DM Help Party of NPC adventurers (encounter) [Archive]

DwarfFighter

2021-02-14, 12:54 PM

5e handles NPCs different from 3x: Gone are the strict adherence to Hit Dice defining the "proficiency" of the character, NPCs no longer have classes like Commoner, Warrior or Adept. NPC abilities are no longer the selection of level-appropriate features and feats derived from their Heroic classes. This I feel is a great change. Building NPCs was always a chore in 3x.

However, how would you go about assembling a group of NPC representing another adventuring party? Let's say... A human fighter, a dwarf cleric, an elf wizard, and a halfling rogue, a match for a level 5 party of the same number of PCs.

Would you inflate the HD vs. proficiency bonuses, as seems common to "adversary" NPCs? A CR 2 Berserker is 9 HD for a +2 bonus.

How would you handle "class" abilities? A full spread of PC-like class features, or NPC style condensed abilities? E.g an Archer NPC is a bit like a Ranger, but they also only have, like one single shorty ability.

-DF

JNAProductions

2021-02-14, 12:58 PM

Amnestic

2021-02-14, 01:06 PM

Double HD, half spell slots, round down (minimum 1).
Anything that refreshes on a short rest is instead on a d6 5-6 recharge. Any non-spells are on a d6 6 recharge.

DwarfFighter

2021-02-14, 01:09 PM

Double HD, half spell slots, round down (minimum 1).
Anything that refreshes on a short rest is instead on a d6 5-6 recharge. Any non-spells are on a d6 6 recharge.

Are you thinking of Long Rest abilities for the 6 on 1d6?

Unoriginal

2021-02-14, 01:13 PM

I take relevant NPC statblocks and tweak them to give the desired effect, if needed. Sometime that involves giving the NPC abilities that ressemble class features like Rage or Sneak Attack, or even more straightforward, such as "X has Spellcasting like a lvl 5 Ranger".

I 100% agree with JNAProductions that giving NPCs the whole list of class features is just too much of a hassle to track and use. A short list of relevant, thematic abilities is much better.

Amnestic

2021-02-14, 01:22 PM

Are you thinking of Long Rest abilities for the 6 on 1d6?

Yeah, sorry, should havre specified, long rest non-spells.

So theoretically an artificer NPC adventurer might get an extra use of their flash of genius (once fully expended) on a d6 recharge.

MaxWilson

2021-02-14, 01:33 PM

There's nothing wrong with making an NPC more of a glass cannon than most are. But be careful with them-those fights can be pretty lopsided if one side rolls well on init and the other does not.

I would DEFINITELY not give them full PC abilities for use in combat. Unless you're an absolute rules MASTER, you're gonna goof something up, or forget something, or any of a million other things. Just give them a few key abilities that are thematic.

Why would you be worried about goofing up or forgetting something? That is, why would that do you from giving them that ability? It's easy to say, "This guy's an Assassin 5," and if you realize during or after the encounter that you forgot to apply an Assassin ability ("oh, that hit on round 1 should have been an autocrit") you handle it just like any other mistake, for PCs or NPCs or monsters: acknowledge, ignore, or retcon it, whichever will give the best experience to the players.

If anything, remembering PHB-based abilities is easier than remembering random grab bags of MM abilities. Does an MM Archmage have Wis save proficiency? How about Dex? Honestly I'm not sure without looking it up. But I know that a Wizard 17 only has Int and Wis proficiency, unless I give him a feat to add more.

PHB based NPCs are easy to create.

Note: it's okay, for PCs and NPCs alike, to leave some stuff off. "We'll figure out your languages later" is sometimes good for new players, and "for purposes of this encounter this mage's only spells are Shield, Fireball, and Magic Missile--I'll figure out the rest later if he survives" is fine for an mook NPC.

J-H

2021-02-14, 01:37 PM

Give each one two or three abilities that mirror PC capabilities. Aside from casting, don't worry about tracking expenditures - it's hard enough to run 5 enemy types at once without also tracking multiple resources for each.

