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

[Reynard]

I am an expert on the 2014 and 2024 rules, but I for one would like less complexity in 6E. A lot of the complexity seems to serve no narrative purpose IMO and just feels tacked on (example: weapon mastery).

Complexity isn't there for narrative purposes, it is there for gameplay purposes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you are not going through the process then it is not really giving the NPC a player class.

If you are just whipping up something then you are doing what I suggested, pulling abilities off the shelf that you want to use and ignoring others. I see no value in checking if a hypothetical PC could have that same combination of abilities.

For the example above - a PC with 5d6 sneak attack, the other Rogue/Assasin abilities mentioned, and Divine Strike .... I could build a 17th level PC (Rogue 9/Cleric 8) that got that, but it would also have 17 hit dice, a +6 Proficiency Bonus and lots of spells I don't need. So why do it? Just make an NPC with 7 hit dice, +3 PB and all those abilities.

Well, since you believe all rules are worthless unless they serve a purpose in the narrative, we're not going to agree on this.

 

[pawsplay]

This is going back to the 1E and 2E Style. An NPC just had whatever powers they needed for the adventure.

I don't get where you are coming from at all. In 1E or 2e, an NPC would literally just be a 5th level fighter or a 12th-level mage. Non-player character used to mean explicitly a character build like a PC but controlled by the DM; anything else was a "Monster," including Normal Men, Pirates, and so forth.

You could apply a special power to an NPC (a thief who is an "executioner" and kills on a natural 20) but you didn't have to apply any special powers to make an NPC seem like a PC. An NPC cleric had the same capabilities as a PC cleric.

 

[billd91]

It does seem, sometimes, that 5e NPCs can't play by the same rules if they want to compete with 5e PCs. I don't love stuff like Arcane Burst for NPC mages, but I can see why they'd make it a thing- and why I'd use it as a DM.

That's the crux of it. In a couple of ways.

PCs in D&D have a few things going for them - one of which is a 1:1 relationship with their player. Depending on how many players you've got, as a DM, you've got multiple people working against you in any combat encounter and that's harder to keep up with, particularly with a constantly shifting list of NPCs/monsters under the DM's control.

And then there's the question of the NPCs having to compete with multiple 5e PCs at the same time. Even with multiple NPCs at my command, they have to be set a bit higher in damage output and hit points to make up the difference and give the players a reasonable challenge.

 

[ECMO3]

Well, since you believe all rules are worthless unless they serve a purpose in the narrative, we're not going to agree on this.

I think this is a great example of what I am talking about. You say you want NPC classes, yet you also say "don't have to go through the whole process" .... then why have those rules? What purpose are those rules serving if you are not even using them and have stated you don't have to use them?

 

[ECMO3]

This is going back to the 1E and 2E Style. An NPC just had whatever powers they needed for the adventure.

This is not really true. 1E NPCs usually had classes. Monsters did not have classes, but NPCs who were not monsters definitely did.

1E classes were MUCH lighter than 5E classes though. A 1st level 5E fighter has more build choices to make than a 10th level 1E Fighter.

If classes were as simple as they were in 1E I would not be against using them for NPCs.

 

[Reynard]

This is not really true. 1E NPCs usually had classes. Monsters did not have classes, but NPCs who were not monsters definitely did.

1E classes were MUCH lighter than 5E classes though. A 1st level 5E fighter has more build choices to make than a 10th level 1E Fighter.

If classes were as simple as they were in 1E I would not be against using them for NPCs.

I don't know, it feels like a dodge to.argue that all AD&D NPCs were classed, except those that weren't (because they were started up in the MM). That is exactly how 5E works.

 

[Chaltab]

Plenty of 5E NPCs are also classed, they even started adding it as a tag like (demon) or (titan).

What a lot of us (I think) are wary of is the 3E conceit that adding class levels to an NPC means adding all the same features that a PC of that class would get--class features, Feats, etc.

 

[ECMO3]

I don't know, it feels like a dodge to.argue that all AD&D NPCs were classed, except those that weren't (because they were started up in the MM). That is exactly how 5E works.

Most monsters were not intended to assume NPC roles in 1E so it is not a dodge. The DMG gave advice on playing monsters as NPCs, but that was the exception and monsters were not intended to generally be NPCs. Even monsters that were humans such as Bandits and Buccaneers would normally be led by an NPC (or NPCs) who had a class and stats generated by rolling instead of using the monster statistics and abilities.

The 1E DMG covers specifically how to create NPCs

 

[Cadence]

I don't know, it feels like a dodge to.argue that all AD&D NPCs were classed, except those that weren't (because they were started up in the MM). That is exactly how 5E works.

Didn't 1e have a whole bunch of them in the DMG that weren't really statted out anywhere? (Sage, Alchemist, and the like).

In any case, it does feel like there could be something in between 3e (where the worlds greatest farmer or blacksmith necessarily had a ton of hitpoints and a great BAB in order to justify the proficiency bonus) and 5e24 (where it isn't always clear how they match up at all to the relevant PC). Forced to choose, I would lean more 5e24 in terms of simplicity, but with a bit more transparency. A Pathfinder style guide to NPCs that did that would be super.