This is split from the thread
"Orcs removed from the D&D 6E Monster Manual?!" (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/orcs-removed-from-the-dd-6e-monster-manual!/)
It's about how NPCs are statted in D&D. Specifically here I mean NPCs of PC-available races like dwarf, elf, and human.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 01, 2025, 08:41:26 PMQuote from: jhkim on February 01, 2025, 12:02:06 PMQuote from: Ratman_tf on February 01, 2025, 02:39:46 AMQuote from: jhkim on February 01, 2025, 12:39:08 AMRight. And there has never been a generic stat block for "human". And as of 5E (2014), we also didn't have separate stat blocks for "elf", "dwarf", "halfling" and so on. Instead, we had stat blocks for different types of NPCs based on profession like "bandit", "cultist", "guard" - and it was noted that the GM could add racial traits to them.
https://archive.org/details/tsr02102mc1monstrouscompendium/page/n91/mode/2up
Ratman_tf, that's exactly what I'm saying. You linked to a Monstrous Compendium section that has six separate stat blocks for "Aborigines/Cavemen", "Adventurers"*, "Bandits/Brigands"*, "Barbarians/Nomads", "Berserkers/Dervishes", and "Farmers/Herders". (And the two starred ones have a lot of stats that are "variable" based on description.)
There's never been a stat block for plain "human". It depends on the type, because humans are too variable.
But they weren't lumped in with "Humanoids". Because humans are distinct from Orcs and Elves and Dwarves. Or at least they weren't.
Here's the progression in more detail:
1) In the original Monster Manual (1977), there is a generic stat block for "dwarf" and "elf", but humans instead have multiple stat blocks depending on their type like "bandit" or "merchant". The "dwarf" and "elf" entries also note that there could be ones with class levels. e.g. "For every 40 dwarves in a group there will be a fighter of 2nd through 6th level". A dwarf fighter presumably ignores the MM stat block and instead is treated like a PC, like using the "fighter" table instead of the 1HD monster table.
2) The 3E MM also has a generic "dwarf" and "elf" entry but no entry for humans of any sort. Instead, there are NPC rules in the DMG that give stat blocks depending on class, and modifiers to change the stat block based on race. There were also NPC-only classes like "Commoner" that allowed for non-heroic NPCs that still could be written up using the PC rules.
3) The 4E MM did away with generic stats for any race. Instead, each entry like "dwarf" or "elf" or "human" has multiple stat entries like "elf archer" and "elf scout". I'm actually not sure how NPC adventurers were supposed to be handled.
4) In 5th edition (2014), they did away with NPCs being generated by PC rules. Instead, NPCs should just be written up as stat blocks without having to conform to the rules for PCs. The 5E MM had no entries under "dwarf" or "elf" or "human", but instead had a separate section for NPC stat blocks. NPC stat blocks are generic to race, there is just "scout" that is described as "Medium Humanoid (Any Race), Any Alignment". The DM is instructed to modify it for an elven scout versus a halfling scout vs a human scout.
---
Personally, I have problems with all of the approaches.
The 3E approach is rough for me because it is way too heavy on the bookkeeping. Statting out all NPCs as PCs is a major pain.
However, the 5E approach is too loosey-goosey for me - especially for spell-using classes. In order to do world-building, I want to have predictable rules for how NPC spell-casters work compared to PC spell-casters. For example, what does it mean to have a few clerics in a town? I ended up assuming that NPCs largely did follow the PC rules for background purposes, and I usually wrote up NPCs using the PC rules.
The 1E approach has less of a bookkeeping problem because the rules are simpler. Still, even in 1E, it is tricky statting out a medium or high-level spellcaster using the PC rules. Also, without something like NPC-only classes, some NPCs are an awkward fit that seem shoe-horned into PC classes and rules - like Lady Virginia Weathermay being statted as a 2nd level fighter.
---
My ideal would be to have something like 3E's NPC-only classes, so that there are predictable rules for what an NPC can do at different levels of power. However, these should be designed for easier write-up rather than following the rules for PCs (particularly at higher levels).
I hope this is on topic and doesn't derail the thread.
But running my 5e game, I've wondered... At what point do I use a PC-like stat block for an enemy mage, instead of the "Mage" (or "Archmage") stat block in the back of the Monster Manual?
Quote from: Brigman on February 08, 2025, 11:24:06 PMI hope this is on topic and doesn't derail the thread.
But running my 5e game, I've wondered... At what point do I use a PC-like stat block for an enemy mage, instead of the "Mage" (or "Archmage") stat block in the back of the Monster Manual?
