Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Not really. If the rule isn't in the 5.5e DMG, the 5e DMG rule is still in effect. It's only if the rule changes, that the 5.5e rule is king. Removal isn't the same as change in their eyes.
D&D 5E (2024) NPCs, and the poverty of the core books
- Thread starter pawsplay
- Start date
Unfortunately I think too many veteran players out here have this odd need or desire to always want to "play RAW" for whatever antiquated reason. And if the D&D game they want to play isn't supported by the current books they want to use... then the writers of said books did something wrong.
It's silly, and I suspect WotC long ago stopped caring about those feelings that some veteran players have (because it is impossible to please everybody)... but they still are out there.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
It is in mine, because it represents a shift in intention. They want the game to be about, to some degree and in some fashion, something else. I firmly believe that, had they believed it would lead to increased sales 5.5 would not have been compatible. Because it seems to me they wanted to make a different game than 5.0, to a greater degree than what was eventually published. The UA ideas we saw support this.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
That's the issue. The veteran players who feel strongly about what D&D should be, and who do a lot of answering the surveys and talking incessantly online about their opinions? Those people didn't disappear just because the IP holder has decided they're no longer fiscally relevant and can be safely ignored. Pretending they don't exist simply increases tension in the community.
I would like to add that it seems that people are conflating two different concerns into NPCs should be built like PCs, and its causing a lot of "debate"
a. Should you build NPCs "like" PCs?
and
b. Should you build NPCs that resemble PCs?
IMO;
Building NPCs like PCs is too cumbersome, bloats the stat block, and is too much work.
However, NPCs of similar type to PCs should resemble PCs in basic nature, i.e. the framework.
Certainly, special NPCs should deviate, and PCs should not be guaranteed to be able to duplicate all unique powers.
But (for me) the "problem" arises when a theoretically "generic" NPC (and not just one but nearly ALL the generics) do things that makes the PC go "why cant I do that?"
BL: Unique wizards with special powers, no problem. All wizards, even low level novice examples of apprentices and such having unique abilities, no good no good.
BBL: where is my generic 2nd level equivalent mage apprentice stat block?
a. Should you build NPCs "like" PCs?
and
b. Should you build NPCs that resemble PCs?
IMO;
Building NPCs like PCs is too cumbersome, bloats the stat block, and is too much work.
However, NPCs of similar type to PCs should resemble PCs in basic nature, i.e. the framework.
Certainly, special NPCs should deviate, and PCs should not be guaranteed to be able to duplicate all unique powers.
But (for me) the "problem" arises when a theoretically "generic" NPC (and not just one but nearly ALL the generics) do things that makes the PC go "why cant I do that?"
BL: Unique wizards with special powers, no problem. All wizards, even low level novice examples of apprentices and such having unique abilities, no good no good.
BBL: where is my generic 2nd level equivalent mage apprentice stat block?
Yeah, but so what? So they come here and complain about it. That's what places like this are here for. Nothing wrong with complaining about it, just like there's nothing wrong with other people coming in to say why they think their complaints are kind of silly. As a veteran player (general) you have had 50 years worth of roleplaying games to see exactly the sort of things that have occurred or changed from edition to edition, game to game, and (general) you have worked through it all. It's happened before and will happen again.
For me personally the only time I get irritated by it is when the poster in the thread makes the claim that the designers of whatever game is being complained about were stupid or lazy in their design choices (which is why they made the choices they did in the book they wrote). Because that assumes the poster is in the right with their complaint... and that's never really the case. They might have a personal opinion and a belief of what is better... but that belief and opinion is not objectively true. So their insults to the person who "dared" to make something they disagreed with is usually worthy of scorn (as far as I'm concerned.)
TheSword
Warhammer Fantasy Imperial Plenipotentiary
I was very active on the Paizo forums for the decade or so I played Pathfinder. What I saw a lot of was players wanting to tell their DM they had got it wrong. “That monster can’t have passed that save because they only get X Fort save modifier, and they can’t have the feat that boosts Fort saves by +2 because they already used their feat for Y ability. “
Luckily 5e knocked all that on head. It was one of the many refreshing things about 5e that made me switch. Now I’m not saying that folks are advocated for NPC creation rules for this reason. Rather that a nice feature of not having those rules is that we don’t have to put up with any of that nonsense.
This is where I would usually tell my players that the three core D&D rulebooks are not the end-all-and-be-all representation of any world's reality.
The spells and magic in the PHB are not the only magic that exists in the "world" or "setting". How do we know? Because if it was... no spells that got released in some future WotC product would ever be able to be used. One can't make the claim that the magic of the PHB is the only thing that exists and then throw in new magic from a future splatbook as though it's "always been there" if that claim is to be considered true. Thus... the only logical thing we can say is that the PHB gives us a representation of some of the magic of the world in a very specific game format... such that the players can play the game of Dungeons & Dragons. The spells are a game tool. Nothing more. And most definitely not a representation of exactly what exists. Which is why some people in the game world will have magic different than what the PCs have.
So that wizard NPC from the MM that has a magical "spell" different than what the PCs have? Well, it's a game convention. Nothing more. At some point WotC or the DM might decide to make it an actual spell that the players can select... but no guarantees. And the players just have to accept it. Otherwise they can kiss every subsequent splatbook option in the future goodbye.
Last edited:
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Okay, but that's your personal thing. Not a thing of the game itself. Your personal feelings don't alter what is. They only apply to you. We have been told that the old rules are valid if a new rule hasn't been put into place.
Agreed.So that wizard NPC from the MM that has a magical "spell" different than what the players have? Well, it's a game convention. Nothing more. At some point WotC or the DM might decide to make it an actual spell that the players can select... but no guarantees. And the players just have to accept it. Otherwise they can kiss every subsequent splatbook option in the future goodbye.
My concern is that nearly all of the ones that appear to represent the various levels of "generic mage" have these non-spell special abilities.
Thats all.
Similar Threads
