D&D 5E Issues with the "NPCs" in the MM and HotDQ (SPOILERS!)

[Sparrowhawc]

Please note that there is a spoiler in here.

I'm new to the forum, but not the game; I've been playing since the early 80's. I've played every version of D&D with the exception of 4e. After reading the PHB I decided that the only way to really get a feel for the changes in 5e would be to play it; so I picked up HotDQ and started a group of new players.

So far, overall I like the system; however, I've come across to things that are issues for me. Others may not find these two things "problematic" in their games, but I do. The first is natural healing, but I'll save that for a different thread. The second is how NPCs are handled. (Forgive me if I miss quote a number as I do not have the books with me as I'm writing this.)

This issue with NPCs only really came to light for me after I purchased the MM. When I saw the "Archmage" in the MM and looked at the stats, certain disconnects started to reveal themselves. The Archmage casts as an 18th level wizard but has a d8, not a d6 as its hit die. Therefore it would have more HPs on average than an 18th level wizard PC. The Proficiency bonus for the Archmage is +4, IIRC, because it is based on a CR of 12. An 18th level wizard PC has a proficiency bonus of +6. These types disconnects are rampant across the NPCs in the MM. NPC HD only lines up with the Class HD for d8 HD classes and proficiency bonus only line up when the PC level and NPC CR fall into the same range bands; Level/CR 1-4 = +2, 5-8 = +3, etc.

After this, I started looking closer at the NPCs in HotDQ. Then other issues came to light. The one that really sticks out is the NPC Dralmorrer Borngray.

SPOILER:

Based on the rules in the MM, this NPC should be d8 HD because he is a medium size creature; he is a d10, 7d10+14 to be exact. So my initial thought is that he is a 7th level fighter. Further down in the description, it tells you he casts spells as a 7th level caster with spells from the wizard spell lists. He wears studded leather armor and fights with a long sword or dagger plus casts spells. What is this guy? Also, since he is a 7th level caster and has 7 HD, you would think a +3 proficiency bonus; he has +2 because he is only a CR 3.

​

I could continue with the other NPCs in HotDQ but I believe you get my point.

So the issues are:

1. PCs get HD of Class; NPCs get HD based on size.
2. PCs get proficiency bonus from level; NPCs get it from CR.
3. PCs have restrictions and benefits from class and race; NPCs have no clear cut guidance; just make them what you want. Just look at Dralmorrer Borngray

Now, some disconnects between the HotDQ and the MM could be due to the release schedule and certain things getting changed in the MM after HotDQ was released. What I don’t get is why the NPCs needed to be in the MM. I’ve always been a firm believer that NPCs of playable races should follow the same guidelines as PCs. Under 3.5e this was tedious as the NPCs became higher levels, i.e. tracking skill points, proficiencies, feats, etc. But with the simplification, relative, of the character generation, building NPCs would not be so tedious a task. Depending on rules in the DMG however, disconnects could get worse; how do you determine CR?

My fix to this will be to build out the NPCs in HotDQ using PC rules in the PHB, not the MM, and to develop a way to set an appropriate CR based on rules from the DMG.

Has anyone else picked up on this? If so, do you find it an issue and how do you plan to fix it in your game?

The ever so gracious,
Sparrowhawc.​

 

[Boarstorm]

First of all, welcome to the boards!

As to the meat of your post...
This topic has seen quite a bit of discussion, and you'll find many who agree with you based on the dreaded "V" word (which can start fights occassionally).

Others will say that NPCs and PCs are their own thing and shouldn't use the same rules. An NPC is balanced the way it is so that it can be relevant versus a full party if need be; and that things that serve different purposes should be statted differently.

I've argued both over the years. It'll take some time with the new edition for me to decide my feelings on the matter.

As for Mr. Borngray -- I believe he was supposed to be an Eldritch Knight, hence the d10 HDs.

 

[Astrosicebear]

I couldnt agree more with the OP. It bugs me not only as a DM but as a potential author or 5E material.

I believe we will just have to wait for the DMG for rules on making NPCs.

 

[the Jester]

Has anyone else picked up on this? If so, do you find it an issue and how do you plan to fix it in your game?

Yep. I don't find it an issue; I learned from 4e that building npcs like monsters works well, can be invisible to the players at the table, is easier on the dm and avoids a lot of the issues that npcs had in 3e when they worked just like pcs. (The old "12th level wizard is CR12??" argument comes to mind, for instance.)

It doesn't need fixing, in my opinion.

Looking at the archmage, for instance, it has enough hp to be a challenge in combat (instead of having so few that it is likely to go down before it gets a chance to act). It lacks a lot of the pc wizard tricks and stuff, and is simple to run. I don't want to have to keep track of tons of fiddly bits on all my monsters and enemies for pcs.

It's also simple and easy to build some npcs using the PH rules, but there's no need to do that with every npc. And npcs not working like pcs isn't new to 5e (or 4e, or 3e, or...). It goes all the way back. In Basic and 1e, bandits and brigands had their own stat blocks. Heck, in 1e, pilgrims got their own stat block! So to me, this is no big deal.

