Bandit statistics

[Longman]

(Hi, I am new. Learning to play 5e with just the PhB plus free content at this stage. I like ths version of the game so far. I'm trying out this forum.)

The statistics for 'bandit' allow a +3 to attack with their trusty scimitar and likewise for the crossbow. These bonuses are there mostly because of the proficiency bonus of +2, plus the dex modifier.

Coming from older versions of the game, this seems like a pretty tough mook. Even the lowest CR (zero) still gets a +2 proficiency bonus. I can put up a commoner and they get +2 to hit. Who doesn't get a +2 to hit?

I've only DMd 4 sessions and I am already tempted to strip back the proficiency bonus for lower CR enemies to +1, or even zero. Anyone done this?

[NRSASD]

You can, but it's ill advised. As someone who came straight from an older edition as well, a default +2 to hit seemed really high, but it kinda isn't. 5E combat is about managing who gets advantage and disadvantage a lot more than just bonuses, and those bonuses come in handy when balancing those kinds of rolls.

[BRC]

+3 is basically nothing.


Consider starting PCs
A heavy armor character can start with Chain Mail, AC 16. That's a 35% chance for a bandit to hit.

A Dex based character will probably start with leather armor and +3 dexterity for AC 15, that's a 40% chance of the bandit hitting

A Medium armor character can start with Scale Mail, and probably at least +1 dex, for AC 15 again.

Spellcasters are squishy as always, but even they have various methods of getting at least 13 AC, Bards, warlocks, and druids can wear leather armor. Draconic sorcerers can get 13+Dex Ac at level 1. Wizards or non-dragon sorcerers can cast Mage Armor, bringing them to 13+dex (it costs them a spell slot, but at low levels you can get by with cantrips).

So, provided the PC's take basic steps to increase their armor class (Having at least +1 dex for example), Bandits have a 50/50 chance to hit the most vulnerable PC.

[Unoriginal]

(Hi, I am new. Learning to play 5e with just the PhB plus free content at this stage. I like ths version of the game so far. I'm trying out this forum.)

The statistics for 'bandit' allow a +3 to attack with their trusty scimitar and likewise for the crossbow. These bonuses are there mostly because of the proficiency bonus of +2, plus the dex modifier.

Coming from older versions of the game, this seems like a pretty tough mook. Even the lowest CR (zero) still gets a +2 proficiency bonus. I can put up a commoner and they get +2 to hit. Who doesn't get a +2 to hit?

I've only DMd 4 sessions and I am already tempted to strip back the proficiency bonus for lower CR enemies to +1, or even zero. Anyone done this?

I'm not sure what's bothering you about this.

Bandits and other mooks can stay relevant at higher level, that way, and at lower level they're still not that tough. A lvl 2 PC group should be able to deal with the bandits relatively easily, while the bandits still getting one or two good hits

[stoutstien]

If you're worried about killing off your players unintentionally you're better off just downgrading weapons. But honestly unless they have like a 80-plus percent of hit it's really not necessary.

[Longman]

I'm partly worried about TPKs but also just trying to work out the more general issue of how to 'scale' the average person so that the PCs are clearly superior.

To me it seems like not everyone should have 'simple' weapons training and the average mook (i.e. a lowly bandit who is basically just a peasant with a grudge) shouldn't have martial weapons training either (to use a scimitar or similar d8 weapon).

Having a PB applied to farming or animal handling seems fine for a commoner. Having it applied to combat for everyone seems odd, coming from a system where the average person in the street was no threat to your PC at all.

Anyway thanks for your replies. I'll leave things alone and see how it pans out.

[BRC]

Part of it is that a Bandit isn't just "A commoner with a Grudge".

A commoner with a grudge has no proficiency with martial weapons like the scimitar, and therefore does not get the proficiency bonus.

A Bandit, generally speaking, has received some basic training, either from other bandits, or from practice beating up on commoners.

Bandits who can't fight don't last very long as Bandits.

[MeeposFire]

Part of it is that a Bandit isn't just "A commoner with a Grudge".

A commoner with a grudge has no proficiency with martial weapons like the scimitar, and therefore does not get the proficiency bonus.

A Bandit, generally speaking, has received some basic training, either from other bandits, or from practice beating up on commoners.

Bandits who can't fight don't last very long as Bandits.

At the very least they would certainly use a weapon they do know so if not the scimitar then a dagger or club.

