Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7341655" data-attributes="member: 37579">Having six d10 superiority die is nothing to sneeze at. And it's not going to be very fun for the target of a high level NPC fighter when it comes up and makes six attacks and can add a d10 to any hit (or 2d10 to any crit), while also knocking your weapon away and dropping you prone. Instead, why not have it make three attacks and a couple Legendary Actions? Space out the attacks over the round. One of which could be an attack costing two actions while another could be movement, and a third could be a tripping attack or knockback. Which makes the fight more dynamic, as when you get near the Lord Commander of the Knighthood he smacks you with his shield and pushes you back ten feet. And then after the wizard's turn the Lord Commander shifts fifteen feet across the battlefield. We're not talking major dramatic stuff here. Just actions in line with the Legendary Actions of other monsters.  No, it's beyond the ability of a balanced subclass meant for player characters. But, again, we're talking about hypothetical NPC subclasses. It's not meant for players. Why on Earth should it be balanced the same? Why on earth would you use the exact same abilities for a monster that is going to be in three rounds of combat before expiring as you would for a character that is going to be in over 1200 rounds of combat spread over twenty levels?? Do monsters even need exploration based abilities? Again, the question is why should NPCs be limited ONLY to the options PCs have when even PCs aren't entirely limited to that content. New subclasses can be invented at any time. If I have a player that wants to play a shield master that is all about using shields offensively in combat, why shouldn't I homebrew a subclass for that player? Why should they be limited to the book's options? By that same right, if I want an NPC fighter that is all about smacking people with shields, why can't it have a unique power related to shield bashing? The problem occurs when an NPC fighter can do something much, much cooler than a PC fighter. Especially when it's something the PC wants to be good at as well. But if the NPC does things close to the PCs but *slightly* differently, then it doesn't matter. If an NPC has an ability that lets them disarm, then the Battlemaster is still better as it can disarm and deal damage. If the NPC has a riposte ability that lets it counterattack after a miss, then the Battlemaster is still better, since it can counterattack and deal bonus damage.So long as the action feels in line with a player character powers, then it's easier to accept.Plus, it's not like the players are going to know exactly what the statblock says. They're only going to get a fraction of the information as relayed by the DM. The bit that's relevant to them. To the players, there's no functional difference between Legendary Actions and an NPC with extra Reactions. And we are talking about NPCs... of legend. By definition they're not normal NPCs. They're the equivalent of epic characters. And what are epic level characters capable of? Well, we don't have rules for that. So why should the boss monsters be hindered and limited because the game doesn't support level 21+ characters?D&D is a game. It's always been a game. First and foremost it has to work as a game, because if it doesn't it's not going to be fun. When the game aspect is running smoothly, it's easiest to ignore and focus on the story and the narrative. When the game is being problematic and is drawing attention to itself, that is going to take you out of the story. A balance needs to be struck. As such, a challenging boss fights should work as boss fights. If the bosses aren't challenging and a real threat, then it breaks the narrative. It feels anticlimactic. It doesn't match the tone of the unfolding story. Now, at the same level, the abilities of the boss also shouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility or that too breaks the narrative. But I think modern players are going to be a bit more forgiving of special abilities. Anyone under 40 has been raised on a diet of video games that do have NPCs doing all kinds of crazy stuff that the PCs cannot do. I've never, ever seen anyone call foul on a Warcraft raid boss just because it can do something the human warrior cannot.Um, no. Part of your job as a DM is also to provide combat encounters of a narratively appropriate challenge. Introducing a mook working for a big bad that is ridiculously overpowered or a big bad that is a push over will break the narrative. Knowing the challenge of a classed NPC is essential to actually using them at the table. If you're going to use classed NPCs that use the full PC rules, you NEED to know their CR. Period. So, tell me, is a level 13 halfling rogue assassin an appropriate as an enemy for a level 6 party? How much of a challenge is that fight? Is it a deadly encounter? Hard? Easy? Plus the whole "stat out everything based on what it is rather than what I want it to be" is kinda B.S. The rules are guidelines. To be customized. What "is" in the game is what I "want". If I want new monsters, then there's new monsters. If I want lava trolls that are immune to fire and set people ablaze with a bear hug then they exist. I'm not bound by the printed word of the gamebooks. My monsters aren't limited by the finite amount of material published by WotC. Why should my NPCs be any different?It's one thing to have a playable knowledge of the game to be able to run combats and adjudicate rulings, it's another to have functional knowledge of every class and race and spell in the game. The players need to know their powers. I don't. I need to have a loose idea for planning's sake, but if they have a question it doesn't take long to read. The rules of 5e aren't that complicated. It's unnecessary for me to know every single spell in the PHB. For example, I don't have any elemental monks or dragon sorcerers at my table. That information is irrelevant. Memorising it is literally a waste of my brainpower and time I could spend actually prepping things that will make a difference at my table. As such, if I did need to make a draconic sorcerer NPC, it would take time. A lot of time. And running it would be slow. It's much easier to just have a simplified version that has half the powers. The key ones that would identify it as a sorcerer. Right, but we're not tweaking the system. Monsters already aren't identical to PCs. Limiting monster abilities to match PCs would be tweaking the system.</blockquote>

Verification