Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6882633" data-attributes="member: 6701872">The NPC building rules aren't arbitrary just because you don't like the reasoning behind them.I find "NPCs have whatever stats and traits are necessary for their challenge rating" to be a lot more useful as a DM than I ever found the relation between class levels and CR to be in 3rd edition -for reasons including, but not limited to that a 5th edition spellcasting NPC has a different CR for having a different spell selection (the example casters in the monster manual being "off" in that their listed CR and spell selections don't match - likely intentionally so that a DM swapping spell selection wouldn't end up with an over-potent-for-claimed-CR opponent, which is just another way the design of 5th edition makes sure that if any estimation is off it is under, because raising things up to appropriate power is much easier and better received in general than toning things down), rather than the guideline pretending it doesn't matter if the most potent spell the NPC can cast is disintegrate or Drawmij's instant summons so the CR is the same, and making a high-level "kills things with weapons" threat being a matter of seeing how much damage a particular CR should do and describing/dividing that out among the number of attacks I decide will be most engaging rather than having to select all manner of fiddly option like feats, classes, and so on.I view the difference between 5th edition and 3rd edition, where NPC (and monster) building guidelines are concerned, as being the difference between working out the details that actually matter (the end result hitting the mark) and adhering to the idea that everything must operate on the same rules in the same fashion with zero exceptions (the correct process being used - even when that clearly produces results that don't hit the mark).</blockquote>

Verification