D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Cadence]

What if I gave the bodyguard something like Pack Tactics instead of giving him abilities from a class. Instead of finding a few things to fit a role this ability feels like a good fit for a bodyguard, and simple to add.

I do not think that a fighter or rogue should learn that ability, but the player may want to know how they can learn that. Should I come up with something to explain my method such as not giving him 2nd wind, pack tactics, and 2 attacks at 5th level. Should I let the player choose to give those abilities up to gain the pack tactics?

I'm still thinking that there are powers and abilities that PCs do not get to have.

I can see Wizards commonly wanting to know how to get a new spell - getting new spells from books is a thing they do. A Cleric, for example, seems less problematic in many cases because their thing is working for their deity and a spell focusing on another domain would be odd. Even if the same domain, it might be something especially symbolic for one deity or another. Fighting styles seem like something any fighter might like -- if they fit what the character does.

For Pack Tactics, does this fighter often work closely with others and would they generally be training with others? Or are they by themselves? Do the creatures and humans in the monster books that have pack tactics all live and train together for a long time? If so, that could be a gate.

It feels like there is a difference between "a PC being able to be structured from the beginning to get something including their background" and "a PC being able to get something now".

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Absolutely yes for me.

PCs are not unique. It is what you do with your character that makes your character special!

You answered yes to both positions, was that intentional?

 

[DND_Reborn]

You answered yes to both positions, was that intentional?

LOL No, it wasn't. I updated the post and thanks!

 

[Reynard]

Player agency does NOT include "I get whatever I want." It means you can try anything you want, and in the case of some unique NPC capability, trying to have access to that thing is akin to trying to fly across a chasm by sheer force of will. You can try, but it is impossible. In my games, at my table, obviously (i hope obviously, I think we can all allow that we are discussing our preferences and not one true way).

Again, I can't think of a single actual at the table occurrence where a player in a D&D game came away from an encounter unhappy that an enemy could do things they couldn't do.

 

[Lyxen]

And the fact that non-Death-Eater witches and wizards choose not to use it doesn't mean they can't, it means they won't.

First, Voldemort is not not the only wizard to use it in the series, I can think of at least two others, but it does not change the fact that, practically, it's an NPC only spell.

Whatever the reasons, it's what it comes down to.

Voldemort had no business losing, given how he was presented. His tactics were abysmal.

That has nothing to do with the fact that he had a huge impact on the setting.

Again, inniate abilities are what they are, and (in 1e anyway) there's a limited number of Death Knights (I think it's 12) meaning they're not likely to have a great influence on the setting as a whole.

Unfortunately, Lord Soth proves that a death knight can have a critical impact on a setting all on his own.

Two immense design mistakes caught in one sentence - well done!

As long as we agree that one of them was not restricting some powers to NPC, I am sure that we agree it's well done...

Kobolds are monsters and should not be PCs - mistake one.

Actually, we had a very interesting kobold character in our biggest campaign ever, he ended up being the god of scalebearers when almost the whole adventurers guild (it was a really special setting) ascended.

NPC Kobolds get powers that PC Kobolds do not - mistake two.

Actually, they forgot that one, and they gave PC kobolds the same powers as monsters through a stupid class power....

They have no right to advocate for their character?
Yikes.

If "advocating" means pestering the DM for advantage or trying to impress that "by RAW they are entitled to" whatever, no, they don't. Call me a tyrant...

After that if, in character, their character pesters NPCs it's absolutely fine, as long as they are prepared to deal with the consequences.

First off, my PC is my PC; within rules and genre constraints I in theory have full control over what it does in the setting and just because it does something you don't like doesn't give you-as-DM the right to take it away from me.

Actually, we completely disagree here. If, as a DM, I say "no evil PC" (which is a common campaign restriction) and your PC willfully commits an atrocity, and as a DM I judge that it turns him evil and therefore an NPC, that specific character in that campaign becomes just that, an NPC, which I control as the DM. You can find yourself another character to play, or leave the campaign and recreate the PC somewhere else, but the real character is still part of the campaign, as a NPC.

Second off, who says I'm departing from the flow of the campaign? (and who set that flow in the first place?) Maybe I'm setting a new flow.

And maybe it's not one that, as a DM, I want to master, and especially not one that the other players want to have in their game. So it's fine, it's a new flow, but controlled by the DM.

With rights come responsibilities; the corollary responsibility to the DM's right to do what you want is to not diminish the long term campaign for the short-term fun. Precedent is important; and every time you toos in one of these "cool and appropriate" ideas you're setting a precedent for the rest of that campaign.

Actually no, I don't. This is why I love 5e and its "rulings over rules". When I create such a ruling, it's local and adapted to the circumstances. As I'm pretty sure that these exact circumstances will not happen again, I am free to rule again as I wish for the next set of circumstances, which will be different.

You misread me, I think.
The example is flawed, but I'll run with it for now: if Voldemort without Avada Kedavra is too weak, don't replace him with 20 death eaters but instead give him a lieutenant or two with almost the same powers and abilities he has.

And it really does not work as well, noone does that in the genre so I don't in my campaigns either.

In D&D, if you're looking to run a solo Dragon and fear it'll be too weak as it stands, instead of giving it more abilities etc. add another Dragon to the mix by giving it a mate.

