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

[Sparrowhawc]

Yep, that should work. Feel free to let us know how it goes; there's probably some interest to see your builds over in the Homebrew and/or Character Build subforums.



Cheers,
Roger

When I get them built I'll post.

Sparrowhawc

 

[Athinar]

Sparrowhawc,

I'm with you, started in 79 playing all types of game to include Chainmail.
The creation of NPC's is hard to figure out and the CR of Non-Players Characters is
even harder and does not fit any standard formatting.

It is like they don't wants us to build NPC's (maybe a $50 supplement is coming out
with NPC's only and how to create them)

(I think some times the group that created this 5th Ed were smoking crack and weed
and drinking cases of beer (I see empty beers cans and dice all over the playing table)).

So I to create the major NPC with the PHB and use the MM NPC's for quick Monsters only.

Also some players have never heard of a NPC being played by a Player and being taken
over by that player, thus becoming a PC

I have had players leave to go overseas and their characters became NPC's for a short time
until new players came and took over the NPC(PC)

 

[Tormyr]

What I was interested in with this thread was to see if any others were concerned with what I percieved as an issue with NPCs and how other DMs may be handling them. I also enjoy honest, non-judgemental response which answer the question posed, "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?"

I've received several responses to this thread ranging from answering the question with honest, non-judgemental response to questioning why I would want to "fix" something that is obviously not broken, to I think we need to wait for the rest of the rules.

Allow me to clarify a couple of things:

First, I have played this game for a very long time; 30+ years. I've also played a multitude of other games, all the versions of Traveller, Boot Hill, Top Secret, Gamma World, Star Wars, Cortex system, Firefly, I could go on, and the one thing I've always prided my self on, as a DM or GM or Admin, is consistency. That said, that is what I look for in the rules and story lines.

Second, anyone who has played this game as a DM or player for an extended amount of time, over multiple editions of the rules, will probably agree that all the editions have had pros and cons based on their reading and application of the rules, and has probably house ruled something at some point in time.

Third, my style of play has always been to make the primary bad guys the same as the PCs in respect to advantages and disadvantages. An evil NPC 18th level wizard that calls himself an archmage is still an 18th level wizard and should have the same HD, racial benefits, racial disadvantges, and class features as the 18th level wizard that is trying to hunt him down and stop his evil plans. Canned NPC don't leave memorable impressions, a well fleshed out NPC villian does. Let me repeat something here "my style of play". I don't mind a little bit more work as a DM and if come to the session prepared, I find that playing a PC built NPC does not impact game flow.

All that said, I still fall back to the best rule from the AD&D DMG, I'm paraphrasing here - This is your game. Use the rules in this book, don't use them. This is your game, have fun.

That is the rule I always fall back to.

Sparrowhawc

And it is a good rule to follow. Just remember that not all honest, non-judgemental responses sound like agreement. Someone can disagree on whether something is broken without judgement. Several people here prefer NPCs built as PCs. We have been told that the DMG will have guidelines for NPCs using PC rules (most importantly setting the CR), and that will arrive at the end of November.

There really is not much different between a "regular" NPC and one built using PC rules. For instance, if you made the archmage as an 18th-level Abjurer, he would be very similar to the Archmage in the MM. His hp would be roughly the same. Spells would be the same. He would have fewer languages, more skills and less bonus in his skills. He would gain resistance to the damage of spells to go with his advantage to save vs. spell as well as the wards. If you are careful, the ability scores are attainable using a human and using the 4 ability score increases the archmage would have. The CR would possibly go up by 1 or 2 because of the resistance to damage. But all in all, if you add more stuff to the stat block, that means there will be things the NPC doesn't get to use, so they don't help it anyway (and therefore don't make it anymore difficult).

My guess would be that if you were to recreate an NPC using PC rules, the CR would go up between 0 and 1 levels.

I think the solution to this will be much more clear in 6 weeks.

 

[ruleslawyer]

[MENTION=6781944]Athinar[/MENTION]: Charming.

Sorry, but NPCs and monsters needing to be built according to exactly the same procedure as PCs use does not for great gameplay make. More to your point, if I need to switch an NPC from monster-style (or, to use 4e terminology, "companion character-style") stats to PC-style stats, it's easy to do and doesn't impact verisimilitude. I have in fact DONE this quite often in 4e play; I made each player create a companion-character stat block of his or her PC and used those to run the characters when the PCs weren't available. Guess what: It didn't negatively impact quality of gameplay AT ALL.

