D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Lanefan]

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 ?

Because the NPC has been recognized as a fighter and thus shouldn't be able to cast spells any more than my PC fighter can.

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 ?

A wizard should, if she can find them, be able to cast any spells of appropriate level that an NPC can, and vice-versa.

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.

Sauron has capabilities that the PCs will never want to have, but in theory could have if so desired; and that temptation fuels a a large part of the story.

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.

Voldemort is simply higher level than the PCs and has a different spell selection. Hermione could learn all those spells and abilities if she wanted, given time.

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.

Yes; and to me that's an innate ability of the monster, different and separate from a learned/prayed-for spell (for example, it can't be interrupted like a normal spell can) and thus not subject to the same rules.

A real-world analogy would be a skunk's scent ability - it's an innate ability of the creature that it can do and many other creatures can't.

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.

Indeed.

I'm not whining that the boss has powers I don't. I'm saying there needs to be a consistent underlying rationale for how and why the boss has those powers; and if they're powers I can in theory access now or later I should be able to try to do so. For example, if the boss hits me with a Time Stop (a 9th-level spell in 1e) then sure, it's not something I can do yet (and will never be able to if I'm not a Wizard) but eventually, if I get big enough as a Wizard and learn the spell - or find it on a scroll and cast directly from that - I can. The underlying rationale is consistent.

That said, when things happen I want to be able to, in character, figure out how they happen.

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).

One thing the Potterverse leans into much more than D&D is self-researched or self-taught magic, meaning that yes, many wizards and witches will have developed their own magics for their own needs or amusement (e.g. Arthur Weasley's flying car or the various things Fred and George develop for their joke shop). But even there, on seeing a new magic another witch or wizard can always reverse-engineer it and figure out how it was done, because it's all sitting on a consistent and predictable set of underlying principles.

It'd be cool if D&D could handle the same sort of thing but putting any sort of balancing framework around it would be hella hard.

 

[Cadence]

Because the NPC has been recognized as a fighter and thus shouldn't be able to cast spells any more than my PC fighter can.

(Noting that 5e has a spellcasting fighter archetype).

Sauron has capabilities that the PCs will never want to have, but in theory could have if so desired; and that temptation fuels a a large part of the story.

Sauron was divine, and not mortal. There's no reason Aragorn could do all of that than there is he could become a Balrog. (Ditto for wanting to be Gandalf and Saruman).

 

[Reynard]

Does the answer change depending on whether you are a player or GM, I wonder? Some of these responses suggest so.

 

[Lyxen]

I fail to see how a NPC or monster caster I make needs to follow PC rules. If I make a 5th level caster and I give him an at-will cantrip, 2 1/rest spells of 1st or 2nd level, and a 1/day fireball over 3 slots of these 1st level spells, 2 slots of these 2nd level spells, and 1 slot of these 3rd level spells.. They are about the same in power.

In any case, there always have been monsters/NPCs with both, just look at the Arcanadaemon, always had a spell list and innate spells. As a DM, you can balance things exactly the way you want to. Now, 5e says that it's easier for the DM with a kind of restricted " innate" spell list which avoids you tracking slots, and that is true, but it's certainly not forbidding you from creating one, equal to that of the PCs or completely made up. It's freedom, and it's good.

 

[Helldritch]

I ALREADY posted how humanoids like orcs were described using cleric or magic user levels for casters. And dragon magazine was full of NPC classes since the beginning. Please stop calling it revisionist history when you haven’t even bothered to read the history.

Your position is not looking any better the more you double down on things I’ve already shown in this thread alone that disprove it. I’ve literally provided you screen shots that prove what we’re saying.

And well you did Sir.
When shown with hard fact and historical context of the game it went down to "Because I prefer it that way".

And for the Death Knight. Former Paladins that became undead. They no longer qualify for humanoid. Thus they became monsters just as the Lich, a former M-U becomes an undead monster with powers beyond a M-U.
And even then... The Anti-Paladin was a thing in 1ed. It even appeared in the Best of Dragon IV.
The Half-Ogre was in there too. And strangely, even in the age of 1ed, that thing followed the rules...

Does the answer change depending on whether you are a player or GM, I wonder? Some of these responses suggest so.

In some cases, probably. In mine? Nope. Player or DM it does not matter. I want to be able to decipher what allowed this NPC to be able to do things he did. Even if it is from wishes or simple demonic powers, I want to know. This way I can prevent it or try to prevent it from happening again or if evil, to do it myself! And just to be clear, I am a DM. Last time I was a player was in 1994.

