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

[Sparrowhawc]

The inconsistency I am trying to highlight here is the fact that in all previous editions I have played, HD and level were nearly synonymous, and the fact that NPCs that were PC like had the same advantages and disadvantages. Just because you call an NPC a veteran instead of fighter or mage instead of wizard shouldn't change the HD type for that class. A veteran(fighter) is a d8 vs d10, the mage(wizard) is a d8 vs d6; at higher level/HD this does make a difference - 9 level fighter w/+2 Con bonus average HP 72, 9 HD veteran w/+2 Con bonus average HP 63. A 9 level wizard w/+1 Con bonus average HP 45, 9 HD mage w/+1 Con bonus average HP 54. Also, you can have a monster with a low CR and High HD or a high CR with a low HD. Shouldn't the number of HP affect how challenging a monster is?

 

[Sparrowhawc]

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.

I understand that. Several comments in this thread are in that vain. An honest assessment from the writer's perspective which ends with them disagreeing with my opinion. I have no problem with those types of responses. The issue I've had in the past on other forums is a person responding in a holier then thou attitude and being told by them that my opinion is wrong and maybe I should take my nonsense some place else. That is why I hesitate to join or post to forums that often. An "I disagree and this is why" response is a perfectly acceptable and can lead to a productive discussion. An "I disagree and this is why and you are wrong" response is not and can lead to hostile response.

I enjoy a good debate, especially one that ends with both parties learning something productive. It doesn't have to end in agreement, but it shouldn't end in hostility, especially about something like what we are talking about - the rules to a game.

 

[ruleslawyer]

The inconsistency I am trying to highlight here is the fact that in all previous editions I have played, HD and level were nearly synonymous, and the fact that NPCs that were PC like had the same advantages and disadvantages. Just because you call an NPC a veteran instead of fighter or mage instead of wizard shouldn't change the HD type for that class. A veteran(fighter) is a d8 vs d10, the mage(wizard) is a d8 vs d6; at higher level/HD this does make a difference - 9 level fighter w/+2 Con bonus average HP 72, 9 HD veteran w/+2 Con bonus average HP 63. A 9 level wizard w/+1 Con bonus average HP 45, 9 HD mage w/+1 Con bonus average HP 54. Also, you can have a monster with a low CR and High HD or a high CR with a low HD. Shouldn't the number of HP affect how challenging a monster is?

I assume you meant to say "in previous editions, the HD and level of specifically PC-classed NPCs were the same", since the statement doesn't hold true when discussing monsters. Moreover, pre-3e editions had numerous NPCs who "cast spells as an M-U(x)" or had thief abilities, etc without attendant HD.

I think the real problem is, as pemerton says, that rolling up a 12th-level PC-classed humanoid opponent isn't necessarily the best way to generate a CR 12 encounter, and that in the DMing context, the goal is to create a playable encounter. I'd be curious to hear what your priorities in generating a playable encounter are and how your system succeeds at that.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Borngrey was made using an ealier system. But he still works just fine for the game. His extra cantrip comes from him being a high elf. So if you took away his d10 hitdie he would match up fine with proper monster building.

Honestly the guys in the book other then Blagothkus (Who I made more in line with the MM Cloud Giants) are pretty good to run as is. (Though Rath Modar should be CR 7 instead of 6.)

 

[Wrathamon]

A veteran(fighter) is a d8 vs d10, the mage(wizard) is a d8 vs d6;

It doesnt say mage(wizard)

it just says Mage

Guard, Bandit, Thug, etc

Mage have d8s

Wizards have d6s

If you want to make a Wizard NPC with d6 make one, I really dont think it will break anything.

 

[the Jester]

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.

Looking under "Human" in the 2e Monstrous Manual, there are plenty of examples of "this isn't like a pc, at all". Just sayin'.

The inconsistency I am trying to highlight here is the fact that in all previous editions I have played, HD and level were nearly synonymous...

But were they really?

In 1e and before, a monster's or npc's character level/HD had very little to do with its "monster level". In 3e, one of the most widely derided examples of the breakdown of the CR system was classed npcs. In 4e, there are no Hit Dice at all! - but that's the edition that comes closest to this idea.

Even when you talk about npcs designed using the pc rules- and even though this wasn't obligatory, this was always the most common way for a dm to design an npc before 4e, in my experience- it only holds in 3e. In 2d and before, you hit 'name' level (somewhere around 9th, usually) and stopped gaining HD, instead getting 1 to 3 hp/level thereafter.

