I was reading through the different NPC entries in Volo's Guide to Monsters and noticed that NPC entries which are based off a character class are not the same as the class themselves. Now I didn't pour through both books with a fine-toothed comb but I can cite one example to show my point and I suspect there are others as well if one did the comparison. It may also be the same case with the MM NPCs and the character classes.
In the Players Handbook we have the Bard Class and its abilities. In Volo's Guide to Monsters we also have a Bard entry which is intended to serve as a quick needed NPC. The abilities of the two different entries are not the same.
In the Volo's Guide Bard stats, they list an ability called "Taunt" which reads as follows:
"The bard can use a bonus action on its turn to target one creature within 30 feet of it. If the target can hear the bard, the target must succeed on a DC 12 Charisma saving throw or have disadvantage on ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws until the start of the bard's next turn."
After reviewing the Bard character class I cannot find anything similar to the "Taunt" ability. Also the Bard character class lists other abilities that the Volo's version does not. Now I'm not disputing the character class at all, I'm questioning how YOU would use the NPC in Volo's Guide to Monsters.
Would you consider the Bard NPC in Volo's Guide to be someone who perhaps started the profession of bard but didn't complete their training prior to level 1, thus they never unlocked all of their potential? Why would the Volo's Bard have an ability that the Character Class version does not? Do you treat these as two different types of bards, one with more training and the other with less experience yet still capable of attaining levels (in the Volos's entry they list the bard as challenge rating 2, fourth level spellcaster)?
How do you explain the differences?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is just a further example of PC's being built differently from npc's. It was the same in the monster manual , the hit dice of the npc's, their abilities etc were what was needed to make them work. thugs and veterans get multiple melee attacks a round but not missile.
At first my players were shocked when attacked by thugs that they were being attacked by "5th level fighters" I explained that they weren't, levels and classes are a game mechanic thing, they were being attacked by bill and Ben.
I don't think it needs to be explained by what training they had etc. It's just that this NPC can do this thing.
One of the biggest differences between 3.5/PF and 5th Edition is that the PCs use one set of rules to make their characters, and the DMs use a different set of guidelines to make NPCs and monsters.
They're just different.
The DMG has some guidelines for making monsters, which are sometimes followed in the MM. Personally, I'm not a big fan of monster creation being "willy-nilly," but it is what it is. I know a lot of expectations from 3.5 and PF are not followed in 5th Edition, but it keeps players on their toes when you assume a fire monster is vulnerable to cold damage, but it isn't. I really miss universal monster traits, like demons being immune to lightning damage, or all aberrations having good Wisdom (Will) saves, etc. I DO like how Hit Dice are based on creature size, but they don't really do anything with it. Monsters generally just have a bunch of hit points based on their CR, and then the Hit Dice type and number, and Constitution bonus to each hit die, are kind of retro-engineered to match.
I was reading through the different NPC entries in Volo's Guide to Monsters and noticed that NPC entries which are based off a character class are not the same as the class themselves. Now I didn't pour through both books with a fine-toothed comb but I can cite one example to show my point and I suspect there are others as well if one did the comparison. It may also be the same case with the MM NPCs and the character classes.
In the Players Handbook we have the Bard Class and its abilities. In Volo's Guide to Monsters we also have a Bard entry which is intended to serve as a quick needed NPC. The abilities of the two different entries are not the same.
In the Volo's Guide Bard stats, they list an ability called "Taunt" which reads as follows:
"The bard can use a bonus action on its turn to target one creature within 30 feet of it. If the target can hear the bard, the target must succeed on a DC 12 Charisma saving throw or have disadvantage on ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws until the start of the bard's next turn."
After reviewing the Bard character class I cannot find anything similar to the "Taunt" ability. Also the Bard character class lists other abilities that the Volo's version does not. Now I'm not disputing the character class at all, I'm questioning how YOU would use the NPC in Volo's Guide to Monsters.
Would you consider the Bard NPC in Volo's Guide to be someone who perhaps started the profession of bard but didn't complete their training prior to level 1, thus they never unlocked all of their potential? Why would the Volo's Bard have an ability that the Character Class version does not? Do you treat these as two different types of bards, one with more training and the other with less experience yet still capable of attaining levels (in the Volos's entry they list the bard as challenge rating 2, fourth level spellcaster)?
