D&D 5E NPCyclopedia

[fjw70]

Well to each his own but I don't have consider 1/2e XP and HD any more accurate than 5e CR/XP. In old school and 5e just eyeing it work fine for me.

 

[Quickleaf]

We have a lot of options, but I am still concerned how can I gauge the results, for example how can I estimate the CR or XP of such NPC.

I admit I have neglected the DMG so far compared to the PHB and MM, but I am still confused.

For example, if I would like to make an NPC using the PC rules, and I have a target CR, what character level should it have? It's a simple enough question, is there a simple enough answer in the DMG?

I've done a bunch of NPC creation in this manner: Using mostly PC creation rules with a few unique touches, holding a goal CR roughly in mind, and then using the DMG to determine actual CR, and adjusting as needed.

What I've found is that there is no hard and fast rule to equate level to CR, but there are some guidelines you can use to "eyeball it":

Non-caster CR ~ level *.33 OR level * 0.5

Caster CR ~ level * 0.5 OR level *0.75

This is just a guideline to get you in the right ballpark. For example, I made an optimized half-orc 13th level barbarian (berserker) and he ended up a CR 8 because his defenses were just that good. Likewise, a caster without serious offensive power would have a significantly lower CR. My 13th level diviner ended up somewhere around CR 4 or 5. In both cases, my goal was an NPC of about CR 6-9, so I was on target with the barbarian but the diviner needs some more offensive / area effect spells to bring her CR up .

You'll need to run the actual numbers, however.

As a quick check against the Monster Manual NPCs, take the Knight and the Mage.

The Knight is CR 3, similar to 8th level fighter. My guideline gives you an expected CR of 2.64 - 4.
The Mage is CR 6, similar to a 9th level wizard. My guideline gives you an expected CR of 3 - 6.75.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, what's your point?

Just asking. You said it was tough to design balanced encounters. So I was asking if you design encounters specifically to be unbalanced.

Since that's the case, you can trial and error things a bit without worry of the margin of error you mentioned. Just don't do so when the encounter is unavoidable.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's easy enough to make a wizard villain of the wanted level - give them the required AC, HP, DPR, and attack bonus/save DC, and you're done!

I am aware of that, but I wanted to point out that the DMG explicitly tells you that using PC race and class is one of the three ways to make NPCs suitable for an encounter, the other ways being the "quick way" (minimal stats, basically fixed AC/HP/attack/damage/DC) and the "monster way" (full stat block, built from the ground up). It doesn't tell you that the "PC levels" way doesn't work.

And of course the problem is not in building the NPC. In fact it's about as easy (or even easier) than creating is the "monster way". The problem is that the DMG tools work more for figuring out the CR after the design, while the CR is supposed to be your starting point.

 

[S'mon]

As for nobles being CR 15... that's a great thought, but the only way to get such a creature is to level up a 1/8 CR Noble. Right?

Heh. When I stat the noble Ghinarian Lords IMC, I'm more likely to begin with the CR 5
Gladiator and work from there. The Knight is another good base for a noble fighter.

CR 15 is REALLY high for an NPC BTW, the Archmage is only CR 12. CR 15 would be something like the Invincible Overlord, 40 hit dice and the DPR of a 20th level Fighter PC.

 

[S'mon]

XP and HD were the main tools. And monsters weren't as complicated, so it was much easier to judge their "CR".

Back in the day, more people seemed to be on somewhat similar pages re how difficult encounters should be. In 5e there is a HUGE disparity between what people consider to be a proper challenge. Back in 1e/2e days, gamers were more "hardcore' and wanted tough challenges. Nowadays you have more casual gamers used to respawn video games where you dont have to be that careful to get through an encounter.

The problem w/5e's CR system is that it is based on flawed mathematical formulas rather than on real gaming experience. Its like they hired a guy to do the math and assign the ratings w/o having some senior playtesters check it over to make sure it made sense.

And then the decision to make NPCs different than PCs is....bad. In my world, and many, NPCs and monsters are encountered just as frequently as each other, or at least 30% of encounters. There is a 5e MM I can refer to in order to get monsters, but just a few handfulls of pages of npcS. So I have to create the vast majority of them from scratch - that's a time sink. Not to mention then having to figure out their CR

Fights in pre-3e were generally LESS threatening, not more, in my experience.