[JellyPooga]

Part of it is that a Bandit isn't just "A commoner with a Grudge".

A commoner with a grudge has no proficiency with martial weapons like the scimitar, and therefore does not get the proficiency bonus.

A Bandit, generally speaking, has received some basic training, either from other bandits, or from practice beating up on commoners.

Bandits who can't fight don't last very long as Bandits.

This. Your basic commoner isn't proficient with weapons and doesn't add PB. Your basic commoner also only has a Str/Dex of 10. So your basic commoner doesn't have +3 to hit. He doesn't even have +2. He gets +0. That's the base line. A Bandit, someone that has made a life of crime, specifically the crime of attacking people to rob them, that guy is a threat to your average commoner. That guy is feared by the villagers so that they will pay a stranger to deal with him. That guy has +3 to hit.

[Longman]

I'm looking at the commoner entry right now and it says +2 to hit.

Club. Melee Weapon Attack: +2 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.
Hit: 2 (1d4) bludgeoning damage.

So, I get the the "bandit" may be able to use simple weapons with PB. The fact that anyone can do this seems a bit much.

Maybe I should have called this thread "commoner statistics" or something. What I was really looking for was a mook who doesn't have martial weapons training and 11 hit points, which is more than most of the party.

[Laserlight]

I'm partly worried about TPKs but also just trying to work out the more general issue of how to 'scale' the average person so that the PCs are clearly superior.


At level 1, PCs aren't much superior to bandits. They're better, but not enormously so. But...by the time you've got 4 PCs at L5, it takes 14 bandits to qualify as an "Easy Encounter", and 30 for a "Hard Encounter".

[JellyPooga]

I'm looking at the commoner entry right now and it says +2 to hit.

Club. Melee Weapon Attack: +2 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.
Hit: 2 (1d4) bludgeoning damage.

That's if he even has a club. Remember that most commoners don't have a club or even a dagger. They might have a chair leg or a functional knife, but those would typically be improvised weapons; so no Proficiency Bonus.

[Longman]

Thanks JellyPooga but you argued just above that your basic commoner only gets +0 because they don't get to add their PB.

I agree that should be the case, but the rules are saying that any CR 0 encounter gets their PB on combat score.

[JNAProductions]

Thanks JellyPooga but you argued just above that your basic commoner only gets +0 because they don't get to add their PB.

I agree that should be the case, but the rules are saying that any CR 0 encounter gets their PB on combat score.

Got a quote on that? The rules say a CR 0 monster has a proficiency bonus of +2, not that they get to use it with any weapon.

[MeeposFire]

I'm looking at the commoner entry right now and it says +2 to hit.

Club. Melee Weapon Attack: +2 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.
Hit: 2 (1d4) bludgeoning damage.

To be fair clubs are pretty ubiquitous. Think about how in other editions a commoner could be reasonably expected to be proficient with a single weapon like a club or dagger. Functionally prof back then is really similar to what it is now but before they gave prof as the baseline and lack thereof as a penalty whereas in 5e (and 4e too for that matter) prof gives you a bonus rather than a removal of a penalty. The difference is just how the rules show the math rather than the essential implementation.

In Pre 3e a commoner (0 level human) would have a thac0 of 20 which is the same as every class in the game before counting ability scores for the PCs. A 3e commoner would have a BAB of +0 which is the same as most of the classes in 3e (only warrior types have more and it is only 1 better so not exactly a huge difference). In all of these cases the commoner would be assumed to be using a weapon they are proficient with and have low to moderate ability scores (if any are given) and the commoner has an attack bonus that is really similar to the actual classes before ability scores are used. If you gave them a weapon they are not prof with (such as a greatsword) then they would all take a penalty to attacks which is functionally equivalent ot the 5e commoner if you would give them the same weapon (unless of course you decide that this commoner just happens to know how to use his grandfathers sword so well). This holds true in 5e where the only major difference is not obvious which is that the numbers stay smaller so that +2 stays relevant longer than it would in other editions of the game.

[MeeposFire]

Got a quote on that? The rules say a CR 0 monster has a proficiency bonus of +2, not that they get to use it with any weapon.

Exactly the stat block assumes that the weapon given is a weapon they can use effectively so unless you rule that commoners are experts in every weapon if you give them a real military weapon it would be fair to rule to not give them their prof bonus on the attack.