How do you explain the differences?
It sounds to me like it's a boosted version of Vicious Mockery (a bard cantrip).
Personally, the idea that everyone in the world does their 'job' exactly the same isn't something that needs to happen, so I see it more as a feature than a bug and isn't something that needs explaining. I don't regard the rules as attempting to simulate a reality but as facilitating telling a story.
The PC bard does damage but doesn't impact the target's abilities so much. The NPC bard doesn't do damage (I find the damage part of Vicious Mockery silly anyway, if I think too hard about it) but the demoralising effect lasts longer.
I think this thread went off in an unintended direction, which is my fault for not being clear in my original post. I am not disputing the abilities between NPC stat blocks and character class abilities. They are different, I agree to make an NPC stat block work as intended.
What I was trying to get at is how you as a DM incorporate both the NPC stat block and the character class as NPCs.
Do you ignore the NPC stat block that is named after a character class type...such as the Bard in Volo's Guide to Monsters, along with the Abjurer, Archdruid, Conjurer, Diviner, Master Thief, etc.
Do you use the stat blocks as quick NPCs and then add the other PC class abilities that are not mentioned in their write-up?
Do you treat the NPC stat block and character class NPCs as completely different types of individuals....one which has different or less abilities than the other?
Do you use the NPC stat block and alter the math up and down to reflect different levels or do you use the Players Handbook character class and start from the ground up when you have an NPC?
If you make random encounter tables for your world, how do you enter them on the chart? This is actually what I was contemplating when I noticed the difference between the two NPC stat block/Character Class NPCs.
This is what I was trying to focus the thread on.
I use NPCs when the PCs encounter them.
I may build an NPC as a PC (or more likely add on actions to an NPC statblock which include class abilities from the PH) from time to time, but not very often unless it's some super-significant encounter.
To me there's no difference between having a fully-statted-as-per-the-PH-class Bard NPC who then only uses a couple of powers in the few rounds of combat before they are defeated and using an NPC version who only has a couple of actions listed. There's no difference between the two in the game world (no 'this bard didn't finish their training' or anything). The shorthand MM style writeup is entirely an ease-of-play convention in contrast to the PH method. It's nonetheless two ways of writing up the same character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you ignore the NPC stat block that is named after a character class type...such as the Bard in Volo's Guide to Monsters, along with the Abjurer, Archdruid, Conjurer, Diviner, Master Thief, etc.
No, I tend to use them as is or slightly modified.
Do you use the stat blocks as quick NPCs and then add the other PC class abilities that are not mentioned in their write-up?
I tend to use them as is, but if I want to alter something to give it the feel of a class, I'll add on a PC ability here and there.
For example, I was trying to get a fighter/thief feel from 2nd edition, so I just slapped on sneak attack and stealth proficiency to the veteran.
Do you treat the NPC stat block and character class NPCs as completely different types of individuals....one which has different or less abilities than the other?
I treat them as more or less the same. For the most part, I try not to worry about the stat block of an NPC, unless they're going to be involved in a fight; and even then I don't really worry about it too much.
The focus is on the PCs, and the NPCs only matter so much as they contribute to the story. If the druid or bard lacks a specific ability that a similar PC would have, and they never end up using it, no one will truly know (or care) if that ability was written down on their stat block or not.
If they need that ability based on what the story dictates, or need it to make the game better, I'll just slap it on.
For example, if they meet a druid and want to shape change to a wolf and run in the grass, I'll just have the NPC druid shift - it doesn't matter that Wildshape isn't listed on the stat block.
Do you use the NPC stat block and alter the math up and down to reflect different levels or do you use the Players Handbook character class and start from the ground up when you have an NPC?
I prefer to just alter the NPC stat block as needed, rather than try to build a complete character from the ground up. It's easy to just change their HP, AC, and prof bonus, or to add on a specific higher level ability (like granting some higher level spell slots). My players will never know the difference.
If you make random encounter tables for your world, how do you enter them on the chart? This is actually what I was contemplating when I noticed the difference between the two NPC stat block/Character Class NPCs.
I just ignore true PCs and only use NPC stat blocks for random encounters. Let the PCs be special in that they get more for the same level than their NPC counterparts. And if something specidoc is needed based on my plans, I'll create something in advance.