NPC casters - the sample ones have CRs of 2/3 their caster level. Just use that - assign a
caster level, give hit dice equal to caster level, multiply level by 2/3 to get CR. Very easy.

NPC non-casters - generally have CR around 1/3 of their hit dice. Start with one of the samples and add or subtract hit dice to get appropriate CR. Modify attack bonus according to new CR. Add or
reduce DPR proportionately. Add or remove class abilities from similar classes to get DPR
right.

Personally I've found creating and modifying 5e NPCs to be delightfully easy, a blessed
release from 3e/PF. OK 4e does combat-with-spellcasters better by integrating spells into
the stat block, but for general purposes 5e is excellent.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am aware of that, but I wanted to point out that the DMG explicitly tells you that using PC race and class is one of the three ways to make NPCs suitable for an encounter, the other ways being the "quick way" (minimal stats, basically fixed AC/HP/attack/damage/DC) and the "monster way" (full stat block, built from the ground up). It doesn't tell you that the "PC levels" way doesn't work.

It works fine, it's just less smooth to start with a CR in that case.

And of course the problem is not in building the NPC. In fact it's about as easy (or even easier) than creating is the "monster way". The problem is that the DMG tools work more for figuring out the CR after the design, while the CR is supposed to be your starting point.

It's fair to say that it's hard to start with a CR and get an on-target PC-style NPC, but I think that criticizing 5e for that fails to appreciate that this was likely one of the prices the designers paid for having PC rules that are more flexible.

It might be useful to contrast 4e's ADEU powers system with its strict, granular balance - every power of a given level and usage doing fairly comparable initial damage (before role considerations are brought in), and players locked into taking a certain number of "attack" powers vs. other powers. This system could allow for easy level-to-CR determination - a character of a given level has a certain damage output, HP, AC, attack rolls, etc. that is within fairly consistent norms, so you can say Level 14 is roughly CR 10 or whatever.

But the moment you have the ability to swap mage armor and magic missile for comprehend languages and charm person (or even greatswords and shields for twin daggers) you're looking at a game where character combat capability is not on a tight curve. You can only say that a character of a given level with particular abilities is a given CR. Which means that you need to build the NPC anyway - you need to choose its abilities before you can determine what CR it is. Simple level isn't going to tell you much.

So you have a trade-off: how flexible do you want character creation to be vs. how easy you want it to be for level to be a precise measure of hp/ac/attacks/save DCs/dpr.

With those competing interests, I think flexible character creation is the appropriate winner, given that it is the more exposed mechanic (meaning, everyone who's not just a DM is going to interact with character creation at an early point in their game experience, but only DMs going beyond the MM will need to worry about the CR of classed NPC's). This is especially true with a broad CR range - where if you have to whip up an enemy mage and she's too weak, you can maybe just throw two or three or add some orcs or whatever and it'll be fine.

I'd still appreciate an "MM of NPC's," personally, but I don't fault 5e for not being able to say "A level X character is CR Y" in a simple and obvious way. In order to achieve that, more important goals like character flexibility would need to be sacrificed.

 

[Hussar]

Why would you bother giving a full class to an NPC? CR only refers to combat and combat is likely only about four rounds. Give your big bad NPC three effects and you're done. Easy peasy.

 

[shoak1]

It works fine, it's just less smooth to start with a CR in that case.



It's fair to say that it's hard to start with a CR and get an on-target PC-style NPC, but I think that criticizing 5e for that fails to appreciate that this was likely one of the prices the designers paid for having PC rules that are more flexible.

It might be useful to contrast 4e's ADEU powers system with its strict, granular balance - every power of a given level and usage doing fairly comparable initial damage (before role considerations are brought in), and players locked into taking a certain number of "attack" powers vs. other powers. This system could allow for easy level-to-CR determination - a character of a given level has a certain damage output, HP, AC, attack rolls, etc. that is within fairly consistent norms, so you can say Level 14 is roughly CR 10 or whatever.

But the moment you have the ability to swap mage armor and magic missile for comprehend languages and charm person (or even greatswords and shields for twin daggers) you're looking at a game where character combat capability is not on a tight curve. You can only say that a character of a given level with particular abilities is a given CR. Which means that you need to build the NPC anyway - you need to choose its abilities before you can determine what CR it is. Simple level isn't going to tell you much.