And strangely, whenever something weird happens at the table with a monster, I get no questions. But with a playable race? Tons of questions, divinations, inquireries and research are conducted to know how it was done.

 

[Helldritch]

In any case, there always have been monsters/NPCs with both, just look at the Arcanadaemon, always had a spell list and innate spells. As a DM, you can balance things exactly the way you want to. Now, 5e says that it's easier for the DM with a kind of restricted " innate" spell list which avoids you tracking slots, and that is true, but it's certainly not forbidding you from creating one, equal to that of the PCs or completely made up. It's freedom, and it's good.

Both yes and no.
You see, monsters were following a pattern. Same with playable races as we have shown.
I don't care how they do in other future editions. What we say is that this way was tried before and was a failure as it was rejected massively. IF they really want to do it. Then they should do it with a new edition and make it canon. I for one, liked how it was in 4ed. But this is a departure from what made 5ed so good. This is not what we were promised and this is not the way to go. If you want to change how the game is played. Fine. Make a new edition and be done with it. Do not change a whole edition for the sake of changing it.

 

[Lyxen]

Because the NPC has been recognized as a fighter and thus shouldn't be able to cast spells any more than my PC fighter can.

How has he been recognised as one ? Because he has a sword ? Because he knows how to fight ? Because he has armor ? How does this make him mandatorily a fighter ? He might be a multiclass, it's not tattooed on his forehead.

A wizard should, if she can find them, be able to cast any spells of appropriate level that an NPC can, and vice-versa.

Can a wizard cast a bard's spell ? Not all of them for sure. If there are other schools of teaching magic, there is no guarantee that a character should be able to cast all of them. It's not even the case for various PC classes.

Sauron has capabilities that the PCs will never want to have, but in theory could have if so desired; and that temptation fuels a a large part of the story.

I don't think that any of the standard characters excect Gandalf could ever evolve into Sauron, they simply don't have the blood and the heritage. This is a common fantasy trope, there are inherent limits to what one can do or become.

Voldemort is simply higher level than the PCs and has a different spell selection. Hermione could learn all those spells and abilities if she wanted, given time.

Actually no, there are areas of magic in which she is weak, and no proof that she could improve them, quite the contrary in fact.

Yes; and to me that's an innate ability of the monster, different and separate from a learned/prayed-for spell (for example, it can't be interrupted like a normal spell can) and thus not subject to the same rules.

And therefore, there might be innate abilities related to spellcasting that allow a NPC to do things with spells that a PC could not. It's exactly the same thing/

A real-world analogy would be a skunk's scent ability - it's an innate ability of the creature that it can do and many other creatures can't.

And a NPC might be born from a specific blood or a specifc omen that allows him to have innate abilities that a PC will never be able to duplicate.

I'm not whining that the boss has powers I don't. I'm saying there needs to be a consistent underlying rationale for how and why the boss has those powers; and if they're powers I can in theory access now or later I should be able to try to do so. For example, if the boss hits me with a Time Stop (a 9th-level spell in 1e) then sure, it's not something I can do yet (and will never be able to if I'm not a Wizard) but eventually, if I get big enough as a Wizard and learn the spell - or find it on a scroll and cast directly from that - I can. The underlying rationale is consistent.

And it might not be a Time Stop, it might be a "Temporal Interrupt" that looks almost the same but with variations, granted because the NPC (and no PC) was born at a moment where time had stopped and is therefore granted special powers over time by the Lord of Time, and even if a PC could cast Time Stop, it would not be exactly the same.

That said, when things happen I want to be able to, in character, figure out how they happen.

That is slightly different, in my example just above, if the PCs figure out the NPC back story, they might understand why he has powers over time that they will never be able to duplicate. What is interesting though, is that they still understand, and might also find weaknesses that they can exploit, etc.

One thing the Potterverse leans into much more than D&D is self-researched or self-taught magic, meaning that yes, many wizards and witches will have developed their own magics for their own needs or amusement (e.g. Arthur Weasley's flying car or the various things Fred and George develop for their joke shop). But even there, on seeing a new magic another witch or wizard can always reverse-engineer it and figure out how it was done, because it's all sitting on a consistent and predictable set of underlying principles.