Also, by ignoring the general PC creation rules, it allows me to make up brand new stuff for NPCs that can be unique. Like someone who has the wild shape ability of a druid and nothing else. Or someone who can cast a level 6 spell thrice a day, but has no other spells.
Back in PF, when NPCs were built in the same way as PCs, I (and my players) learned that a NPC should never have something that a PC can't acquire if the player wanted to play that concept. To me, that poisoned the game and made me feel entitled to be able to play - and irked at the DM if they ever did something "outside the rules of the game."
Now, I feel free to create as desired, and when I play it doesn't bother me that the GM creates new things. This is because I've stopped linking the PC rules to NPC rules, and stop expecting that a PC can get any build they want.
(Although the one time a DM gave an NPC Fighter Levels with Extra Attack, and then split that Extra Attack outside of the characters initiative did bother me - but I got over it quickly).
I've talked about this same thing with my players, and they generally agree that the shift in mindsets from PF to 5e makes them care a lot less about the dynamics between PC and NPC, and care a lot more about the storyline and the RP.
This is a cool topic. Thanks, Eileen!
I just got mine delivered today.
I skimmed Beholders, read the new races (which I really liked), and I read the monsters up to Grunge or whatever. So far, so good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the many things I adore about 5th is monsters built as needed, not as rules dictate
Long may it be this way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's super convenient for GMs.
I don't see a problem with the NPCs in Volo's Guide being different from the player classes. The bard is still a bard. Just a bard with slightly different abilities than what a PC bard happens to have. It's no big deal.
Classes are an abstract rules construct that is meant to give players different but in themselves limited ways of constructing their characters' individual abilities. They are not something these characters are defined by in the game world that should be recognizable by a specific set of skills and abilities to a character.
When i build NPCs I generally ignore PC classes, except for lifting an ability here or there, which fits the concept I have in mind, because there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I finished reading the new races, monsters, and NPCs, and also perused the beholders, gnolls (Yay!), mindflayers, orcs, and yuan-ti (yay!!!).
I miss the art of Tony DiTerlizzi. A lot of my favorite monsters from 2nd Edition had a lot to do with his art (fey, gnolls, neogi, yuan-ti, vargouille, pretty much everything from Planescape, etc.).
What I was trying to get at is how you as a DM incorporate both the NPC stat block and the character class as NPCs.
I've never built a 5e NPC as a PC, they're a bit too persnickety for my liking. I build all my 5e NPCs similar to those in the MM, so they often have abilities taken from PHB PC classes but they're always different and almost always simpler than PHB PCs. I find the PHB does work well as a buffet of options to choose from when creating an NPC, but I don't want (eg) every Druid NPC to have a powerful Wildshape ability, or every Barbarian to take half damage while raging.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just ran an NPC built as a PC and it was a total disaster.
I made a 6th level wizard designed to escape an encounter with my five level 3 PCs, and he almost lasted 1 round. He surprised them by being invisible and hit them with a salvo of five magic missiles. But then he lost initiative. And he used a Luck point to cancel out an inflit wounds crit and counterspell to cancel out a 2nd level chromatic orb too. Probably should have used shield instead.
So I learned my lesson.
DOUBLE MAX HIT POINTS going forward for solo monsters. Maybe more. I don't want pump up their AC, since hitting monsters is fun. One of the things I love about 5th Edition is that PCs (all PCs--since there are no fractional BAB classes!) hit at least 50% of the time, more like 80% of the time.
Clearly the lesson is don't
Give an npc all the stuff you won't him/ her to do, then try and match a CR then add allies to it to make it a reasonable encounter
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just ran an NPC built as a PC and it was a total disaster.
I made a 6th level wizard designed to escape an encounter with my five level 3 PCs, and he almost lasted 1 round. He surprised them by being invisible and hit them with a salvo of five magic missiles. But then he lost initiative. And he used a Luck point to cancel out an inflit wounds crit and counterspell to cancel out a 2nd level chromatic orb too. Probably should have used shield instead.
So I learned my lesson.
DOUBLE MAX HIT POINTS going forward for solo monsters. Maybe more. I don't want pump up their AC, since hitting monsters is fun. One of the things I love about 5th Edition is that PCs (all PCs--since there are no fractional BAB classes!) hit at least 50% of the time, more like 80% of the time.