That entirely depends on how much time and effort you want to put into prepping and running the encounter(s) featuring that enemy mage.
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 05:07:36 PMMy ideal would be to have something like 3E's NPC-only classes, so that there are predictable rules for what an NPC can do at different levels of power. However, these should be designed for easier write-up rather than following the rules for PCs (particularly at higher levels).
I never quite liked the NPC class approach. Maybe because the idea of a level 20 farmer just seemed ridiculous. In older editions, writing up NPCs as as classed characters wasn't a big deal because the PC classes themselves were not such a pain to write up in the first place.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on February 09, 2025, 08:41:18 AMQuote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 05:07:36 PMMy ideal would be to have something like 3E's NPC-only classes, so that there are predictable rules for what an NPC can do at different levels of power. However, these should be designed for easier write-up rather than following the rules for PCs (particularly at higher levels).
I never quite liked the NPC class approach. Maybe because the idea of a level 20 farmer just seemed ridiculous. In older editions, writing up NPCs as as classed characters wasn't a big deal because the PC classes themselves were not such a pain to write up in the first place.
I share your overall attitude towards NPC classes, and mainly for the reason you outline. A level 20 farmer is ridiculous. Unfortunately, there's really no way to have something like a master blacksmith without giving him a bunch of hit points that he shouldn't have. This is more of a problem in 3E, but it exists in all editions of D&D to some extent.
I used to be a hard-liner for the position that humanoid NPCs should be made exactly the same way as PCs. I thought it was important for the sake of keeping the game world consistent.
These days I'm almost as strident in the opposite direction, and for a bunch of reasons. Partially it's just not worth the effort. You're never going to need to know what the temple guard's basket-weaving skill is. There's also the level 20 farmer issue, but the whole concept of "classed" and "unclassed" NPCs just makes no sense to me. Classes are supposed to represent occupational training for adventurers, so non-adventurer NPCs should have a variety of skill levels and specialties that aren't going to match up to player classes. Yeah, theoretically NPC classes could cover that, but why bother? That still limits every NPC to a handful of options. Plus 90%+ of the NPCs your players meet they're never going to meet again, so why do they need a progression path?
This is only an issue in class-&-level games anyway, but increasingly I'm taking the position that class levels are purely a piece of game artifice which only applies to player characters. For convenience, it's probably better to have generic NPC stat blocks in your book, but they ought to be tiered (e.g., instead of "soldier", have "recruit", "veteran" and "elite soldier"). That's something I actually like about the 2014 5e MM. For unique NPCs you really should just figure out what stats that character would have and write them down.
As a side note, The idea of 39 in 40 dwarfs being a 0 level character with all the same stats is wild, especially if you want to claim that your leveled characters aren't superheroes. In a world where 97% of people have 5 hit points, a third level character is a superhero.
Quote from: HappyDaze on February 08, 2025, 11:26:12 PMQuote from: Brigman on February 08, 2025, 11:24:06 PMI hope this is on topic and doesn't derail the thread.
But running my 5e game, I've wondered... At what point do I use a PC-like stat block for an enemy mage, instead of the "Mage" (or "Archmage") stat block in the back of the Monster Manual?
That entirely depends on how much time and effort you want to put into prepping and running the encounter(s) featuring that enemy mage.
Brigman - it is totally on-topic. I'd say that there are three options:
1) Use the premade "Mage" stat block.
2) Write up a wizard as a mid-to-high-level PC.
3) Create your own new NPC stat block like "slightly higher power fire mage of the Elemental Cult".
The problem with #2 is not just that it takes a lot of time to write up, but that it's also a pain in the a** to run in play because of all the options that a PC has.
The problem with #3 is that there is no guidance from the rules about what powers he has. This isn't just a problem for the GM. It's that there should presumably be some sort of predictability over what kinds of power a mage generally has, so the PCs who are familiar with magic know what to expect. If it's written using the PC rules, then the PCs know exactly what options are possible. If it's via #3, then the players have zero idea.
Quote from: Corolinth on February 09, 2025, 09:23:02 AMQuote from: Exploderwizard on February 09, 2025, 08:41:18 AMQuote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 05:07:36 PMMy ideal would be to have something like 3E's NPC-only classes, so that there are predictable rules for what an NPC can do at different levels of power. However, these should be designed for easier write-up rather than following the rules for PCs (particularly at higher levels).
I never quite liked the NPC class approach. Maybe because the idea of a level 20 farmer just seemed ridiculous. In older editions, writing up NPCs as as classed characters wasn't a big deal because the PC classes themselves were not such a pain to write up in the first place.
