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

[Chaltab]

There is no narrative distinction! The whole point is that there's no such thing as an NPC or PC in-universe. Why do some NPCs have things PC rules don't replicate? Because it's convenient for gameplay. The DM can justify it through the narrative however they want, or change the NPC stats if they prefer.

If a player leaves my game then I make an NPC version of their sheet--it's not that they've suddenly changed in the fiction, I'm just abstracting their abilities slightly differently to make it easier to control them in a scenario where I have ten other monsters to run.

 

[Lanefan]

There is no narrative distinction! The whole point is that there's no such thing as an NPC or PC in-universe.

Exactly. My whole outlook is predicated on this very point.

Why do some NPCs have things PC rules don't replicate? Because it's convenient for gameplay.

And this contradicts your sentence above. If there's no such thing as PC or NPC then NPCs shouldn't have things PCs don't/can't have and vice versa, when the access to those things is solely based on their status as PC or NPC.

If a player leaves my game then I make an NPC version of their sheet--it's not that they've suddenly changed in the fiction, I'm just abstracting their abilities slightly differently to make it easier to control them in a scenario where I have ten other monsters to run.

Usually if a player leaves my game while still having a character in the field, the other players run it until the first convenient reasonable opportunity for the character to retire, at which point it does so.

Departed players' characters still, however, belong to those players for life; they're not NPCs, and I prefer not to use those characters without permission.

 

[Minigiant]

Enough for what? And if both their offence and defence are lacking for your purposes, then just make them higher level!

PC defences don't keep up with offence.

If you meet Offence CR, they are too squishy
If you meet Deence CR, they are too wimpy

 

[Remathilis]

PC defences don't keep up with offence.

If you meet Offence CR, they are too squishy
If you meet Deence CR, they are too wimpy

Most PCs are built as glass canons. High nova potential, but not enough defense. Great if the goal is to take as many people out with you when you drop, but really terrible if attrition is remotely a concept.

 

[Chaltab]

And this contradicts your sentence above. If there's no such thing as PC or NPC then NPCs shouldn't have things PCs don't/can't have and vice versa, when the access to those things is solely based on their status as PC or NPC.

It's not a contradiction. I'm saying that in-universe there's no difference; the difference only exists in the game mechanics.

In universe there's no such thing as a spell called Arcane Burst, it's just an abstraction that this the Archmage did (or failed to do on a miss) that much damage with their magic that round.

I don't even like Arcane Burst for its blandness but the concept of isn't the problem, it's the execution.

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

That's not a denial of access. That's a challenge to be overcome! (Turns to the rest of the group and begins planning how to kill the current wielder)

You can't trust the rest of the group, and they should not trust you. "In the end there can be only one"....

 

[Maxperson]

You can't trust the rest of the group, and they should not trust you. "In the end there can be only one"....

 

[Lanefan]

It's not a contradiction. I'm saying that in-universe there's no difference; the difference only exists in the game mechanics.

Except aren't the game mechanics there to abstract and reflect that universe as best they can? Isn't that their job?

If so, then if in-universe there's no difference that should be reflected by there being no game-mechanical difference.

 

[Minigiant]

Most PCs are built as glass canons. High nova potential, but not enough defense. Great if the goal is to take as many people out with you when you drop, but really terrible if attrition is remotely a concept.

Exactly.

The 2014 CR 12 Archmage was just a 15 AC, 99 HP PC wizard with no subclass.
The 2025 CR Archmage is a Arcane Bursting 17 AC, 170 HP NPC Mage with spells

Using 2025 CR/Damage it's suppose to be doing ~90 Damage and ~200 HP

2014 Archie's Dagger is 4 damage (lol)
2014 Archie's Cone of Cold is 36 damage per failed save
2014 Archie's Lightning Bolt is 28 damage per failed save
2014 Archie's Upcasted to 9 Cone of Cold is 54 damage per failed save
2014 Archie's Upcasted to 8 Lightning Bolt is 45 damage per failed save

2025 Archie's Arcane Bursts are 4 shots of 27 (108)
2025 Archie's Level 9 Cone of Cold is 54 damage per failed save
2025 Archie's Level 7 Lightning Bolt is 42 damage per failed save

And this illustrates the problem.
Out of the box 2014 deals two little damage and has two little defenses to match a CR 12 benchmark. You can upcast to hit the benchmark but then your defenses are way too low. And in order to hit the defense benchmark you would have to either have way more hit die than a PC does or you would have to give them enough magical armor that the AC is high enough to mitigate being half as much HP as supposed to have.

As you said PCS are glass cannons. Extreme ones. High Nova damage, no hit points, and extremely high AC.

So in 2025 they just gave the archmage the amount of hit points and the upcast spells up front. And they deleted the dagger and replaced it with something that hits the damage benchmark. And raise the AC.

 

[Blue]

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

If for you, fights being overly short, and the dice mattering more than the characters and tactics are strong features, I'm not going to gainsay you. But for me, and I suspect tha majority, they would prefer reasonably lengthed fights where characters and tactics matter more than dice luck.

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

Sure they can be. But as shown by every single WotC adventure those are made with the foe-creation rules, not with the player-facing character building rules.

We know for a fact that PC classes are not an in-world occurrence. Because there are named NPCs in the monster books that don't follow the PC rules but have the same name. First example is Druid in the MM, 4th level casting and no wildshape. The words exist, you can call someone a fighter just as easily as calling them a soldier or a savage, but the classes themselves are not in-game constructs. So another adventuring party has no need to us PC-facing rules. They do as every NPC every published by WotC for 5e does, use the monster creation rules and give them some iconic abilities.