D&D 5E NPCs With Class Levels?

[Ahnehnois]

The idea would be to remove all the fiddly bits. Which is something they've been planning to do anyway (and haven't done yet).

Pretty much what I was going to say.

I mean, there are times where I want to mechanically play a character in depth, and there are times when I just want a character done quickly. Whether I'm a player or a DM at the time is immaterial. D&D in general doesn't do a great job with quick character creation, but that is separate from the NPC issue.

 

[Li Shenron]

I voted 1 but it's actually quite hard to understand this poll options...

Yes I want to use class levels for my NPCs.
Yes I want to use class levels to advance monsters.

But there is nothing in the books which will make me prevent doing so.

All I need the books to tell me is what is the level/XP of monster X after I added N class levels, so that I know what should be the PC's level for an appropriate challenge.

For the proverbial "best cook in the kingdom", I am never going to fully stat him up anyway, no matter what the books say, I'm just going to make up some numbers only if and when the PCs attack him.

Then I am ok with "innately x-level monsters", it makes sense to me for a lot of creatures, thus I don't think I'd like a general rule against that.

 

[lutecius]

yes. at least as far as PC races are concerned. I don't want an elf wizard to be built differently depending on whether he's a PC, NPC or a minion (and yes, basic character creation should be quicker in general). I don't mind NPC specific classes that are poorly suited for adventuring (eg aristocrat, non fighting priest...) but their mechanics shouldn't be fundamentally different.

I also want the option to add class level to monsters. Ideally, even default monsters would have a "monster level" equivalent to class levels.

 

[Kinak]

As a Pathfinder GM, this is one thing that 4e absolutely got right in my book. Enemies shouldn't be built at the same level of detail as PCs, even if they fill the same role in society.

That said, I don't mind having the option there, I just won't use it. But I will definitely judge 5e (in part) by how easy it is to assign monster stats on the fly. That's looking pretty good so far.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Dausuul]

I'd say something between 1 and 2. NPCs in published material who are best represented by PC classes, should be statted out as members of those classes. The High Priest of Pelor is a cleric. The Archmage of the Council of Wizards is a wizard.

But most NPCs don't fall neatly into those narrow categories. A cook is not a fighter, or a rogue, or a bard; a cook is a cook. A shaman should not have to have the entire druid package to get a handful of druidic spells. (If you like, you can think of the shaman as a poorly trained druid who never learned most of the class features that PC druids get.) Some NPCs might have developed extraordinary abilities that don't map to anything in the Player's Handbook*. And if I have to whip up an NPC on the fly, I certainly have no intention of putting together a fully fledged PC statblock!

[size=-2]*If players want to know how their characters can learn such abilities, my go-to answer is, "First, you have to follow a rigorous training regimen that consumes your entire day, every day, for 30 years. After that you'll find out if you have the natural talent to master that ability. That's what Zounds the Amazing did. Do you want to go ahead with that plan? If so, you'll probably want to make a new character to play in the meantime."[/size]

 

[Celebrim]

Optionally yes.

But I am absolutely against forcing monsters to live by pc rules. Too many fiddly bits.

I want individual dms to have the option of advancing monsters in any number of ways.

Exactly who could take this option away from you?

 

[Shemeska]

If I want to give class levels to a creature, that just makes sense that I should be able to do so. I don't particularly care to have an orc shaman be a distinct "monster", rather than just a standard orc advanced up a number of class levels.

At the same time I don't feel bound to only advance NPCs or any creature up solely by class levels, and if I want to give them some random ability not inherent in the rules for class levels, so be it. Whatever makes sense on a case by case basis.

 

[CAFRedblade]

I don't mind that certain npc's/villains are built via PC rules, however most (simply for convenience and my sanity) should have similar methods of creation to 4th ed. With fully supported General Templates, Theme Template, and PC Class Templates.

 

[Celebrim]

Enemies shouldn't be built at the same level of detail as PCs, even if they fill the same role in society.

What makes you do this if you don't want to?

