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

[Reynard]

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

Yes, exactly like 5E is intended to work. Almost every version of D&D except 3.x, really. That is the only edition that demanded NPCs be built like PCs, up to and including 20th level commoners.

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

I dislike bespoke powers because that conceit is that GMs will ge the balance right. Balance is hard for professional designers, why do we assume GMs can pull it off? Frameworks like classes should have some semblance of balance but a grab-bag of powers is easily unbalanced.

If you don't want to use that toolkit, fine, no one is forcing you. Grab some monsters and reskin them. I have used a manticore stats for a kenku archer, nobody cared. You could use an illithid for a PrIest of the Devouring Mind or whatever.

See, the cleric won't care because its a horrific evil god they can't follow so whatever "class" they have is unavailable.

GMs have all the words in the language, call NPCs something other than what PCs are and the players won't care. But if you call it an Evoker Wizard, it shouldn't do anything the PC Evoker Wizard can't do.

 

[Chaltab]

I dislike bespoke powers because that conceit is that GMs will ge the balance right. Balance is hard for professional designers, why do we assume GMs can pull it off? Frameworks like classes should have some semblance of balance but a grab-bag of powers is easily unbalanced.

...I mean it's not like the guidelines helped get monster balance right in 3E either so I really don't see that as a strong argument. Robust monster guidelines with balanced math goes a lot farther than trying to build them by the same rules as PCs--like 4E after Monster Manual 3 fixed the math.

 

[pawsplay]

Yes, exactly like 5E is intended to work. Almost every version of D&D except 3.x, really. That is the only edition that demanded NPCs be built like PCs, up to and including 20th level commoners.

That's now how AD&D worked. Again, you would have like 3-18 bandits, and they would led by like a 3rd-level fighter or something. Anything that was basically a person and had more than 4 HD would definitely have a class and level. Most "monster" writeups were limited to 1 or 2 HD warrior types like bandits, berserkers, and so forth.

 

[Reynard]

That's now how AD&D worked. Again, you would have like 3-18 bandits, and they would led by like a 3rd-level fighter or something. Anything that was basically a person and had more than 4 HD would definitely have a class and level. Most "monster" writeups were limited to 1 or 2 HD warrior types like bandits, berserkers, and so forth.

Yes. Just like 5E. There are bandits and stuff. And the leader can be a full on barbarian. I don't understand what you are seeing that is different. Why are you assuming that because 5E has NPC statblocks just like AD&D, that somehow you aren't allowed to use classed NPCs also?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, if you can only go off the experience you've had... why do you keep trying to speak for every other DM out there? This is what you said further up...



How do you know how many GMs don't know about the fixes or refuse to consider them or might consider them but focus on other things? You don't. But apparently the only way you can make your personal point abut third-party material into a universal one such that WotC would ever consider changing their policies on it is to speak as though what you believe is one that everyone believes. But that is not true.

If your GMs never allowed for third-party material, so be it. But that does not in any way, shape, or form give you insight on what other GMs do or don't do, so you can't use your personal experience as some sort of credible argument for why using third-party material to solve this "problem" is not an actual solve.

...

So what you're saying is, no one ever can discuss anything. Because, since the only thing we know is always our own experiences, we cannot ever talk about anything other than that experience, and that experience is so utterly unique to each individual person it means absolutely nothing.

Right. So, I'm going to politely say no, screw that, because I believe in the purpose of a forum, namely, as a place to discuss things.

I can only make arguments from the basis of what I have experienced and witnessed. I can't invent arguments on the basis of things I have no evidence for.

You want to show me I'm wrong? Get statistics. Duelling anecdotes leaves us nowhere better than we were before. Show me evidence that 3PP are extremely common, such that (say) I have at least (say) a 2/3 chance of seeing the solution actually used, if I were to sign up for a new game tomorrow. Because even a poll of users on this forum, where folks seem to think 3PP is in wide use, players voted a clear plurality (40.4%) that they literally never get to use 3PP, and almost a majority (49.4%) were either "never" or "rarely". The idea that 3PP is a super common widely available thing that everyone is getting to see, use, and benefit from simply doesn't bear out. Even on a forum where 3PP should have had an enormous leg up.

 

[Distracted DM]

Yes. Just like 5E. There are bandits and stuff. And the leader can be a full on barbarian. I don't understand what you are seeing that is different. Why are you assuming that because 5E has NPC statblocks just like AD&D, that somehow you aren't allowed to use classed NPCs also?

