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

[aco175]

I only make them like monsters since 4e came out. 3e was difficult and tedious as a DM to add templates and effective levels. Now they do not need to follow any PC rules. If I want my 'thief' NPC to have multi-attack- I give it to him. If I want my fighter-type to have +8 in perception- I give it to him.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do I build three parties of NPCs all built with PC Race, Class and Background features

If they might ever be used by players as alternate PCs (like TPK backups), or by guest players, or perhaps as pregens at a convention or organized play even to or something, sure. In fact, you might have the players create 'alternate' or back-up characters that you then use as one of the rival parties - that could be fun.

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?

If they'll occasionally fight the PCs, yes.

If they're only going to be interacted with now & then, you can just stat out their social abilities - and, more importantly, give them names, compelling backstories/motivations/intra-party-tensions/etc. If they're going to be the targets of opposed checks in exploration ('race to the treasure' might occasionally call for some such contests), stat out those skills.

A "monster" write-up should be adequate for all three, if it's uncertain which sorts of scenes are likely.

If, OTOH, they're just going to be in the background, providing time pressure, you needn't stat them out, at all.

Or, another option might be to snag myself a copy of the Essentials Box and build these characters as Sidekicks?

Those rules sound pretty limited and focused on NPCs to be played along-side PCs, so probably not suitable.

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?

My experience back in the day of statting up rivals as full PCs did not go well. They were too much work for too little return, and too complicated to use in actual play (and I'd often find myself going 'off the reservation,' anyway, and breaking PC create rules to get them 'right' - hey, Giants in the Earth did it all the time).
Thing is, playing a PC is a modest challenge, players can concentrate on their one PC and run it at something like it's full potential. The DM - though we DMs are a cut above, obviously - OTOH, has the whole world, in concept, the environment, and the monsters to keep a handle on, and can't go running whole parties of PCs to that same level (OTOH, the DM can make his monsters/NPCs/DMPCs cooperate better than the usual herd-of-cats PC party).

So, yeah, on balance, if there's going to be direct conflict, monster stat (or other condensed stat-blocks) are better from multiple perspectives.

 

[Inchoroi]

Every time I've done this, I've built them as PCs and then figured out their Challenge Rating based on HP + expected damage to make sure they're not crazy under- or over-powered. I do this because player class vs. player class is not in any way balanced.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thank you to everyone for your feedback, you’ve all given me a lot to think about! At this point I’m leaning towards using monster stats, though I might look to some of the PC class abilities to spice them up.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Simple. PCs and NPCs follow the same rules ( @ccs hit this one too, upthread a bit) in the interest of internal consistency within the game world.

@Leatherhead - if you want to give some of the opponents what seem to be special or unusual powers, this can always be achieved by giving them one-use or two-use magic items that replicate said powers.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

This is why I said that party-v-party combats like these will be among the longest you'll ever run, because as DM you DO have to take the time to sort out what each NPC can and would do each time its turn comes up...and be merciless about doing it; as these NPCs are every bit as much out to kill the PCs as the PCs are out to kill them. Cutting corners will inevitably make things easier on the PCs.

Even in 1e, where combat is generally a bit faster, I've had party-v-party combats go on for two full sessions or even more on a few occasions. A single round can take over an hour to play out.

 

[Reynard]

Simple. PCs and NPCs follow the same rules ( @ccs hit this one too, upthread a bit) in the interest of internal consistency within the game world.

I understand the desire, but it doesn't feel like the cost in effort justifies the benefit in action. Doesn't consistency come from the GM treating enemies consistently, not making sure some specific times of enemies are made by one set of rules and a different kind by another set of rules?

 

[Lanefan]

Doesn't consistency come from the GM treating enemies consistently, not making sure some specific times of enemies are made by one set of rules and a different kind by another set of rules?

Yes, it does; but then you have to take it just one step further such that one specific group of characters (the PCs) aren't generated by one set of rules and a different kind (NPCs) by another set of rules.

Never mind that today's NPC opponent could be tomorrow's PC, if a player finds a sudden need for a replacement.

@Charlaquin - why the 'sad' response?

 

[Blue]

This is why I said that party-v-party combats like these will be among the longest you'll ever run, because as DM you DO have to take the time to sort out what each NPC can and would do each time its turn comes up...and be merciless about doing it; as these NPCs are every bit as much out to kill the PCs as the PCs are out to kill them. Cutting corners will inevitably make things easier on the PCs.

Even in 1e, where combat is generally a bit faster, I've had party-v-party combats go on for two full sessions or even more on a few occasions. A single round can take over an hour to play out.

Case 1: Run complex PCs that each require a lot of thought to how all the moving pieces go together. Give them the attention they require, which means the DM is taking at least as long as all the players put together, possibly more because they are less familiar with the character then the player who has been focusing on it for however many months or years. Tension is lost as combats run "two full sessions or even more" with a single round "over an hour to play".

Case 2: Build monsters to emulate PCs, but simplify them so that they focus on primarily the most iconic parts of what the classes do while also being a lot simpler to run. The DM is able to keep pacing moving along, which is critical in keeping tension high, so the players emotionally have a better battle even if it ends up with the same result.

I used to play Champions with a GM who ran many groups in the same world. Once a year we'd have a big "crossover issue" which invariably ended up with massive combats, or sometimes two simultaneous combats using the same phase chart (initiative). Waiting an hour between turns was just boring. And there was no ongoing tension. When you talk about those times per round from your 1e days, that's not a feature to me, that's a huge red flag.

 

[Blue]

Thank you to everyone for your feedback, you’ve all given me a lot to think about! At this point I’m leaning towards using monster stats, though I might look to some of the PC class abilities to spice them up.

Oh, I would definitely recommend stealing some of the iconic class abilities for your the monster stats. Just like monsters can have spells, fighting a paladin on a fiendish steed, projecting an aura to nearby alies (even if it's one you aren't familiar with) who is "unholy smiting" on every hit can really bring the class home.

They don't have to know you just grabbed the stas for a Nightmare, made up a monster aura, and unholy smite is just the 3d8 necrotic damage that's part of the base attack.