So you have a trade-off: how flexible do you want character creation to be vs. how easy you want it to be for level to be a precise measure of hp/ac/attacks/save DCs/dpr.

With those competing interests, I think flexible character creation is the appropriate winner, given that it is the more exposed mechanic (meaning, everyone who's not just a DM is going to interact with character creation at an early point in their game experience, but only DMs going beyond the MM will need to worry about the CR of classed NPC's). This is especially true with a broad CR range - where if you have to whip up an enemy mage and she's too weak, you can maybe just throw two or three or add some orcs or whatever and it'll be fine.

I'd still appreciate an "MM of NPC's," personally, but I don't fault 5e for not being able to say "A level X character is CR Y" in a simple and obvious way. In order to achieve that, more important goals like character flexibility would need to be sacrificed.

I agree with most of what you say, except that I believe that while it is harder to estimate CRs in 5e than 4e, I still expected the designers to do the work fully and more accurately (and yes that is NOT entirely subjective), rather than leave it for me. inc/anticipating that many many DMs would want PC style NPCs, and they could have inc/a table of CRs for that purpose..

 

[shoak1]

Because that is more subjective, and difficult to gage as a comparison to PC strength.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I agree with most of what you say, except that I believe that while it is harder to estimate CRs in 5e than 4e, I still expected the designers to do the work fully and more accurately (and yes that is NOT entirely subjective), rather than leave it for me. inc/anticipating that many many DMs would want PC style NPCs, and they could have inc/a table of CRs for that purpose..

One of the things I noticed during my 3e era was that I was running a lot of combat against monstrous creatures.

Because NPC's were so much work.

5e might fall into a similar bucket, but I'm a bit torn. I'd kind of like a more "lightweight" way to build NPC characters so that an NPC warlock or sorcerer or whatever evokes the feel of the class without necessarily making me build it entirely from scratch. Some "Class Template" or something. I dunno.

A simple table wouldn't really do the job, since within a class, there's so much variation. But a bunch of example NPC's, fully statted with spell selections and whatnot, that would likely come in handy for a lot of DMs.

 

[Hussar]

Iirc there were a couple of those in 3e. Didn't the DMG come with a bunch of pre made stat blocks.

 

[Li Shenron]

A simple table wouldn't really do the job, since within a class, there's so much variation.

I am more optimistic, and say that it would be possible.

Yes there is a lot of variation within each class. Trying to cover a large variety doesn't have to be a target of such table.

The table can just aim at estimating the CR of an NPC designed for battle. As you say, a diviner is not supposed to be as good in battle as an evoker. But that also means, that you'll rarely require the PCs to defeat a diviner in combat, and if the BBEG is a diviner, maybe the last fight against it is not even supposed to be the toughest part. Similarly, give me the CR of a Rogue which is built for fighting, not a Rogue built for trapfinding or a con-artist. So just give me the CR of an evoker or standard Rogue of level X, and it'll be already useful!

Then if I still occasionally want the party to face a trapfinder or a diviner in battle, I'll have to expect it will be easier, or I'll buff it up with a few additional levels.

Still, during the combat fight even the trapfinder and the diviner could just fire off all their daily weapons. The diviner could have 90% of divination spells in her spellbook, but remember that with 5e spellcasting rules, it might be enough for her to have Magic Missile and Fireball prepared, and still be able to be fairly effective at combat, even if all the rest of prepared spells are divinations. So maybe the CR wouldn't even be that much lower than the evoker's.

My point is that the variety really shows up in the long term (i.e. when you have investigations, exploration, problem-solving etc... involving all 3 pillars). In the course of an adventuring day, different PCs will shine in different pillars. But in the short term of a single fight (which is what the NPC will do), the differences are smaller. Barring extreme cases* of course, for example if the NPC only prepares divination spells.

*bottom line: it seems absurd that just because it's impossible to adequately cover the extreme (and rare) cases, the game gives up on covering the common cases. The MM chooses to provide a CR6 and CR12 sample mages, maybe these are considered to be the most common cases. Well that's really too little IMO!

