D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Smackpixi]

No, not necessarily the same, could be, but not a concern. I mean, even, MM NPC types like a Scout, has multi-attack, but only 16 hit points. Both are things a PC could do, but not at the same time, no way to have so few HP with a multi-attack.

I rationalize it with the idea that these monsters or NPCs have a different life path and class. Like, they chose the town guard pathway, so they roll different dice for stats and have different class options. If you run into an NPC adventurer, yeah, they should be the same, but NPCs can be weird not doable by PC things cause not adventurers, so different available classes.

So yeah, NPCs and monsters can be whatever necessary or useful to plot…cause of reasons I’m not gonna really write down or figure out, I just imagine they exist.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

Making NPCs and monsters in 3e got so much easier once I realised that most of the time, skills and feats for them didn't matter.

 

[Composer99]

3e/3.5 is the only edition with extensive mechanical symmetry between PCs and NPCs.

The mechanical symmetry in other editions was the gear PCs could loot from their enemies, including spellbooks, though 4e doesn't do so much of this compared to TSR editions or 5e, if memory serves.

Suffice to say I much prefer every other edition's approach on this score. NPCs are not like PCs mechanically.

Of note is that older editions had more of what you might call in-fiction symmetry between PCs and NPCs, while WotC editions generally don't. Here I'd be fine either way: PCs can be like, or not like, NPCs in terms of how they relate to the fictional world, depending on the nature of the campaign.

 

[S'mon]

I like 5e's approach of "sort of". I like it that I can have PC-class NPCs easily enough (unlike 4e), but I don't want to have to build every NPC as a PC (like 3e).

One thing, if every Hobgoblin NPC has Martial Advantage, it feels wrong to me to let players have Hobgoblin NPCs but not let them get MA. Same with Kobolds & Pack Tactics.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

That's exactly the sort of answer that if I were a player would completely put me off.

If the NPC has a magic item that lets it shoot one fireball each day then fine; that's an item that is now known to exist in the setting and that in theory I-as-PC can get my hands on as well. And if I-as-character don't specifically know about the NPC's item I should be able to assume it or figure it out, as unless this "warrior" is also a significant magic-user it shouldn't otherwise be able to cast a fireball. It's called internal consistency.

But just saying "because he's an NPC" as the rationale? Hard pass.

 

[Lyxen]

That's exactly the sort of answer that if I were a player would completely put me off.

The problem there is that a player never complains that, as a PC, he has powerful abilities that most NPCs will never have. So why should he complain that some NPCs have abilities that he will never have ? Why does he have a gift for magic or fighting or whatever that will make him a hero, and what gives him the right to think that he can have everything that happens in a vast fantasy world ?

By the way, it's fairly absurd to complain, because for example a fighter will never be able to cast spell like the wizard of the party. So why would he complain if an NPC can cast spell that he can't ? And the same thing for the wizard, he will never be able to cast the cleric spells. So why would he be able to cast all the spells that an NPC can ?

The world is not defined uniquely in PC-available axes of power, why should it ? Look at Lord of the Rings, Sauron has capabilities that the PCs will never have. Voldemort has access to powers that the PCs will never have. It's a core of the genre, that the PC with limited capabilities is still able to vanquish foes stronger than him and using forbidden powers.

If the NPC has a magic item that lets it shoot one fireball each day then fine; that's an item that is now known to exist in the setting and that in theory I-as-PC can get my hands on as well. And if I-as-character don't specifically know about the NPC's item I should be able to assume it or figure it out, as unless this "warrior" is also a significant magic-user it shouldn't otherwise be able to cast a fireball. It's called internal consistency.

The genre is full of surprises like this. The Death Knight (my players fought one Friday evening, eventually running from him after turning him for a short while) has always been able to cast a Fireball, ever since AD&D FF. So it's now Hellfire and it's even worse than a fireball, actually, but he can do that, always could, while there is no special reason for it other than he is an infernal knight.

And it is not inconsistent, it's just a very, very magical world full of possibilities, some were available to the players because of the path they took, others not, exactly like in every single instance of book/movie/show of the genre. The adventures are already, by the definition of the game, player centric.

So maybe the item above has been tempered using the NPC's blood, so that it can only work for him. Maybe it was a gift from his god/patron, and only that god/patron can create it because it's his portfolio, and he restricts it. All of that is part of the genre, but honestly I have no forbearance for players who have characters already very powerful and with abilities that incredibly surpass what most of the world offers and still whine because the boss has, in turn, abilities that make him powerful too, although in a different way. The PCs have their stories, the NPCs have their, and it's actually way more interesting that way.

And it also prevents metagaming what an NPC could possibly do. It might work sometimes (he's known to be a wizards and have studied there, etc.), and sometimes it won't (e.g. Voldemort above, or actually most evil wizards of the genre).

But just saying "because he's an NPC" as the rationale? Hard pass.

It's just because the other guy is an individual, possibly more gifted than the PC in other domains, and magic and power is not uniformly canalized along the path of the PC classes. It's a wider, richer, more vibrant world than that and there are many, many paths to power.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

That's exactly the sort of answer that if I were a player would completely put me off.

