D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Shiroiken]

Before 4E, NPCs were built exactly like PCs. This made making NPCs a pita, especially when you needed an NPC class to do it, but it allowed the players to have a general sense of how they worked (very few "gotcha" abilities). Breaking them away in 4E made them a lot easier to build and run, but it breaks verisimilitude when a player cannot do something even vaguely close to what NPCs can do. 5E's original design split the difference in what I feel is a good way; NPCs have similar abilities that are "close enough for government work."

The change to spellcaster NPCs wouldn't be a problem if they didn't make specific decisions. They should list "X is a Nth level caster using Y as their casting ability," since this would allow DMs to customize them with different spells. Their attacks should be listed as "Attack [Nth level spell]," so that it's obvious these are spells that interact with the rest of the game in the same way. Based on recent changes and comments, however, it appears that these changes are deliberate, perhaps in an attempt to shadowban Counterspell and other PC abilities.

 

[cbwjm]

I prefer PCs and NPCs to largely operate by the same rules. If a monstrous race has wings and shoots fire in every iteration of its monstrous stat blocks then I would expect a PC version of that race to have the same abilities. While having a ranged spell attack called arcane blast cannon in the actions of an NPC mage might be a convenient shorthand, I'd like that to be a spell with the potential to be learned by the PCs.

 

[Reynard]

Why is this not a poll?

Because considered, nuanced answers are superior to binary ones.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I remember an interview with one of the designers of 4th edition, during the transition from 3rd to 4th. He said that midway through the run of 3rd edition they all realized that building monsters and player characters with the rules was unnecessary. He said they really learned this after they built the gods in Deities and Demigods using the same rules used to build player characters.

Have you looked at those stat blocks? They're either crazy or silly. I can't tell the difference. The designer said it drove one of the other designers mad.

 

[Irlo]

Early in 3E, I was impressed and enjoyed that the NPC system was used PC rules and that I could level up monsters. And then I used the rules for a while and lost that enjoyment very, very quickly. Moderate level 3E was a slog (for me as a DM).

Early in 5E, I recognized and appreciated that using NPC analogs of PC classes was going to be much easier. A larger assortment of various challenge rating versions of acolytes, priests, warriors, scouts, etc. than were presented in the MM would be very handy, of course, but not hard to cobble together on my own as needed.

As a DM, in the end, despite myself, I do prefer that NPCs use a different (and more simple) ruleset than PCs. It's all abstract anyway, so a scout with multi-attack who isn't otherwise as tough as a 5th level Ranger doesn't concern me in the least.

 

[aco175]

PCs and NPCs/monsters are different from each other. The only rules for putting together things on my side of the table is me making sure the players are having fun. When I make a NPC I tend to have abilities that resemble the PC build and some of the class build, but if I want an elf warrior to have a fireball 1/day that is fine with me. Players may ask how he can do it and I just say that he is a NPC.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

This is a spin off thread from one of the long and meandering "Monsters of the Multiverse" threads.

The question is relatively straight forward: do you prefer that NPCs and monsters operate by the same rules as PCs, or that they operate by their own rules. One of the most basic ways in which this might appear is should NPC and monster spellcasters have to use the same spells available to PCs, and if they don't that means the PCs should be able to learn that spell. It extends to racial abilities: if a monster race has an ability, does that require that a PC of that monster race should have that ability as well.

3E was very much in the camp of monsters and NPCs being built by the same system as PCs. This led to what i think was an interminable process of building NPCs and advancing monsters, which resulted in only marginal benefits (if any) in the actual play of those monsters and NPCs in a fight with the PCs. Older editions did not try to conflate them except that some monsters had "spell like abilities" and leaders were often indicated as "fighting as an x level y". 4E had monsters operating under theie own rules -- and just for full disclosure, while I was not a fan of 4E I do think the 4E monster stat block was the one thing the edition did right. 5E seems to be treading the line between the approaches and is probably closest to the pre-3E model in most cases (although the stat block is bigger).

I am in the camp that monsters do not need to use the same rules as PCs and in fact shouldn't. Players should not be able to look up what a monster or NPC can do in the PHB. Spellcasting monsters and NPCs should have their own list of magical abilities, all accessible in the statblock. Same for "feats" or "class abilities" for NPCs and monsters.

What is your preference?

-This isn't functionally as much of a thing for me because as a GM I'm pretty judicious about fudging rolls, and will ratchet up the tension by purposely downing players, using wargaming tactics, throwing well built parties at them, using a homebrew alternative to the initiative system... With my style of DMing the players don't think meta at all about NPCs.

-If an npc is important enough I'll create legendary abilities for him of my own. And yes I do give NPCs access to abilities that look like class abilities but simply aren't accessible to players, e.g. an NPC necromancer has several unique options that a player wizard could never have.

 

[Flamestrike]

I used to say 'should be the same' as in with 3E, but have now come full circle, and say Im perfectly fine with PCs getting PC stuff, and everyone else plays by different rules.

I dont miss having to spend an hour statting up every single NPC with class levels, especially when they're only around for a single 5 minute encounter, just to die.

Plus PC's are special. They're the protagonists.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I come from ADnD, so yeah, they need to align, especially for casters. Getting enemy spellbooks was one of the only ways you could find new spells as a magic user. And back then, statting out NPCs was pretty easy, even at higher levels.

The more complex a system, the harder that is to do. And why in 3e it became such a PITA.

I also argue that many NPCs aren’t just there for one scene. At least not in my games. An NPC important enough to stat out is going to be a personality that has the potential, if not the likelihood, of having a role in the game for all three pillars.

That all being said, having different rules can make the game much easier for DMs, and I certainly see the appeal behind it. If you really have to be careful and think of extra rules for things like how to handle spell like abilities of NPCs for those PC abilities that impact spells, like counterspell.

 

[Malmuria]

What I might do is given NPCs limited use magic items that do special things. The PCs could potentially acquire these items. That said, I like the idea of magic especially being not fully known. Maybe the priest to the evil god does get spells not available to the pcs; wouldn’t that make sense?