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

[Athinar]

Quick down and dirty use the MM but for the Boss and 2nd Boss, etc... make them by the PHB
I brought the 4e books, read them, did not like the game, so I started playing WOW

Started back up with a 1e game and the group is a great group of people
The group wanted to try 5e so we stated playing and the only problem I see is the NPC and the CR. I
I like the limited use of Magic and stats (3.X was way over the top with magic and stats)

 

[Lucas Yew]

Just adding this. I believe I support the same idea as the OP here.

It was when this Sir Oakley character from Madness at Gardmore Abbey "transformed" (..shudders) from a NPC statblock to a monster's that I parted with 4th edition forever, even when my very first D&D book was HotFL... So I had to stick with the d20 era rules; even if it meant that I was stuck in a game verse with strange physics that prohibited warriors from moving more than 5 feet per sec when they wanted to attempt 2+ effective physical attacks, it was at least run on a consistent rule for every single creature in it.

As such, the 5th edition is really a lifesaver, apart from those small "typo?"s. It might have a little clunkyness here and there, but at least there aren't any "transforming NPCs"... (shudders even more)

 

[Henrix]

3e NPCs didn't just follow PC creation. There was a bunch of NPC classes to make simpler NPCs as well.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Well, not quite; 3e NPC classes are for specific types of NPCs that are at a lower combat effectiveness level than PC-classes NPCs. They're not like iron heroes villain classes; you can't use an NPC class to construct a simplified barbarian tribesman, elven ranger, or high priest (unless you use adept for the latter, which is again a gimped spell caster, not a simplified one).

Again, this is a matter of personal perspective; I view a different stat block format as a purely meta game construct that doesn't impact the story, and consequently I have no trouble with, say, one kind of archmage that is an 18th level wizard using the phb advancement rules (a PC) and one that uses the CR 12 MM statblock (an NPC). YMMV.

 

[Grazzt]

3e NPCs didn't just follow PC creation. There was a bunch of NPC classes to make simpler NPCs as well.

They did if you made an NPC cleric, fighter, wizard, sorcerer, rogue, etc.

 

[Sparrowhawc]

I guess since I started this, I might as well add some more to it.

When I mention building the NPCs using the PC rules, I mean that I use the PC generation rules for the same races and classes of NPCs. I don't use it for bandits, pilgrims, and the like. I also don't use to flesh out heavier than normal monsters, i.e. a really big and nasty orc chieftain. But that is my choice. If others want to use the MM, or their own system, or a combination of multiple systems, I'm not one to judge. Use what works for you.

However, what I don't like is inconsistency or change just for change. The new MM for 5e ties the proficiency bonus to CR, not HD. All other versions, I don't know about 4e as I didn't use it, use HD to determine BAB or THACO or in a matrix to determine the chance to hit. All other versions, gave you a class and level for NPCs that were PC like. Pick up any AD&D, 2e, or 3.xE module and it is apparent what the NPC is and that they pretty much abide by the PC generation rules. Don't get me wrong I have seen exceptions, and those exceptions are usually followed up by something in the back of the module to explain it or, on occasion, it is just a typo/error.

From just an initial look at the MM and HotDQ the rules are departing from HD being the driver for monsters and folding major NPCs in with monsters buy using CR to determine their proficiency bonus instead of level as well as not identifying what the NPC is, i.e. fighter/eldritch knight, or Barbarian/Totem, etc.

I still like the overall dynamics of the new rules. I like the changes in spell casting, the simplification of advantage/disadvantage, Inspiration. I really want to see what is in the DMG to see if it sheds more light on the NPCs and monsters and how to determine CR. I guess I just have to wait and stash away about $50.00

Sparrowhawc

 

[pemerton]

I view a different stat block format as a purely meta game construct that doesn't impact the story, and consequently I have no trouble with, say, one kind of archmage that is an 18th level wizard using the phb advancement rules (a PC) and one that uses the CR 12 MM statblock (an NPC).

Agreed.

I have run D&D modules using a range of different systems: I've run B/X modules using 3E and 4e, AD&D modules using Rolemaster, 3E/d20 modules using RM and 4e, etc. Th mechanical conversion that this requires is something that I've always treated as a metagame execise, not as a rewriting of the imaginary world of the story.

Changing statblocks between PC and NPC is just another feature of that. For instance, for a PC it is interesting for the player to have flexibiity in making choices about bonus actions, multiple attacks, activating self-buffs, etc. For an NPC it can be quicker and easier just to bundle this stuff into basic expressions of combat effectiveness, like AC, attack bonus, hit points etc. Ultimately, what is the difference, in the fiction, between a bonus to hit from DEX (lets you strike with speed and precision) and a proficiency bonus to hit (lets you strike with speed and precision)?

