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

[DEFCON 1]

Agreed.

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.

I can understand the desire or want to have more / different NPC statblocks, and there's nothing wrong with that desire. But I personally also think there's no reason why any (general) DM shouldn't be able to or want to go out and get others elsewhere if WotC didn't provide it. Such a simple thing to do that I don't know why the suggestion should cause controversy. (Not suggesting I mean you by any stretch.)

I find it funny that so many people got worked up about the "cancelling the OGL" thing, and yet when the idea is broached to go get the product they want that uses that OGL that they were defending for so vociferously, it's met with a wall.

 

[TheSword]

Agreed.

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.

Our group had a disagreement about an NPC Mage casting misty step or casting Counterspell and then dropping a fireball. The spell ability nature of that sparked a a bit of a debate around the issue. I then pointed out that one of PCs had Fey Blooded.

If monsters can have legendary actions - the most mechanically stark example of NPCs breaking the rules that PCs follow - then we are accepting foes can and should be built differently. I’d actually like to see that more often not less… CR 4 legendary ogres and CR 6 legendary duelists.

 

[AlViking]

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.

It was the same with 3e and PF was frequently labeled D&D 3.75 by my friends who played it. Which brought along all the baggage like what you mentioned but also if I happened to describe a wall that didn't match up to the climbing chart then as the DM I was somehow "cheating". The more you had some of this stuff detailed out the more difficult it was to DM because there would be that 1 guy who would demand absolute fidelity to the rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Fair enough for you, but I'm not willing to write off any inconsistency as a "game convention" that should be ignored for play. There's no reason that anything an NPC can accomplish can't be duplicated by an equivalent PC under similar circumstances. I simply don't want to play a game where that isn't true, so I don't. As much as possible for practical purposes, I want the rules to reflect the in-fiction reality of the world and everything in it. I strive for that goal in every world I make and every game I play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

So you don't think 5.5 represents a shift in intention and assumed playstyle?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can understand the desire or want to have more / different NPC statblocks, and there's nothing wrong with that desire. But I personally also think there's no reason why any (general) DM shouldn't be able to or want to go out and get others elsewhere if WotC didn't provide it. Such a simple thing to do that I don't know why the suggestion should cause controversy. (Not suggesting I mean you by any stretch.)

I find it funny that so many people got worked up about the "cancelling the OGL" thing, and yet when the idea is broached to go get the product they want that uses that OGL that they were defending for so vociferously, it's met with a wall.

Not me. I use a metric ton of 3pp material, to the point where very little of my personal "D&D" actually comes from WotC's game, and none from their current game at the moment.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Our group had a disagreement about an NPC Mage casting misty step or casting Counterspell and then dropping a fireball. The spell ability nature of that sparked a a bit of a debate around the issue. I then pointed out that one of PCs had Fey Blooded.

If monsters can have legendary actions - the most mechanically stark example of NPCs breaking the rules that PCs follow - then we are accepting foes can and should be built differently. I’d actually like to see that more often not less… CR 4 legendary ogres and CR 6 legendary duelists.

In Level Up, they provided an in-fiction explanation for creatures who have legendary actions and the like. And if they don't, I put them in.

 

[Stormonu]

I’m unclear why people want to create more work for themselves by building NPCs like PCs.

Need a Nth level wizard? Use the Mage stat block from the MM, add/subtract some HP and a spell or two (or three). Done.

Need a Nth level X class analog? Pick the stat block from the MM that gives the flavor you want. Then, as needed, add/subtract some HP and/or add/subtract an ability or two as you see fit. Close enough and in a fraction of the time.

This bothers me. I like to think of myself as a creative fellow, and “just reskin this stat block” frustrates me. Yes, it works - but I like to be able to have more uniqueness than similarities in the things I run. Sure, I might be able to use a basilisk as a “young” Medusa via a reskin, but I’d rather have something unique unto itself and for the rules to encourage and reward doing so. Same for NPCs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This bothers me. I like to think of myself as a creative fellow, and “just reskin this stat block” frustrates me. Yes, it works - but I like to be able to have more uniqueness than similarities in the things I run. Sure, I might be able to use a basilisk as a “young” Medusa via a reskin, but I’d rather have something unique unto itself and for the rules to encourage and reward doing so. Same for NPCs.

I always try to minimize reskinning, and prefer to have the mechanics follow the fiction, not the other way round.

 

[AlViking]

This bothers me. I like to think of myself as a creative fellow, and “just reskin this stat block” frustrates me. Yes, it works - but I like to be able to have more uniqueness than similarities in the things I run. Sure, I might be able to use a basilisk as a “young” Medusa via a reskin, but I’d rather have something unique unto itself and for the rules to encourage and reward doing so. Same for NPCs.

Why do you need "rewards" from the rules? If I create a new monster and it works well for the scenario I'm envisioning then I've got all the reward I need. I wouldn't mind details for making my own NPCs and monsters but I don't need them and can find general guidelines if I want them. It's not that hard to find monsters that are in the ballpark, throw a couple of monsters into the metaphorical blender and come up with something new.