D&D 5E Fifth Edition.....Why?

[Ilbranteloth]

Its just a bit too Gamist for me really and I feel that it does not fit the narrative of DnD.

I don’t think they have to be statted out in the same way as a character, but I like the rules to work consistently across the game world. So if the NPC is a 7th level rogue, I expect it to have the same class features.

The opposite is true in my campaign as well. If there’s an ability, magical effect, or whatever that the NPC is using, it has been defined in the rules/world.

All the stats are is a tool to help me maintain that consistency.

 

[Shasarak]

I don’t think they have to be statted out in the same way as a character, but I like the rules to work consistently across the game world. So if the NPC is a 7th level rogue, I expect it to have the same class features.

The opposite is true in my campaign as well. If there’s an ability, magical effect, or whatever that the NPC is using, it has been defined in the rules/world.

All the stats are is a tool to help me maintain that consistency.

I think you are right. Consistency has to be a major factor in why NPC monsters annoy me.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But what's more important how they handle character level. Through 3.5e, it was class level that might be maxed out. For example [MENTION=6683613]TheCosmicKid[/MENTION] says that making Elminster a 20th level wizard//10th level fighter/3rd-level cleric is legal in 5e. But it's not. Character level is independent of classes now, so the maximum total level a character can be is 20th, not 33rd as in his example. However, in earlier editions it would be legal, even if there was a cap at 20th level for a given class, because class level was independent of character level.

My exact words were that it's as legal as it was when the FRCS was published. At that time, the Epic Level Handbook did not exist yet. 3.0 had a 20-level cap -- the writers of the FRCS simply ignored it. You can do exactly the same thing in 5E.

 

[Sadras]

Personally, I wish that 5e had hard-capped at 30th level like late 2e, and 4e. But, y'know...

You have people concerned about the math from 9th-10th level onwards, adding another 10 levels of 'bad math' would see those people complain that 2/3rds of the game was broken.

IMO, they ended it about right - between those that want low-level campaigns (10th) and those that want epic level play (30th). And the DMG already includes epic level feats for those that want more. Increasing the level cap would certainly mean more broken math and more character hit points which is not needed.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

My exact words were that it's as legal as it was when the FRCS was published. At that time, the Epic Level Handbook did not exist yet. 3.0 had a 20-level cap -- the writers of the FRCS simply ignored it. You can do exactly the same thing in 5E.

No, they didn't ignore it. They used official rules that had yet to hit the shelves, and states as much in the book itself. That's a publication timing thing. It was (became) legal with the FRCS because that was the first book utilizing the new rules.

That's quite different than having to make up your own rules for 21+ level characters in a system where there are no official rules for it, and they've specifically stated that 20 is the cap. Epic boons can be granted via experience, so that makes "virtual" 21+ levels, but it doesn't increase class levels. Your class levels freeze at that point because class levels aren't tracked separately anymore.

 

[5ekyu]

just to state the obvious...

as a GM if i felt the need to have an adversary above 20 class levels, i would have no problem with giving it additional multiclass levels and the abilities and such while *not* necessarily giving them the extension of "character level gains".

So, Macguffin The Undying might actually be a 20th level character with 20 levels of sorc, 15 levels of bard, 10 levels of warlock and 5 levels of rogue... or as a "monster" written up with relevant elements of the same.

In my experience, by the time a Gm is seasoned enough to be running ten levels of campaign with character at doubdle digit ranks - they tend to have gathered enough experience to be able to (and likely have already been to a significant degree) adapt adversaries to fit the unique needs of their PCs, campaign and storyline.

Aside

For my own history, easily beyond 9th level characters - or their equivalent rank in any other system i have ran or played - i cannot recall a case where i could reasonably expect to take a standard npc/monster stat block out of the book "as is" and use it as a "boss" or "named villain" or main threat kind of element. I could certainly use a standard npc/monster stat block for minions or what i would basically see as "setting hazards" where they were as much the "meat" of an encounter as a lava stream or a dark and stormy night.