Here's how I made a fencer in Castle Dracula (D&D Castlevania, on DM's guild):

Dullahan Fencer
Medium Undead
Clad in light armor, these creatures are plainly undead, but still have some flesh pulled tight over most of their bodies, holding their joints together. They move lightly on their bony feet, with a weapon in one hand and a head in the other.
AC: 16 (Studded leather)
HP: 120
Speed 40 ft.
Str Dex Con Int Wis Cha
12(+1) 18(+4) 14(+2) 12(+1) 10(0) 8(-1)
Saves Dex +7, Int +4
Damage Resistances Poison
Condition Immunities Blinded, charmed, deafened, exhaustion, frightened, paralyzed, petrified, poisoned
Senses Darkvision 60 ft., Passive Perception 13
Pack Tactics The Dullahan has advantage on an attack roll against a creature if at least one of the monster's allies is within 5 feet of the creature and the ally isn't incapacitated.
Maneuvers The Dullahan uses one maneuver on its turn when attacking, and one maneuver as a reaction each round when it is attacked in melee. Maneuver dice are D12s.
CR 7
Actions
Multiattack. The Dullahan can attack twice with its rapier.
Rapier, Melee Weapon Attack, +7 to hit, range 5’, 1d8+4 piercing damage.

Offensive Maneuvers
• Disarming attack. On hit, roll 1d12 and add it to damage; force a STR save, DC 15 or your target drops his or her weapon
• Lunging attack. Extend your melee reach by 5’ for one attack; if it hits, add 1d12 to the damage roll.
Reaction Manuevers
• Parry. When damaged by melee attack, reduce damage by 1d12+4
• Riposte. When a creature misses you with a melee attack, make a melee counter-attack. Add 1d12 to damage if you hit.

A group of these were opponents for a level 12 party. It's CR 7 and is functionally something like a Dex battlemaster in the level 5-8 range, but with larger superiority dice and more HP. There are four possible manuevers, so it's not totally predictable for the party, but it's still simple enough to be easy to run even when there are 5 of them against a party of 6 PCs.

For spellcaster NPCs, you don't need to worry about non-combat spells. You can simplify the loadout as such:
AC 13+dex (mage armor already up)
1x Fireball
1x Slow (C)
1x Mirror Image, cast first round of combat
1x Hold Person (C)
1x Misty Step as a bonus action
2x Magic Missile
2x Shield as a reaction
Cantrips Poison Spray (2d12) and Firebolt (2d10).

Then just cross them off as the wizard casts.

Unoriginal

2021-02-14, 01:42 PM

If anything, remembering PHB-based abilities is easier than remembering random grab bags of MM abilities. Does an MM Archmage have Wis save proficiency? How about Dex? Honestly I'm not sure without looking it up. But I know that a Wizard 17 only has Int and Wis proficiency, unless I give him a feat to add more.

May be easy for you, but not for everyone. Do you recall all the subclass abilities a lvl 17 Wizard (not to mention potential racial abilities and feats) has without looking it up? Or how they work specifically?

Personally, I can't.

PHB based NPCs are easy to create.

They're as easy to create as PCs. How easy that is depends on the person. I find creating MM-based NPCs much easier, myself.

MaxWilson

2021-02-14, 02:08 PM

May be easy for you, but not for everyone. Do you recall all the subclass abilities a lvl 17 Wizard (not to mention potential racial abilities and feats) has without looking it up? Or how they work specifically?

Personally, I can't.

They're as easy to create as PCs. How easy that is depends on the person. I find creating MM-based NPCs much easier, myself.

But... a Wizard doesn't have all subclass abilities of all subclasses. I don't remember all the Transmuter abilities right now, but I don't have to make the wizard a Transmuter. (Or I can make him a Transmuter anyway and just not use the abilities in this encounter. I think the 10th level CR 1 Polymorph and Con save proficiency from the stone are enough to make him feel Transmutery even if I don't remember the level 2 ability exactly. Some kind of minor alchemy.)

So I know the PHB wizards well enough to fake it. On the other hand, I had NO CLUE MM Archmages had Magic Resistance and resistance to normal weapons until I looked it up just now, and I still couldn't tell you how many HP they have without looking. (90ish?) But for a 17th level wizard it's easy: anywhere from 60-100 HP is plausible depending on Con and rolls.

Using MM-style NPCs just adds more stuff to memorize. I'll do it for a couple of standard types like Guards and maybe Veterans, but for individual NPCs it's just easier to give them a class and level.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2021-02-14, 02:10 PM

Do to dndbeyond.com/monsters, filter for humanoids within a desired CR range, and apply races to those stats as needed.

