D&D 5E Using NPC Spellcasters

[Hawk Diesel]

Nice point,

I usually assume that some cantrips/spells go for utility things and hence make give cantrips/spells to combat-mostly NPCs.

@ Hawk Diesel I am a bit worried about winging it due to balance issues and the risk to make players feel "unfair". How do you handle this to keep yours on the go spells balanced and challenging and not frustrating?

Fair question. My perspective on balance is more concerned with players feeling balanced against one another. No one player should outshine the others or steal the spotlight too much, and vice versa. I also make it clear in session 0 that my DM style is that not all encounters will be designed to be fair or that the players can win. Just because they encounter someone, doesn't mean they can beat it. This causes them to have to think about how to approach each NPC and encounter, rather than just run blindly into battle and strong approach NPCs.

 

[Gadget]

[MENTION=6899046]Dan Chernozub[/MENTION]

I think right now, the implications are that the DM is free to (or burdened with, depending on your pov) winging it a lot more. For neutral/friendly NPCs (and even antagonists), it means you can tailor their abilities/powers to the needs of the story/plot/theme without having to worry overly much about 'breaking' the PHB spellcasting rules for a given character class. This means that the Town/village cleric or Druid can assist the PCs by casting raise dead as ritual without being a powerful enough spell caster to throw down 5th level spells left and right, with the PC's wondering why she doesn't just handle the vampire threat herself. Perhaps her version can only be performed at great need, in response to a heroic sacrifice or some such. Maybe the PC was only 'Mostly dead'

It means that the goblin shaman can cast a bestow curse like effect (maybe multiple times) without throwing down with fireball. It is more than just spell selection: the ability can become available again after a "recharge" roll (more shades of 4e). It may be based on a PC spell effect but freed of some of the limitations and more narrow in scope in other areas. Dragons are another classic example. In some past additions, they practically became wizards in scaled cloaks to make them at all challenging. I've seen the trend in 5e to 'give them about 3-5 levels of Dragon Sorcerer' or something, to help make them live up to their CR. While that works, the Sorcerer class is designed for humanoid PCs (even the Dragon Sorcerer). I kind of like giving them abilities that are similar but more thematic to their Archetype and status. Maybe a hypnotic gaze that implants a suggestion in the victim, an aura of heat/cold/poison. Maybe "scintillating scales" that give them a Mage Armor like ability.

That said, it takes a fair bit of experience and practice to eyeball these things, and I won't pretend I'm an expert at it, so YMMV.

 

[CTurbo]

I completely agree with [MENTION=59848]Hawk Diesel[/MENTION] in that not every encounter is winnable, and fighting is not always the answer. Especially at low levels. Choose your fights wisely.

Now about NPC spellcasters, I like using them, and to help keep the prep time down, I usually don't prepare a spell list for them. I just cast whatever I think will fit best in that situation. You don't HAVE to follow any spell set when you're DMing. Do whatever you want. This also helps keep options available for you to control the battle if needed. If your party is wiping the floor with the encounter so far, you can attack their weaknesses. If the party is struggling a lot more than you thought, you can attack their strengths.

Example, want to go easy on the 21AC fully armored Fighter/Pally? Ranged spell attack or something with a Str save like Lightning Lure. Want to be hard on the 21AC fully armored Fighter/Pally? Upcasted Magic Missile or something with a Dex save like Sacred Flame.

 

[Satyrn]

Nice point,

I usually assume that some cantrips/spells go for utility things and hence make give cantrips/spells to combat-mostly NPCs.

@ Hawk Diesel I am a bit worried about winging it due to balance issues and the risk to make players feel "unfair". How do you handle this to keep yours on the go spells balanced and challenging and not frustrating?

I do the same kind of thing as Hawk Diesel. I keep it "fair" by giving the spellcasters thematic effects that reinforce the enemy's feel, rather than making their spells powerful.

Like, if I've got a cult priest of the Serpent Demon, he might have a scorching blast like spell ('multiple rays) except that he hurls magically conjured snakes that deal poison damage. And instead of hold person, he'll hurl a boa constrictor to wrap them up. Just those two effects are enough to make the character look like a spellcaster - and he probably won't last long enough to use both of them twice.

Oh, and on top of that, when I want to up an enemy spellcaster's AC, I just do so and pretend it's an effect like mage armor, but again, flavored for the character. The cultist will have scales, for example, while a cleric might have a blessed shield aura, and a wizard will like just have mage armor because mages are boring.

I make the effects flavorful, thematic, and not overpowered (based 9on however powerful I want the caster to be). For me, its really just like creating any other monster in the end.


Oh, and if the players see a spell they like, they can research it, or it down in a spellbook, and it's at that point that we can worry about writing it up like a player's spell.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Me personally, while running DnD standard, magic-abundant worlds, I use at least a few low-level spellcasters in any humanoid group, regardless of their alignment/attitude towards the party.

Why do you think that magic-abundant worlds are standard? We don't really get anything in any of the core books that tell us how common spellcasters should be, or are assumed to be, except for the part in the DMG that tells the DM to take that into consideration whenever they create a new setting.

 

[Dan Chernozub]

Why do you think that magic-abundant worlds are standard? We don't really get anything in any of the core books that tell us how common spellcasters should be, or are assumed to be, except for the part in the DMG that tells the DM to take that into consideration whenever they create a new setting.

Well, because we know how magic abundant are the most of the worlds where the printed adventures take place. Might be wrong. Not an expert on published materials.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

To me NPC spellcasters are very important. They make it harder for PCs to assume enemy strength just by looking at numbers of enemies.

Also NPC wizards are important as middling foes as they allow PC wizards to acquire new spells to expand their spellbooks.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Well, because we know how magic abundant are the most of the worlds where the printed adventures take place. Might be wrong. Not an expert on published materials.

I think the published adventures are supposed to take place in The Forgotten Realms, which is one of the highest-magic settings around, and we have a ton of stories about spellcasters in that setting; but I don't know if they ever got around to saying exactly what percentage of the total population is actually magical. I've read a couple of Drizzt books, and he spent most of a trilogy hanging out in a party of pure fighter-types.

If the published adventures only feature spellcasters as high-level bosses and lieutenants, it could be that they're copying from the format of the novels. Or it could be that the novels are patterned after earlier published adventures, which only had very few spellcasters because they took place in lower-magic settings.