D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Reynard]

It is my experience that when these discussions get down to precise definitions and simple pedantry,pedantic, have forgotten the real value of the discussion. I don't think it is important whether a gnoll leader is a 3rd level fighter, or if they fight like a 3rd level fighter. It's not important. The important part is whether the GM is obligated in some way to build that NPC with the same rules as PCs, and whether a thing that NPC can do should be necessarily available to a PC who desires access to it.

 

[Lyxen]

It is my experience that when these discussions get down to precise definitions and simple pedantry,pedantic, have forgotten the real value of the discussion. I don't think it is important whether a gnoll leader is a 3rd level fighter, or if they fight like a 3rd level fighter. It's not important. The important part is whether the GM is obligated in some way to build that NPC with the same rules as PCs, and whether a thing that NPC can do should be necessarily available to a PC who desires access to it.

Which is why it's important to show that no, historically, it's really 3e only who forced DMs to build NPCs using PCs guidelines. But even then, they did not go as far as to say that everything should be available to PCs. No edition ever has, including the very player-centric 3e.

Some DMs prefer it that way but it's all it is, a personal preference, although I honestly don't know how they manage with so many monsters abilities that are unsuitable for PC play. Take the Death Knight, does any one really feel that Hellfire Orb or Parry belong in a PC's capabilities ?

 

[Helldritch]

Which is why it's important to show that no, historically, it's really 3e only who forced DMs to build NPCs using PCs guidelines. But even then, they did not go as far as to say that everything should be available to PCs. No edition ever has, including the very player-centric 3e.

Some DMs prefer it that way but it's all it is, a personal preference, although I honestly don't know how they manage with so many monsters abilities that are unsuitable for PC play. Take the Death Knight, does any one really feel that Hellfire Orb or Parry belong in a PC's capabilities ?

Wrong in the bolded type.
From 1ed DMG. You had a very useful table to create NPC parties.
On page 100, Special NPC (named if you prefer) with all sorts of table to help a DM create one or many.
On page 175, how to create a party of NPC adventurers, henchmen included.

So this was assumed from the start. Ho and in OD&D the same was assumed if you care to look at the adventures. They are all build on the PC system (save monsters that is).

 

[Reynard]

Some DMs prefer it that way but it's all it is, a personal preference, although I honestly don't know how they manage with so many monsters abilities that are unsuitable for PC play. Take the Death Knight, does any one really feel that Hellfire Orb or Parry belong in a PC's capabilities ?

I have never had a player "demand" to know a monster or NPC spell or combat ability in the way @Lanefan describes.

 

[S'mon]

0e-2e have some NPCs built as PCs, and some not. 3e builds everything like PCs. 4e builds nothing like PCs. 5e as presented looks more like 4e, but can be run like 0e-2e, which is more how I do it.

 

[Reynard]

Wrong in the bolded type.
From 1ed DMG. You had a very useful table to create NPC parties.
On page 100, Special NPC (named if you prefer) with all sorts of table to help a DM create one or many.
On page 175, how to create a party of NPC adventurers, henchmen included.

So this was assumed from the start. Ho and in OD&D the same was assumed if you care to look at the adventures. They are all build on the PC system (save monsters that is).

Repeating a thing over and over again does not make it true. Yes, there were classed NPCs in every edition of D&D. But there were also unclassed monster statted style NPCs such as "brigands" in every edition of D&D, as well as various monsters that referenced PC abilities in various ways from spells to "fights as a x level fighter." Please stop acting like what you are saying is some absolute truth when it is clear you are cherry picking to make you seem right. It is not adding to the discussion in any way.

 

[Lyxen]

Wrong in the bolded type.
From 1ed DMG. You had a very useful table to create NPC parties.
On page 100, Special NPC (named if you prefer) with all sorts of table to help a DM create one or many.
On page 175, how to create a party of NPC adventurers, henchmen included.

So this was assumed from the start. Ho and in OD&D the same was assumed if you care to look at the adventures. They are all build on the PC system (save monsters that is).

You are making the usual mistake that because a tool is offered to create some types of NPCs, it dictates that this is the only way to create NPCs. The text specifically reads: "In order to easily develop these personae, the tables below are offered for consideration." and "Other NPCs can be developed randomly, or by a combination of random and considered selection."

Moreover, to prove that you are even more incorrect, the first reference that you give points towards the Rogues Gallery, in which we find, in addition to NPC indeed based on character classes: Couatl, Ki-rin, Shedu, Liches. But also Sages, which are certainly not based on a PC class (they have a spell ability and level in that ability based on a class, but it does not make them member of a class).

So no, I was perfectly correct, nothing in AD&D forces NPCs to be members of a class, and once more, you are "forgetting" Lubash.

 

[Krachek]

NPCs do succeed IMCs - I default to rolling a D6 - "1" they do really badly, "6" they do really well. So villains can fail and redshirts can succeed.

You can also use the same dice to solve a war between two race, with a 6 the Kenku war bands utterly destroy the hobgoblin army!

 

[Cadence]

You are making the usual mistake that because a tool is offered to create some types of NPCs, it dictates that this is the only way to create NPCs. The text specifically reads: "In order to easily develop these personae, the tables below are offered for consideration." and "Other NPCs can be developed randomly, or by a combination of random and considered selection."

Were those the tables for personality type? (And not for abilities?).

Moreover, to prove that you are even more incorrect, the first reference that you give points towards the Rogues Gallery, in which we find, in addition to NPC indeed based on character classes: Couatl, Ki-rin, Shedu, Liches. But also Sages, which are certainly not based on a PC class (they have a spell ability and level in that ability based on a class, but it does not make them member of a class).

View attachment 150109

So no, I was perfectly correct, nothing in AD&D forces NPCs to be members of a class, and once more, you are "forgetting" Lubash.

Sage is certainly not a PC class and doesn't really overlap with them (much as a butcher, baker, and candlestick maker wouldn't). They are special enough to have two entire pages of the DMG dedicated to them with the intro of "Sages are a very special case indeed".

-----

It seems like demi-humans doing character class things are on a PC chasis.
Demi-humans doing non-character class things don't have a separate commoner or expert class like they would in 3.5/PF.
Some non-demi-humans doing spell like things are created on a spell caster chasis.
Anything casting spells or spell like abilities that would be dispellable are given an equivalent caster level.

As far as why monsters don't have classes, Gygax addresses that in part on page 21:

(The reasons are basically that the world is humanocentric and that's that).

----

Random NPC quote from page11 that again doesn't distinguish between an NPC and "monster", but I thought was interesting and didn't have a better place to put it.

 

[NotAYakk]

Yes, the word "NPC" was used for "creature created using PC rules controlled by DM" at some points in D&D history.

Of course, originally a fighter was larger HD, the ability to attack multiple small HD foes on their turn, and the ability to use magic swords, and a better THAC0 equivalent advancement/saving throws. (Oh, and a better chainmail table in mass combat situations, heh).

PCs have gotten more complex since then.