D&D 5E Rival adventurers - should they be built like monsters or PCs?

[Fanaelialae]

I'd go with monster stats, even if you first stat them up as PCs to get an idea of what they're fully capable of. 99.9% of the time, you won't need to know what the ranger's Natural Explorer feature does during an encounter (or whatnot). It's just going to clutter up the stat block.

 

[Coroc]

If you go with PC build rules, you're going to have two sets of glass cannons going off 9n each other. PCs are damage heavy, hitpoint light. When a 10th level battlemaster fighter (no feats) can be expected to lay out 8d6+4d10+40 damage with a greatsword in a surge round but only have around 90 hitpoints, you can see the problem.

Monster builds go lighter on the damage and heavier on the hp to extend fights while remaining a threat. They do less damage but can absorb more. If you build the other parties to PC rules, then it's going to be rocket tag if a fight breaks out. You'll need to heavily foreshadow this or you will catch your players off guard.

I recommend NPC/monster builds accordingly.

Yes that is the drastic version of what I pointed out in my post. If you are unsure about how to balance things out, rather do stat them like monsters. Especially if you follow the normal encounter guidelines (8standard encounters per long rest) , I tend to forget that I do not use these.

 

[Blue]

I'd build as monsters, simply to help keep combats moving. PCs intentionally have a lot of moving parts and choices, enough to keep the full attention of a player. A DM generally can't afford to give each NPC in a full party that much attention without slowing down the combat. an the DM run them faster? Absolutely - but at that point is better served by a monster stat-up that focuses the DM on what's important for that character.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Build like monsters:
Easier to build
Easier to run
More mysterious

Build like PCs:
More consistent game world

 

[Doug McCrae]

If you build the other parties to PC rules, then it's going to be rocket tag if a fight breaks out. You'll need to heavily foreshadow this or you will catch your players off guard.

And stealth/first strike becomes hugely important, which encourages all parties to be more aggressive and less likely to negotiate.

 

[iserith]

My Yawning Portal game is coming up on White Plume Mountain, and one way I want to put my own spin on the dungeon is by having three other groups of adventures who have also gotten wind of Keraptis’ challenge, turning the adventure from a simple dungeon delve into a race to the treasure. I’m also planning to have those same groups of adventures return for Dead in Thay, to make the adventure work a bit more like the inter-party event it was originally conceived as, and to tie it in with the overarching story I’m weaving through the campaign.

So now that I’m ready to start prep for White Plume Mountain, I find myself facing the dilemma posed in the title. Do I build three parties of NPCs all built with PC Race, Class and Background features, or do I build them as monsters with a unique feature or two to capture the feel of a PC class without giving them full PC stats? Or, another option might be to snag myself a copy of the Essentials Box and build these characters as Sidekicks?

Anyone have experience building rival adventuring parties? How did you stat them up, and how did you like the results? Would you do it again the same way, or would you do something differently?

Not only do I use rival adventuring parties in almost every campaign, they're the same in every campaign in which I do use them. They call their group The Icons and they are the iconic PCs from D&D 3e - Tordek, Mialee, Jozan, Lidda, and the rest. And they are just total jerks. The players love to hate them.

I stat them up as monsters and give them ideals, bonds, flaws, and agenda. All of them have the Use Rope trait.

 

[cmad1977]

Use ‘monster’ stat blocks.
Volos guide has a number of ‘monsters’ that are basically classes.
When I wanted an Avatar the Last Airbender themed session I used the martial arts master and changed around an ability here and there to give them an air/earth/fire/water power. It’s got champions and scouts and evokers and illusionists and all that good stuff(which would have been nice in the MM but...)

I would never, NEVER build and entire party of PCs to face my party of PCs because all the moving parts would slow the game down without reaping a commensurate amount of fun.

 

[Dausuul]

I recently had a similar challenge: A powerful NPC opponent and personal nemesis of one of the PCs. I wanted her to be the same class as her nemesis (monk), and for the PCs to recognize this in combat, but I didn't want to have to manage a full-fledged PC.

What I did was to stat her up first as a 14th-level kensei, and then create a simplified statblock based on the PC mechanics. She still used ki and had easily recognizable monk abilities (Stunning Strike, Deflect Missiles), but many of the behind-the-scenes mechanics were replaced with quick and dirty approximations.

Since she was a major villain and the star of multiple boss fights, I allowed her a fair bit of complexity in the final version--I would have stripped her down much further if she were a one-off. Here's the statblock:

 

[Celebrim]

Glad to see a strong preference, duly noted. Would you be willing to go into specifics as to why you prefer this method so strongly?

One reason is it works against the temptation to create DM PCs. There is always a temptation as a DM to try to impress or wow the players. That way is the dark side.

 

[Celebrim]

As for your question, do what you have time for and enjoy.

A simplified stat block can work just fine if you need to go that way. I would also think 5e provides for an easy stripped down stat block for a leveled character without feats.