For example, if you want an NPC party in the CR 8-9 range, get an Assassin (CR 8) from the basic rules, and either a Blackguard (CR 8) or Champion (CR 9), a Warpriest (CR 9), and one of an Evoker (CR 9), Abjurer (CR 9), or Necromancer (CR 9) from Volo's.

Granted you won't necessarily find one of each class/role you need that's within the range, but get one slightly higher or lower CR and adjust its hp (about +20 per +1 CR, or -25 per -1 CR) and you should be fine.

Unoriginal

2021-02-14, 02:17 PM

But... a Wizard doesn't have all subclass abilities of all subclasses. I don't remember all the Transmuter abilities right now, but I don't have to make the wizard a Transmuter. (Or I can make him a Transmuter anyway and just not use the abilities in this encounter. I think the 10th level CR 1 Polymorph and Con save proficiency from the stone are enough to make him feel Transmutery even if I don't remember the level 2 ability exactly. Some kind of minor alchemy.)

So I know the PHB wizards well enough to fake it. On the other hand, I had NO CLUE MM Archmages had Magic Resistance and resistance to normal weapons until I looked it up just now, and I still couldn't tell you how many HP they have without looking. (90ish?) But for a 17th level wizard it's easy: anywhere from 60-100 HP is plausible depending on Con and rolls.

Using MM-style NPCs just adds more stuff to memorize. I'll do it for a couple of standard types like Guards and maybe Veterans, but for individual NPCs it's just easier to give them a class and level.

Again, it's true for you, it's not true for everyone. I may not remember all the details of the MM Archmage, but I certainly can glance at the statblock and find out. And I can easily improvise something to change a MM Archmage into an Unoriginal Campaign Spellbinder if the need comes.

Meanwhile a built-like-a-PC NPC has tons of fiddly bits and options that may or may not be relevant to what I need/want, and if I wanted to have a clear statblock recapping everything I would need to do more work on top of that. And sure, just like the MM NPC, faking it works well enough, but I don't see the point of doing more pre-session work if the end result is still "fake it" when it's time for the action scenes.

MaxWilson

2021-02-14, 02:24 PM

Again, it's true for you, it's not true for everyone. I may not remember all the details of the MM Archmage, but I certainly can glance at the statblock and find out. And I can easily improvise something to change a MM Archmage into an Unoriginal Campaign Spellbinder if the need comes.

Meanwhile a built-like-a-PC NPC has tons of fiddly bits and options that may or may not be relevant to what I need/want, and if I wanted to have a clear statblock recapping everything I would need to do more work on top of that. And sure, just like the MM NPC, faking it works well enough, but I don't see the point of doing more pre-session work if the end result is still "fake it" when it's time for the action scenes.

It's interesting that we're having this conversation. How can the MM Archmage be simpler for you, but more complex for me? Is it because I work off of notes like "Elrond: Elvish Diviner 14, Int 18, Moderately Armored" and you work with the MM open to Archmage in front of you? There's got to be some difference in procedure that somehow explains it.

For me part of the additional complexity is that the Archmage breaks the normal rules. E.g. it's supposedly an 18th level spellcaster but all of its spell DCs are two points lower than the equivalent Wizard 18's would be, because they're based off of CR, and CR is meaningless to me. Elrond's DC is 17, but if I made him an MM Mage would they have to decrease to 14? Again, I'm not sure, and I don't want to have to care.

It sounds like your approach would me to create a class called the Unoriginal Campaign Spellbinder which has DC penalties as a class feature. I don't get why you'd ever want to do that.

heavyfuel

2021-02-14, 02:25 PM

I think NPCs as they are in the MM are great as a base, but sprinkling racial and class features on top makes them far more cohesive with the world.

If the NPC Gladiator is a Hill Dwarf, they get Darkvision, advantage vs poison, and some extra HP (both because of Dwarves +2 to Con and because of Dwarven Thoughness). If they are a Battlemaster, then I'd give Action Surge, Second Wind, and a couple of Maneuvers (plus some sup dice). If they were a Bearbarian, Rage and Reckless Attack it is.

That's how I usually run my NPCs. It works really well in my opinion.

da newt

2021-02-14, 02:34 PM

"how would you go about assembling a group of NPC representing another adventuring party? Let's say... A human fighter, a dwarf cleric, an elf wizard, and a halfling rogue, a match for a level 5 party of the same number of PCs."

