TwoSix
Programs in KOBOLD
No.
D&D 5E (2024) NPCs, and the poverty of the core books
- Thread starter pawsplay
- Start date
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Depends on the table, obviously. For me they very much are. I'll die on that hill.
pawsplay
Legend
I don't expect PCs and NPCs to all have identical abilities, but I do expect PC classes to have some reflection in the game world. Like, if a PC is a Cleric of Sune, then I expect there to be NPC clerics of Sune, and whatever differences in their abilities exist should have some kind of explanation.
Remathilis
Legend
There are three ways I explain the differences:
1. Good enough. NPCs like the assassin or tribal warrior look enough like a rogue or barbarian to fill that niche. It's not 1:1, but it's close enough that trying for greater accuracy will break balance or simplicity.
2. Departmentalization: PC clerics represent a specific branch of priesthoods, different from the acolyte or war priests divisions. Not every priest in the faith would have the exact same training and hence the same abilities.
3. Gamism. It doesn't make a lot of sense that every first level fighter, regardless of species, background, or location would all have the ability to take a second wind that no other martial (barbarian, ranger, monk) cannot. But that is an abstraction made for a class based system. If I can ignore every fighter in the world having the exact same abilities, I can equal ignore that every NPC warrior cannot. Maybe if D&D abandons classes for a more granular system of skills and abilities and opens that to NPCs as well, we can even that discrepancy.
I might've said this elsewhere, but it can make sense if you're OK with the conceit that the PCs are special and unique, like Dungeon World states up-front.
You're The Wizard. There are other mages out there, but no one's like you, and you're not like them.
You're The Fighter. There are other warriors, but your skills are unique to you.
Personally.. I don't want that in my running ~10yr campaign setting; it was fine for Dungeon World where you make the world cooperatively at chargen each time- but it can help make sense of the disparity between PC and NPC.
If you build it into the setting, it can even be a fun thing like "each go-around, you're possessed with the destiny of 'The Monk' or The Druid.'" Like the highlander (somewhere referenced above), but for each class- there can be only one at a time :'D
You're The Wizard. There are other mages out there, but no one's like you, and you're not like them.
You're The Fighter. There are other warriors, but your skills are unique to you.
Personally.. I don't want that in my running ~10yr campaign setting; it was fine for Dungeon World where you make the world cooperatively at chargen each time- but it can help make sense of the disparity between PC and NPC.
If you build it into the setting, it can even be a fun thing like "each go-around, you're possessed with the destiny of 'The Monk' or The Druid.'" Like the highlander (somewhere referenced above), but for each class- there can be only one at a time :'D
Crimson Longinus
Legend
Too squishy or wimpy for what? Who cares about CR, it is meaningless nonsense anyway, and as monster creation rules do not even exist in 5.5. there are no benchmarks to meet. Just represent the creature consistently.
Right. The purpose of combat stats of a NPC archmage is to answer what would happen were the PCs to fight an archmage. PC-like NPC stats will answer that just fine.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
This seems pretty nonsensical to me and leads to gameplay where the rules cease to be connected to the fiction, in which case I don't understand why we even have these rules.
If you don't use something like CR how would you be able to tell at a glance how powerful a goblin is versus a tarrasque? CR certainly has it's faults because no generic rating system will always work, but it serves a purpose. Personally I find it reasonably accurate.
They can, but it also makes them more difficult to run when the DM already has to keep track of a dozen monsters. As the DMG says, the rules do not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D. As far as I'm concerned they also don't 100% describe any character or monster, the rules are a simplification done to provide a fun gaming experience. I'm a fan of a game being a loose simulation of the fantasy world but I also accept that I don't want every gritty detail modeled in depth.
Chaltab
Legend
I don't even know how to respond to this. We have rules so that the game is 'fair' (for whatever difficulty the players and DM agree to) and it's not just a playground game of 'nuh-uh, my monster is totally immune to your spell!'
You think the rules should reflect the fiction? Sure, I agree to an extent. But it's been demonstrated throughout the 2014 edition that humanoids hit even further below their supposed difficulty than most other monsters if they're forced to conform to the skeleton of the PC rules.
Even if the solutions in the 2025 MM are clumsy, they're not arbitrary.
Remathilis
Legend
A satisfying encounter. PCs are built with three conceits in mind:
* They can do tremendous nova damage if they use all their power at once.
" They don't have as many hp as monsters and have to rely on healing and AC to even the odds
* They are built for multiple encounters with rests in between and noncombat encounters and abilities.
As such, they tend to either be glass cannons (enough power to destroy a group via Nova, but equally susceptible to being nova'd) or slap-tanks (investing in high defense to live, but at the cost of low damage that never threatens the PCs). The former is rocket tag, the latter is The Slog. Monsters and NPCs are built for a single encounter, so they have more HP it resist nova (though with lower AC, with creates the hp sponge issue) but enough damage to threatens PCs without high nova potential. A middle ground that make fights longer but not too long.
As always, this is averages and ymnv.
Similar Threads