I share your overall attitude towards NPC classes, and mainly for the reason you outline. A level 20 farmer is ridiculous. Unfortunately, there's really no way to have something like a master blacksmith without giving him a bunch of hit points that he shouldn't have. This is more of a problem in 3E, but it exists in all editions of D&D to some extent.
Right. Back in TSR AD&D, I always found it weird that all NPCs everywhere fit into the adventuring classes - anyone notable was a fighter, thief, cleric, etc. The AD&D Monster Manual had a few write-ups for humans who didn't fit into the standard adventuring classes, like berserker, dervish, and pilgrim - but they were all 1 hit die. A more notable pilgrim always conformed to the PC cleric class, for example. So the wise old abbott is proficient with maces and trained in heavy armor.
I felt there should be a different approach for people like a master blacksmith, the queen, or a wise old abbott. I thought NPC classes in 3E were a good idea to handle this in theory.
In practice, though, the main problem is the bookkeeping. I don't see level 20 as much of an issue. If you don't want a level 20 commoner, then just say that commoners have a maximum level of 6. That's pretty easy. What I'd want is for it to be much easier to write up someone like a master blacksmith, and the 3E rules didn't do that.
Unfortunately, the 5E rules punted on this, and didn't give any guidance for how to make new NPC stat blocks - just make it up, or use the PC rules.
Quote from: ForgottenF on February 09, 2025, 11:41:35 AMPlus 90%+ of the NPCs your players meet they're never going to meet again, so why do they need a progression path?
This is only an issue in class-&-level games anyway, but increasingly I'm taking the position that class levels are purely a piece of game artifice which only applies to player characters. For convenience, it's probably better to have generic NPC stat blocks in your book, but they ought to be tiered (e.g., instead of "soldier", have "recruit", "veteran" and "elite soldier"). That's something I actually like about the 2014 5e MM. For unique NPCs you really should just figure out what stats that character would have and write them down.
Aren't tiers the same thing as a progression path that you complained about? If the NPC tiers are "recruit" and "veteran" and "elite soldier" - then that defines a progression path for a soldier.
I would think it's more practical to have rules for how to extrapolate up and down tiers, rather than writing up each tier as a unique and unpredictable stat block. For example, the 5E rules have two tiers for "Mage" (a 9th level caster) and "Archmage" (an 18th level caster). That leaves a lot of other ground.
I like the 4E approach. Playing in a VTT I hate having all goblins be identical and prefer some variants. Pre-made variants I can drag and drop are ideal.
If I want an NPC I give them personality and dont worry about the class and shit.
In my game people know you are a warrior based on armor, weapons and scars or perhaps a thief because you keep looking over at the wealthy merchant. They don't know that you are fighter class 3rd level with champion archetype or Rogue class 4th level with thief archetype so it doesn't really matter what class an NPC is most of the time.
If I need an NPC with a class id roll them up as an adventurer and wouldn't need the monster manual at all.
Quote from: jhkim on February 09, 2025, 12:15:09 PMAren't tiers the same thing as a progression path that you complained about? If the NPC tiers are "recruit" and "veteran" and "elite soldier" - then that defines a progression path for a soldier.
It's a more efficient version of it. I'd rather have four tier levels for twenty different NPC occupations than twenty levels for four NPC classes.
Quote from: jhkim on February 09, 2025, 12:15:09 PMI would think it's more practical to have rules for how to extrapolate up and down tiers, rather than writing up each tier as a unique and unpredictable stat block. For example, the 5E rules have two tiers for "Mage" (a 9th level caster) and "Archmage" (an 18th level caster). That leaves a lot of other ground.
There's two different concerns to address. Entries in the MM are there to address the need of a DM to be able to grab a block on the fly and plug it into their game. Kit-bashing guidelines don't address that. They address the need of DMs to build NPCs to a unique power/skill level.
Optimally you have both. You have a comprehensive list of monster/npc entries, with power-tiers where appropriate for NPC types that should have a lot of variance with in them. And then you would
also have a comprehensive "build a stat block" section, preferably a modular system with good guidelines on how to build NPCs to certain power levels relative to PC levels. Time, energy and pagecount are limited, though, so you have to balance thoroughness with efficiency.
Greetings!