However, what I don't like is inconsistency or change just for change.

When you frame it this way, you will get some people who don't agree with you, because they think that the rule isn't "change just for change" - in part because they think it is not a change (and will point to berserkers, sages, mercenary officers etc in AD&D as earlier example of NPC generation following different procedures), and in part because they think that it not "just for the sake of change" but rather well-motivated.

Also, what you call "inconsistency" some people are going to see as a type of excessive focus on rules over fiction. Within the fiction, after all, what is the difference between someone with 1d8 +4 for CON, for a total of 9 hp, and someone else with 2d8 and no CON bonus? None that I can see. So whether your focus on HD or CON as a way of generating your NPC's hit points is mostly a matter of metagame concerns - what else, in the game system, is associated with HD or with CON - rather than a matter of fidelity to the fiction.

 

[Sparrowhawc]

Once again, I'm not trying to focus on henchmen type NPCs. I'm focusing more on major antagonistic NPCs. Also I'm not sure I see the correlation you are trying to draw with the HD and Con. I was pointing out the fact that the ability of a monster to hit an opponent was always related to the HD of the monster, not the challenge rating. And now NPCs are also done that way in both the MM and HotDQ.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Once again, I'm not trying to focus on henchmen type NPCs. I'm focusing more on major antagonistic NPCs. Also I'm not sure I see the correlation you are trying to draw with the HD and Con. I was pointing out the fact that the ability of a monster to hit an opponent was always related to the HD of the monster, not the challenge rating. And now NPCs are also done that way in both the MM and HotDQ.

Here's the rationale. In 5e, they said "Why are you using a monster's stat block in the first place? 99% of the time it is because the PCs are going to fight the creature/person in question. Now, what do we want in an interesting battle? We want the creature to put up a legitimate fight and be interesting to fight. We want them to survive long enough to not feel that they were just a speed bump. The only way to assure that is to build an enemy based on the strength of the party you expect them to fight. That number is CR."

CR is not the same thing as CR in 3e. In 3e, when you create monsters, you use a large formula to calculate the creature based on hit dice, stats, the monster type, and so on. Then at the end of the process, you look at the completed monster and say "I'm going to guess how powerful this monster is and assign it a CR." The problem is, that CR could be completely and totally wrong because it was mostly guessing. Also, the formula created such a wide range of monsters that you could end up with a creature that was essentially CR 4 against spellcasters while being CR 14 against fighters.

In 5e, you instead start with "How powerful should this monster be?" and work backwards. The rules are meant to give you a creature who matches the CR you want rather than the other way around. Due to a focus on constraining numbers, you end up with a monster who is much more accurately the power level of its CR. The change allows you to create monsters whose difficulty is much more predictable and have more fun combats.

The player creation rules aren't designed around that idea. A 10th level Fighter's stats don't really match up to the way monsters are made. Monsters are designed with lower damage and more hitpoints than PCs.

What pemerton above is getting at is that in the game world someone who attacks an NPC wizard and it takes them 2 hits(doing 9 damage total) to kill that wizard, the character in the game will have no idea if it had 9 hp because it rolled 2d8 or because it was 1d8+CON. The exact method you used to come up with those hitpoints don't matter to the characters in the game. They don't understand game mechanics and therefore it doesn't matter at all.

 

[N'raac]

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.

I can't speak from direct experience with 4e, but the big change in 3e, IMO, was that monsters followed the same rules as PC's for adding class levels to their pre-existing monster statistics. Basic/Expert (never played CMI), 1e and 2e built NPC's with races and classes, just like PC's had races and classes. Magic-using monsters either had the spells of a LX Class Y Spellcaster, or had specific magical abilities bearing no relation to PC classes. An Elven Woodsman either lacked spells or had a spellcasting class. Once in a while, an NPC had a strange ability not possessed by PCs (one 1e module included a blind warrior with a form of radar/tremorsense), but even these were typically "Race/Class/Level/Stats and one odd ability.

What all pre-3e editions also had, though, was 0 level characters like bandits, brigands and pilgrims who didn't get a full slate of PC abilities, had a single HD (typically a d8 like every other 'monster') and, often, rules for leaders who were L1 or above character. With that in mind, I agree with the interpretation that 4e was the first edition where NPC creation did not follow the PC creation rules.