 

[Authweight]

I've always felt that the PC rules are specifically for adventurers. They are just a small slice of the diversity present in the actual world. In the world of the game there are scholarly mages who can cast very high level spells, but only as rituals, and they only have 10 hp. There are brutish warriors with lots of HD but no class features. There are professionals who have very high proficiency bonuses on their dedicated skills, but can't swing a sword to save their life.

The rules in the PHB are made for creating adventurers, not everyone in the world. It would be bizarre if the only way to become better at spell casting was by fighting monsters. That's only the case for adventurers, and even then it's just an approximation of reality. You get better at spells by practicing spell casting. For spell casting adventurers, they practice in the field rather than in the lab.

Edit to add:

5e just isn't set up the way you're looking for. NPCs and monsters are made however the DM feels like making them. There are no rules, just guidelines. It's not like 3e where everyone follows the same sort of rules for creation. If you don't like that, then 5e probably just isn't for you.

 

[Boarstorm]

If you don't like that, then 5e probably just isn't for you.

I just wanted to weigh in that I hate this line (Sorry, Authweight, nothing personal -- you just happened to be the one to say it most recently). Just because you have a problem with one aspect of a system doesn't mean the system "just isn't for you." You can like, even love, the other aspects enough to compromise on the thing you don't like and still have a really positive experience.

 

[Tormyr]

A couple of things from a quick read on this.
1. Creatures in the MM and adventure appendices are not PCs and are not statted as such. They are statted to provide an appropriate challenge to a party of a certain level. This is going to be one of those "refer to rule 1" lists. :wink:
2. The archmage has d8s but has fewer hit dice than other creatures of the same or similar CR so it still ends up having drastically fewer hit points.
3. The archmage being an 18th level caster affects its number of spells memorized and spell slots only. if its proficiency bonus was higher, it would too easily overcome the defenses of 12th level PCs since proficiency affects both save DC and to hit bonus.
4. I don't think it is broken. I just don't think we have the whole picture yet on how the CR works for creatures whether statting them as monsters or PCs. A lot of these questions would probably be answered if we had the DMG.

I don't have HotDQ with me, so I can't comment on him specifically. Is he the eldritch knight?

 

[Tormyr]

Dupe

 

[Sparrowhawc]

As for Mr. Borngray -- I believe he was supposed to be an Eldritch Knight, hence the d10 HDs.

I thought that as well, but he breaks a couple of the Edritch Knight rules and a MM rule:

1. 7th level - 2 cantrips known, 5 spells known. Borngray - 3 cantrips known, 6 spells known
2. 7th level = PB +3. Borngray PB +2 (based on stat block for longsword +6 melee - +4 from Str, +2 from PB, assumption)
3. MM says HD is based on size. He should be d8.

Any way, I'm not a rules stickler, I've been playing to long to get that bogged down. I mention it because I'm a stickler for consitency. Just a personality trait.

I always liked the disclaimer rule in the back of the original AD&D DMG, to paraphrase - your game your rules. Do what makes sense to you.

Sparrowhawc



Thanks for the reply

 

[Tormyr]

I've always felt that the PC rules are specifically for adventurers. They are just a small slice of the diversity present in the actual world. In the world of the game there are scholarly mages who can cast very high level spells, but only as rituals, and they only have 10 hp. There are brutish warriors with lots of HD but no class features. There are professionals who have very high proficiency bonuses on their dedicated skills, but can't swing a sword to save their life.

The rules in the PHB are made for creating adventurers, not everyone in the world. It would be bizarre if the only way to become better at spell casting was by fighting monsters. That's only the case for adventurers, and even then it's just an approximation of reality. You get better at spells by practicing spell casting. For spell casting adventurers, they practice in the field rather than in the lab.

Edit to add:

5e just isn't set up the way you're looking for. NPCs and monsters are made however the DM feels like making them. There are no rules, just guidelines. It's not like 3e where everyone follows the same sort of rules for creation. If you don't like that, then 5e probably just isn't for you.

I just wanted to weigh in that I hate this line (Sorry, Authweight, nothing personal -- you just happened to be the one to say it most recently). Just because you have a problem with one aspect of a system doesn't mean the system "just isn't for you." You can like, even love, the other aspects enough to compromise on the thing you don't like and still have a really positive experience.

5e is an edition made with the specific concept that if you don't like something as a DM, go ahead and change it. Not only is it possible to have different levels of happiness with different parts of the system, I believe in this case we will get the guidelines for creating NPCs using the PC rules in the DMG. So in this case, 5e will explicitly support it.

I agree with Boarstorm though. Kicking people out of the club because they don't like an aspect of what they are seeing, want to discuss it and look for a solution doesn't help. While I don't believe the system of creating monsters as it stands is broken or needs changing (it's just different) others don't see it the same way.