I'd have a look at the various NPCs in the MM, Volos and other sources, have a look at the DMG Creating a Monster and all of Ch 4 (creating NPCs), encounter building in DMG and Xanthar's, and find the best / closest fit to what I wanted and then tweak it until I liked it.

IMO, the important thing to remember is that foes usually have more HP and less DPR than PCs, and should be a bit simpler for ease of DM use, but otherwise if you want to create an encounter that is a 50-50 toss up, you can make NPC's of equal level and ability as your PC's BUT that will make for a swingy combat where the odds are a toss up.

How deadly do you want the encounter to be?

Unoriginal

2021-02-14, 04:49 PM

It's interesting that we're having this conversation. How can the MM Archmage be simpler for you, but more complex for me? Is it because I work off of notes like "Elrond: Elvish Diviner 14, Int 18, Moderately Armored" and you work with the MM open to Archmage in front of you? There's got to be some difference in procedure that somehow explains it.

That's likely to be linked to the reason, yes.

We also just don't think the same.

For me part of the additional complexity is that the Archmage breaks the normal rules. E.g. it's supposedly an 18th level spellcaster but all of its spell DCs are two points lower than the equivalent Wizard 18's would be, because they're based off of CR, and CR is meaningless to me. Elrond's DC is 17, but if I made him an MM Mage would they have to decrease to 14? Again, I'm not sure, and I don't want to have to care.

For me, the fact it breaks the normal rules make it simpler. Not needing to follow PC creation rules is inherently easier than having to do it.

In my eyes, an Archmage doesn't have a DC two points lower than it should be, it has the DC it needs for its role in the game, nothing more, nothing less. If the DM wants to bump it up? They can. If they want to nerf it? They can.

If you prefer to see it put this way: the Archmage doesn't follow the PC rules, and I don't have to either.

It sounds like your approach would me to create a class called the Unoriginal Campaign Spellbinder which has DC penalties as a class feature. I don't get why you'd ever want to do that.

My approach is to write the statblock I want without carring about class rules. It has the spell DC it has because I think this DC is appropriate both for the challenge I want opposing this character to be and for their role in the setting.

Let's imagine it that way: I want the Spellbinder to, despite their big in-setting reputation and high position, have pretty weak spells. As such, I take the Archmage statblock, and lower the spell DC/spell proficiency bonus further, substracting 2 to the total.

The fact their spells are that weak would indicate that the Spellbinder is either a fraud who usurped their reputation, a fool who was set up as stronger than they are by some subterfuge, someone who got lucky and then rested on their laurel, or someone who was once as great as advertised but who since got weaker for a reason or another.

But that's not what I want for this character either, I want them to seem like incompetent at first, when they're in fact just very specialized. So I also add the Spellbinding ability to them, which doubles their proficiency bonus for all checks related to Dispel Magic, Counterspell, or figuring out how to stop being affected in general, as well as doubling the AoE for their Antimagic Field (which become their top spell). And since I want them to be able to defend themselves even in an Antimagic Field, I raise their DEX a bit, give them a rapier and the Parry reaction, and maybe also give them a couple HD more if I feel they're still too squishy.

So now I have the Spellbinder, an Archmage weak at standard magic but an expert at antimagic, who defeated their rivals by attacking them with their fencing skills while nullifying said rivals' powers. Due to their unusual power set making them seemingly fail to live up to their reputation, it's likely the PCs will assume they're either an has-been or a never-was, and react to that assumption based on their personalities (some may be worried the court accept a fraud without question, some may be impressed by the bluff, some may think the Spellbinder was somehow weakened and think of ways to turn that into opportunities, and others could think figuring out who would benefit from the mage and the rest of the country thinking they're stronger than they are). Then, if the situation reach a point where the Spellbinder's specialty is relevant, the PCs will react in different manner to the reveal.

If you wanted to create such a NPC for one of your scenarios, how would you do it?

MaxWilson

2021-02-14, 05:57 PM

So now I have the Spellbinder, an Archmage weak at standard magic but an expert at antimagic, who defeated their rivals by attacking them with their fencing skills while nullifying said rivals' powers. Due to their unusual power set making them seemingly fail to live up to their reputation, it's likely the PCs will assume they're either an has-been or a never-was, and react to that assumption based on their personalities (some may be worried the court accept a fraud without question, some may be impressed by the bluff, some may think the Spellbinder was somehow weakened and think of ways to turn that into opportunities, and others could think figuring out who would benefit from the mage and the rest of the country thinking they're stronger than they are). Then, if the situation reach a point where the Spellbinder's specialty is relevant, the PCs will react in different manner to the reveal.

