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

[Lanefan]

I have no use for balance and generally think attempts to balance the game make it worse for the players.

I agree with this, to a point. I think there needs to be some vague macro-level balance, but trying to fine-tune it much further runs aground very quickly.

I have never seen extraneous rules improve playability.

Probably depends on what we'd each define as extraneous as I suspect those definitions might differ somewhat. But in principle, you're more right than wrong with this.

 

[TheSword]

It seems like what some folks want is a set of tables or formulae to calculate what the CR of creature should be based on its abilities - or able to reverse engineer a creature from a chosen CR. The problem is that any such calculation requires the designers to decide AC16 = 1 point = Con 18 = one 2nd level spell = 4d6 lighting damage breath weapon in a 30’ cone. The amount of effort needed to do this is off the charts, and even if you did do it every ability, and then adequately took into account the multiple combinations then party mix would change the variables again because a party of X doesn’t play the same as a party of Y.

3e/Pathfinder 1e arguably needed a CR calculator with specific ranges and stats because it lacked bounded accuracy. Getting this wrong could easily kill your players or leave them whiffling impotently against ACs or saves beyond their ability. You know what… it still didn’t work very well because of the aforementioned party variables.

That isn’t the case in 5e. If you boost an NPCs AC up or down by 2 it likely isn’t going to make a dramatic difference. Similarly if you add an extra spell per day. Or even a spell of one level higher than they could previously cast. 5e is a forgiving game. The DM should feel confident to mess about with things without needing to follow formulae.

Poverty? There are more NPC stat blocks in 2024 MM than in any previous Monster Manual. 46 in 2024 compared to 22 in 2014. Dozens and dozens of examples there of NPCs to show you how to do it. Of more detail and varied levels than ever before too. I love how you can see higher level versions of the same type of NPC.

The best advice on creating new creatures for new players… Take an appropriate stat block and adjust it. Folks have creating monsters for games for about 50 years now without a set of formulae. Do we really need to have them published in the core book now?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

But that literally was not the argument being made:

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.

This is not "every single NPC (of a certain type) uses X, therefore my character should be able to, too." This is "if any NPC (of a certain type) uses X, then my character should be able to, too."

Your claim is a for-all type. His is a if-there-exists type. The two are completely different (indeed, literally reversed), and an argument against the latter will be completely irrelevant to an argument against the former.

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.

That is a contradiction in terms. That is like saying "Where you draw a square, but with only three right angles."

Anything in 5e that must "use the same spells, weapons etc." cannot be streamlined. Period. It's not possible, unless you restrict the spellcaster in numerous ways. Weapons are probably not an issue because there's only like twenty of them and they functionally never change. Spells? There's hundreds of them. Even if you restrict to a single class and level, there's usually dozens, and it grows with every new book.

Because if you're already using 1:1 matchups there....you are just creating a PC. Which means it cannot be any more streamlined than just creating a PC yourself.

That's the problem here. You want something to be streamlined, without allowing any changes to the parts that make things complicated!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It seems like what some folks want is a set of tables or formulae to calculate what the CR of creature should be based on its abilities - or able to reverse engineer a creature from a chosen CR. The problem is that any such calculation requires the designers to decide AC16 = 1 point = Con 18 = one 2nd level spell = 4d6 lighting damage breath weapon in a 30’ cone. The amount of effort needed to do this is off the charts, and even if you did do it every party mix would change the variables because a party of X doesn’t play the same as a party of Y.

4e did it. Even if you don't like the result, it proves that it can be done without this alleged "off the charts" effort.

 

[TheSword]

4e did it. Even if you don't like the result, it proves that it can be done without this alleged "off the charts" effort.

3e did it too. I didn’t like the result then either.

Return on investment - pages in a core book and time - isn’t worth it. IMHO.
Better to say - adjust an existing stat block. It has the same end result.

Ask everyone who has ever created a stated monster or NPC in a TTRPG game or product whether they used a set of precise guidelines to calculate stats/abilities/CR How many will say yes…less than 10%… less than 5%?

CR specific formulae are a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But that literally was not the argument being made:

This is not "every single NPC (of a certain type) uses X, therefore my character should be able to, too." This is "if any NPC (of a certain type) uses X, then my character should be able to, too."

Your claim is a for-all type. His is a if-there-exists type. The two are completely different (indeed, literally reversed), and an argument against the latter will be completely irrelevant to an argument against the former.

No, I mostly agree with @Lanefan. There could be rare cases where conditions of being able to acquire the capability are so specific, that it would be unlikely* that a PC could be able to repeat them, but such things should be extremely rare. We are talking about basic stock opponents, those should not be super special unique things.

* Though I agree with Lanefan, that at least in theory, it should be possible. Then it is another matter whether we keep following the adventures of the PC once they become a lich or something like that.

That is a contradiction in terms. That is like saying "Where you draw a square, but with only three right angles."

Anything in 5e that must "use the same spells, weapons etc." cannot be streamlined. Period. It's not possible, unless you restrict the spellcaster in numerous ways. Weapons are probably not an issue because there's only like twenty of them and they functionally never change. Spells? There's hundreds of them. Even if you restrict to a single class and level, there's usually dozens, and it grows with every new book.

Because if you're already using 1:1 matchups there....you are just creating a PC. Which means it cannot be any more streamlined than just creating a PC yourself.

That's the problem here. You want something to be streamlined, without allowing any changes to the parts that make things complicated!

No. Like this is not even hard. Many 5.0 NPCs used same spells than the PCs. They were still less complicated than full PCs. Like your argument is an utter non sequitur.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

Creating a 6th level wizard is mostly just giving that wizard spells based on that level and adjusting HP. And that’s it unless you want to throw in Arcane Blast too.

Done.

 

[AlViking]

Well, they need someone to tell them.

Serious question: why? I started creating custom monsters long ago before there were any rules for making them, or if there were any I didn't know about them. It just seemed obvious to me that since I was creating whole worlds that I could also create customized monsters based on something I wanted to depict that I couldn't find in the books. I've always taken monster X and tweaked descriptions to tell my players that it's really just a particularly dangerous version of monster Y.

Even if I felt like I needed guidance it's a simple internet search away nowadays.

 

[TiQuinn]

Serious question: why? I started creating custom monsters long ago before there were any rules for making them, or if there were any I didn't know about them. It just seemed obvious to me that since I was creating whole worlds that I could also create customized monsters based on something I wanted to depict that I couldn't find in the books. I've always taken monster X and tweaked descriptions to tell my players that it's really just a particularly dangerous version of monster Y.

Even if I felt like I needed guidance it's a simple internet search away nowadays.

I don’t have the new version of the DMG (or PHB), but I would be shocked if there wasn’t a section, likely right towards the beginning, that says the DM creates the world and the monsters, and interprets the rules, changing them when need be to suit the individual table. The 5e edition certainly does.

 

[Blue]

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.

A notable weakness? Oh my god, it is such a strength that they no long list that option and lead newer DMs (and some vets it seems) astray.

It could never do what you said up above, make an appropriate CR NPC. Because CR implies fighting, and PCs and monster-rules-creations deal with fights very differently. If you haven't noticed, PCs don't die as often as foes. They are built quite differently, especially around the ratio of (nova) damage to survivability.

But DMs would constantly get mislead down making foes using player-facing rules. And the fights would be short and swingy.

WotC never made this mistake. Look at every single one of their adventures. Are there any NPCs build using the player-facing rules? No, not a one. Every single one is built using the monster creation rules.

Basically, the rules don't do what you said they did, they never created a CR-equivilent foe, and it's good that this misleading option isn't being presented to lead DMs to making a poor choice.