D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Remathilis]

I think I had a minor epiphany. The issue is abstraction vs concrete presentation in a statblock.

Take the NPC acolyte. Its supposed to represent a friendly village priest, a servant of a dark god, a drow warrior, an enlightened mystic, and probably a dozen other characters represented with minor divine magic access. Can the stat block represent them all? Well, yes but no. Yes is the broadest sense: they give you an AC, HP, attacks, and spells that pose a specific challenge level, but on a micro level fails to account for species, specific god worshipped, training, role, etc. If the village priest of Pelor teamed up with the enlightened mystic from the mountains and fought a tiefling servant of Nerull and his drow consort, they'd all be doing the same fricken thing to each other despite clearly representing four different people with wildly different backgrounds and abilities.

Because D&D doesn't want you to think of the stat block as a concrete list of what the NPC can or can't do. It represents a set of stats that can be used to represent them, but it's not the all-inclusive list of features we grew used to. Its abstract, designed to be explained any way that you see fit. And its done that way to allow them to be used and reused for a variety of things the DM would want. When you look at it from that lens, things start to make sense. The lack of species traits for NPCs. The lack of custom monster creation. The level of abstraction in monster stat-blocks. Its because WotC wants you to create the fiction first, the grab a stat block that "looks close enough" and use that to represent it if needed. The creature ISN'T the stat block. The stat block represents the creature if its necessary.

I will admit, its a very different look at D&D, but its not an inconsistent one. WotC doesn't care if you use the hobgoblin warrior to represent a human soldier, an orc mercenary, or even an undead knight. All you do is make a few cosmetic changes (such as the ones outlined in the DMG) and use the stat block. In that light, there is no reason to justify the longsword damage because that stat block can represent an multitude of different heavily armed warriors, hobgoblin and longsword are just the default names for them.

Ladies and gentlemen, disassociated mechanics is back. But only for NPCs. The complaint about 4e usually came down to how PCs had disasociated abilities (powers) that didn't make sense in the flow of the fiction. But nobody really complained about that for NPCs and monsters. Mostly, because those are defined by their opposition to PCs and thus only matter for the purposes of their role as combantants, helpers, or whatever. The old MM did this to a degree, and the new one has embraced it more fully.

PCs use concrete rules, mostly. Monsters use abstract rules. Each does it differently based on their role in the game. To them, the game rules do not simulate reality. They said as much in the DMG. The rules, the stat blocks, they aren't designed to simulate the world, only to give characters a way to interact with it. But its consistent through the game when you look for it. "Don't let your players argue physics to get out of a game rule." "Four different NPCs can all use the same stat block". "Don't allow PCs to game the economy". "You can reskin a hobgoblin to be anything you want." "Your PC can take any background and change the lore so that your noble actually represents a wealthy gambler."

Yes, that is going to be a rude shock for people who want very concrete rules. And that is a change (or at least a certainly an evolution) from older D&D (specifically 3e) where concrete rules applied across the whole game equally. And Its not going to be for everyone.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I'm not inconsistent in my desire for explanations of abilities and setting logic.

I think his point is that the entire system is absolutely inconsistent already and the reason people don't complain about it is that they have learned to not see it, but anything that is inconsistent and new is something else entirely.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think his point is that the entire system is absolutely inconsistent already and the reason people don't complain about it is that they have learned to not see it, but anything that is inconsistent and new is something else entirely.

That may be true for some folks (probably is), but I've always had a problem with those things. Since this entire thread is about personal preference in regards to these issues, I don't want to be lumped in with the supposed "nobody" that cared about these concerns prior to now.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it would be more accurate to say that some of us prefer that the game make sense in certain dimensions, but are willing to overlook the fact that it doesn’t make sense in other dimensions.

Why don’t monsters make death saves when they reach 0 hit points? What does a hit point even mean when a low-level character has few of them, and a high-level character has a bucket load of them? Why is it acceptable to drastically change the meaning of damage in one dimension (character hit points), while insisting that the meaning of damage remain constant in another dimension (weapons)?

These preferences are arbitrary and based on familiariy and legacy traditions. For what it’s worth I share your general preferences but I don’t assert that they contribute to a sense of realism in any meaningful way.

Monsters do make death saves unless the DM doesn't want it to, and most DMs don't unless the monster is special in some way. The 5e PHB has a section on stabilizing creatures.

Character hit points don't really change. They are a combination of physical, skill, luck, etc. from 1st level to 20th level. They are consistent in that way. Non-physical until you reach 50% hit points, and then you start taking physical damage until you hit 0 and take a wound that can kill you, unless it doesn't, and then it wasn't so bad after all. That part is inconsistent, and I really don't like it.