[Longman]

Got a quote on that? The rules say a CR 0 monster has a proficiency bonus of +2, not that they get to use it with any weapon.

I'm assuming this based on the fact that a commoner (CR 0) has +2. So does a badger. So does a deer. The raven has a dex of 14 and gets a +4 to hit.

So no I don't have a quote but it does seem that the +2 PB is always applied in combat.

[JNAProductions]

I'm assuming this based on the fact that a commoner (CR 0) has +2. So does a badger. So does a deer. The raven has a dex of 14 and gets a +4 to hit.

So no I don't have a quote but it does seem that the +2 PB is always applied in combat.

If they're using something they are proficient with.

The badger knows how to use their claws. The deer, their hooves. The raven, their beak or talons. And the commoner, a club. A properly weighted smacking club, not just any random piece of wood.

Which does make sense-the D&D world tends to be a dangerous place. You'll live longer if you at least know how to thwack a bad guy on the nose before running away.

[Longman]

Incidentally, it seems as though some of you are now arguing that the PB should not always be applied in combat, which means you and I think alike!

I'm talking about the stats blocks for low CR encounters, and asking why they are written that way.

[JNAProductions]

Incidentally, it seems as though some of you are now arguing that the PB should not always be applied in combat, which means you and I think alike!

I'm talking about the stats blocks for low CR encounters, and asking why they are written that way.

That's... That's what I said from the start.

Proficiency only applies to things you are proficient in. But it's assumed that if you're in a fight, you're using a weapon you know how to use.

If you were to, say, run a bar fight where people are using chairs and stools, no one (barring those with Tavern Brawler) are getting their proficiency on any attacks.

[MeeposFire]

Monster stat blocks always assume the weapon given is one the monster knows how to use which is why the commoner is armed with a club which is a reasonable weapon for a commoner to know how to use.

[Longman]

Got a quote on that? The rules say a CR 0 monster has a proficiency bonus of +2, not that they get to use it with any weapon.

I didn't say they got to use it with any weapon. I was questioning the idea that all commoners would have simple weapon proficiency. And also that all bandits should have martial weapon proficiency.

That's why I pointed out that adding a +2 PB to being a farmer or an animal handler seems fine but always adding it to the combat score of any commoner for simple wepaons seems OP.

This was a particularly interesting response from JellyPooga.

Your basic commoner isn't proficient with weapons and doesn't add PB. Your basic commoner also only has a Str/Dex of 10. So your basic commoner doesn't have +3 to hit. He doesn't even have +2. He gets +0. That's the base line.

Actually it isn't the baseline according the rules. I was asking whether it should be the baseline, and if anyone houseruled that way.

[Burnteyes]

I feel it important to point out that it is okay if you should have a PC die. It's part of the game, in fact a very important one. You seem like you are over thinking this as a DM a bit. There are lots of resources available through DMsguild.com that have pre-built encounters for lower level characters that talk about scaling and provide creatures and the number of creatures appropriate for x level of x adventures.. It sounds a bit like you are world building a home game. If so, you are trying to jump into the deep end of the pool.

If you would like some suggestions for specific resources let me/us know. If you want to world build and create the adventure from scrap in your first DM attempt, well, it's not what I would suggest but good luck.

[JellyPooga]

As I recall (I could look it up, but I'm lazy), I'm sure I've read somewhere that monsters are proficient with whatever weapons are listed in their stat block unless specified othewise. This is exclusive terminology. So to say that commoners are proficient with simple weapons is false. They are proficient with clubs. Period. Give one a spear and he doesn't get his PB to hit.

You, as GM, get to decide what a monster is or isn't able to use with proficiency; that's how monsters and NPC's work in 5ed. They don't have class leveld or "levels of Commoner" like they did back in 3ed, or really any broad-stroke rules. They simply have whatever stats you need them to have for a given encounter. Want an NPC with 4hp, proficiency with a whip and no spellcasting except one 9th level spell slot? Sure, that's your call. Want Comoners with spear proficiency instead of club? Great. Want Bandits that can't use a sword? Go ahead. The NPC and monster statblocks are guidelines. Don't treat them like hard rules.

[Longman]

This is the quote I think you are talking about.

Assume that a creature is proficient with its armor, weapons, and tools. If you swap them out, you decide whether the creature is proficient with its new equipment.