If you wanted to create such a NPC for one of your scenarios, how would you do it?

First I'd ask myself what role this NPC is supposed to serve in the story and why it needs to be special--is there a reason this isn't just a regular wizard who defeated his rival with a rapier + an antimagic zone? If you've got a rapier and your opponent does, you're probably going to win, especially if you poison your rapier because you were expecting hand-to-hand combat.

I'd also ask if there's reason this needs to be a class or if it can just be a one-off. The part I don't get is why you'd want to create the class. Are you expecting PCs to use it? Otherwise, I'd just make it a magic item (if PCs are supposed to be able to steal the ability) or a personal feature, just like the personal features PCs get during adventuring.

So, my most likely scenario is that this is just "Elrond, High Elf Diviner 15, Moderately Armored, Int 18. Killed his rival Lothlron in a duel for wooing Elrond's sister, using an Antimagic Field + rapier." No special abilities needed.

If I want him to have DC -2 and double-radius Antimagic Field, then it is "Elrond, High Elf Diviner 15, Moderately Armored, Int 18. Cursed with antimagic by an eldritch horror in his youth: DC -2 (15), Antimagic Field has double radius (20'). Killed his rival Lothlron in a duel for wooing Elrond's sister, using an Antimagic Field + rapier." The most important part and what I'd spend the most time thinking about is why did Elrond and Lothlron fight in the first place and what the consequences of their fight have been, followed by under what circumstances the antimagic curse came to pass and what implications it has.

Inventing an Unoriginal Campaign Spellbinder class or subclass just seems like overkill unless you have a specific reason to want armies of these guys.

Unoriginal

2021-02-14, 06:26 PM

First I'd ask myself what role this NPC is supposed to serve in the story and why it needs to be special--is there a reason this isn't just a regular wizard who defeated his rival with a rapier + an antimagic zone? If you've got a rapier and your opponent does, you're probably going to win, especially if you poison your rapier because you were expecting hand-to-hand combat.

I mean that makes sense, but it's not the story I wanted, so I didn't go for it. Also a regular antimagic field and a rapier aren't that much of an edge if your opponent is your equal in physical combat aside from having a dagger or a staff instead of a rapier.

I'd also ask if there's reason this needs to be a class or if it can just be a one-off. The part I don't get is why you'd want to create the class.

Inventing an Unoriginal Campaign Spellbinder class or subclass just seems like overkill unless you have a specific reason to want armies of these guys.

...I'm honestly confused.

MaxWilson, as I said in my previous post, it is not a class. Nor a subclass.

I do not want to write or invent a class, and I haven't. I'm making a statblock, one for a specific NPC I want in my campaign world.

Otherwise, I'd just make it a magic item (if PCs are supposed to be able to steal the ability) or a personal feature, just like the personal features PCs get during adventuring.

So, my most likely scenario is that this is just "Elrond, High Elf Diviner 15, Moderately Armored, Int 18. Killed his rival Lothlron in a duel for wooing Elrond's sister, using an Antimagic Field + rapier." No special abilities needed.

If I want him to have DC -2 and double-radius Antimagic Field, then it is "Elrond, High Elf Diviner 15, Moderately Armored, Int 18. Cursed with antimagic by an eldritch horror in his youth: DC -2 (15), Antimagic Field has double radius (20'). Killed his rival Lothlron in a duel for wooing Elrond's sister, using an Antimagic Field + rapier." The most important part and what I'd spend the most time thinking about is why did Elrond and Lothlron fight in the first place and what the consequences of their fight have been, followed by under what circumstances the antimagic curse came to pass and what implications it has.

Fair.

It still would take more time and effort for me to build that build-as-a-PC NPC and then change a few things, than it is to grab the Archmage statblock form the MM and change a couple things to get the NPC I want.

If it's the reverse for you, I can see why

MaxWilson

2021-02-14, 07:53 PM

I mean that makes sense, but it's not the story I wanted, so I didn't go for it. (B) Also a regular antimagic field and a rapier aren't that much of an edge if your opponent is your equal in physical combat aside from having a dagger or a staff instead of a rapier.

