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.

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.