I believe the 6th level wizard was outmatched against 3 PC's. At a minimum that probably should have been at least a level 7 or 8 wizard...though I would have probably tossed in a few lackey's/minions to give the wizard a little bit of a buffer if you wanted the wizard to escape.
Also, don't be afraid of legally buffering the AC. A wizard could have at least one or two magic items at that point, and at least one probably should be able to be utilized to buff their AC.
I'd have hit them with a Witchbolt if going concentrated damage for a 1st level character and hoped for a high roll. A 3rd level slotted Magic Missile will always go for the median ground with 5d4's+5. You'll probably get around 20 to 21 damage from a 3rd level slotted Magic Missile. Maximum Damage is going to be 23 damage. Witchbolt in a 3rd level slot averages around 20 to 21 damage as well, but has the potential up to 36 damage (or 3 damage with bad rolls).
Another option would be to use Chromatic Orb in a 3rd level slot which would do 5d8 damage with an average of 22-23 damage, but also with a maximum damage potential of 40 damage.
If you simply wanted to go for a quick knock out with a first level spell, Color Spray in a 3rd level slot would allow the caster to knock out an average of 55 HP of enemies, with a minimum roll of 10 HP and a maximum of 100 HP worth of enemies.
As DM, if you are going to do things like double Max Hit points, you could also just fudge a roll and get a high roll on spell damage or knock out damage.
Another option is simply go for the Fireball option, and hit the entire group for 8d6 fire damage. Bonus point if the group is on a wooden surface at the time.
Just a few ideas of what I think I might consider rather than a 3rd level slotted magic missile if I was going to go for the scare the group but not totally kill them and have the wizard have a chance of escaping.
Even then, always plan for the worse...as there are time when bad rolls on your part and good rolls on their part can lead to a total destruction of your best laid plans.
I didn't want to kill the PCs, so I didn't do 28 damage to a bunch 3rd level PCs (all with d8 or less HDs on average).
Also, I was basing him on Bargle from Basic D&D, so he had magic missile, sleep, charm person prepared. He started out invisible, and had blur, misty step, counterspell, and stinking cloud prepared. He was supposed to harry and escape, but he just scared them into going all nova.
Oops.
Maybe he has an evil twin named Dargle. :-P
I didn't want to kill the PCs, so I didn't do 28 damage to a bunch 3rd level PCs (all with d8 or less HDs on average).
Also, I was basing him on Bargle from Basic D&D, so he had magic missile, sleep, charm person prepared. He started out invisible, and had blur, misty step, counterspell, and stinking cloud prepared. He was supposed to harry and escape, but he just scared them into going all nova.
Oops.
Maybe he has an evil twin named Dargle. :-P
You should have color sprayed them (or sleep, it's less effective though in my opinion) and had the caster leave then. Doesn't kill them, but does reduce the chances of how much damage they'll do to him if they win initiative next round.
Maybe next wizard they meet.
But I think sleep is more potent than color spray in 5th Edition, isn't? Color spray only blinds folk in a 15 foot cone for a round, but sleep lasts a minute and has a bigger range. Affects less hit points, but it's boostable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on your preference in regards to blinded status. Color Spray will likely affect the entire group at CLOSE range meaning they can't use ability checks that require sight, and any attacks are made at disadvantage. Positioning is key in the use of this one.
This means that they are far more likely to miss on their attacks, if they choose a simple melee or other attack.
On the otherhand, sleep MIGHT take out the group, but it probably will take out one and leave the rest awake, specifically some of your harder hitters.
Since the idea is to escape, it depends on which one you think will result in less hits on the Bad guy and his escape plan.
Color spray, if he affects them all, means no one will see where he went (well, narratively speaking) and hard to give chase. (As long as the getaway passage is close by).
Sleep, depends on whether the ones who didn't fall asleep decide to pursue or not.
Both can be good, it just depends on preferences and how one wants to play the BBEG.
They were in a 20 by 40-ish room, and not too tightly spaced together, so they wouldn't all fit in a 15 foot cone.
The big hitters at low level are the spellcasters. Their spells do 3d8 or 4d6 points of damage! :-O