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

[Chaltab]

Balanced does not mean guaranteed to kill off the PCs. It means the enemies are equal to the PCs, so they should kill off the PCs half the time.

Okay but you understand why a game with PVP balance (IE power parity with the outcome based entirely on skill & luck) is not the desired goal for a PVE game? Balance is relative.

Like those plastic birds that balance entirely on their beaks.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

Well, they need someone to tell them.

 

[Distracted DM]

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.

Yeah I believe a lot of the classes released in the 1e-era etc were intended as NPC-only, but understandably players see something cool like a Crystal Mage or an Audiomancer and it has a full class build-out, who wouldn't want to play it?

 

[pawsplay]

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.

For AD&D, that would totally work. I just don't see how that would work in 5e. What are you improvising it based on? There's no Level 6 Wizard in the MM, and as noted above, the capabilities of PCs are quite different than NPCs in 5e.

 

[Distracted DM]

I personally think the "beginner friendly" aspect of the 2024 DMG is going to be a problem if they don't follow up with a "DMG 2" or whatever.

Could be by design, And that's the intent- a DMG2 or ADMG. The genericized MM NPC thing seems to be designed with the intent of releasing later books with customized templates to put on these generic statblocks. Make an "assassin" a "Drow assassin" by adding the Drow template.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah I believe a lot of the classes released in the 1e-era etc were intended as NPC-only, but understandably players see something cool like a Crystal Mage or an Audiomancer and it has a full class build-out, who wouldn't want to play it?

There were NPC classes found in Dragon Magazines, but I don't recall any in the main books. And as you say, many who used those classes from the Dragon Magazines allowed the players to use them as well. My personal experience was that they were mostly used by players. That's anecdotal, though.

 

[Horwath]

I didn't play a lot of 3E, I am talking about 5E. Players regularly take 30-45 minutes to generate new characters and they know what they want before they go into it (meaning they have already actually done some of this work).

Choosing background, choosing origin feat, rolling abilities (or doing point buy), choosing skills, species abilities, languages, comparing that to what you get in your background, choosing weapon masteries, then adding a subclass and new abilities and feats level-by-level and potentially adding new classes. All that takes time and that is before you do any spells, and it is not even considering the backstory of the NPC.

It would be extremely difficult to build say a 5E 10th level Rogue and get all of that determined and written down in 5 minutes from scratch and I would like to see someone actually do that. If you are doing this in 5E I commend you, but most people can't do that. Now if you want to build a character that has a 20 Dexterity, 20 Charisma, 5d6 sneak attack, Cunning Strike, Assasinate, Evasion, Reliable Talent and Expertise in 4 skills .... I agree you could probably tackle that in about 5 minutes if you write fast, but that is not the same as a 10th level Rogue built according to the PHB rules.

Then if I want to take that hypothetical 10th level character and add Divine Strike to that PC it is another 8 more levels worth of class mechanics to trudge through ... or about 15 seconds if I don't use classes and just give him this.

I agree that adding new cool features to NPCs is a good thing and as a DM you should do it, I do also agree that you do not need more than 5 minutes to make 10th level rogue, PHB rules or otherwise.

As for divine strike, if you want to keep it somewhat in PHB power level, it can be a feat;

Divine strike:
requires levels 8+
+1 ASI
once on your turn when you hit with an attack, you deal extra +1d8 damage(necrotic or radiant). OFC you can pick any other energy type if it fits your narrative better.

 

[Distracted DM]

There were NPC classes found in Dragon Magazines, but I don't recall any in the main books. And as you say, many who used those classes from the Dragon Magazines allowed the players to use them as well. My personal experience was that they were mostly used by players. That's anecdotal, though.

Oh I was talking the old zines from 1e, stuff referenced in The Elusive Shift. I didn't have personal experience with them, I didn't start til revised 2e
Though I have since connected a few copies of said zines.

 

[Horwath]

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.

I would say that the main part of D&D is the progression of the story made by DM(of published).
If you kill everyone the story ends. Sure you can continue campaign with brand new PC group, but you are basically starting from start.

but I do agree that fights need to be lethal.

we now play as party of 4, with some NPCs and "pets" along, and in most fights 2-3 PCs/NPCs are down for the count.
last fight we had 2 PCs with 2 failed death saves at the same time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

We are talking about how NPC rules are written in general. Of course we are talking about multiple NPCs.

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.

I mean there is rather obvious middle ground where the NPCs are streamlined, but still use same spells, weapons etc than the PCs. Small disparities are not usually apparent. A bunch of NPCs repeatedly using a spell that is not a PC learnable spell is.