D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Minigiant]

Yes and No.

Some NPCs work like PCs. (Generic Militia Leader is a 5th level Battlemaster fighter)

Some NPCs don't work like PCs (General militiamen are 1 and 2 HD dudes is basic equipment)

Some NPCs work like PCs with modified rules (Edger the Necromancer is a 8th level Wizard with no subclass, no Arcane recovery, but no undead control cap)

 

[Lyxen]

This is a classic example of a change in both philosophy and design.

And, for me, a very welcome one.

Up to 3rd edition, NPCs had to conform to PC creation.

To a certain extent, see below. Yes, it's mostly true in 3e, and a real pain it was, forcing you to create very complex NPCs who did not end up using even half of the abilities allocated to them.

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.

The thing is that I don't restrict NPCs to "PC races", never have. I have always had Monsters used as NPCs, as you mention adding a few things, spells mostly, often at will. It's only 3e who forced me to codify this, and who forced all races/monsters to add class levels to increase the power, so that CR could be computed.

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...

But still (and although, for many reasons, it was not my cup of tea), it sparked a lot of interesting ideas, some of them made it into 5e, others like minions were dropped, but overall the harvest was not that bad at all.

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.

This is only if you look at human NPCs spellcasters. But if you look at non spell-casters, there is not a hint of level progression, they just have some abilities, some of them mirroring that of classes, others not at all (look at things like "parry", for example, which is not an ability that PCs have at all, although they have some abilities of the same kind).

A blend of 3rd and 4ed if you want. But basically, they were following the same rules as the PC for the most part.

I really don't agree. Yes, some have spell lists and these are more or less conform to PC spell lists, but not always, and others have at will spell. But this is only for the casters, and for the "human-like", but I've created tons of other NPCs with specific rules (some of them mirroring PC classes, but some not, and in any case nothing like the progression), see here. And in all cases, they have far fewer abilities than PCs, so they really don't have a class (and again it's a good thing, makes the NPC much simpler to run).

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.

Nothing prevents you from using the previous versions, nothing forces you to go to the new format. Just consider them different NPCs/Monsters.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have never considered what is written in any of the rulebooks as the one and only "truth" of the game world. For instance, that like the list of maneuvers of the Battlemaster are the only maneuvers that actually exist. Or that the spells in the Player's Handbook are the only spells the game world knows. To me, that thinking is silly, because any time WotC publishes a new book with new stuff, the "truth" of what exists now has changed. So if the game world can have new spells or new subclass abilities when WotC produces a book that includes them... it stands to reason that the game world itself has other spells and features out there that I (and WotC) just haven't written down yet. Or monster abilities. Or class abilities. Or anything. And as a result... there is absolutely no reason why NPCs cannot have any of these "outside the books" abilities, spells, or features that the PCs don't have if I end up inventing it and putting it on said NPC.

That being said... I also have no problem with any of my players choosing to research or learn (and in truth create) any of these "outside the books" things if they want to. If one of them wants to make a new spell that doesn't currently exist in the PHB... that's fine. Go right ahead. And after you make it, I'll adjudicate all the mechanical aspects for balance and whatnot as need be. But usually at my tables none of my players dig down that deep into the weeds to bother. If if they see some other non-player character do something "unique"... they have so much stuff on their character sheets already (and still to come) that they don't really care about that unique thing.

 

[Reynard]

I really don't agree. Yes, some have spell lists and these are more or less conform to PC spell lists, but not always, and others have at will spell. But this is only for the casters, and for the "human-like", but I've created tons of other NPCs with specific rules (some of them mirroring PC classes, but some not, and in any case nothing like the progression), see here. And in all cases, they have far fewer abilities than PCs, so they really don't have a class (and again it's a good thing, makes the NPC much simpler to run).