3e is the only edition that has supported a full player-level build approach for NPCs and monsters (tell me about the way in which a vampire M-U7-12 or a human berserker from the 1e MM work using player-oriented rules, for instance), and I left it specifically because of the resulting mess. The idea that you need to avoid abstraction that moves the game along specifically in favor of "everything being exactly the same when the DM runs the NPC as a monster vs. the odd instance in which the PC runs the NPC as a PC-style character" is one that doesn't carry enough weight for me, at least, to warrant a significantly more bloated average stat block and ruleset and a mess when it comes to balancing encounters.

 

[Athinar]

Remove word

Why does every one quote 4e, it was the last edition that came out

 

[Paraxis]

Why does every one quote that POS 4e

Well because it is the most recent prior edition, to many people it was their first exposure to D&D, to many people it is far from a "POS".

But sure let's talk other editions, in fact any edition besides 3e, none of them used the exact same rules for monsters as PC's.

One of the worst things about 5th edition is the way they have done monsters. Let's look at humanoids many just use a single one handed weapon, why? Why wouldn't they use a shield, or off-hand weapon?

But I don't want them to build monsters based on the same rules as PC's, I want clear concise monster stat blocks based on CR and role like in 4e, 5th fails here as well as there seems to be no consistency between any group of the same challenge ranking monsters.

 

[Morrus]

Why does every one quote that POS 4e

You're new here, so probably aren't familiar with the "Edition Wars" which tore this community apart; Edition Warring isn't tolerated any more, I'm afraid. Just talk about stuff you like! Also, the profanity filter is there for a reason, so please don't circumvent it by using an abbreviation or acronym - it's a family friendly website. Pretend you're talking to a kindly old grandmother and try not to say anything that would offend her.

 

[Kalshane]

[MENTION=6781944]Athinar[/MENTION]: Charming.

3e is the only edition that has supported a full player-level build approach for NPCs and monsters (tell me about the way in which a vampire M-U7-12 or a human berserker from the 1e MM work using player-oriented rules, for instance), and I left it specifically because of the resulting mess. The idea that you need to avoid abstraction that moves the game along specifically in favor of "everything being exactly the same when the DM runs the NPC as a monster vs. the odd instance in which the PC runs the NPC as a PC-style character" is one that doesn't carry enough weight for me, at least, to warrant a significantly more bloated average stat block and ruleset and a mess when it comes to balancing encounters.

I wouldn't say 3E was the only edition to use it for NPCs (monsters, yes). When I DMed 2nd Ed, I was constantly creating enemy NPCs using the PC rules. Never once treated them like I was creating a monster. While I played a bit of BECMI and 1st Ed, I never DMed them, so I can't speak for those rules.

I'll probably continue to build my NPCs using the PC rules in 5E, but the existence of "Quick and Dirty" NPC stat blocks that use the monster rules for when I need to toss a random assassin or whatever at the party are fine with me. I wasn't as big of a fan of 4E rules, where the "NPCS" in the MM felt much, much different than the PCs. The 5E rules seem close enough that I don't have a problem using them when needed.

 

[Wrathamon]

I think he meant that 3e was the only system that by the rules made its monster (and npcs) using the same rule system as PCs. AD&D didnt do this (at least I dont believe they did). I dont think the NPCs in published adventures used the Player character rules. I could be wrong but I think they just put in stats they thought represented the character.

You as a player/DM can do this in any edition, even 4th. The Rules dont say ... HEY dont do this. 4e said its probably easier if you dont. 5e is doing the same thing. The DM doesnt have to be restricted by player rules when making up a villain.

PCs don't get legendary or lair actions, but my evil archmage sure will

 

[ruleslawyer]

Yup; Wrathamon stated exactly what I meant.

BTW, I did build a ton of NPCs using the PC rules for all editions I've DMed, including 4th; I've just preferred a simpler, more free-form approach to NPC generation. The first complete system for generating a simplified NPC stat block that I adopted (beyond the "eyeballing it" approach I used in 1e/2e) was the villain classes system in Iron Heroes.

(BTW, the 4e DMG2 has rules for generating simplified NPCs using its "companion character" system; I tended to use those if I wanted, say, a 7th-level fighter antagonist NPC. One of the great things about 5e from my perspective is that, given the simplification of most classes, I probably don't need to worry too much about slimming down humanoid-NPC-style stat blocks.)

Honestly, I'm happy with any approach that meets the following criteria:

1) Has PC generation that yields interesting characters that all have the ability to contribute to the "three pillars" of game play in a balanced enough manner that no single choice is clearly godlike/obligatory;

2) Has NPC generation that:

a) makes it simple for the DM to stat out NPCs;

b) conveys all the information relevant to the NPC's expected interaction with the PCs; and

c) works well with the system used for balancing encounters with PC parties.

Beyond that point, IMHO it boils down to aesthetics, which are a personal choice.