Only in 3e did the HD = level (= CR) equation hold true. It's actually the exception rather than the rule, in terms of how long that's how the rules actually worked.

 

[the Jester]

By the way, have you seen the 'monster' stats for Faridah, using pc rules? Looks like a nightmare to actually use them.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?368834-Faridah-Stats

 

[Wrathamon]

Doesn't look anymore difficult then any spellcasting monster. A bit more tricky, in that you need to read and plan a bit ahead of time.

But, this shows that even officially you can make NPCs using pc rules. Nothing is preventing you.

 

[Sparrowhawc]

OK, this will probably be long winded so please bear with me. I’ll be quoting multiple threads as well.

I assume you meant to say "in previous editions, the HD and level of specifically PC-classed NPCs were the same", since the statement doesn't hold true when discussing monsters.

No that is not what I mean. HD has been used from the beginning to determine a monster’s ability to hit a target just like level for a PC. The higher the HD the better the chance to hit. Check the following sources:

1. Basic D&D from 1979 rule book page 19
2. Basic D&D from 1981 rule book page B27
3. Expert D&D from 1981 rule book page X26
4. AD&D DMG page 75
5. 2e D&D DMG page 53

Under 3e, the Base Attack Bonus (BAB) was determined by the Type of creature, number of HD, and a PC class reference for progression; i.e. an 8 HD giant would use a 6 level cleric BAB. Reference Core Rule Book III Monster Manual page 13.

I don’t know about 4e as I didn’t play that rule set. 5e uses CR to determine the proficiency bonus used for attacks, not HD.

In 1e and before, a monster's or npc's character level/HD had very little to do with its "monster level".

I would disagree with you on this point. First, I never actually said monsters have a level, Second, as stated above, HD was used to determine the “to hit” chance. If you increase the HD the better the chance to hit the target. I remember playing basic games and saying “Wow, we just beat a 5HD monster!” Sounds similar to saying “Wow, he is a 7th level fighter.” They weren’t direct equivalents by any means. In 2e, a 1+1 HD monster had a THAC0 of 19. PC classes reached THAC0 19 at level 2 for the “Warrior” group, level 3 for the “Rogue” group and level 4 for the “Wizard” group. The “Priest” group skipped THAC0 19 and jumped from 20 to 18 at level 4. For any reading this that are not familiar with 2e, like classes were placed in groups, e.g. Fighters, paladins, and rangers were in the “warrior” group. Saved space in the rule books when creating tables and matrices.

I'd be curious to hear what your priorities in generating a playable encounter are and how your system succeeds at that.

I’ll be very honest with you on this, I don’t have a set rule, formula, or system for building my encounters. I’ve been playing for so long that I have a “feel” for it. If during a gaming session the PCs seem to having their way with an encounter, I’ll bump it on the fly; add 2 more orcs to the tribe. If the encounter seems to be overpowering them, I’ll scale it back or have the enemy not use the proper tactics; the glory hungry orcs charged instead of staying back and using bows to decimate the party. I don’t allow what I have prepared or what is in a pre-generated module to shoehorn me into a corner; my gaming session, my prerogative. I want the players to have fun and be challenged. At the end of the session I want them to be excited about having accomplished something, and I don't mean just surviving, relieved, and wanting another session. I think of it as a roller coaster ride, you conquered your fear, it's over, but you really want to do it again.

It doesnt say mage(wizard)

it just says Mage

I understand that. I don’t want to get into semantics in this but at some point in time in the varied additions, Mage, Magic-User, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and a slew of other titles were synonymous for a single class originally known as a Magic-User. A 1st level fighter was also known as a “Veteran.” If I had never played the game before, I might not pick up on subtleties like this, but I've played for way to long not to notice them. To me, rules should not introduce ambiguity. Perhaps the new DMG will clear some of this up, I hope.

Sparrowhawc

 

[the Jester]

I would disagree with you on this point. First, I never actually said monsters have a level, Second, as stated above, HD was used to determine the “to hit” chance.

Aha, I see what happened here. I am guessing that you may not be familiar with monster level in early D&D? It's an actual specific game term. Monsters were measured as "level" I through X, depending on how tough they were. Generally, a monster was most likely to appear on a dungeon level of its level, though this varied an awful lot. It had very little to do with HD; for instance, a high damage monster that had save or die poison might only have 1 HD but could be level II or III, while a 10 HD monster might only be level IV if it didn't have many special abilities. (I'm spitballing here, as my 1e books are at my gf's house, but you get the idea.)