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

[Micah Sweet]

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

More like, "We have no interest in experienced players of our game. If you end up liking it anyway, great!"

 

[el-remmen]

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.

I am in agreement.

There are plenty of 3PP products if you don’t feel like making it up your self and plenty of room to make it up yourself if you are so inclined.

No RPG can actually deliver every aspect that every player might want as part of the core rules and it seems silly to think that if it doesn’t it has “failed” somehow. It is especially silly to say that 5e, the most successful edition of DnD ever has “failed.”

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

Yeah, most NPCs aren’t gonna see combat. And if they do, I just refer to a basic statline in a pinch.

 

[nevin]

5e already leaned into a distinction between PC stat blocks and NPCs. The 2024 revision has deepened this divide; whereas giving monsters PC levels was before only discouraged, now it is not even contemplated. Essentially, now, every NPC is a monster, and the GM's guide helpfully refers you to the section on customizing monsters if you want to alter one of the NPC stat blocks. That's great, I can say this Veteran has an axe instead of a sword, and maybe I'll even change out one of the Mage's spells or turn its eldritch burst into Cold damage or something.

A notable weakness of the new rules, compared to prior editions, is that I can't simply whip up a Mage or Rogue equivalent for any given CR. Do you want an NPC Ranger? Good luck, there is no such thing at all. There's also not a single stat block that looks like it might be a Warlock. And as of the new DMG, there aren't even any guidelines to painfully reverse engineer new NPC types.

There are a ton of third party NPC books to fill this void, but since there aren't any guidelines in the new rules, I have a lot of doubt about the balance and style of those writeups. What do you think? Do you ever find yourself hunting around for a CR 8 Mage with Warlock spells?

Books for npc's only work if the books for the vibe and levels of your world. . And then you run into what if all the NPC's are used from a few books. I've tried lots of supplements over the years and it just works better making them up in the fly, or as you plan out areas if that doesn't work for you. I find I waste as much time going back to the books to look up JAsper the rug merchant as I do just making him (or her)

 

[ECMO3]

Yes, exactly like 5E is intended to work. Almost every version of D&D except 3.x, really. That is the only edition that demanded NPCs be built like PCs, up to and including 20th level commoners.

I don't think 5E is intended to have NPCs with PC classes, at least not PHB PC classes.

 

[ECMO3]

I dislike bespoke powers because that conceit is that GMs will ge the balance right. Balance is hard for professional designers, why do we assume GMs can pull it off? Frameworks like classes should have some semblance of balance but a grab-bag of powers is easily unbalanced.

Balance between players and monsters is not part of 5E or modern D&D.

Even "High Difficulty" encounters are biased in favor of the PCs.

From the DMG:

"High Difficulty. A high-difficulty encounter could be lethal for one or more characters. To survive it, the characters will need smart tactics, quick thinking, and maybe even a little luck."

So in a party of 4 PCs one or more PCs might die and that is the most threatening encounter class.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

I have no use for balance and generally think attempts to balance the game make it worse for the players. I have never seen extraneous rules improve playability.

 

[Chaltab]

Balance is not part of 5E or modern D&D.

Even "High Difficulty" encounters are biased in favor of the PCs.

From the DMG:

"High Difficulty. A high-difficulty encounter could be lethal for one or more characters. To survive it, the characters will need smart tactics, quick thinking, and maybe even a little luck."

So in a party of 4 PCs one or more PCs might die.

...what else would High Difficulty mean? If the encounter is guaranteed to kill off your PCs then it's not high difficulty, it's impossible.

 

[Older Beholder]

The idea that a book not telling you explicitly to do something means it can’t be done in an RPG like DnD seems baffling to me.

A new player doesn’t need a book to tell them they can search the internet for more material, or that they can use the PC rules to make an NPC.