humans (and their kin) are always in a separate ruling with their own attack matrix and saves. The underlined text tends to justifies what I said. But I must admit that if you want to read it the other way, it can be done. I don't believe it was the intent, but our friend did his best to be ambiguous.

 

[Lanefan]

RAW, xp is gained by killing monsters, so everyone who isn't an adventurer would be permanently stuck at 1st level.

And, in 1e RAW, by gaining treasure and by playing to one's alignment.

But it's not really about xp and levels, it's about skillsets. A 10th level farmer or librarian or bank manager or sheepdog isn't going to have the same skills as a 10th level adventurer.

A 10th level librarian or farmer or bank manger isn't going to exist as none of those are classes in which one can earn xp.

Adventuring classes ONLY DESCRIBE ADVENTURERS. They are not meant to describe the general population.

Here we disagree; I see the classes as describing anyone who would reasonably fit into one. Any soldier, for example, is automatically on its way to being a Fighter if not already there. Any urchin or street thief is either already a Thief or well on its way to becoming one. Any acolyte in a temple has the potential to become a Cleric given enough time and devotion but need never leave the temple in order to do so.

Most notably, RAW all medium creatures use a d8 hit dice. This is reflected in the "sidekicks" rules in the Essentials Kit (which actually work well if you want to give non-adventurers levels).

For anything in a class I'd toss this and replace with the hit dice appropriate to that class - which may still be a d8. But soldiers becoming Fighters would use a d10, a street urchin becoming a thief would use d6, and so forth.

Note that this does raise a big headache in one regard: how to distinguish the hit points one has as a non-adventuring commoner (because everything has hit points) and the hit points earned as a member of a class; as they're not additive and having one replace the other is kinda messy.

We found that adding in a system of "body points" solved this rather elegantly (though some complications arose elsewhere, but nothing too onerous): everyone has a certain number of body points (not many, usually 2-5 for a Human) and for most common folk that's all the h.p. they ever get. "Fatigue points" are those you earn through your class; sometimes commoners have 1 or 2 of these but no more. Your b.p. are locked in for life* once rolled, while your f.p. change with your class level.

* - barring corner cases e.g. loss of a limb, which can permanently affect your b.p. total

As a pleasant side effect this b.p.-f.p. system also solves a lot of the h.p.-are-meat vs h.p.-are-luck arguments: b.p. are pretty much all meat, f.p. are mostly not meat but can still represent nicks, cuts, bruises etc.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Here we disagree; I see the classes as describing anyone who would reasonably fit into one. Any soldier, for example, is automatically on its way to being a Fighter if not already there. Any urchin or street thief is either already a Thief or well on its way to becoming one. Any acolyte in a temple has the potential to become a Cleric given enough time and devotion but need never leave the temple in order to do so.

You are free to impose any rules you like on your world, but it is neither RAW or RAI for D&D. In D&D the player characters are HEROES. They are Conan, they are Luke Skywalker. "Any soldier" is the city watch, the temple guards, the stormtroopers. Heroes can plough through dozens of "any soldiers" without breaking into a sweat, they have skills that "any soldiers" can never aspire to.

As for clerics, the PHB (5e) has this to say about them: "not every acolyte at a temple or shrine is a cleric....priesthood amounts to a political office...involving no communion with a god at all. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies."

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I can relate with the OP with regard to the problem posed by an NPC wizard casting a spell the players will never be able to cast. Stereotypical wizards will be knowledge-obsessed and will want to put their hands on such a spell. Saying "it's not possible" is fine but I can see the player being frustrated.

I agree that neither Charm nor Dominate would work and Geas has flaws (plus, the NPC could choose to resist : if they are threatening to a party of mid-level characters, they can possibly decide to take the 5d10 psychic damage to be able to ignore the geas for one day if they see adventurers that might liberate them (with their help as well).

But as spells are not limited to the published lists by RAW since the DMG quick mentions creating new spells. Why not grant the wizard

Excapode's Loyal Workforce
4th level Enchantment
Casting Time: 1 hour
Range: touch
Component: V,S,M (a piece of velum to write the contract on, the blood of a child who disobeyed his parents' orders not to follow a stranger resulting in his untimely death, to write the contract with)
Duration: 1 year and 1 day (or shorter if specified by the contract)
Classes: Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard

You place a magical rune on an employment contract for henchmen and bodyguard. The contract can last as long as 1 year and 1 day. As long as you fulfill the obligations stipulated within (notably, not attacking your henchmen, granting the stipulated pay and behave like a reasonable employer would), the employee will never question your orders within the bounds of the contract, won't consider taking bribes and will not denounce the contract. He will gain advantage to resist mind-affecting spell that would be detrimental to fulfilling the contract. The rune is visible and register as Enchantment magic to Detect magic, but its power and meaning won't be obvious to the prospective employees, whom can be tricked into signing what they sign a regular employment contract.

The evil party is doing most of the evil acts but the "good guys" were just employed to "guard my house against any intruder". They happily signed, and then discovered that Excapode was evil, but they still had to guard the house. Add a standard confidentiality clause if you don't want the good guy to be able to communicate freely with the adventurers.

If your players want the spell, no problem. It could be right in Excapode's spellbook. Should they want to research an alternative somatic (Edit: material, it's the material part that's problematic) component (and I'd rule it's not one that is found in a component pouch), hey, adventure seed! Should they want to draw an Adventuring Party Contract to grant themselves advantage on mind affecting magic, hey adventure seed! (Not one I would want to run, though, especially if it's not a follow-up of the former seed).

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

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

good thing this is 5e and not 1e.

 

[Krachek]

You are free to impose any rules you like on your world, but it is neither RAW or RAI for D&D. In D&D the player characters are HEROES. They are Conan, they are Luke Skywalker. "Any soldier" is the city watch, the temple guards, the stormtroopers. Heroes can plough through dozens of "any soldiers" without breaking into a sweat, they have skills that "any soldiers" can never aspire to.

As for clerics, the PHB (5e) has this to say about them: "not every acolyte at a temple or shrine is a cleric....priesthood amounts to a political office...involving no communion with a god at all. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies."

This is true, but 3ed has left a strong legacy in term of « any monster can have class level ». Some group have develop play style where pc and npc share the same mechanics and possibilities. A Pc wizard is only a wizard among others.
it is not core assumption, but totally viable.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is true, but 3ed has left a strong legacy in term of « any monster can have class level ». Some group have develop play style where pc and npc share the same mechanics and possibilities. A Pc wizard is only a wizard among others.
it is not core assumption, but totally viable.

Sure, you can play that way if you like, but that might mean certain modules can't be converted to your setting. And you can't blame the rules for that, because the cause is your house rules, not he core rules.


My personal feeling is it runs against the spirit of the game, less D&D and more Accountants & Solicitors.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

I think this is the right way to look at it. The statements that “NPCs = Monsters” OR that “NPCs =/= Monsters“ are not exactly accurate as absolutes, at least in the most current edition

Here’s what the 5e DMG has to say (p88):

A nonplayer character is any character controlled by the Dungeon Master. NPCs can be enemies or allies, regular folk or named monsters. They include the local innkeeper, the old wizard who lives in the tower on the outskirts of town, the death knight out to destroy the kingdom, and the dragon counting gold in its cavernous lair.