True, but it still does not mean that any wizard's feat might be duplicated by any other wizard. They have inherent strengths and weaknesses, and for example although some could learn to become Animagi, they could still transform into only specific animals. They could not all decide to transform into bears or powerful animals. And note that, from the PC perspective, it's a purely NPC ability.

It'd be cool if D&D could handle the same sort of thing but putting any sort of balancing framework around it would be hella hard.

Honestly, it's not a very consistent magic system. Have a look at those developed by Brandon Sanderson, they are way more adaptable as they are designed with balance in mind (although it's novel-type balance and quite different from RPG-balance, at least there is some balance of some kind).

 

[Hussar]

And for the Death Knight. Former Paladins that became undead. They no longer qualify for humanoid.

So, you admit that the "NPC's follow PC rules" only applies to humans and demi-humans. Great. That's the point I was making all along. The whole "NPC's must follow PC rules" was something invented by 3e and didn't really exist in earlier D&D.

Unless you insist that NPC's only cover humans and demi-humans.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And well you did Sir.
When shown with hard fact and historical context of the game it went down to "Because I prefer it that way".

And for the Death Knight. Former Paladins that became undead. They no longer qualify for humanoid. Thus they became monsters just as the Lich, a former M-U becomes an undead monster with powers beyond a M-U.
And even then... The Anti-Paladin was a thing in 1ed. It even appeared in the Best of Dragon IV.
The Half-Ogre was in there too. And strangely, even in the age of 1ed, that thing followed the rules...


In some cases, probably. In mine? Nope. Player or DM it does not matter. I want to be able to decipher what allowed this NPC to be able to do things he did. Even if it is from wishes or simple demonic powers, I want to know. This way I can prevent it or try to prevent it from happening again or if evil, to do it myself! And just to be clear, I am a DM. Last time I was a player was in 1994.

And strangely, whenever something weird happens at the table with a monster, I get no questions. But with a playable race? Tons of questions, divinations, inquireries and research are conducted to know how it was done.

It should also be noted that monsters in AD&D didn't really have spell like abilities. They had spells. that worked exactly like spells a PC casts, following the same rules. Let's look at Lloth:

As a giant spider, the demoness can use any one of the following
powers, one per melee round, at will: comprehend languages,
confusion (creature looked at only), darkness (10' radius), dispel
magic; once per day gate in a type I (45%) type II (35%) or type Ill
(20%) demon with 66% chance of the gate opening; twice per day use
phase door, read magic, shape change; once per day summon 9-1 6
large (20%). 7-12 huge (30%), 2-8 giant (40%) or 1-4 phase (10%)
spiders, teleport with no inaccuracy, tongues and true seeing

There is no additional explanation of what those spells do. They are just listed. Why? Because they are the same as spells the PC uses.

In Dieties and Demigods, they are given class levels. Humanoids are given class levels for shamans (like I provided above). No one is arguing that every monster has to have a class level, but NPCs in AD&D most certainly did, and spell casting creatures almost always followed the same rules for a spell that the PC followed when determining the effect of it. Arguing otherwise seems....really odd to me. Especially from someone who claims they played 1e back in the day with frequency.

 

[Hussar]

It should also be noted that monsters in AD&D didn't really have spell like abilities. They had spells. that worked exactly like spells a PC casts, following the same rules. Let's look at Lloth:



There is no additional explanation of what those spells do. They are just listed. Why? Because they are the same as spells the PC uses.

In Dieties and Demigods, they are given class levels. Humanoids are given class levels for shamans (like I provided above). No one is arguing that every monster has to have a class level, but NPCs in AD&D most certainly did, and spell casting creatures almost always followed the same rules for a spell that the PC followed when determining the effect of it. Arguing otherwise seems....really odd to me. Especially from someone who claims they played 1e back in the day with frequency.

But, hang on, your example just counters what you claim - Lolth does not follow PC rules AT ALL. Sure, she's using the PHB defined spells, fair enough. But, did she have to use the spell components? What level caster is she? At will spells? No PC class in the game has that. How is she casting unlimited dispel magics? That's impossible using PC classes. Nothing in the game can do that.

So, no, the monsters most certainly aren't following PC rules. At all.

I mean, good grief, how do you even use Dispel Magic in that stat block? Dispel Magic in AD&D requires a caster level check - with the percentage of success based on the difference between the levels of the two casters. So, how does that even work?

Thank you, btw, for providing such excellent examples of how NPC's didn't follow PC build rules in AD&D though.