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

[Maxperson]

This is going back to the 1E and 2E Style. An NPC just had whatever powers they needed for the adventure.

Very often very specialized powers and abilities unique to only them. It made ever NPC unique.

Very often with very crazy unbalanced powers and abilities too. And a big player complaint was that it was not fair that NPC got all sorts of "cool" things that PCs could never have,

3E introduced the idea that all NPCs must follow the same PC rules, in general. And got rid of "special crazy unbalanced powers and abilities". Anything a 3E NPC had, a PC could also have.

As an Old School Gamer, you should just embrace it and make up unique NPCs.

You've got it backwards. 1e introduced NPCs as just PC classes controlled by the DM. They rolled stats like PCs, had classes like PCs, had magic items like PCs. Henchmen and hirelings were PC classes. And so on.

It was 3e that introduced the NPC classes that were different/worse than the PC classes.

Could the 1e/2e DM create some new class or NPC abilities that the PCs didn't have? Of course. So could the 3e, 4e and 5e DM.

 

[Maxperson]

If 5e only had CR failures on edge cases, I would completely agree.

That has not been my experience with it.

CR is just inherently flawed. Since it was introduced in 3e all it has been useful for is to ballpark a monster's power level and then I had to compare it to the party make-up and player skill levels. I usually begin looking at CR +/- 3 and if I can't find something I want in that range, I expand outward from there.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Because, as literally noted in that post, I already did. I collected what data I could. It supported my claims. It did not support theirs.

On ENWorld, where we have numerous reasons to be biased toward 3PP, 49.4% never or rarely get to use it. A clear majority see it less than half the time (assuming "about half the time" is split even the tiniest bit into "less than half" vs "more", which I think is a very reasonable assumption.)

That to me is pretty conclusive evidence that the average player getting any 3PP in their game at all is a low chance, and the odds that they get these specific pieces which fix the problems must therefore be even lower (it certainly can't be higher, and unless you assume that 100% of GMs who use homebrew use this specific piece, it must be a lower proportion.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

CR is just inherently flawed. Since it was introduced in 3e all it has been useful for is to ballpark a monster's power level and then I had to compare it to the party make-up and player skill levels. I usually begin looking at CR +/- 3 and if I can't find something I want in that range, I expand outward from there.

I completely agree. There has not been a system that used CR that was actually effective at achieving what CR claimed to achieve. But it is nice to have someone else agree to that.

 

[Lanefan]

If you are not going through the process then it is not really giving the NPC a player class.

If you are just whipping up something then you are doing what I suggested, pulling abilities off the shelf that you want to use and ignoring others. I see no value in checking if a hypothetical PC could have that same combination of abilities.

Which blows up your in-setting consistency.

If an NPC Elf can do X-Y-Z-A in combination then a PC Elf should (and IMO must) have the potential to be or eventually become able to do X-Y-Z-A as well.

Flip side: if a PC Elf can do B-C-D-E then an NPC Elf should be able to do likewise.

For the example above - a PC with 5d6 sneak attack, the other Rogue/Assasin abilities mentioned, and Divine Strike .... I could build a 17th level PC (Rogue 9/Cleric 8) that got that, but it would also have 17 hit dice, a +6 Proficiency Bonus and lots of spells I don't need. So why do it? Just make an NPC with 7 hit dice, +3 PB and all those abilities.

"Why do it" is that to be able to do that 5d6 sneak attack and divine strike there's certain in-character or in-setting prerequisites that must be met and your NPC hasn't done so. Otherwise, the players are 100% justified in calling shenanigans.

@Micah Sweet has it right: you don't have to go through the whole char-gen process step by step to make an adventurer-like NPC; it's fine to just assign stuff provided what you end up with is achievable by going through that process.

Example: for a 10th-level Fighter who would have 10d10 hit points plus some Con bonus (let's say +2) for a possible range of 30 to 120, it's fine to just assign her 95 hit points instead of rolling but not fine to assign her 145 hit points as that's impossible based on her level and Con score.

 

[AlViking]

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.

Your complaint is that we don't have detailed rules to modify monsters, correct? Therefore what I believe the target audience for the book to be is germane. New DMs probably should just use the monsters as written until they get a better handle on the rules. Meanwhile, once people have been playing and DMing for a while they don't really need a paragraph in the DMG telling them what to do, if they're the type of DM that wants to homebrew they will. Just like we've always done.

 

[SkidAce]

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?

to look at the framework and pick out the parts that are applicable to the encounter and have the equivalent of a PC (abbreviated).

 

[Lanefan]

Wait? If there are non-Pc-playable species, then there is a split between PC and NPC, right? What is a non-PC-playable species?

An ooze or jelly would not be PC-playable, nor a Demon, nor (yet) a Hill Giant, etc. usually for balance reasons.

Also, some DMs ban certain species as PC-playable even though the books say otherwise, e.g. "No PC Tieflings in this game".

I lot of this is from the 3E manic character build obsession. It was a huge big deal to build the perfect character. For a gamer to show off their game and rule knowledge and mastery. Not only just to compare character sheets by the numbers, but also show off and hog the spotlight during game play.

I don't care much about spotlight hogging - if you want the spotlight, fight for it - but I greatly prefer a much simpler char-gen system where you don't plan the character's entire 1-20 progression before you start.

 

[AlViking]

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.

I think the change in target audience is pretty clear based on how the 2024 version is written vs the 2014 book. The 2014 book was fairly clearly primarily aimed at veteran DMs and I recall them talking about the change of direction for 2024. As far as whether they should include something? Only so much page count can be justified. Fortunately there's plenty of third party guidance and books for those that want it.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, that’s pretty much what my stat blocks look like.

I remember when D&D would list every spell a caster had memorized, and I realized why does it matter? If they’re an archmage, and it’s not likely to come up in an encounter, just assume they have the spell.

That info is very useful, though, as it tells me-as-DM what's in the caster's spellbook - which the PCs are, after all, inevitably going to loot at some point.