Weapon damage likewise remains consistent. Longswords do 1d8 damage. Short swords 1d6. They don't do more than that unless you have a bonus from say strength, or an ability like the bugbear brute ability or battle master skills.

If you have a monster swinging a longsword for 3d8 damage and the creature has no special ability to increase the damage, then the increase in damage is inherent to the longsword and a PC who picks it up should also do 3d8 with it. Otherwise an in-fiction contradiction has been created where you have a creature who simultaneously has no ability to increase the damage, while also increasing the damage.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For the past year or two, I've really started to lean into the idea for D&D that "levels" have an in-fiction existence, and that hit points are explicitly supernatural resilience. It makes the narration of how damage and healing work so much easier.

I like the idea that, outside of specific exceptions like poison and other effects that obviously had to have struck you and done something, taking "damage" is just a measure of fatigue and luck, and thus the only blow that really matters is the one that brings you to zero. Once that happens, I prefer a system that allows the downed character to exist in a "quantum" state until someone makes an effort to check on them, at which point an effect table(s) with modifiers is rolled on to determine what actually happened to the character.

 

[TwoSix]

Because D&D doesn't want you to think of the stat block as a concrete list of what the NPC can or can't do. It represents a set of stats that can be used to represent them, but it's not the all-inclusive list of features we grew used to. Its abstract, designed to be explained any way that you see fit. And its done that way to allow them to be used and reused for a variety of things the DM would want. When you look at it from that lens, things start to make sense. The lack of species traits for NPCs. The lack of custom monster creation. The level of abstraction in monster stat-blocks. Its because WotC wants you to create the fiction first, the grab a stat block that "looks close enough" and use that to represent it if needed. The creature ISN'T the stat block. The stat block represents the creature if its necessary.

Yea, I agree with most of this. All of my play flows from the fiction.

Most of my critiques in this thread come from my own specific needs. I'm a low-prep, improv DM. Generating a monster stat block on the fly is fairly trivial (especially for something like a humanoid mook); what I'm looking for is the MM to provide me with some guidelines on things like "what sort of damage levels are relevant for monsters fighting 10th level PCs" or "what kind of bonuses would be useful for a humanoid soldier type?"

 

[Maxperson]

But, that's utterly pointless. What does it actually mean? How do you narrate that? Why would a bugbear, which is about half the size of an ogre get this but NOTHING else does?

This is exactly what I mean about the thin veneer of cruft that convinced people that this was some sort of simulation. Brute is utterly meaningless. It cannot be narrated, it doesn't actually make any sense, yet, it's what 2024 needs?

No, it really doesn't. Because, here's the thing. Bugbears and gladiators both get it. You might be able to make the argument that the big, strong bugbear, which is quite a bit bigger than a human, might get it - you might squeeze by on that one. But let's see you explain what that means with a human.

My raging barbarian with a girdle of giant strength, power attacking, cannot get an extra die of damage. Yet, a gladiator can? Can I be trained? What if I have the gladiator background? How does that gladiator learn to be a brute, but I can't?

On and on. This is why this argument never goes anywhere. What is considered "inconsistent" is ... well... entirely inconsistent.

Gladiators also have it. Ogres have an oversized club that does increased damage. Just because an ogre is a brute(lower case), doesn't mean that they have the special ability Brute(upper case). Like the DM is a player, but he's not a Player.

Without such a reason for increased damage, there is no reason for the increased damage which creates an inherent contradiction within the fiction. The monster does not have any ability to increase the damage, while simultaneously increasing the damage. That's a problem. With no special ability to increase the damage, any PC who picks up that weapon can and should do the exact same damage with it as the monster did.

What do you mean it cannot be narrated. I can narrate a brutish strike just fine. There is meaning in that ability, even if you personally don't like it. As for gladiators, it means the same thing. Gladiators are brutish in combat and have the ability to put that brutish strength and ferocity into their swings. An ability doesn't have to be unique to one creature for it to have meaning. Does the paralyzing breath attack of a gorgon cease to have meaning just because dragons also have a breath attack? No. It retains its meaning and you can narrate both just fine.

It takes more than being angry and having a magic item to be able to channel it into a brutish attack. That brutish gladiator cannot channel his into rage, but your barbarian can and you gain extra damage that way. Different skills and abilities do not detract from other skills and abilities, or render them meaningless.