In my world of Thandor, I developed the Thandor Professional System. The Thandor Professional System embraces some 500 different Skills. There are no "Skill Ranks" per se to keep track of, or get bogged down in bookkeeping with. The Talent Scale is based upon the following:
Grand Master:
Master:
Journeyman:
Apprentice:
Each Talent Scale achieved provides the Character with a set foundational skill ability to perform Mundane, Common, Difficult, or Extremely Difficult levels of professional activity or work. Many professions do not necessarily have all four Talent Scales, for example. Ditch Digger's do not invent anything, develop new processes, or what have you, so Ditch Digger only really has a Master Talent Scale as the uppermost achievement in proficiency. Various other professions usually top out at the Master Talent Scale, though some may reach the Grand Master level.
Thus, the Thandor Professional System is entirely separate and divorced from "Character Class". This was especially important for me, because I know very well there are differences between a Apprentice professional, a skilled Journeyman, and a Master Professional that has been practicing and honing their craft for 20 years.
Thus, creating any kind of Professional NPC is as easy as
Name: Magda Taben
Professional Cook, Journeyman.
Tier 1 Character. Hit Points: 8
Because I have developed the Thandor Professional System, where characters may possess an independent number of different skills, our theoretical "Magda Taben" easily comes with the knowledge and expertise in all of the various skills required for a professional cook to know. Then, I can add various mercantile skills if desired, basic mathematics, some housewife domestic skills, and perhaps a hobby skill or two. Whatever I want the character to have. My Thandor Professional System allows such characters to be built with bare basic minimum levels of ability if desired, or buffed out with more skills and ability, as deemed appropriate.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well, I stumbled across this when - as my campaign progressed - the NPC Priest was meant to be a major foil, but was getting left way behind.
Another issue was, there's no "Sorcerer" NPC stat block. So to use a Sorcerer as a villain, I either use the "Mage" stat block (swap INT and CHA and re-do the spells) or I make him as a full "PC" type...
On a practical level, building a bunch of NPCs that will probably not survive past this combat just isn't worth the time and effort. The last fight I ran included 6 bandits, a ship's wizard, a bosun, a first mate and the captain. All of them are dead except for the first mate who was taken prisoner. Building them all using the rules for PCs would have been a massive waste of time. Only a few, select important NPCs get that treatment. The rest get generic stat blocks with some tweaks like giving them guns since this is a black powder setting. Building NPCs that the PCs will only interact with a few times or, often, only once as full PCs is just a waste of time. Even with recurring NPCs much of the detail that goes into a PC is superfluous.
Quote from: ForgottenF on February 09, 2025, 11:41:35 AMI used to be a hard-liner for the position that humanoid NPCs should be made exactly the same way as PCs. I thought it was important for the sake of keeping the game world consistent.
I still remain in that camp but there is a wrinkle.
Quote from: ForgottenF on February 09, 2025, 11:41:35 AMPartially it's just not worth the effort. You're never going to need to know what the temple guard's basket-weaving skill is.
My view is that if authors put the same care and time into designing NPCs as they do monsters this would be a non-issue. But they don't and expect referee to generate them the same way the players do. Namely going through the steps of character generation. Which is time consuming and tedious. And also runs into the same problem that toolkit RPGs have like GURPS or Savage Worlds in that it interposes second detailed design step.
The solution is to have a Domesday Book like a Monster Manual. Not a AD&D style Rogues Gallery consisting of lists of stats block but a variety of entries as well thought out and coherent as a good monster manual.
For my Majestic Fantasy RPG, I will be fixing this, and I already did some of this for my basic rules.
For example, I have this for Swords & Wizardry covering Bandits and Brigands.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Bandits%20&%20Brigands%20Ver%2001.pdf
And another write up I did for D&D 5e to cover various types of medieval troops I use in my Majestic Fantasy Realms.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/NPCs%20for%20a%20Medieval%20Setting%20Rev%201.pdf
Quote from: ForgottenF on February 09, 2025, 11:41:35 AMThere's also the level 20 farmer issue, but the whole concept of "classed" and "unclassed" NPCs just makes no sense to me. Classes are supposed to represent occupational training for adventurers, so non-adventurer NPCs should have a variety of skill levels and specialties that aren't going to match up to player classes.
I used Fantasy Hero, GURPS and other skill based systems for over two decades. So when I returned to using D&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry I decided to add a skill system to cover things outside of spellcasting and combat.
Furthermore, I jettisoned the thief class and created my own series of Rogue classes like the burglar, thug, montebank, merchant adventurer, etc. All classes whose focus is on being good at things outside of combat and spellcasting.
Now I can't speak for the designers of various editions of D&D, but for myself I treated classes exactly how I treated templates in GURPS. A bundle of abilities that represent various things that characters do in my Majestic Fantasy Realms.