...I'm honestly confused.

(A) MaxWilson, as I said in my previous post, it is not a class. Nor a subclass.

I do not want to write or invent a class, and I haven't. I'm making a statblock, one for a specific NPC I want in my campaign world.

Fair.

It still would take more time and effort for me to build that build-as-a-PC NPC and then change a few things, than it is to grab the Archmage statblock form the MM and change a couple things to get the NPC I want.

If it's the reverse for you, I can see why

(A) Ohhhhh. I didn't get that from your previous post, nor from the original mention:

Again, it's true for you, it's not true for everyone. I may not remember all the details of the MM Archmage, but I certainly can glance at the statblock and find out. And I can easily improvise something to change a MM Archmage into an Unoriginal Campaign Spellbinder if the need comes.

Meanwhile a built-like-a-PC NPC has tons of fiddly bits and options that may or may not be relevant to what I need/want, and if I wanted to have a clear statblock recapping everything I would need to do more work on top of that. And sure, just like the MM NPC, faking it works well enough, but I don't see the point of doing more pre-session work if the end result is still "fake it" when it's time for the action scenes.

It sounds like your approach would me to create a class called the Unoriginal Campaign Spellbinder which has DC penalties as a class feature. I don't get why you'd ever want to do that.

Okay, at least we both agree that inventing a special class for the Spellbinder is overkill. No wonder I couldn't figure out why you'd want to do that--you don't! I misunderstood, thanks for clarifying.

(B) Being Moderately Armored and armed with a Dex weapon against an enemy who was expecting a spell combat is, however, a huge advantage, enough in my mind to explain the win, even if you don't poison the Dex weapon--as long as you can explain why he kept concentration on Antimagic Field (Resilient (Con) might help). They've got similar amounts of HP, but one guy is attacking AC 12 with +7 to hit for d4+2 (5.5 damage) with a dagger, and the other guy is attacking AC 19 with +5 to hit for d6 (3.5) damage with a staff. It's not even close, the guy who is armored and ready is going to stab the other guy to death almost three times as fast as the other guy can beat him with the staff.

J.C.

2021-02-15, 03:55 AM

So, if a DM ran 5 NPCs according to PHB rules up against 5 PCs subject to the same rules, then there would be no excuse if the DM with his 5 PHB legal NPCs tactically overcame the 5 PCs . . .

kingcheesepants

2021-02-15, 08:08 AM

It depends a lot on how important these NPCs are but typically I just pick out the closest thing in the monster manual or Volo's and then adjust it up or down a bit as needed. For your level 5 group wanting to fight; a human fighter, a dwarf cleric, an elf wizard, and a halfling rogue. I'd say bandit captain, priest, mage (I'd probably nix the 4th and 5th level spells and slightly decrease the spell DC), and spy. All straight from the MM or VGM and only a little tweaking necessary. If the race is important for mechanical and not just flavor reasons you can add a couple hit points and poison resistance to your priest and note that the spy rerolls 1s and such. If these guys are really important to the story and are going to be recurring rivals or villains, I might adjust them a little more and add some detail but I don't think I'd go so far as to make an actual character sheet for them. I did that before and it just slowed things way down.

DwarfFighter

2021-02-15, 09:28 AM

I don't see a big problem with the members of an NPC adventuring party having a stripped-down portfolio of abilities and special actions, and inflated HD to even things out.

A question: Does HD have any special in-game effects? For example, a CR 2 Berserker has 9 HD. Does that ever come into play outside of generating hit points? It doesn't seem directly linked to proficiency bonus as a sort of "NPC character level"...

Unoriginal

2021-02-15, 09:48 AM

JNAProductions

2021-02-15, 10:47 AM

So, if a DM ran 5 NPCs according to PHB rules up against 5 PCs subject to the same rules, then there would be no excuse if the DM with his 5 PHB legal NPCs tactically overcame the 5 PCs . . .

Eh...

The DM can purpose build the NPCs to work together (say, all with ways to generate magical darkness or other obscurement, and all with Blindsight or similar), whereas the PCs are much more likely to be built as individuals, only working together in broad strokes.
The DM can make the terrain favor the NPCs, or other parts of the situation.
The DM is working with full knowledge of the PCs' abilities, while the PCs are not.
The DM can be working at a higher optimization level than the PCs wanted-while the floor and ceiling are, barring a few exceptional outliers, much closer than in 3rd, there's still differences. And that's not to say the players aren't capable of being higher-op, just that they didn't want to be for the campaign.