Are classed NPCs, like "a full on barbarian," statted or called for anywhere in 5e material?

 

[pawsplay]

Yes. Just like 5E. There are bandits and stuff. And the leader can be a full on barbarian. I don't understand what you are seeing that is different. Why are you assuming that because 5E has NPC statblocks just like AD&D, that somehow you aren't allowed to use classed NPCs also?

I'm not assuming anything. P.92 of the DMG (2014) says you can use a monster stat block, or you can create one like a PC using class and levels. Off-hand, I'm not sure there are any examples of the latter in print. The only real evidence this was ever seriously considered is the existence of the Oathbreaker Paladin.

Meanwhile, in the revised DMG, page 84, it says to use a stat block from the Monster Manual. Period. What you are describing does not exist in the rules-set under discussion in this thread. Even if you created such a thing, how would you know what CR to give it? The handy-dandy chart from the previous version is gone. Rules for creating new monster and NPC stat blocks are gone. Even if you did create such a thing, how would you reconcile the difference in Proficiency Bonus between a 12th-level Cleric, and a monster of equivalent CR?

So I'm not assuming anything. I am making the factual observation that his rules-set does not support classed NPCs. The changes from the previous version make it clear they don't want you to even try. If you have some actual advice on how to incorporate PC-style NPCs in the 5e Revised rules, and some reasons why you would do that, I'm all ears.

It is simply true that in 1e, 2e, 3e, you could create an NPC who was a "6th-level wizard" and that would be intelligible in game terms. In 4e, you could design an NPC of any given CR you want, and assign them some PC abilities to approximate a particular class or archetype. In 5e, the DMG at least gave you some napkin-math guidelines on how you might do such a thing. In the new rules, it isn't a thing. I can't even do what you're suggesting without cracking open my 2014 DMG or wildly making up numbers.

So this is completely unlike 1e and 2e in that regard. In AD&D, a bandit is a sub-1 HD monster with 1-6 hit points, who is always led by an 8th, 9th, or 10th level fighter, with six guards of 2nd-level fighting ability and a 7th level lieutenant. There is nothing even vaguely equivalent to this in the 5e revised rules. You can't even tell me what the XP bounty on a 10th level fighter is.

 

[AlViking]

I'm not assuming anything. P.92 of the DMG (2014) says you can use a monster stat block, or you can create one like a PC using class and levels. Off-hand, I'm not sure there are any examples of the latter in print. The only real evidence this was ever seriously considered is the existence of the Oathbreaker Paladin.

Meanwhile, in the revised DMG, page 84, it says to use a stat block from the Monster Manual. Period. What you are describing does not exist in the rules-set under discussion in this thread. Even if you created such a thing, how would you know what CR to give it? The handy-dandy chart from the previous version is gone. Rules for creating new monster and NPC stat blocks are gone. Even if you did create such a thing, how would you reconcile the difference in Proficiency Bonus between a 12th-level Cleric, and a monster of equivalent CR?

So I'm not assuming anything. I am making the factual observation that his rules-set does not support classed NPCs. The changes from the previous version make it clear they don't want you to even try. If you have some actual advice on how to incorporate PC-style NPCs in the 5e Revised rules, and some reasons why you would do that, I'm all ears.

It is simply true that in 1e, 2e, 3e, you could create an NPC who was a "6th-level wizard" and that would be intelligible in game terms. In 4e, you could design an NPC of any given CR you want, and assign them some PC abilities to approximate a particular class or archetype. In 5e, the DMG at least gave you some napkin-math guidelines on how you might do such a thing. In the new rules, it isn't a thing. I can't even do what you're suggesting without cracking open my 2014 DMG or wildly making up numbers.

So this is completely unlike 1e and 2e in that regard. In AD&D, a bandit is a sub-1 HD monster with 1-6 hit points, who is always led by an 8th, 9th, or 10th level fighter, with six guards of 2nd-level fighting ability and a 7th level lieutenant. There is nothing even vaguely equivalent to this in the 5e revised rules. You can't even tell me what the XP bounty on a 10th level fighter is.

The 2024 MM is aimed at new DMs. Once you have some experience DMing, you don't need a line in the book telling you that you can customize. Assuming anybody actually read the DMG in the first place of course.

 

[Reynard]

Are classed NPCs, like "a full on barbarian," statted or called for anywhere in 5e material?

They certainly weren't statted in AD&D unless you called (4th level.fighter) stats. And nowhere does it prohibit classed NPCs.