And I think this is largely a function of a design decision that did not have to be ie was essentially arbitrary: we will just use the spells we already created because we're lazy (in the "good lazy" way of not wanting to reinvent the wheel). I prefer it elsewise. That 1000 year old lich from a lost arcane empire which had magic undreamt of by modern mortals absolutely shouldn't be casting "magic missile" and "charm person." Not only is that boring, it breaks the entire backstory of the villain. Same with ineffable fey and incomprehensible aliens from beyond the dark between the stars. And what's weird is that (as others have pointed out) the designers have no problem creating other kinds of abilities from whole cloth for otherwise "mundane" NPCs even, but for spells they just HAVE to come from the list approved by the Minister of Magical Knowledge. On reflection, it is really strange.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

One of my player actually complained about an NPC, presented as a "beginning wizard" fresh out of university using more spells than they could despite being a little more experimented (I was doing a flavour description at this point and did'nt check). The NPC offered to teach them the spell he used (which in fact amounted to a magic missile split over several rounds, so vastly underpowered. They also worked to create a new spell based upon a power they had seen an NPC using and thought cool. Free adventures ideas from the players, I like it.

 

[Helldritch]

And, for me, a very welcome one.

But not for all of us it would seem.

To a certain extent, see below. Yes, it's mostly true in 3e, and a real pain it was, forcing you to create very complex NPCs who did not end up using even half of the abilities allocated to them.

This is why the "blend" was so great!

The thing is that I don't restrict NPCs to "PC races", never have. I have always had Monsters used as NPCs, as you mention adding a few things, spells mostly, often at will. It's only 3e who forced me to codify this, and who forced all races/monsters to add class levels to increase the power, so that CR could be computed.

Me neither. A monster has always been a NPC. But with NPC mirroring PC, they should follow the same rules. Casters mainly.

But still (and although, for many reasons, it was not my cup of tea), it sparked a lot of interesting ideas, some of them made it into 5e, others like minions were dropped, but overall the harvest was not that bad at all.

And minions were great! But with bounded accuracy, they were no longer needed. Which is unfortunate as minions were a great way to add foes without clugging combat with foes with enough HP to slow down combat to a crawl at high level.

This is only if you look at human NPCs spellcasters. But if you look at non spell-casters, there is not a hint of level progression, they just have some abilities, some of them mirroring that of classes, others not at all (look at things like "parry", for example, which is not an ability that PCs have at all, although they have some abilities of the same kind).

There is no other way but to look at the NPC spellcasters side of thing.
And yes, some NPC had abilities not exactly like those of PCs. That is the whole point of the Blend between the 1-3ed and 4ed styles. This was exactly why 5ed was brilliant in its approach.

I really don't agree. Yes, some have spell lists and these are more or less conform to PC spell lists, but not always, and others have at will spell. But this is only for the casters, and for the "human-like", but I've created tons of other NPCs with specific rules (some of them mirroring PC classes, but some not, and in any case nothing like the progression), see here. And in all cases, they have far fewer abilities than PCs, so they really don't have a class (and again it's a good thing, makes the NPC much simpler to run).

What you did in your game, is for your game only. Homebrew is great. But it has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Prior to last year, the blend was working as intended.

Nothing prevents you from using the previous versions, nothing forces you to go to the new format. Just consider them different NPCs/Monsters.

This is a can of worms that should not have been opened.

 

[Reynard]

But with NPC mirroring PC, they should follow the same rules. Casters mainly.

But why? What's so special about a caster, as opposed to a Black Lotus Assassin (with special kill you abilities) or a Dark Forest Blight Hag (with a withering evil eye)?

 

[Hussar]

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.
/snip

See, I don't get this. This is just flat out not true. NPC's did not work like PC's at all. Dragons had spells, but, no MU levels. Heck, lots of creatures could cast spells but didn't have specific caster levels, nor even a class. 1e and 2e in no way applied the PC rules to NPC's.

For example, what class was a brigand?

 

[Reynard]

See, I don't get this. This is just flat out not true. NPC's did not work like PC's at all. Dragons had spells, but, no MU levels. Heck, lots of creatures could cast spells but didn't have specific caster levels, nor even a class. 1e and 2e in no way applied the PC rules to NPC's.

For example, what class was a brigand?

There were specifically level NPCs on the encounter lists, so maybe that's the thing?

 

[Hussar]

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.

Nope. Not true. Why do people insist that this is true? These claims that things are suddenly changed in 4e, when the change was 3e and 4e changed things back is just so bizarre. Why do you think this?

What class was a Death Knight? And how come it can cast a Fireball while wearing Plate Mail?

This is why I get so annoyed as soon as we try to have any conversation about this sort of stuff. This is EXACTLY the point I made in the other thread about the History of the OSR. Revisionist history and claims of "The Way Things Were" that are laughably easy to disprove.