D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[aco175]

It might not be the official definition, but I consider an NPC to be any GM controlled unique creature. Mooks and fodder and most non-intelligent creatures typically don't fall into that category. Non-player character. To me, that infers personality. Those dozen goblins attacking? Nope. Brugor, the goblin leader? Yep.

I smell a Pulp Fiction quote here. Something about "being 10 times more charming than Red Shirt on Star Trek."

If you give your master swordsman a special move that you just make up because it is fun and cool (Redirecting Ripost: as a reaction the master swordsman may redirect a melee attack that would have hit him to an enemy that is within 5 feet of both the master swordsman and the attacker; use the original attack roll to determine if the new target is hit by the attack) do you feel obligated to make that ability available to PC fighter types (as a feat or maneuver or whatever)?

No. It may only be available to the master swordsman class which PCs cannot be part of. If a players want to try and learn it, I would likely allow something to allow the fighter the ability to swap out a fighter power for something like it. It would be more a reward for driving the story of his PC, but few players at my table do this. Most accept that other classes can do things their class cannot.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Agreed. In either case here the Gnoll should be built as a 3rd-level Fighter.

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.

Fighting-wise, yes. The Gnoll-ish stealth, no (unless one's PC is itself a Gnoll); as that's an inherent ability of the species.

 

[Lanefan]

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

I don't "demand" to know it but I do want the potential for my PC to figure out how something was done and - if my or another PC can learn or acquire the same ability (usually a spell) - to be able to try to learn/acquire it.

Some abilities, almost always innate abilities of creatures, can't be acquired by anyone not of that species; and that's fine.

 

[Reynard]

I don't "demand" to know it but I do want the potential for my PC to figure out how something was done and - if my or another PC can learn or acquire the same ability (usually a spell) - to be able to try to learn/acquire it.

Some abilities, almost always innate abilities of creatures, can't be acquired by anyone not of that species; and that's fine.

I don; think there is a meaningful distinction between "an ability PCs can't learn because it is a species trait" and "an ability PCs can't learn because it is just a cool power designed to make the encounter more fun." In either case, it is an NPC only thing.

"How did they learn that?"
"You don't know." or "From a demon." or "They self taught."

 

[Blue]

I'm going to approach this from two different angles.

First, "classes that always grant X abilities" is not an in-world constuct. You can have a lot of druids, and they may have similar abilities. You can call someone a paladin, but the concept that every paladin has every one of the PHB features and no more is not true in-world. Classes exist as a mechanic for the players of the archetype while in world they are a looser concept. That doesn't mean that the concept of "druid" or "sorcerer" doesn't exist - they do - they just describe the in-world fuzzy diagram of them, not the PHB specific mechanics. This is pretty official - look at the Druid in the MM, it has 4th level casting but no wildshape. The various other NPCs also do not exactly match the PC classes.

Second, I remember 3.x where monsters were built using the same sort of rules as PCs and it got very cumbersome for the DM at high levels. I want a chart that tells me these are the basics for a CR and how to play with them, like 4e, 13th Age, and 5e does. I mechanically do not want to have to build multitudes of PC-complex foes every week to play. So from a DM prep perspective, NPCs do not match PC creation rules.

 

[Lyxen]

First, "classes that always grant X abilities" is not an in-world constuct. You can have a lot of druids, and they may have similar abilities. You can call someone a paladin, but the concept that every paladin has every one of the PHB features and no more is not true in-world. Classes exist as a mechanic for the players of the archetype while in world they are a loser concept. That doesn't mean that the concept of "druid" or "sorcerer" doesn't exist - they do - they just describe the in-world fuzzy diagram of them, not the PHB specific mechanics. This is pretty official - look at the Druid in the MM, it has 4th level casting but no wildshape. The various other NPCs also do not exactly match the PC classes.

Exactly my view.

Second, I remember 3.x where monsters were built using the same sort of rules as PCs and it got very cumbersome for the DM at high levels. I want a chart that tells me these are the basics for a CR and how to play with them, like 4e, 13th Age, and 5e does. I mechanically do not want to have to build multitudes of PC-complex foes every week to play. So from a DM prep perspective, NPCs do not match PC creation rules.

It is extremely convenient indeed, I just take a standard NPC and strap one a few abilities from other monsters or a PC class and I have something that is robust and works well without me spending hours defining it.

 

[Yardiff]

I'm going to approach this from two different angles.

First, "classes that always grant X abilities" is not an in-world constuct. You can have a lot of druids, and they may have similar abilities. You can call someone a paladin, but the concept that every paladin has every one of the PHB features and no more is not true in-world. Classes exist as a mechanic for the players of the archetype while in world they are a loser concept. That doesn't mean that the concept of "druid" or "sorcerer" doesn't exist - they do - they just describe the in-world fuzzy diagram of them, not the PHB specific mechanics. This is pretty official - look at the Druid in the MM, it has 4th level casting but no wildshape. The various other NPCs also do not exactly match the PC classes.

Second, I remember 3.x where monsters were built using the same sort of rules as PCs and it got very cumbersome for the DM at high levels. I want a chart that tells me these are the basics for a CR and how to play with them, like 4e, 13th Age, and 5e does. I mechanically do not want to have to build multitudes of PC-complex foes every week to play. So from a DM prep perspective, NPCs do not match PC creation rules.

Your first statement is a play style preference.

 

[Lanefan]

Me as the DM: I'm gonna need ya to roll a Beer Holding check there.

Me as player: "Er...if I'm getting you to hold my beer why am I the one who needs to roll?"

 

[Lanefan]

And here we are making the arbitrary distinction between "monster" and NPC to keep an argument going that has little bearing on the actual question posed by the thread: do YOU think that NPCs and monsters should have to sue the same rules as PCs?

It has a lot of bearing, in that in general the answer is NPCs yes, monsters no except where monster abilities directly overlap with PC abilities (spellcasting, usually).

The argument over whether a brigand is an NPC or monster is irrelevant, as is the same question for the "archmage" in 5E. It's not important. What is important is can that brigand have abilities unavailable to the PCs, and can that archmage know spells the PCs can't.

Can the archmage know spells the PCs can't right now? Yes.

Can the archmage know spells the PCs can't ever learn no matter how high level they get? No.

And if a brigand has abilities of any kind that are unavailable to PCs that's quite some brigand!

 

[NotAYakk]

Your first statement is a play style preference.

Yes it is, as this thread is asking about play style preferences, that makes it on topic.

They then provide evidence that this is also the default D&D game assumption using existing monsters.