Same here. And same with the answer upthread about "secret technique". If NPC warriors from the Sheng empire can cast fireball once per day, and I am told that I should enroll in a Sheng garrison for a few years to learn it... DM, be prepared to have the campaign about the group passing as a recruit and knocking at the nearest garrison to learn it (certainly quicker than the average Joe) before resuming standard adventuring activity. At best, have a subclass of Sheng warriors for the fighter if something happen... "my next character will be a Sheng deserter joining the good side. Can I cast fireball?" Heroes being heroes means that they should achieve what they strive to do. It can include, and in my experience often include, becoming the best at something. "Your Kung Fu is too weak for the overwhelming NPC stance!" wouldn't fly with me...
This is especially true of wizards.

If the NPC has a magic item that lets it shoot one fireball each day then fine; that's an item that is now known to exist in the setting and that in theory I-as-PC can get my hands on as well.

Often, by prying it from the cold, dead hands of the aforementionned NPC.


I am "by default" on the camp that NPC and PC should follow the same rules, if only because it avoids situations like that. In 3.5, some prestige classes had fluff requirement. So, taking a level in Sheng Dragon Warrior requires sacrificing your father or mother to Sheng the firebreather fiend as a proof of loyalty? Well, maybe as a PC, I'll pass this time, but maybe not, the option to achieve it is available (and 5,000 gp diamonds only cost 5,000 gp after all). They don't technically need to follow the same rules, as long as a display of power should be replicatable by the PCs if they put their effort toward it. Having things be the exclusive purview of NPCs doesn't sound good to me. Even if it's supernatural ability to create matchstick replica of the Eiffel Tower blindfolded. And all the more if it's a ritual to kill a whole town in their sleep and waking them as zombies. The PC necromancer will want to study that. Maybe not to use it, just to be able to adjudicate if the drawbacks are worth the benefits.

On Lyxen's example of Voldemort, I am pretty sure PC Hermione can totally create a horcrux if she devotes some time to it. It's not an unknown or lost knowledge (Slughorn and Dumbledore seem to know enough about them), it's just that killing is needed and it's certainly akin to the unforgiveable curse. But the "you really shouldn't do that" argument isn't the same as "sorry, it's an NPC thing".

 

[S'mon]

Same here. And same with the answer upthread about "secret technique". If NPC warriors from the Sheng empire can cast fireball once per day, and I am told that I should enroll in a Sheng garrison for a few years to learn it... DM, be prepared to have the campaign about the group passing as a recruit and knocking at the nearest garrison to learn it (certainly quicker than the average Joe) before resuming standard adventuring activity.

I guess if it's a sandbox game I'd be ok with that. I'd need to come up with reasonable rules for learning the Sheng technique, and what class abilities the PC gives up in turn over the years of training. If the player wants it enough and is prepared to sacrifice enough to get it, I should work with that.

If it's a linear save-the-world campaign, no you can't take a few years off. That PC retires, bring in a new PC.

 

[Lyxen]

Heroes being heroes means that they should achieve what they strive to do.

If it's achievable in the game world. PCs are not dragons or fiends or even half-fiends or demigods. They don't have all blood lines, all divine connections from birth. They made choices at creation, and these choices will limit what they can do (while still giving them incredible capabilities in their chose areas). You might need to be from Sheng to be a Sheng Dragon Warrior, so that you have the blood of the Dragon in you. So you can't use the secret technique that requires it. Why does it matter, you have other capabilities.

And this is already the case in the D&D rules, you need dragon blood to be a dragon sorcerer. If you don't have it, you will not get the powers. Why accept some limitation and refuse that others can have what you can't ? Honestly, it's a very limiting view of the fantasy world.

On Lyxen's example of Voldemort, I am pretty sure PC Hermione can totally create a horcrux if she devotes some time to it. It's not an unknown or lost knowledge (Slughorn and Dumbledore seem to know enough about them), it's just that killing is needed and it's certainly akin to the unforgiveable curse. But the "you really shouldn't do that" argument isn't the same as "sorry, it's an NPC thing".

And still Hermione is very bad at some types of magic (she admits it herself) and there are therefore some things that she will never be able to do. Because at character creation, she choose some things to be good at and others not. And about the hoarcrux, it's still an NPC thing, for example if I say that horcruxes are mandatory evil and turn you to evil if you create one, and I don't accept evil PCs (standard campaign limitation), then it is by definition a NPC thing.

 

[Helldritch]

This is a classic example of a change in both philosophy and design.
Up to 3rd edition, NPCs had to conform to PC creation. A NPC was simply a NON PC. At some point, an NPC could have some special abilities given to him by a god, powerful devil or whatever. But basically, they were following the same rules. It took something exceptional to get additional tricks.
4th edition did the opposite. NPC were not following the PC rule at all. Each NPC was unique and different with its own stat block. Just like PCs had their own "unique" powers that were more or less identical but name differently accross the classes. We all know how 4ed ended...
5ed went back to NPC follow mostly the same rule. Spell casters especially with spell slots, the same spells but not the same level progression and a few other minor stuff. A blend of 3rd and 4ed if you want. But basically, they were following the same rules as the PC for the most part.

Now, we have a full reverse toward 4ed style opponents but unfortunately, PCs have a shared spell slot system across the board. I don't want my 5ed play like 5ed for the PCs but like 4ed for the monsters. The blend was brilliant but now I feel betrayed. It is as if they had given me what I wanted until I had accepted this way of doing it long enough to push 4ed style down my throat.