D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Hussar]

Yeah, at that level of pedantry, we're done.

 

[Cadence]

It's not anything that's not a PC. Monsters do exist. Only named ones are considered NPCs.

Do they become named when the PCs talk to them and find out they have one? (Serious question thinking about my two current parties).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Do they become named when the PCs talk to them and find out they have one? (Serious question thinking about my two current parties).

It sure seems to infer that any creature that is an individual is an NPC. Generic creature or monster doesn't count. But as soon as you make it an individual, it does. The level you want to flesh out the details is up the the DM, but that's the definition. The "C" in NPC = "character", not "creature."

 

[Lanefan]

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/

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.

Sure, and if that information/rationale is discoverable within the setting somehow there's no problem at all.

It's the tossed-off "because it's an NPC" answer with no further underlying rationale that has to go.

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.

Possible, sure, but highly unlikely. There's only so many times you can use these sort of variations before it all starts looking like a DM just contriving to keep powers out of the hands of PCs/players.

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.

Now you're getting it!

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.

Only because none of the PCs happen to have it. It's a known ability that exists in the setting; and one could argue that Polyjuice Potion is step one towards anyone being able to transform to an animal (or sort-of) for a while.

Honestly, it's not a very consistent magic system.

Hardly surprising, that, as it's entirely built to serve the story first and only.

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).

Thus far my Sanderson readings haven't exactly sent me running back for more. Not sure why.

 

[Hussar]

I've never understood the resistance here.

For those who insist on using PC rules for NPC's, there is no change. You have exactly the same amount of work as you had before. Nothing changes whatsoever.

For those who have no issues with PC's and NPC's (including generic monsters - I'm using the broader definition here), we win because we don't have to spend time statting out something that we have zero interest in.

How is this not a win-win for everyone?

 

[Lanefan]

Why? It's a game. The rules represent play. I mean, 5 foot squares alone should be enough to illustrate that everything is abstract. The group as a whole at the table decides what "reality" is in the game. Sometimes that might line up with the rules but it doesn't have to. The rules are just the interface and the participants decide when to use that interface and when not to.

Then what defines the physics of the setting, and what then interprets them to us-the-players/DM, if not the rules?

5-foot squares aren't something I use the way 3-4-5e would like me to, for just this reason: people don't move in 5-foot hops. I use a grid for relative positioning and to show ranges and distances, but all the fussing with squares ain't for me.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, this I think is the main point of breaking here.

5e defines NPC's as ANYTHING that's not a PC. The notion of a third type - Monster - doesn't exist in 5e and hasn't existed since 3e at the least. I can't remember how 2e defined things.

Earlier editions defined everything that wasn't a PC as an NPC as well; but for the purposes of this discussion I think it's worth narrowing it down a bit and splitting out playable-species NPCs from non-playable-species NPCs. I'm calling the latter group "monsters" for convenience.

 

[Lanefan]

@Sacrosanct - unless deities are a PC-playable species in your game (which would be an interesting take, to be sure!) your example of Llolth is probably not a good one for makng any useful points here: she's a full deity, and therefore can pretty much do anything she damn well likes as an innate ability.

I've never understood the 1e-2e notion of trying to assign class levels to deities.

 

[Sacrosanct]

@Sacrosanct - unless deities are a PC-playable species in your game (which would be an interesting take, to be sure!) your example of Llolth is probably not a good one for makng any useful points here: she's a full deity, and therefore can pretty much do anything she damn well likes as an innate ability.

I've never understood the 1e-2e notion of trying to assign class levels to deities.

The reason I used her was because it's convenient--she was right under the Death Knight creature entry . But my point was not to show how she was a deity because that's not relevant. it was to show that creatures that had spell casting ability treated those spells as spells, and not spell-like abilities. use any creature that has spells in it's stat block if you want.

That is, when you saw a creature that had "dispel magic" for instance, you knew it was the same as the dispel magic spell that PCs get. Why? because there wasn't any additional definition of how it worked in the stat block. And if you needed to know what caster level, if it wasn't already called out (most were*), you could easily infer it from HD. Because of how those things were written in the stat blocks, we can infer they worked the same way spells did for PCs otherwise the game completely shuts down.

"Well, this creature says it casts a fireball at a 20th level power and that's all it says. Since I believe NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs, I have no earthly clue how to proceed!"

I'm sure there are exceptions somewhere (I can't think of one off the top of my head), but by and large, NPCs followed the same rules as PCs. Humanoids that were shamans and witch doctors were given cleric and magic user levels (per DMG p.40). The NPC classes in Dragon all were built on the same chassis as every other class was. They all had levels, and experience points needed, and hit points per level, and saving throws, and class features, etc. same as all the other PC classes in the PHB.


*Like the drow entry, where they are explicitly given class levels, and spells they could cast.

 

[Hussar]

Hrm, so, what is Lord Soth? An NPC or a Monster? It can't be an NPC because it's not humanoid, it's undead. But, it cannot be a Monster because it has a name. But, it cannot be an NPC because it doesn't use PC build rules. But, it cannot be an NPC...

Congratulations, quantum rules. Pretty much par for the course really. Any discussion about older editions eventually reaches the point where the rules will say anything we want them to say and then claim superiority over other edition rules.