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

[TiQuinn]

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.

That’s true and it’s something that I try to keep in mind for wizard PCs. It’s one of the things I don’t like about sorcerers in general, but I digress. Suffice to say, I like spell books and scrolls as loot, and I like unique spells - that’s something I miss from 2e days.

 

[Cadence]

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.

Do some expert hirelings (1e DMG page 29-34) have skills PCs normally wouldn't have, like the Sage or Alechmist? (At least until Dragon Magazine came out with a write up for an NPC class that the players would want to use anyway?)

Also, page 11 notes that the NPCs, especially important ones, are unlike PCs in that they aren't bound by the luck of the dice for the stats. The DM is encouraged to give them appropriate ones, and notes that:

Of course in good Gygax fashion, the next part is...

 

[SkidAce]

...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.
...

How about instead of wildly making up numbers, you look at existing creatures of an appropriate challenge and compare?

We've (the community) been making up monsters from day 1.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I'd rather just not buy their books. How exactly is anyone who isn't a new player or GM on the cutting edge of WotC's game benefiting from them?

 

[Micah Sweet]

How about instead of wildly making up numbers, you look at existing creatures of an appropriate challenge and compare?

We've (the community) been making up monsters from day 1.

If the answer to a problem you're having with a game is, "make it up yourself, or use a source from someone else", that game is flawed (for you at least).

 

[SkidAce]

If the answer to a problem you're having with a game is, "make it up yourself, or use a source from someone else", that game is flawed (for you at least).

Until you learn how to solve the problem.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

"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.

Since Michaelangelo had the ability to paint the Sistine Chapel, our universe must be inconsistent because other people don't have that ability now?

Since Michael Phelps had the ability to win 23 gold medals in the Olympics, our universe must be inconsistent because essentially all other people don't have that ability now?

Since Marie Curie, Linus Pauling, John Bardeen, and Fredrick Sanger have won multiple Nobel Prizes, our universe must be inconsistent because essentially all other people don't have that ability now?

This idea that it is impossible for NPCs to have access to things PCs don't is frankly ridiculous. That is only true if we presume that the NPC got to that ability through basic, ordinary actions and training in a short, accessible period of time without depending on rare resources, insular group access, or individual fluke circumstances. Any one of these assumptions would be flawed in D&D-alike fantasy worlds. To depend on all of them collectively is a near guaranteed failure.

This elf spent years consuming iocane powder er...rare arcanite crystals, which are addictive and harmful, but allow more powerful incantations. This elf underwent incredibly rigorous training that requires 24-hour meditations for multiple days at a time, which humans naturally struggle with. This elf spent three human lifetimes perfecting a spell. This elf was trained by the insular and xenophobic League of Supreme Elf Recondites (a real LoSER. It sounds better in elvish.) This elf was experimented on by her previous master, the only one of 25 apprentices to survive the experiments. This elf personally developed a new spell after decades of experiments, which no one else has figured out yet. Etc., etc., etc.

Things accessible to PCs have limits, because of what PCs are and how their lives have been up to the point play begins. NPCs have fewer limits because they aren't adventurers, they can be nearly anything.

 

[Lanefan]

Do some expert hirelings (1e DMG page 29-34) have skills PCs normally wouldn't have, like the Sage or Alechmist?

Yes, with the implied idea that if a PC wants to give up adventuring and become a Sage or Alchemist instead it's possible - given some in-fiction training time - to do so.

PCs aren't usually the stay-at-home types, however, thus there's little point in putting these classes in the PH which is intended for generating adventurers.

Also, page 11 notes that the NPCs, especially important ones, are unlike PCs in that they aren't bound by the luck of the dice for the stats. The DM is encouraged to give them appropriate ones, and notes that:

View attachment 415978

The implication is, however, that the stats assigned are within the usual range. In 1e the Human stat range is 3-18, so giving an NPC Human a Dex of 23 doesn't fly without having some serious in-fiction explanation to back it up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Until you learn how to solve the problem.

But then it's not really the same game. You've made it your own. Even my A5e table is only about 90% Level Up.

 

[Maxperson]

Do some expert hirelings (1e DMG page 29-34) have skills PCs normally wouldn't have, like the Sage or Alechmist? (At least until Dragon Magazine came out with a right up for an NPC class that the players would want to use anyway?)

Also, page 11 notes that the NPCs, especially important ones, are unlike PCs in that they aren't bound by the luck of the dice for the stats. The DM is encouraged to give them appropriate ones, and notes that:

View attachment 415978

Of course in good Gygax fashion, the next part is...

View attachment 415979

He was notoriously inconsistent, wasn't he?

I forgot about the sage, but that really doesn't alter that generally speaking, NPCs were just PCs run by NPCs.