The sole concession I made to the difference between PCs and NPCs is that I have a series of non-adventuring classes that advance solely based on years of experience and combatwise can basically be taken out by one hit even if they are 10th level. I have craftsmen, hedge mages, priests, and scholars. Ironically, when I published that as part of my Majestic Wilderlands supplement, I had a handful of comments liking the idea and were coming up with ideas for campaigns centered around using those classes for players.
Quote from: ForgottenF on February 09, 2025, 11:41:35 AMYeah, theoretically NPC classes could cover that, but why bother? That still limits every NPC to a handful of options. Plus 90%+ of the NPCs your players meet they're never going to meet again, so why do they need a progression path?
Again the issue is having to use the toolkit to make the character and then put those characters into the adventure or campaign you are running. While it nice to have a toolkit if the referee has to use it over and over again for common character types it becomes a pain. So the solution in my mind, is to provide a Domesday Book, a monster manual for common NPC types. Then it become just as easy to use as the monsters, copy, and paste.
Quote from: ForgottenF on February 09, 2025, 11:41:35 AMThis is only an issue in class-&-level games anyway, but increasingly I'm taking the position that class levels are purely a piece of game artifice which only applies to player characters. For convenience, it's probably better to have generic NPC stat blocks in your book, but they ought to be tiered (e.g., instead of "soldier", have "recruit", "veteran" and "elite soldier"). That's something I actually like about the 2014 5e MM. For unique NPCs you really should just figure out what stats that character would have and write them down.
My view is that the game mechanics of the system have several functions beyond adjudicating success or failure. One of the is describing elements of a setting in a terse compact format. An important part of these descriptions when it comes to character is just how skilled they are. Are they at a apprentice level? Journeyman, or master level? Perhaps they are capable of competing that world's version of the Olympics or winning the Nobel Prize. And more rare but undoubtedly possible a once-in-a-generation genius or athlete.
Systems like Runequest are great RPGs but it gets frustrating when you look at a character sheet and can't see at a glance at how experienced the character is. But with GURPS and Hero System you have points and with D&D you have levels. It makes it that just much easier in my opinion.
Wrapping it up, I get your frustrations, just because I was able to make class and level work for my Majestic Fantasy RPG doesn't mean all class and level systems out there address your issues. But at the same time class and level can be done right to overcome many of your objections. My experience is that you have to bake in it when you start writing. One reason I started out with OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry, is that it was closest thing I could find to an ur-D&D. It was far easier than later edition to break down into its components and rebuild to what I need it to be yet still remain compatible with the mass of classic edition material out there.
When I applied the same effort to 5e it was a lot more of a pain in the ass. And it would the same way with D&D 3.X as well.
Quote from: yosemitemike on February 10, 2025, 04:54:44 AMOn a practical level, building a bunch of NPCs that will probably not survive past this combat just isn't worth the time and effort.
.....
Building NPCs that the PCs will only interact with a few times or, often, only once as full PCs is just a waste of time. Even with recurring NPCs much of the detail that goes into a PC is superfluous.
But if you didn't have to build the NPCs. The issue would be resolved. Imagine a fantasy RPG was released where not only have to build NPCs but build monsters as well.
Again the solution is for the author is to treat NPCs with the same eye towards utility and design as they put into the monsters.
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 05:07:36 PM4) In 5th edition (2014), they did away with NPCs being generated by PC rules.
This is actually a really common claim about 5e that is not true.
Now, you may not be interested in the details, because your overarching point is about monster manual entries (or similar).
DMG92 tells us "When you give an NPC game statistics, you have three main options: giving the NPC only the few statistics it needs, give the NPC a monster stat block, or give the NPC a class and levels."
This explicitly states that class-and-level is a way to design NPCs in 5e. The upper right of that page then goes into details about this, even pointing out that there's two additional class options for evil player characters and NPCs (note that this means that Death cleric and Oathbreaker paladin actually have alignment restrictions for player characters unless the DM houserules otherwise) contained in the DMG.
NPCs do not exclusively use statblocks in 5.0 D&D, and there's legitimate creative effort spent towards showing how a DM can make detailed characters using character classes.
Wow so I'm the only GM left who makes complete character sheets for my (primary) NPCs? Full background. Description. Personality traits. Combat tactics.
Stat blocks IME were furiously incomplete.
I knew I was OCD but I guess "crazy" will have to do, going forward.
(https://media.pinatafarm.com/protected/9CB33540-63CA-4013-AD4C-17771C92EDC4/a79cbb02-7c56-494b-be94-a9423070d61d-1663534502358-pfarm.png)
I don't know if this is relevant for this thread and I don't even play 2024, but one huge problem seems to be magic spells.