Moreover, DM vs. Players is just plain a bad attitude to have. Everyone should be working together to have a good time-the DM controls the bad guys, and should play them appropriately, but should generally be rooting for the players.

MaxWilson

2021-02-15, 01:00 PM

So, if a DM ran 5 NPCs according to PHB rules up against 5 PCs subject to the same rules, then there would be no excuse if the DM with his 5 PHB legal NPCs tactically overcame the 5 PCs . . .

DMs are often the most experienced and dedicated-to-the-hobby players at the table. There's also some advantages that come with getting direct control over an entire 5 PC team instead of having to work with other players. So I would expect the players to lose this fight more often than not, under most DMs, which is why I would advise most DMs not to do this.

If you're not psychologically ready to lose fights with a smile on your face, over and over, you're not ready to be a DM. You can be prepared to win if the players do something stupid, but if you're _trying _ to win, I don't want you DMing, although I will gladly use you as a player or a monster advocate (the guy who runs monsters during combat while the DM focuses on big picture stuff).

There's no good reason heroes or villains should come in five-packs. It makes more sense to have one or two bad guys working together, plus minions, than five. In the spirit of Tucker's Kobolds, challenge your level 11 party with a level 10 Diviner (Kellanved) and a level 9 Rogue 2/Shadow Monk 7 (Dancer), but don't just throw them away in one tactical encounter--make them a recurring nemesis with an onscreen and offscreen presence. When Kellanved is scrying on the party fighting mind flayers and simply decrees an Int save failure for the party wizard (via Portent, which works on any target you can see), that's good villainry. When Dancer sneaks ahead of the party to activate monsters / get them to concentrate their forces by making a loud noise or murdering a monster, that's good villainry. When Kellanved and Dancer warn the local tax collector to be on the lookout for the player characters showing up with loot from the Tomb of the Forgotten King, that's good villainry.

Give them goals other than antagonizing the PCs so the players can in turn foil THEIR schemes. And always be expecting that today might be the day when the players get the upper hand and Dancer and Kellanved bite the dust after all--have their last words/pleadings for mercy/attempted bribery/whatever all planned out. Be ready to lose.

Unoriginal

2021-02-15, 08:39 PM

A DM who wants to beat the PCs, beats the PCs. It's one of the perks of having unlimited control of the whole gaming world aside from the PCs and deciding the results of any attempted action.

Which is why I find it puzzling when someone declares that spellcasters don't depend on the DM to accomplish things or similar claims.

I just find it completely uninteresting to have a DM use that power against the PCs. Like MaxWilson said, a good DM has to accept they provide challenges for the PCs to overcome. Doesn't have to be easy, the PCs don't actually have to succeed, but there is nothing interesting in using your unlimited arbiter power to decide they have lost in advance.

J.C.

2021-02-16, 02:18 AM

DMs are often the most experienced and dedicated-to-the-hobby players at the table. There's also some advantages that come with getting direct control over an entire 5 PC team instead of having to work with other players. So I would expect the players to lose this fight more often than not, under most DMs, which is why I would advise most DMs not to do this.

If you're not psychologically ready to lose fights with a smile on your face, over and over, you're not ready to be a DM. You can be prepared to win if the players do something stupid, but if you're _trying _ to win, I don't want you DMing, although I will gladly use you as a player or a monster advocate (the guy who runs monsters during combat while the DM focuses on big picture stuff).

There's no good reason heroes or villains should come in five-packs. It makes more sense to have one or two bad guys working together, plus minions, than five. In the spirit of Tucker's Kobolds, challenge your level 11 party with a level 10 Diviner (Kellanved) and a level 9 Rogue 2/Shadow Monk 7 (Dancer), but don't just throw them away in one tactical encounter--make them a recurring nemesis with an onscreen and offscreen presence. When Kellanved is scrying on the party fighting mind flayers and simply decrees an Int save failure for the party wizard (via Portent, which works on any target you can see), that's good villainry. When Dancer sneaks ahead of the party to activate monsters / get them to concentrate their forces by making a loud noise or murdering a monster, that's good villainry. When Kellanved and Dancer warn the local tax collector to be on the lookout for the player characters showing up with loot from the Tomb of the Forgotten King, that's good villainry.