Add to that the idea that bounded accuracy should mean that getting the CR wrong by a couple of points shouldn't change much, and I say the whole 'CR by class level' should be doable.

 

[Li Shenron]

By the way... if you check out the monster creation rules in the DMG, notice how they totally overlook special offensive abilities that aren't doing bare damage.

All the stuff in that chapter of the DMG is about estimating CR by AC, HP, attack bonus and damage per round.

In theory, the CR table for custom monsters include a mention of "Save DC". However if you read the text, there is no mention about what kind of effects you should use. Obviously, the result is not the same if the effect is "impose disadvantage on next attack" rather than "disintegrated"! You wouldn't give a monster a disintegrate ability with DC 13 and expect it's only CR3. The effect matters, but the chapter doesn't mention anything except the DC.

There's a small section about monsters with spellcasting, and it only says "spells that deal more damage" or "increase the monster's AC of HP" need to be accounted. But how? How much? And once again, we're stuck with damage effects and AC/HP numerical increases. What about a monster that can turn invisible or ethereal? What about a monster that can stun or paralyze or grapple?

I understand the difficulty of providing such guidelines. What I don't understand, is why I keep hearing about DMs who are happy about having monster creation guidelines in the DMG, when such guidelines seem good only for creating 'bags of hit points' monsters... but the MM is already full of those, why not just pick any one and just change the name/color/appearance?

 

[S'mon]

BTW I have posted most of my NPCs here - http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=30915

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

As far as I can tell, the PCs are the only existing adventuring group in the entire world, since, with Monster Manual NPCs, I cannot build a group of their level and classes.

This is me the DM and me the player speaking here.

What a boring, boring world.

One of the best encounters (random or not) is with that rival band on the same quest as you are, after the same artifact, serving a rival god....

Indiana Jones would never have had his Beloch and Naxi allies, Darth Vader certainly wasn't alone. When Robin Hood met his Merry Men, they were someone else's Merry Men. Frodo and Sam encountered Boromir's Brother and his band in the wild and were captured.

If the rules don't give you guidelines into making opposing groups, or other groups of characters, etc. Then rules be damned.

 

[S'mon]

In theory, the CR table for custom monsters include a mention of "Save DC". However if you read the text, there is no mention about what kind of effects you should use. Obviously, the result is not the same if the effect is "impose disadvantage on next attack" rather than "disintegrated"! You wouldn't give a monster a disintegrate ability with DC 13 and expect it's only CR3.

Sounds a lot like the Banshee

They handled this stuff fine 35+ years ago with the ** system of bonus XP for monster special abilities, not sure why they can't now - an obsession with mechanical procedure maybe, which only ever worked in 4e.
Personally when I use a monster with special powers clearly not accounted for in the Monster Manual listed CR, I generally add +2 to the CR, so far that has worked ok.

 

[shoak1]

BTW I have posted most of my NPCs here - http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=30915

thanks bud, that was helpful. If everyone saved them to one place, that would be awesome.

 

[shoak1]

This is me the DM and me the player speaking here.

What a boring, boring world.

One of the best encounters (random or not) is with that rival band on the same quest as you are, after the same artifact, serving a rival god....

Indiana Jones would never have had his Beloch and Naxi allies, Darth Vader certainly wasn't alone. When Robin Hood met his Merry Men, they were someone else's Merry Men. Frodo and Sam encountered Boromir's Brother and his band in the wild and were captured.

If the rules don't give you guidelines into making opposing groups, or other groups of characters, etc. Then rules be damned.

Yes, wonderful ideals you have. Except that rules are the marriage between other peoples ideals (your players) and yours. Without them, its much harder to keep a gaming group together.

And time is our enemy. I know I CAN make whatever NPCs I want, and correctly gauge their strength. I just would like the game system to do some more of the work for me than 5e does. That's all. But maybe they are planning a Big Book of NPCs to be released soon. That would be helpful. Or maybe someone will start a NPC thread that catches on and ends up w/hundreds of NPCs of different levels (inc/higher levels).

 

[Li Shenron]

If the rules don't give you guidelines into making opposing groups, or other groups of characters, etc. Then rules be damned.

I am with you, but let's also keep in mind that the games does give us rules to make NPCs as PCs, it just doesn't tell us what their CR is