But... because by double digit levels the variability between one "group of four" to another is so high i have never seen a case where i would be able to take one of the standard npc/monster stat block and use it "as is" and have it be what was needed.

From that perspective, i often hate the approach of "here, have a list of NPCs from higher levels than before" approach to "expansion".

What i think would be more helpful to have would be more elaborate grab-bags of add-on features to raise the ante as well as more details and suggestions and maybe some analysis tolls to help Gms at those levels and before better assess the relative impacts.

one tool that i think would be useful is a set of say a couple dozen "set pieces" encounters scaled to be useful at multiple levels - with things to learn from them - as in "if your party went thru this with no casualties in two rounds...." vs "if your party beat ths in six rounds with 1 or more casualties..." and having those factors give them Gm som benchmarks to use to adjust how his group should be viewed for CR purposes, for specific challenge purposes, etc.

For some, that could be a useful analytic tool, for others it would give them perhaps a helpful "measuring stick" to quantify the skews they already see.

i would buy the "high end (tier 3-6) toolbox" a lot quicker than i would buy a "high end (tier 3-6) rogue's gallery".

 

[Tony Vargas]

In regards to 2e, while Forgotten Realms Adventures put no hard cap on PC levels, the spell advancement tables did stop at 30th level. Also, the DM's Option: High-Level Campaigns did put a hard cap at 30th level
As a nitpick, the Epic Level Handbook came out during 3.0's run, not during 3.5. Not that it matters much...

OK, I never got into Epic in 3.x, myself.

5e does have a slower pace of release than any D&D ed since 1e, so it's not surprising it doesn't have an Epic Level Handbook or anything like that out as yet - and, it may never, who know? Until we're discussing 6e, though, 5e is isn't the first ed to set a cap of 20, just the one to go the longest without a supplement that changes that cap. I suppose 2e was the first ed to set a cap of 20 (and the first to later set a cap of sorts at 30?) and 4e the first ed to set a cap (of 30) at release and stick with it the whole run.

Personally, I wish that 5e had hard-capped at 30th level like late 2e, and 4e. But, y'know...

Probably wouldn't have worked well with BA, 20 levels are already a bit of a stretch, that way.

Actually in almost any game with build your own... Player built items tend to be more optimal potentially than the setting provided examples are. Mechs in battle tech, ships in teaveller, PCs vs NPCs etc...the key is those setting pieces are built for setting purpose and example not to optimize every ounce of output... Generally.

Or, maybe the point of sub-optimal sample designs is to let players feel a sense of accomplishment in designing custom builds that are better?

-- the writers of the FRCS simply ignored it. You can do exactly the same thing in 5E.

Absolutely. 5e is all about being just a DM-Empowering 'starting point,' afterall. It's not like it'd be hard to extrapolate levels above 20. Another HD per level, &c. Or, you could go the AD&D route and just add a few bonus hp per level, though after 20 rather than after 'name' level...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

No, they didn't ignore it. They used official rules that had yet to hit the shelves, and states as much in the book itself. That's a publication timing thing. It was (became) legal with the FRCS because that was the first book utilizing the new rules.

They didn't use the Epic Level Handbook rules, though. If you broke down the characters in the FRCS, the math was different. Drove me up the wall back in the day before I realized how little these sorts of things really matter.

That's quite different than having to make up your own rules for 21+ level characters in a system where there are no official rules for it, and they've specifically stated that 20 is the cap. Epic boons can be granted via experience, so that makes "virtual" 21+ levels, but it doesn't increase class levels. Your class levels freeze at that point because class levels aren't tracked separately anymore.

Class levels are tracked exactly the same way they were in 3rd Edition. No, if anything, there is less that is tied to character level rather than class level than there was in 3E, because feats/ASIs are class features now. I'm honestly having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that you find adding all the different classes' levels together to be some insurmountable obstacle. You ignore the one line on p. 39 of the DMG that says "Characters gain no more levels at this point", and... that's it.