Give them goals other than antagonizing the PCs so the players can in turn foil THEIR schemes. And always be expecting that today might be the day when the players get the upper hand and Dancer and Kellanved bite the dust after all--have their last words/pleadings for mercy/attempted bribery/whatever all planned out. Be ready to lose.

You missed the point. When the rules are fully laid out a DM is effectively a player. When DM and players use the same rules for PC and NPC then apples are compared with apples and things can be resolved deterministically and everyone can then deepen their understanding of tactics and good play. In order for DMs and players to learn tactical play, there must be comprehensible and reducible game play that incentivizes good tactical play and disincentivizes bad tactical play.

MaxWilson

2021-02-16, 12:01 PM

You missed the point. When the rules are fully laid out a DM is effectively a player. When DM and players use the same rules for PC and NPC then apples are compared with apples and things can be resolved deterministically and everyone can then deepen their understanding of tactics and good play. In order for DMs and players to learn tactical play, there must be comprehensible and reducible game play that incentivizes good tactical play and disincentivizes bad tactical play.

I got that point, acknowledged it, and moved on to the larger point that if you want to learn tactical play, the DM isn't the right person to do it with. They have too much power and too little at stake.

There's nothing wrong with having a separate player running "monster advocate", especially in a one-shot where it doesn't matter if the PCs' odds of survival are low-ish. There are even formats where you can have no DM at all, only a monster advocate and a few players plus a protocol for resolving rules questions (e.g. majority vote).

We've even done threads like that: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?619898-Tactical-Challenge-3 and https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623150-Tactical-Challenge-5-10th-level-party-of-four-in-a-subterranean-deadly-fight/

Feel free to start another thread if you like, they are kind of fun. I learned some new tactics from the Yuan-ti challenge.

JNAProductions

2021-02-16, 12:07 PM

You missed the point. When the rules are fully laid out a DM is effectively a player. When DM and players use the same rules for PC and NPC then apples are compared with apples and things can be resolved deterministically and everyone can then deepen their understanding of tactics and good play. In order for DMs and players to learn tactical play, there must be comprehensible and reducible game play that incentivizes good tactical play and disincentivizes bad tactical play.

And yet, there are still advantages the DM has over the PCs.

Moreover, D&D is not a tactics game-at least, that's not its MAIN point. It's not designed as a tight, well-balanced tactical skirmish game. 4E was the closest to that, and even then, I wouldn't say it fully succeeded. It's a role-playing game.

Now, if you say "Hey, I'm gonna run a one-shot fight. Bring your stinkiest cheese, excepting Wish-Simulacrum chaining, and we'll see who can come out on top," that's different. But in a standard game, that's not the case. I know how to make Coffeelocks and Nuclear Wizards, I know about Wish-Simulacrum chaining, I know lots of cheese. I just don't use it, because it wouldn't be appropriate to the table, and it wouldn't be fun for me besides.

Plus, as I said earlier, DM vs. Players is NOT a good attitude to have. The DM controls literally the entire world, except the PCs-if they want to win, they win. I'm all for the DM setting challenges, and letting the dice fall where they may while playing the monsters and other foes as best they can, but you should always be working WITH the players, not AGAINST them.

J.C.

2021-02-16, 05:25 PM

I got that point, acknowledged it, and moved on to the larger point that if you want to learn tactical play, the DM isn't the right person to do it with. They have too much power and too little at stake.

There's nothing wrong with having a separate player running "monster advocate", especially in a one-shot where it doesn't matter if the PCs' odds of survival are low-ish. There are even formats where you can have no DM at all, only a monster advocate and a few players plus a protocol for resolving rules questions (e.g. majority vote).

We've even done threads like that: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?619898-Tactical-Challenge-3 and https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623150-Tactical-Challenge-5-10th-level-party-of-four-in-a-subterranean-deadly-fight/

Feel free to start another thread if you like, they are kind of fun. I learned some new tactics from the Yuan-ti challenge.

Again. Missing the point. You can pit one DM against another DM each running 5 characters. You just need an agreed upon set of rules ahead of time that is set in stone. Run enough iterations and you develop a body of knowledge defining 5 character team tactics.