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

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Current D&D isn’t a delicate machine that will fall apart if you touch it. Make some sh*t up and adjust and adapt in the moment if necessary. It’s not like the PCs can die if you are a bit off, at most they have to use some resources.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

NPC stat blocks are definitely a place where New 5e doubled down on tendencies I disliked in Fifth Edition Classic. It's not exactly a big thing, but if I'm redesigning or using 3rd party content for practically every NPC I'm a step closer to just playing a different game. Really I'm just waiting for the right 5e clone to win me over.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is no reason one could not make these exceptional people as characters. Also, if someone is exceptional and rare, I would imagine it is the PCs, rather than the CR 2 Mage Apprentice with their Arcane Burst. Like c'mon, it is a basic enemy that often appears in large numbers. They are not all some super special hundreds of years old magic powder snorting elves!

If Vecna has special powers PCs cannot have is one thing, but if every common stock enemy has such it is just ridiculous. This is especially egregious with arcane magic, as we literally have a class in the game whose job entails learning spells from other people. If every NPC wizards casts Arcane Bursts, what is the justification for a PC wizard not being able to learn it?

Well see, now you're making a completely different argument. It's not "if an NPC can do it, I can too." It's now "if every NPC can do it, I can too."

I wasn't responding to that argument, so why would you expect it to apply?

As for the simple answer here: because making every NPC a perfectly bespoke PC leads to gameplay problems in the long term and makes GMs' lives more difficult without sufficient benefit. Practical concerns matter, and this is a practical concern. If you don't like it...just design a bespoke PC every time you want to include a spellcaster. After all, your whole point is that these people should all be as realistic as possible, yes? So they should be built exactly like PCs, otherwise one side or the other is special.

 

[bloodtide]

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".

So, just personal preference? 2E did have rules for a lot of "monsters" as Pcs...

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.

This is very popular, it is not really my thing though.

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.

So....is D&D 2024 direction "new DMs?"

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.

And, of course, the advantage of "the npc can cast X spell unlimited times per day, once a round" is that when the npc is killed, there is no spellbook to loot.

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.

I agree. As said I the vast majority of my NPCs are Old School: they are made to do a single job or task and have the abilities and powers to do that.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

We never said there wasnt unique people or abilities. But dont most if not all npc examples of magi

No,literally, if the game doesn't give you guidelines, it fails. There can be no assumption that the user will go find answers in another game, nor any assumption they will put together spreadsheets to try and backward what you intended. RPGs are inherently open and DIY, and not providing tools to support that is just a failure.

D&D 5E 2024, by the measure, is one of the worst editions of the game. Its "how to create" sections are complete garbage.

I think we are debating extremes. Of course the game gives you guidelines or its a failure of a game.

And having better rules for monsters would be nice. But they will never cover all situations.

And eventually you will learn better methods and techniques from your experience, that will cover the parts you feel the game lacks.

5e is not a failure. Reskining monsters or eyeballing it, or the chart 2014 had, were the baseline. (it sucks that chart is gone, agreed).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We never said there wasnt unique people or abilities. But dont most if not all npc examples of magi

I assume this got cut off.

If we are admitting this though, we are talking about a situation where there are concessions to practicality. With such concessions in play, we can't make arguments like the one I responded to. We instead need to have an argument about when it is okay vs not okay to let practically override naturalism. Such an argument will depend heavily on personal preference, and will be susceptible to the retort I gave above: if you don't like the easy to use basic mage, make all your mages bespoke PC-rules characters. The rules are there! They're just cumbersome to use and likely to be imbalanced. But those are practicality concerns, which we have already established are being set aside in order to favor naturalism above all else.

I think we are debating extremes. Of course the game gives you guidelines or its a failure of a game.

And having better rules for monsters would be nice. But they will never cover all situations.

And eventually you will learn better methods and techniques from your experience, that will cover the parts you feel the game lacks.

Note the switch here. First, you speak of the rules. Then you speak of this person's experience covering for the rules.

That covering is the failure. The rules should not need to he "covered" on something so basic!

 

[SkidAce]

I have no idea how I multi-quoted, my apologies. @EzekielRaiden , @Reynard

 

[AlViking]

So, just personal preference? 2E did have rules for a lot of "monsters" as Pcs...

This is very popular, it is not really my thing though.


So....is D&D 2024 direction "new DMs?"

If you don't have new DMs the game slowly dies. So, yes. Veteran DMs don't need the hand-holding anyway.

And, of course, the advantage of "the npc can cast X spell unlimited times per day, once a round" is that when the npc is killed, there is no spellbook to loot.


I agree. As said I the vast majority of my NPCs are Old School: they are made to do a single job or task and have the abilities and powers to do that.

 

[el-remmen]

The vast majority of NPCs don’t even need stats. For a good number I will just note something like Wiz6/LN. And that is all the info i need. Enough to improvise an encounter if it suddenly comes to combat and enough to have a general sense of their capabilities if it doesn’t.

 

[SkidAce]

I dont like debating online, cause nuance is lost in text. But I will give it one last try.

Y'all are taking about failure state in games. Game is responsible for being a functioning game, as published or its a failure. Agreed.

I am trying to say you can cover rough areas by learning and experience, to produce a game for your table.

I am not saying prop up a broken game.

For "you" lacking monster creation rules is broken. I see it as we could use advanced monster creation rules, or rely on our judgement, training, and experience in using the basics provided.

Thanks for listening.