 

[GreyLord]

Epic boons are an interesting thing (that I've never yet used in 5e thus far). The biggest difficulty is that they are of varied power levels, with some being obviously far more powerful than others, while at the same time, some being far more useful for some classes than other classes (spellcasters seem to gain the advantage with epic boons far more than normal overall).

Of interest though, would you say someone could gain an epic boon more than once? For example, combat prowess, could they ever obtain it so they have he epic boon of combat prowess x2 (which still is nowhere close to being able to gain an additional 9th level slot that the spellcaster could gain...it may eventually be somewhat of a comparable boon I'd imagine)?

In regards to expanding the game otherwise, I did it rather easily when I created the 5e Old School document (shameless plug here) which is available on DMs Guild (still working on a Random Dungeon for solo player supplement though). I expanded XP tables, utilized tables from AD&D to extrapolate spell tables and other things. 5e makes it (and I'd say even encourages it) easy to do this if one so desires. No need to use my houserules (if I ever even got to that level of play, I've never played anything epic in 5e thus far), go and create your own. I think 5e encourages one to be the DM of their own game and govern/run it as they wish.

I don't know enough to know if they've statted Elminister for 5e, but I have no problems if he were a 27th (or 28th or 29th) level Magic-User. We may not know the rules for his stats, but the meaning is clear. We don't need to know his stats, he's an NPC and made that much more powerful simply so if we decide to do something stupid like attack him...he can destroy the entire party or put them someplace where an adventure awaits and they can't bother him...or any other such thing that Greenwood might desire.

The entire reason for them to be that high of level is NOT so we can see their stats (though it can be fun to do so) but to make it so that they are that all powerful type NPC that acts as the wise sage, or quest giver, or whatever other NPC role the DM needs, without having that same NPC open to be attacked and taken down.

If that's what you want though, there's nothing stopping one in 5e from going that route and creating an extension of the rules. If multiple epic boons of the same type are available, then it's even easier to stat out an Elminister (how many extra 9th level spells would he receive for example...and perhaps 40 more HP, etc...etc..etc).

I think 5e adheres more to keeping the same rules at times for NPC's than 4e did (and I actually like that, to be honest, some NPC's like Drizzt or others were rather ridiculous in my opinion in 4e, they should have been more like the PC's in regards to how they were statted out...and I liked 4e even) in my opinion, and because of that, doing things like what I said above in regards to characters like Elminister should actually be quite easy (once again, for the third time, in my opinion...obviously).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

They didn't use the Epic Level Handbook rules, though. If you broke down the characters in the FRCS, the math was different. Drove me up the wall back in the day before I realized how little these sorts of things really matter.

I didn't dig into that, so that's interesting. Obviously they hadn't finalized things when the FRCS went to press.

Class levels are tracked exactly the same way they were in 3rd Edition. No, if anything, there is less that is tied to character level rather than class level than there was in 3E, because feats/ASIs are class features now. I'm honestly having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that you find adding all the different classes' levels together to be some insurmountable obstacle. You ignore the one line on p. 39 of the DMG that says "Characters gain no more levels at this point", and... that's it.

Personally, it doesn't make any difference to me. And wow, you're right. I had totally forgotten that 3e switched to the straight character level instead of leveling classes independently, with their own XP totals, etc. Too long going to the SRD instead of the books for 3/3.5e stuff I guess.

When class levels were tracked independently, then if the max level for a class was 20, you were still well within the rules to dual/multi-class and gain levels in another class. Because there wasn't a "character level" at that point, just "class level." With the 3e and later approach, once you reach the maximum character level, you're "outside the rules."

You could easily do the same thing in 5e, or you could just keep extending the table with no additional abilities except boons (which is essentially what they've done). Again, I don't have a problem with that either. My point was simply that there's a difference between an official releases allowing 21+ level characters rather than a homebrew. Of course, I love homebrew so I"m good with that!