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

[Maxperson]

Yeah, the game. The world can be whatever it wants, people can change the setting if they so choose. If you use the Orc statblock for a tough and angry human, what's the harm?

Why does being an angry human give you an intelligence of 7? Why would that give the person a bonus action movement towards hostile creatures? Why do all angry humans get that? If not all of them, why do only some of them get the extra movement when all tough, angry humans are tough and angry? My human cleric is tough, and if he's angry does he get that bonus action movement? If not, why not? Does my tough, angry human cleric's intelligence drop to 7 when he's being tough and angry? If not, why not?

If you want a tough, angry human to be strong, stupid and get bonus movement, fine. But every human who achieves that status should be strong, stupid and get the bonus movement. It's when this tough human over here is strong, fast and stupid, but that one over there is strong, smart and does bonus damage, and the third tough and angry human isn't strong, but gets resistance to damage that things get kind of hokey. And it's even worse when the fourth tough and angry human the party meets has 1 hit point and is killed by any damage at all, even a rock tossed by a kid.

Consistency is key. Fidelity with the fiction is also key. If you're presenting something to me that is tough and angry in the fiction and you make it as fragile as a glass jar in some situations, and actually tough in others, that sort of inconsistency is a deal breaker for me and I'd leave that game.

 

[ECMO3]

The fact that some pieces can be built as defense tanks does not deny that the majority of PCs are glass cannons.

And really that was only from early editions and RPGs that seek to emulate earlier editions. Because in those editions you're saving throws massively increased with level compared to modern additions.

Your high AC tank in in modern dungeon caller games tend to get destroyed eventually by saving through attacks if you could get your turn off.

Once the enemy start casting spells, shooting magic rays, and breathing fire most of the tanks start falling down as well in editions past 2nd.

In the modern game party healing often outpaces those save effects, especially with the 0 floor on most damage. The Fighter has 2 hps left and the Dragon breathes fire does 40 damage and he loses 2 hit points. The Cleric casts a 3rd level cure wounds and he is healed 30 hps.

 

[Minigiant]

In the modern game party healing often outpaces those save effects.

Not really.

You can't outheal incoming damage without specving for it. And that requires a ton of work.

 

[ECMO3]

Not really.

You can't outheal incoming damage without specving for it. And that requires a ton of work.

Yes you can, especially because of the floor at 0 hps. Almost all parties with a healer will ouspec enemy damage with the new healing spells.

For example, a Young Red Dragon's Breath does 56 damage on a failed save or 28 damage on a made save or failed save with resistance and 14 damage on a made save with resistance (about half of PCs are probably going to be resistant) and he is rarely going to be able to do that more than twice in a combat.

A 5th level Cleric can heal ~30 damage to a single ally twice with their 3rd level slots, ~20 3 times with their second level slots and ~12 with their 1st level slots four times. That is around 170 points of healing and it is not counting Divine Spark, Subclass abilities, potions (which are now a bonus action) or any other PCs helping out at all and it also is before we consider the Dragon Breath can't take anyone below 0. And this would be a High Difficulty fight.

As an alternative they can use their 3rd level slots to heal 9 damage to everyone in the party as a bonus action and that wizard who is at 0hps gets a whole 9 hps healing from it, while the Wizard at 0 caught in Dragon Breath takes no damage at all.

 

[GobHag]

Why does being an angry human give you an intelligence of 7? Why would that give the person a bonus action movement towards hostile creatures? Why do all angry humans get that? If not all of them, why do only some of them get the extra movement when all tough, angry humans are tough and angry? My human cleric is tough, and if he's angry does he get that bonus action movement? If not, why not? Does my tough, angry human cleric's intelligence drop to 7 when he's being tough and angry? If not, why not?

If you want a tough, angry human to be strong, stupid and get bonus movement, fine. But every human who achieves that status should be strong, stupid and get the bonus movement. It's when this tough human over here is strong, fast and stupid, but that one over there is strong, smart and does bonus damage, and the third tough and angry human isn't strong, but gets resistance to damage that things get kind of hokey. And it's even worse when the fourth tough and angry human the party meets has 1 hit point and is killed by any damage at all, even a rock tossed by a kid.

Consistency is key. Fidelity with the fiction is also key. If you're presenting something to me that is tough and angry in the fiction and you make it as fragile as a glass jar in some situations, and actually tough in others, that sort of inconsistency is a deal breaker for me and I'd leave that game.

1. Because he's angry

2. No, but this one gets it.

3. Your cleric doesn't get one because your cleric is a cleric, you already have enough features.

I don't see a single thing wrong in your second paragraph, of course I'll do those things--Why does this guy's accurate sword strike is mechanized as a higher To-Hit roll while the other guy's accurate sword strike is mechanized as a bonus damage when hitting someone with a condition? Because I want to differentiate their mechanical and encounter/combat role.

This guy is tough and angry and has high HP but damages himself with each attack, this guy is tough and angry and has has regenerating Temp HP at each round, this guy is tough and angry and has resistance+mindless This is what I can do as a DM, this is what many designers do when writing up foes, the in-fiction explanatuon doesn't have to lead to the same mechanical expression.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's more...
5e was designed on vibes after 4e was designed with a purpose and people reject it because it didn't have the correct vibes.

To have NPCs that can use PC logic you have to design your NPC system and PC system together.

Think of it like 4e a monster roles. If we say that PCs are strikers: they have high damage, high accuracy, low HP, and have a way to prevent themselves from being killed (mobility, High AC, defensive spells) but die if cornered or jumped.

Then we graph a typical type of monster that fits that role goblenoids and elves.

Goblin minion, Drow minion, hobgoblin minion, bugbear minion,, goblin Warrior, Drow warrior, hobgoblin Warrior, bugbear warrior, goblin leader elf leader, hobgoblin leader, bugbear leader.

Plot out their stats and put PC offense and defense near those benchmarks, then it could be done.

Agreed. Best systems for this are designed for it. ACKS II is a good example. But you can get a lot done with modifications and elbow grease, even in 5e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The fact that some pieces can be built as defense tanks does not deny that the majority of PCs are glass cannons.

And really that was only from early editions and RPGs that seek to emulate earlier editions. Because in those editions you're saving throws massively increased with level compared to modern additions.

Your high AC tank in in modern dungeon caller games tend to get destroyed eventually by saving through attacks if you could get your turn off.

Once the enemy start casting spells, shooting magic rays, and breathing fire most of the tanks start falling down as well in editions past 2nd.

We definitely lost something valuable in the game after 2e, that's true.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly? I hope not. Game mechanics are there to be fun to use(or leads to fun) and are usable by their 'user'(Classes for Players and NPC/Monsters for GMs), verisimilitude should be a secondary concern over game feel and mechanical usability+balance.

Reverse those priorities and you have my opinion.