In 1e, a typical state block would be something like, "Baron Smythe (F6) wears plate mail and carries a morning star +2". Any details would be filled out as needed in the event Baron Smythe crossed steel with the players. There really isn't any need in 3e to do much more than that. I typically use 3-5 line stat blocks for even stated out NPCs, and typically these do not list out skills except maybe a couple I think we'll actually occur in play. If my rough quickly built stat block is wrong by a +/- a couple, I don't sweat it. It all evens out in the end and the chance that it makes a big difference on the outcome is pretty small. Often in a fight comes up unexpectedly, I build a stat block that looks like this: 50 h.p., AC 20, Atk +9 melee, (1d8+4 damage), saves +5. And I'm done. If it isn't worth it to fully stat out something don't.

You can always simplify on the fly. What's hard is increasing complexity and rigor when you want to, but the tools don't provide for it.

The real problem I have with your statement is the use of the word "shouldn't". That implies that there is a way these things ought to be done. I don't think that this is an issue with an "ought". You do what you need to do to achieve the result you want. If you need to make up something on the fly, you do something simple and quick that doesn't create a lot of overhead. If you are planning out a boss fight that is supposed to be the climax of a major story arc, then you invest as much detail into that encounter as you can manage.

4e shines in two ways. First, it encouraged the return to the old 1e standard of a monster being represented simply by its stat block in the monster manual, which for some reason - misapplied creativity, keeping up with the jones, or what - 3e got further and further away from. Second, it made it easy to wing combats that didn't count for much. But in terms of allowing you to wing the fights that matter, I don't feel at all that it was easier to do (good) 4e design than 3e design as something like my stat block for an epic boss fight with Tharizdun shows.

 

[Kinak]

What makes you do this if you don't want to?

Nothing stops me from throwing together my own monster stats without going through the whole process. I do it all the time.

For example, I'm going to be running encounters next week in Pathfinder that involves three monsters from the Bestiary and one monster with class levels added. I already have all of their stats, literally sitting in front of me, but I'll be restatting all of them to be easier to run and more distinctive.

Now, I don't doubt that Paizo can produce cool, interesting monsters. But, because of the way 3.5 monsters work, you end up with this huge mess of stats justifying the stats that you're actually using and then a bunch of other stats based on those justifications so you get... garbage, really, or at least more noise than signal.

That's what I don't want to see in 5e. I don't need them to justify the monster's stats to me. I just need the monster's stats.

The real problem I have with your statement is the use of the word "shouldn't". That implies that there is a way these things ought to be done. I don't think that this is an issue with an "ought". You do what you need to do to achieve the result you want. If you need to make up something on the fly, you do something simple and quick that doesn't create a lot of overhead. If you are planning out a boss fight that is supposed to be the climax of a major story arc, then you invest as much detail into that encounter as you can manage.

Well, I'm not claiming any moral authority there. I don't mean "shouldn't" as in "you're a bad person if you do this," just "shouldn't" as in "I think that's a bad idea."

But I do believe that building enemies using the PC rules reaches the level of being a bad idea above and beyond personal preference. Using other techniques, you can build a more interesting enemy faster that will run more easily in play.

You may disagree on whether that's the case. But hopefully we can agree that people "shouldn't" do more work to get worse results.

But in terms of allowing you to wing the fights that matter, I don't feel at all that it was easier to do (good) 4e design than 3e design as something like my stat block for an epic boss fight with Tharizdun shows.

I can't speak specifically towards your Tharizdun fight, but I'm familiar with your slaad lords (which are awesome, by the way). At least with those, I agree going 4e doesn't really change anything, but you're also not building them using classes that I remember.

Hand-crafting epic boss fights is the way to go. I won't disagree with that at all. Far from it.

But I don't think building the boss with PC classes will make the fight better (even if the boss is nominally a wizard or whatever). In my experience, you get a ton of abilities you don't need and, after all that work, still have to add the features that make the fight epic.

Cheers!
Kinak