D&D 5E (2024) NPCs, and the poverty of the core books

[pawsplay]

The 2024 MM is aimed at new DMs. Once you have some experience DMing, you don't need a line in the book telling you that you can customize. Assuming anybody actually read the DMG in the first place of course.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Is there something about being a new DM that means you won't need a CR 2 Mage? If anything I think it's more of a disservice to new DMs and their groups there isn't a robust way of dashing out many, many NPCs on a theme, with appropriate CRs.

 

[pawsplay]

They certainly weren't statted in AD&D unless you called (4th level.fighter) stats.

I do actually. Let's seem, Jake here has rolls dice 22 hit points. I own plenty of published modules and dozes of examples of NPCs statted up exactly like that. The ones with names have ability scores.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not assuming anything. P.92 of the DMG (2014) says you can use a monster stat block, or you can create one like a PC using class and levels. Off-hand, I'm not sure there are any examples of the latter in print. The only real evidence this was ever seriously considered is the existence of the Oathbreaker Paladin.

Meanwhile, in the revised DMG, page 84, it says to use a stat block from the Monster Manual. Period. What you are describing does not exist in the rules-set under discussion in this thread. Even if you created such a thing, how would you know what CR to give it? The handy-dandy chart from the previous version is gone. Rules for creating new monster and NPC stat blocks are gone. Even if you did create such a thing, how would you reconcile the difference in Proficiency Bonus between a 12th-level Cleric, and a monster of equivalent CR?

So I'm not assuming anything. I am making the factual observation that his rules-set does not support classed NPCs. The changes from the previous version make it clear they don't want you to even try. If you have some actual advice on how to incorporate PC-style NPCs in the 5e Revised rules, and some reasons why you would do that, I'm all ears.

It is simply true that in 1e, 2e, 3e, you could create an NPC who was a "6th-level wizard" and that would be intelligible in game terms. In 4e, you could design an NPC of any given CR you want, and assign them some PC abilities to approximate a particular class or archetype. In 5e, the DMG at least gave you some napkin-math guidelines on how you might do such a thing. In the new rules, it isn't a thing. I can't even do what you're suggesting without cracking open my 2014 DMG or wildly making up numbers.

So this is completely unlike 1e and 2e in that regard. In AD&D, a bandit is a sub-1 HD monster with 1-6 hit points, who is always led by an 8th, 9th, or 10th level fighter, with six guards of 2nd-level fighting ability and a 7th level lieutenant. There is nothing even vaguely equivalent to this in the 5e revised rules. You can't even tell me what the XP bounty on a 10th level fighter is.

Yup. That's on me for not checking the section. I assumed it matched the 2014 advice at least generally.

One more reason 2024 is a downgrade. Ugh.

 

[Reynard]

I do actually. Let's seem, Jake here has rolls dice 22 hit points. I own plenty of published modules and dozes of examples of NPCs statted up exactly like that. The ones with names have ability scores.

Except there is no equipment listed which is 90% of an AD&D fighter statblock.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think this is a great example of what I am talking about. You say you want NPC classes, yet you also say "don't have to go through the whole process" .... then why have those rules? What purpose are those rules serving if you are not even using them and have stated you don't have to use them?

Verisimilitude. That's the purpose they serve. Simulation of a consistent imaginary world.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. Just like 5E. There are bandits and stuff. And the leader can be a full on barbarian. I don't understand what you are seeing that is different. Why are you assuming that because 5E has NPC statblocks just like AD&D, that somehow you aren't allowed to use classed NPCs also?

They are strongly discouraged, basically not present at all in the 5.5 rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

...

So what you're saying is, no one ever can discuss anything. Because, since the only thing we know is always our own experiences, we cannot ever talk about anything other than that experience, and that experience is so utterly unique to each individual person it means absolutely nothing.

Right. So, I'm going to politely say no, screw that, because I believe in the purpose of a forum, namely, as a place to discuss things.

I can only make arguments from the basis of what I have experienced and witnessed. I can't invent arguments on the basis of things I have no evidence for.

You want to show me I'm wrong? Get statistics. Duelling anecdotes leaves us nowhere better than we were before. Show me evidence that 3PP are extremely common, such that (say) I have at least (say) a 2/3 chance of seeing the solution actually used, if I were to sign up for a new game tomorrow. Because even a poll of users on this forum, where folks seem to think 3PP is in wide use, players voted a clear plurality (40.4%) that they literally never get to use 3PP, and almost a majority (49.4%) were either "never" or "rarely". The idea that 3PP is a super common widely available thing that everyone is getting to see, use, and benefit from simply doesn't bear out. Even on a forum where 3PP should have had an enormous leg up.

Why do they need to show you statistics to prove their argument but you don't? What makes your opinion above verification or support?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The 2024 MM is aimed at new DMs. Once you have some experience DMing, you don't need a line in the book telling you that you can customize. Assuming anybody actually read the DMG in the first place of course.

You'd think the core books for D&D would be designed for all people playing that game, not just a handbook for newbies and a bunch of invisible assumptions.

 

[Stormonu]

I have no issue with the different methods of building "monsters" vs. PCs/DMPCs. If I want a NPC who will be travelling with and aiding the party, I will build out an actual character. If I expect them to be pure opposition, I'll just use monster stats.

Back in 2014, I started to build plenty of monster stat blocks based on PC abilities (and came to realize 1 CR is about 3-4 levels of a PC). It can be done, WotC is just trying to help DMs by simplifying running 10 monsters vs. a player running only one - and do it by plopping something down in 10 seconds and not puzzle out how to run it appropriately. If you prefer your NPCs to be built exactly like PCs, then do so. You don't have to drop in a CR whatever "Archmage" just because there's a stat block in some MM. If you make it custom, just be ready to deal with any headaches when poring over a level 14's wizards spell list for what they'll do next.

 

[Lanefan]

Because to me that is just a tack on that is there for no reason and serves no purpose in the game. Just rules for rules sake.

Some of those seemingly-excess rules are there purely for small-g gamist concerns such as balance and playability (it's been so in every edition); and while they can indeed be annoying, removing them can end up making things worse in the long run unless you're very careful about it.