Instead of having spells some NPCs - including mage types - apparently have "powers" with similar functions, that cannot be counter-spelled.
Why I see that in complex systems such as modern DND it is useful to have different rules for NPCs, this is ridiculous IMO.
Yeah, having human(oid) spellcaster NPCs immune to Counterspells seems... jacked up, TBH. Not sure the rationale or justification there.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 10, 2025, 05:31:30 PMI don't know if this is relevant for this thread and I don't even play 2024, but one huge problem seems to be magic spells.
Instead of having spells some NPCs - including mage types - apparently have "powers" with similar functions, that cannot be counter-spelled.
Why I see that in complex systems such as modern DND it is useful to have different rules for NPCs, this is ridiculous IMO.
Quote from: Brigman on February 10, 2025, 07:30:21 PMYeah, having human(oid) spellcaster NPCs immune to Counterspells seems... jacked up, TBH. Not sure the rationale or justification there.
I know there is a whole discourse within the 5e scene about counterspell being a problem, though since I don't play 5e, I couldn't say why.
I don't mind non-human NPCs having "powers" instead of spells, if it's a way to represent their magical abilities deriving from a different source than the way PCs learn magic. It makes sense that something like a Dragon's fear aura acts like a spell but really isn't. But if the powers are just representing a different kind of spell, then they should probably be subject to a lot of the same rules.
It sounds like a continuation of the "spell-like abilities" concept in 3.x. I can't recall how counterspelling worked in that game, but I think "spell-like abilities" could at least be interrupted.
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 05:07:36 PM4) In 5th edition (2014), they did away with NPCs being generated by PC rules. Instead, NPCs should just be written up as stat blocks without having to conform to the rules for PCs. The 5E MM had no entries under "dwarf" or "elf" or "human", but instead had a separate section for NPC stat blocks. NPC stat blocks are generic to race, there is just "scout" that is described as "Medium Humanoid (Any Race), Any Alignment". The DM is instructed to modify it for an elven scout versus a halfling scout vs a human scout.
5e, like BX and AD&D had it both ways wctually. You had these generic blocks. But in modules alot of NPCs were straight up classed just like a PC. Gygax in particular did this alot. But I have seen it in alot of different modules.
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 05:07:36 PM4) In 5th edition (2014), they did away with NPCs being generated by PC rules. Instead, NPCs should just be written up as stat blocks without having to conform to the rules for PCs. The 5E MM had no entries under "dwarf" or "elf" or "human", but instead had a separate section for NPC stat blocks. NPC stat blocks are generic to race, there is just "scout" that is described as "Medium Humanoid (Any Race), Any Alignment". The DM is instructed to modify it for an elven scout versus a halfling scout vs a human scout.
Quote from: Venka on February 10, 2025, 12:48:06 PMDMG92 tells us "When you give an NPC game statistics, you have three main options: giving the NPC only the few statistics it needs, give the NPC a monster stat block, or give the NPC a class and levels."
This explicitly states that class-and-level is a way to design NPCs in 5e.
Quote from: Omega on February 11, 2025, 01:46:25 AM5e, like BX and AD&D had it both ways wctually. You had these generic blocks. But in modules alot of NPCs were straight up classed just like a PC. Gygax in particular did this alot. But I have seen it in alot of different modules.
OK, good points - Venka and Omega. From what I've seen, citing a MM stat block is the norm for NPCs in official modules, but I'm not surprised that some NPCs are explicitly written up as PCs.
Still, writing NPCs up as 5E PCs not only takes a long time, but the end result is a character with a lot of fiddly options that are a pain to manage in play for a GM. That's why the NPC stat blocks don't have a lot of the fiddly PC options like a half-dozen class abilities that can be used N times per long rest.
Quote from: ForgottenF on February 09, 2025, 02:54:10 PMThere's two different concerns to address. Entries in the MM are there to address the need of a DM to be able to grab a block on the fly and plug it into their game. Kit-bashing guidelines don't address that. They address the need of DMs to build NPCs to a unique power/skill level.
Optimally you have both. You have a comprehensive list of monster/npc entries, with power-tiers where appropriate for NPC types that should have a lot of variance with in them. And then you would also have a comprehensive "build a stat block" section, preferably a modular system with good guidelines on how to build NPCs to certain power levels relative to PC levels. Time, energy and pagecount are limited, though, so you have to balance thoroughness with efficiency.