That's new information to me and makes a lot of sense. Thanks. I will give my mooks different weapons and watch them flail about hopelessly!

But you must admit it is a little different to what you said originally, which was:

"Your basic commoner isn't proficient with weapons and doesn't add PB."

:smallsmile:

[JellyPooga]

But you must admit it is a little different to what you said originally, which was:

"Your basic commoner isn't proficient with weapons and doesn't add PB."

:smallsmile:

Conceded :smallwink:

I think my original statement just reflects how I view encounter design and NPC's; i.e. they're not built like player characters and as such aren't subject to those broad stroke rules like "proficient with simple weapons". I don't, personally, view a commoner being proficient with any weapons, despite technically being proficient clubs according to the given stat block, unless I need him to be.

[Unoriginal]

By the time the PCs reach level 2, 11 HPs and +3 to hit is really not a lot for a martial character.

If you have had 4 sessions, your PCs should be at least lvl 2, normally.

[damascoplay]

(Hi, I am new. Learning to play 5e with just the PhB plus free content at this stage. I like ths version of the game so far. I'm trying out this forum.)

The statistics for 'bandit' allow a +3 to attack with their trusty scimitar and likewise for the crossbow. These bonuses are there mostly because of the proficiency bonus of +2, plus the dex modifier.

Coming from older versions of the game, this seems like a pretty tough mook. Even the lowest CR (zero) still gets a +2 proficiency bonus. I can put up a commoner and they get +2 to hit. Who doesn't get a +2 to hit?

I've only DMd 4 sessions and I am already tempted to strip back the proficiency bonus for lower CR enemies to +1, or even zero. Anyone done this?

I can assure you applying Proficiency bonus to hit is not broken or overpowered. I've been running a campaign for 1-2 years now,and proficiency bonus is always whats keeping the enemy from not just being an useless drawback,but instead,someone who can prove to be capable of fightings the PC's and actually posing a threat to them.

A Bandit is not "OP" just because he has a +3 to hit. The players should have atleast a +4 or +5 at level 1 to attack,so i don't see any problem with that. Besides,three or two hits should be enough to put one bandit down,or 1 hit if it's a crit. If a Bandit has only +1 to hit,i'm afraid he should stop being a bandit and start working on the crops for the next harvesting season.

Also,this is 5th edition,so everything is going to be different from previous editions. Things are more balanced now,so don't worry about it.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's right there in black and white

Bandit
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
11 (+0) 12 (+1) 12 (+1) 10 (+0) 10 (+0) 10 (+0)
Scimitar. Melee Weapon Attack: +3 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 4 (1d6 + 1) slashing damage.
Light Crossbow. Ranged Weapon Attack: +3 to hit, range 80/320
ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d8 + 1) piercing damage.


Commoner
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
10 (+0) 10 (+0) 10 (+0) 10 (+0) 10 (+0) 10 (+0)
Club. Melee Weapon Attack: +2 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.
Hit: 2 (1d4) bludgeoning damage.


Challenge......Proficiency
Rating______Bonus

0...................+2
1/8................+2
1/4................+2
1/2................+2
1...................+2
2...................+2
3...................+2
4...................+2

[The Shadowdove]

Even Adventure's League, which is known for it's attempt to govern balance through limitations and closely followed rules, allows for DMs to adjust NPCs or monsters as necessary.
Many modules have adventure specific NPCs or monsters with higher or lower stats than usual, and explain why.
A dockhand you upset may be a commoner with 13 strength instead of 10 due to their mixed heritage and/or vigorous work ethics and still be a commoner.
A goblin in the 5e starter set reads as having "12 more health points" merely because he/she is the aspiring leader of their little mob.
I've ran a lot of Adventure's League events where the module reads something like "if the player characters are having a hard time, this is not the main fight and is merely here so that they can learn X. Feel free to have the npcs nearby assist them or lower the monsters health via other means so that they may progress in the event of likely death".
If you have good reason to add or subtract anything in order to make an npc or monster more appropriate for your dming, don't worry about it. Even the rules allow it.

[Tanarii]

If you have had 4 sessions, your PCs should be at least lvl 2, normally.
IMX that's enough for most characters to reach level 3, plus be half way to level 4, so that seems like a bare minimum. (Which is probably what you meant.)

Depends on how many 'adventuring days' you manage to fit in a session of course. My standard/experience is roughly one per 4 hour session.