And nothing is inconsistent about the damage involved. Gladiators and bugbears consistently do extra damage their way, with their skills and abilities. Barbarians with rage. Fighters with things like fighting style and action surge.

These are reasons for extra damage to happen. Not justifications. Reasons. Justifications are the weak explanations that you have to come up with after the fact because the designers were too lazy to come up with reasons.

 

[TwoSix]

My raging barbarian with a girdle of giant strength, power attacking, cannot get an extra die of damage. Yet, a gladiator can? Can I be trained? What if I have the gladiator background? How does that gladiator learn to be a brute, but I can't?

I mean, your barbarian could absolutely learn that ability in my game. That's about a Rare item worth of power, but would also have some impact on the character's future narratives.

That's why I'm generally a stickler for understanding what abilities humanoid NPCs have and what "level-equivalent" they gain them at.

 

[Maxperson]

Why can a PC cleric pick up a weapon and deal an extra 1d8 fire damage at will? Why can a PC fighter score crits on both a 19 and a 20? That's a learned skill, inherent ability, or other such trait, right?

Why does the PC cleric have proficiency in Wisdom and Charisma saves? Learned skill or other similar ability from their cleric training, correct? As detailed in the cleric class description.

I mean, all the reasons are given. Why are you asking me for what you can look up?

So the 2014 mage NPC has proficiency in Intelligence and Wisdom saves, but there's no explanation as to why. Like you say, they just have that, and it's obvious from the stat block. Why is the NPC guard proficient with spears? Well, they just have that ability. A PC wizard doesn't have proficiency in greatswords because the wizard class doesn't grant that, as described in the class description.

The mage gets int and wisdom as part of the mage class. It's painfully obvious why, so they don't waste space saying it. Same with the guard and spears.

So we have many traits that are omitted from the 2014 NPC stat blocks, and no one's complaining really. Why does the mage have a d8 HD and proficiency in Arcana and History? Well, because they just do! Because those are listed on the stat block, it means they get them. Simple as that. Why is this NPC proficient with the greataxe but this other one is not? Why does this NPC have no saving throw proficiencies at all? Well, they just don't. The explanation is right there, they don't, ergo they don't have such an ability.

This is apples and oranges. Not give you an entire write-up on the mage class with regard to proficiency is not the same as a normal longsword doing more damage for no reason at all. We know from how the game works that classes give save proficiencies and skill proficiencies. So we know why. We don't know why the monster has the increased weapon damage, because there is no explanation anywhere for why it is happening. The 5e "omissions" you are mentioning are not the same as what 5.5e is doing with monster weapon damage.

But suddenly there's a problem when the 2025 update comes along. To me, it just seems that the issue is change. It's done a little different, so that feels wrong. All the omitted traits in the 2014 NPC stat blocks are fine, but the change in the 2025 version is wrong -- even though the 2025 versions follow the exact same logic as the 2014 versions: you don't have to include every single trait that applies an always-on adjustment to the creature's abilities.

It's not the same, though. We know why those things you mention above are happening. We do not know why the creature has increased longsword damage. Suddenly there's a problem, because suddenly they created a problem due to no reason given as to why the creature has the damage increase. There's nothing we can look at anywhere else in the game to figure it out.

The PC cleric can deal extra damage with their weapon and the PC fighter can score more critical hits because they have a learned skill or an inherent ability. The exact same reasoning applies to the NPC stat blocks. The NPC can deal extra dice of damage with a weapon because they clearly have a learned skill or an inherent ability -- but we don't have to spell it out because it's evident just from the fact that it's featured on the stat block, just like their HD, saving throws, ability score totals, skills, vision traits, etc. We don't include a trait "Drow Darkvision: Drow have superior darkvision up to 120 ft." for drow NPCs, because simply having "Darkvision 120 ft." in the vision section is plenty enough. The reason why the drow NPC has 120 ft. darkvision is due to their inherent ability or learned skill, just like this other NPC's higher damage is due to learned skill or inherent ability.

No it is not evident from their stat block. All the stat block gives is the increased damage. You are arguing that because its damage is 3d8, it's evident from the statblock that the reason it does 3d8 is because it does 3d8. That's circular reasoning.

I want a real reason, not a circular one.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, your barbarian could absolutely learn that ability in my game. That's about a Rare item worth of power, but would also have some impact on the character's future narratives.

That's why I'm generally a stickler for understanding what abilities humanoid NPCs have and what "level-equivalent" they gain them at.

Same here. There would have to be in-fiction work done to get such an ability, but it's certainly possible.