Quote from: estar on February 10, 2025, 10:32:28 AMThe solution is to have a Domesday Book like a Monster Manual. Not a AD&D style Rogues Gallery consisting of lists of stats block but a variety of entries as well thought out and coherent as a good monster manual.
For my Majestic Fantasy RPG, I will be fixing this, and I already did some of this for my basic rules.
For example, I have this for Swords & Wizardry covering Bandits and Brigands.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Bandits%20&%20Brigands%20Ver%2001.pdf
And another write up I did for D&D 5e to cover various types of medieval troops I use in my Majestic Fantasy Realms.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/NPCs%20for%20a%20Medieval%20Setting%20Rev%201.pdf
I agree that having a more extensive variety of NPC stat blocks is extremely useful. But if there are kitbashing "build a stat block" guidelines, then it's easy to use those to make prewritten stat blocks for the most common types of NPCs to be encountered. If you start with the guidelines, then it's easy to come up with more stat blocks.
Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2025, 12:45:23 PMI agree that having a more extensive variety of NPC stat blocks is extremely useful. But if there are kitbashing "build a stat block" guidelines, then it's easy to use those to make prewritten stat blocks for the most common types of NPCs to be encountered. If you start with the guidelines, then it's easy to come up with more stat blocks.
There are guidelines they are called character generation rules.
If character generation rules can't be used quickly to make NPCs then I submit there is an issue with the presentation of those rules.
For example, equipment. If you go with the default of presenting just a price list then it will be pain if you try to scale up character generation. Any step involving "picking from a list" doesn't scale.
The solution for equipment I found is taking what 5e did and what GURPS did a step further namely equipment packs and load outs. A straight-forward list of useful equipment combinations and gear combination.
Another specific to D&D is memorized spells. Again, this is another list problem. Like load outs and equipment packs, out of all the ways to memorize there are a few useful combinations that are useful and/or interesting.
For classic D&D I made a set of random tables along with a generator that allows me to generate spellbooks and memorized spells. Where I put some effort in is figuring out the odds which spells are likely to be memorized and gave those spells higher odds. As opposed to just giving each of 12 1st levels the same odds of being memorized.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Random%20Memorized%20Spells.pdf
And at the end the book I created assortment tables which are tables consisting of pre-generated combinations of memorized spells.
Also a well designed Domesday Book would have more than just a variety it would show how groups of NPCs with different character classes would inter-relate. Along how progression would work out. What would an apprentice mage look like, journeyman, master, and grandmaster.
For D&D I don't need to provide examples of the intermediate levels. If I wanted a 4th level medium foot solider for 5e, it more straightforward for me to start with the 2nd Level Medium foot Sergeant and tack on two levels compared to generating 4th level from scratch.
What it takes is a well-thought out selection as a starting point.
If you create a whole set of NPC guidelines the result will be yet another set of design tools with lists to wade through.
Quote from: estar on February 11, 2025, 02:10:37 PMQuote from: jhkim on February 11, 2025, 12:45:23 PMI agree that having a more extensive variety of NPC stat blocks is extremely useful. But if there are kitbashing "build a stat block" guidelines, then it's easy to use those to make prewritten stat blocks for the most common types of NPCs to be encountered. If you start with the guidelines, then it's easy to come up with more stat blocks.
There are guidelines they are called character generation rules.
If character generation rules can't be used quickly to make NPCs then I submit there is an issue with the presentation of those rules.
If PC creation takes half an hour for them to do things like spend 3d6 x 10 gold pieces in equipment, choose skills / non-weapon proficiencies, etc. -- that's not a big deal for players. Players often enjoy customizing things about their personal character, and they don't have to do it very often.
But it's a much bigger issue if NPCs take that long.
Especially for a moderately complex game like 5E, I think there should be some simplified alternatives for NPCs compared to PCs. It's not just the creation, either. If I am the DM trying to both run the game and play out a half-dozen enemy NPCs, it can be a real pain in the butt. The worst is enemy spellcasters, where I have to be flipping through the book to look at the different spell options.
Some non-D&D games like Cinematic Unisystem have a simplified format for NPCs compared to PCs, and I've usually found that really helpful.
Greetings!
