This is split from the thread "Orcs removed from the D&D 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 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 01, 2025, 12:02:06 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 01, 2025, 02:39:46 AM

Quote 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 AM

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.

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 PM

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.

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 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on February 09, 2025, 08:41:18 AM

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.

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.