D&D 5E Humans and Demihumans as Monsters in DNDNext

[zoroaster100]

I'd love to see a Wandering Monster article on Humans, Elves and Dwarves, discussing how WOTC plans to handle them in the rules. The playtest packet's bestiary provides some examples, and I was pleased with what I saw, but since humans and demihumans, especially humans, are my favorite monster as DM, I hope they include a variety of arcane and divine spellcasters, warriors of different fighting styles, and rogue-types at low, mid and high levels in the monster manual to provide plenty of "human monsters"/NPC adversaries. It would be nice if they also provided a baseline rule for how to easily turn the human "monsters" into elf, dwarf and halfling versions by adding a few racial features.

Similarily I hope they provide a variety of leader types, spellcasters and specialists for each humanoid monster like orcs, kobolds, goblins and giants. They seem to be going in this direction but the more they include in the first monster manual along these lines the better.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am not sure if I would prefer a few entries in the MM or simple NPC creation rules in the DMG.

The former is good for immediate use but you can only have so many, the second requires some work (small work, if rules are done properly) in exchange for nearly unlimited options.

Of course NPC creation rules can also come with a few examples which are the same as MM entries, whether they are printed in the DMG or the MM directly.

The fact is, with humanoids there really are unlimited possibilities... If you are looking for an interesting "Human Guard" what is going to be more useful? A single monster entry with one special fighting ability OR a simple template that tells you to pick one martial ability from the PHB? For a "Human Adept", a single monster entry with one spell OR a simple template telling you to pick one spell from the PHB? The first one is ready-to-use, but after a while you'd want something different, the second requires a minimum of work but can be re-used many times...

Maybe the solution is in the middle i.e. some kind of templates. After all, the current examples for those Dark Adepts et simili in the Bestiary, provide standard stats for human(oid) divine spellcaster NPCs of a few different levels. It could be as simple as replacing their very few spells with placeholders for spells of the same level.

Both things can actually be achieved if you leave the default spells description, and just mention in a customization sidebar a list of good spells to use as replacement.

Then of course, those who want fully detailed NPCs can still create them with PC creation rules, there is nothing that needs to be added to the books to do this.

 

[steeldragons]

Yeah, I'm on both sides of this. I am with you that humans, dwarves and elves belong in the MM. And basic groupings/types of such to be encountered should go there. Stuff like Human: Bandit, Cultist, Berserker, (maybe throw in a bog-standard "Necromancer" to differentiate from a "Cultist" with divine spells), etc.; Dwarf: Miner/Craftsman, Warrior, "Dwarflord" and break down of a standard "patrol" or "war band" that would be found wandering around the mountains (outside! Not down in/under them); Elf: Tracker/Hunter, Sorcerer, "Elflord" and a break down for a standard "patrol" or "warband" that would be encountered around the outskirts of elvin territories...

ASIDE: I'd personally REALLY like to see the MM and DMG have notes about racial interactions again...Everyone's not all fluffy/friendly/allies with each other all of the time. Regardless of LotR or Dragonlance, just because your party wanders up to the borders of the elvin/dwarven kingdom doesn't mean you're getting invited in for tea. "Yes, of course, come talk to our most powerful and royal leaders in the secret stronghold we've been guarding and trying to keep hidden for centuries...What were your names again?" /ASIDE

However, back to the OP, the idea that I need pages of pages of low/mid/high level specifically classed individuals in the MM is a "no" in my book. As Li suggested, the guidelines for that can go under "Creating and Effectively Using NPCs in your Campaign" section of the DMG.

So, "Yes" to PC races and an "average" certain style/type in the MM. "No" to detailed leveled/classed individual characters.

 

[delericho]

The omission of human adversaries from the MM was a very significant weakness of 3e. And the notion that you could construct just about any required NPC using the rules in the PHB and DMG was a poor substitute - too much work for what were often throwaway characters.

I agree with the OP - I would very much like to see how WotC plan to handle them.

 

[avin]

While 4E MM's where fluff lacklusters they way antagonists where handled saved me a lot of time.

There's no way I want to move back to creating my own band of human cultists, I want to get them already done... but also want rules creations for boss-like bad guys.

 

[Li Shenron]

The omission of human adversaries from the MM was a very significant weakness of 3e.

But then when they started to fill some later 3.5 MMs with them, a lot of people felt that they were wasted paper.

And the notion that you could construct just about any required NPC using the rules in the PHB and DMG was a poor substitute - too much work for what were often throwaway characters.

I agree with the OP - I would very much like to see how WotC plan to handle them.

It was a poor substitute because - as you say - the work was still too much. PC classes require heavy work, so it should be done only by those willing. NPC classes in the DMG were only marginally simpler than the PHB classes, therefore they didn't really provide a quick way to create characters, they only resulted in weaker-than-PCs NPCs without significant benefits to neither designing them nor running them at the table.

 

[Sadrik]

The omission of human adversaries from the MM was a very significant weakness of 3e. And the notion that you could construct just about any required NPC using the rules in the PHB and DMG was a poor substitute - too much work for what were often throwaway characters.

I agree with the OP - I would very much like to see how WotC plan to handle them.

They were in the DMG under NPC creation. I can see moving this type of information to the MM. I can also see using the same info to beef up a monster too. Want an ogre barbarian? Simply tack on a few levels. Done. And it is all in the MM. Also a program with all the monsters where you can add this and print out would be really awesome.

 

[delericho]

But then when they started to fill some later 3.5 MMs with them, a lot of people felt that they were wasted paper.

A lot of people did indeed. But they were wrong - those pregenerated 'advanced' monsters in MM4 and MM5 are very very useful. Indeed, I made more use of those advanced monsters than I did of the entirety of the Fiend Folio or MM3.

Fortunately, WotC saw this, and so the 4e Monster Manual featured several different versions of common monsters, at different power levels and often covering different roles. So I would expect (and certainly would hope) that they would do so again.

(What I liked rather less about MM4, though, was the inclusion of pregenerated lairs for several creatures. They weren't really detailed enough to be used as-is, and so took up space in the book without saving the DM enough time to be worthwhile. IMO, of course.)

 

[Sadrik]

NPC classes in the DMG were only marginally simpler than the PHB classes, therefore they didn't really provide a quick way to create characters, they only resulted in weaker-than-PCs NPCs without significant benefits to neither designing them nor running them at the table.

True. I think 5e at its core though as presented is simpler than what they had as NPCs. LOL. This bodes well for NPCs because it will be even simpler than that.

I would like to see all the humanoids listed as level 1 and level 5 (or whatever levels make sense for the humanoid type, 4 and 8, whatever). Then also offer them as a race. So you can use the NPC creation rules too. Make it easy, have both.

 

[delericho]

They were in the DMG under NPC creation.

Guidelines for creating such adversaries were, yes. But IMO not having a pregenerated bandit, knight, cultist, etc was a weakness in the game. Yes, it was always possible to roll your own, but it's my contention that for things like that the DM should not have to.

Also a program with all the monsters where you can add this and print out would be really awesome.

Absolutely. As I noted on one of the other threads, a printed Monster Manual is actually a less than ideal means of presenting this information. A good Monster Builder tool and/or Compendium renders such a thing obselete for most uses - indeed, almost everything except for actual play at the table (and even then, tablets and smartphones are only going to become more common and close up that gap also).