Generating NPC's. Yeah, that is something I love about Shadowdark. Generating characters--whether Player Characters or NPC's--is a breeze. Still, to make encounters and such even more efficient and optimized, I have created a kind of Domesday Book as Estar discusses, which includes a large variety of generic NPC's. I have the standard spell list packages, standard equipment packages, and for higher level NPC's, I also have pre-configured additional magical item load-outs, using a modified table for NPC Party Magic Items I created, from inspiration from AD&D's DMG NPC Party tables. I also have integrated the DMG's Character Personality Tables, which then randomly sort and assign "Personality Profiles". So, with a few simple random rolls, I can have an entire NPC Character Party done up, fully fleshed out with mundane equipment, spell lists, magical gear, and a Personality Profile. BOOM. DONE. Once I put the work into crafting and organizing this, having virtually any kind of NPC or a full NPC Party is an absolute snap.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2025, 02:51:15 PMIf PC creation takes half an hour for them to do things like spend 3d6 x 10 gold pieces in equipment, choose skills / non-weapon proficiencies, etc. -- that's not a big deal for players. Players often enjoy customizing things about their personal character, and they don't have to do it very often.
But it's a much bigger issue if NPCs take that long.
A couple of points about where I am coming from.
First I like players to be able to generate characters at convention games. But it has to be a half-hour or less. So I spent a lot of time with different systems like classic D&D and 5e getting chargen process done underneath. In addition I use an XP chart that allows players to start as high as 6th level.
I published what I did for my Majestic Fantasy RPG and Swords & Wizardry. I have an equivalent for 5e as well.
MW RPG
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/333354/majestic-fantasy-rpg-basic-rules-reference-cards?src=hottest_filtered
S&W
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/337548/quick-reference-cards-for-swords-wizardry?src=hottest_filtered
Second as I run mostly sandbox campaigns where primary opposition to the players are other NPCs I need to generate a lot of characters. So I produced another set of aides to allow me to do just that.
Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2025, 02:51:15 PMEspecially for a moderately complex game like 5E, I think there should be some simplified alternatives for NPCs compared to PCs. It's not just the creation, either. If I am the DM trying to both run the game and play out a half-dozen enemy NPCs,
Sure it can be a challenge but how it any different than a bunch of monsters especially those beyond "mook" level. If an encounter has 12 distinct monsters each with their own set of abilities it is the same problem as having 12 distinct characters.
I ran into this just last week when a fight broke out in the upper village in the 5e version of Dark Tower put out by Goodman Games. I had to grab 18 different stat blocks to run that. I like Dark Tower, I like what Goodman Games did with it for the most part. But that setup was just plain stupid in terms of design.
If I had designed that I could have cut down the stat blocks down to half and still have the distinct NPCs that were described.
But to clear the problem wasn't that any of them were stated like PCs the problem was the sheer number of different type. And for the record most of them were stated similar to monsters.
Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2025, 02:51:15 PMit can be a real pain in the butt. The worst is enemy spellcasters, where I have to be flipping through the book to look at the different spell options.
Which is why a good Domesday book would talk tersely about how each type of spellcaster on how they would use their spells.
And for my Majestic Fantasy RPG KS this fall I plan to throwing in a Libram of Spells. The spells are in still in the player handbook but I have a separate layout with just the spell and magic rules specifically for use as a table reference (PDF or Print).
(http://www.batintheattic.com/images/libram_spells.jpg)
Rob's Note: I actually bound that book myself. Got a bookbinding kit for my birthday and figured that was a good first project.
Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2025, 02:51:15 PMSome non-D&D games like Cinematic Unisystem have a simplified format for NPCs compared to PCs, and I've usually found that really helpful.
I found it unsatisfying because now I have to figure out whole system to measure NPC competency as they are not built in the same way as PCs.
Quote from: SHARK on February 11, 2025, 04:12:18 PMGreetings!
Generating NPC's. Yeah, that is something I love about Shadowdark. Generating characters--whether Player Characters or NPC's--is a breeze.
Sure that works when the characters can fit on a index card. The challenge is doing that with a more detailed system. I know my tone is a little sarcastic but this is a result of the system being minimalist. The Fantasy Trip, Microlite 20 and Fudge/Fate all enjoy similar advantages.
Again the trick is to pull it with systems like GURPS, Runequest, and D&D 5e. It takes a little creativity on the presentation but it can be done.
Quote from: SHARK on February 11, 2025, 04:12:18 PMStill, to make encounters and such even more efficient and optimized, I have created a kind of Domesday Book as Estar discusses, which includes a large variety of generic NPC's. I have the standard spell list packages, standard equipment packages, and for higher level NPC's, I also have pre-configured additional magical item load-outs, using a modified table for NPC Party Magic Items I created, from inspiration from AD&D's DMG NPC Party tables.
Excellent; while I started out with limited goals, I am finding that thinking about presentation and aides helps any RPG from Shadowdark to GURPS. So started experimenting further. Now I have binders, cards, and references for several systems at this point.