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

[DEFCON 1]

But this is Oberone fallacy stuff. And more rules I need to rewrite, less incentive I have to buy the official rules in the first place.

Then don't buy them. It doesn't matter if you do or don't.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My answer is not to handwave them away, but to have the ability in-setting to create such effects.

If you are willing to put in all that extra work, then cool. Glad it works for you! I personally don't have nearly the patience to do all that extra work for which to me is no appreciable gain, LOL! I don't care nearly enough about any of my game worlds to worry about stuff like that. Bad enough I have to spend the time creating the trap, now I have to create the magic system too that allows that trap to work? Heh heh... no thank you!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then don't buy them. It doesn't matter if you do or don't.

Sure. But this is literally a discussion forum for D&D. People are going to voice their their complaints about how the things are handled in the official product.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sure. But this is literally a discussion forum for D&D. People are going to voice their their complaints about how things are handled currently.

Right. Which you are doing. No one (including me) is stopping you. But that doesn't mean someone else can't say that your discussion is merely just talk because you are asking for something you genuinely cannot get.

Don't forget... you quoted me. You chose to engage. You didn't have to do that if you didn't want my reply.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right. Which you are doing. No one (including me) is stopping you. But that doesn't mean someone else can't say that your discussion is merely just talk because you are asking for something you genuinely cannot get.

Well, if we are not going to discuss things like that, you might as well shut the place down.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, if we are not going to discuss things like that, you might as well shut the place down.

I don't have the ability to do that. So your hyperbole is just that.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

And? That's a very strong feature, not a bug.

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.

So the PCs' foes are never intended (or allowed?) to be another party of adventurers?

 

[TiQuinn]

So the PCs' foes are never intended (or allowed?) to be another party of adventurers?

Adventurers doesn't mean PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

But why?

You do accept 100% "Monsters" can do lots of things PCs can never, ever do. But when it's NPC, they must follow the PC rules? Why? The PC rules are for Players.

IMO the PC rules are for PC-playable species whether they have a player attached or not. A PC Elf is first and foremost an Elf, and the PC rules for Elves thus inform us what makes Elves in general tick in the setting.

Monsters, because they're not playable as PCs and thus don't have to adhere to player-side rules (and also don't have to be balanced against other PC-playable species so as to fit in a party) can go outside these borders with impugnity.

What is the point of the "theoretical"? Like NPC Bob is a Servant of the Dark One.....so if a player is will to do the exact build they can "copy Bob". But as Bob is made to be an evil bad guy...not an adventurer the player might find the character very lacking in day to day play.

The player might find it boring to play, but if the player can in fact "build" Bob-the-Bad using player-side rules then Bob passes my test.

 

[Lanefan]

If it really mattered that much to the player that they get this "magic spell" that the NPC had that they didn't, then I'd write it up the effect as a spell and let them have it. No big deal. And if I felt the spell needed "re-balancing" or "re-leveling" or any of that stuff as part of writing it up, then I'd do that too. I don't see any of that as anything to be that concerned about.

Were I a player and found the spell in the looted spellbook worked differently than the same spell we'd just had cast at us, I'd raise one hell of a stink.

You've got to do that write-up process before the spell ever enters play, be it from an opposition NPC casting it or the PCs finding it in a treasure hoard. Once the spell enters play you're stuck with it as is.