Or I just create a mythic dragon with special abilities and it works splendidly.

It's gamist only in that in my view the setting rules and constraints apply equally to everyone within the setting, exactly the same as how real-world physics apply equally to everyone on Earth.

It's the same for me, the rule that "only the chosen emperor-god of Zap can cast the debilitating death spell" applies equally to everyone, it just happens that none of the PCs can ever become the emperor god of Zap, since they are not chosen by the evil gods that govern him.

If an author is going to go to all the work of creating a vibrant and believable setting it seems a complete waste to then go and violate that setting just to make chapter 9 a bit more exciting. The Wheel of Time novels are awful for this, which is too bad because otherwise they're good reads.

I'm not even sure what you are referring to, but the Wheel of Time has a fairly consistent magical system, which actually follows fairly closely what happens at high level in campaigns, with PCs becoming powerful, then taking on responsibilities, then needing to abandon them for a time, etc. And the same thing with anti/counter magic thingie, which suddenly pops up to create obstacles, then becomes wielded by the characters, before some anti-anti-magic things pop up.

After that, while I agree that the middle books are quite slow, it's still one of the best sagas of the genre, and the final (Brandon Sanderson again) is absolutely epic.

 

[dave2008]

@Lanefan, I have a question for you. I tried to get the answer by looking through your posts, but I couldn't find it. If you have already answered and I missed it, sorry for rehashing it. Also, to be clear I am fine with NPCs & monsters being different from PCs. Ok, to the question!

Why do you feel that PCs and NPCs should be created the same?

Why is important that the NPC bodyguard only has abilities that a PC could have (even if all your PCs are casters)?

Why is important that a spell casting Monster can only cast spells a PC could have (even if all of your PCs are martials)?

 

[dave2008]

Again, I can't think of a single actual at the table occurrence where a player in a D&D game came away from an encounter unhappy that an enemy could do things they couldn't do.

Yes! This is my experience as well. I have never had a player even question that monsters and NPCs have abilities that they do not.

@Lanefan. is your experience different?

 

[Lyxen]

The merchant's "expertise" is that he's good at being a merchant.

And how do you model that in game terms ? Or are you just saying to the players "he is a good merchant, so you cannot get good prices from him" ? Do you roll checks, maybe persuasion ? What bonus do you ascribe ?

The bodyguard having abilities that no class has is a big red flag: either those abilities should be made avilable to at least one playable class (even if they're of no use in the field) or the bodyguard shouldn't have them.

Where does it say this ? Because honestly, almost all the NPCs in the Official MM have abilities like this. You might not like it, but it's absolutely the official way to do it...

You don't stat out henches as if they're full characters???

Of course not. Henchmen have always been NPCs, why should they have all PCs abilities ?

There's another big difference between us, then: I see it that everyone in the setting has the potential to advance in levels but only a relative few choose to follow up on this potential and even fewer choose the risky fast-track advancement method that is adventuring.

To each his own, but having people limited is for me a much better way to manage verisimilitude and adherence to the genre... For example Harry Potter is a Wizard, but Mrs. Figgs will never be one.

Were I the DM he'd be as cinematically engaging and interesting as I decide to play him. I don't need mechanics for that!

I'm a bit lost there, why then do you need PC mechanics ?

Fair enough - I've never had the "pleasure" of running high-level 3e and have no real intention of changing that status.

It was fun for a while, but the hassle was incredible, whether in preparing or running the game with all the round-to-round recomputing of bonuses, combats took hours and hours... So you're right, don't !

An expert merchant can be just that: very good at his trade. Thievery need not ever enter into it; nor need any other mechanics, really.

The thing is how do you create the NPC ? How do you assign abilities to him that make him a master merchant which is certainly not an adventurer ? Don't you need a +7 or more in persuation or deception ? How do you do this with PC rules without giving him levels ?

 

[Cadence]

Why is important that the NPC bodyguard only has abilities that a PC could have (even if all your PCs are casters)?

Why is important that a spell casting Monster can only cast spells a PC could have (even if all of your PCs are martials)?

Not @Lanefan obviously, but I don't think he ever said the current party in their classes should be able to get those powers. But that if a player wanted to end up with those powers there would be a path starting at character creation that would let them get there as they advanced, if they wanted to. So, if there is a spell out there cast by the archmage, the fighters in the all martial party certainly wouldn't get it, but it is something that a PC mage who paid the appropriate price could. And if there was a spell only castable by bugbears, then the PC who wants to cast it might need to pick bugbear as a race. And if there's a merchant skill, and a player wanted their PC to have it, why not (although they might not like sacrificing two levels of fighting skill to make up for all the time the merchant spent perfecting there craft).

The thing is how do you create the NPC ? How do you assign abilities to him that make him a master merchant which is certainly not an adventurer ? Don't you need a +7 or more in persuation or deception ? How do you do this with PC rules without giving him levels ?

If the PC needed a +7 in persuasion or deception that would come with years of training in a market, maybe I would let the PC swap out some other character things to get it. (Did you give up your school of magic training because you worked in the market place? A point of to hit and your armor training?).

It seems common in games I've been in to use rule 0, which you mention upthread, to let players modify the classes to fit their vision (a weapon proficiency they might not have by RAW, a different spell list for their cleric, etc...). Merchant training instead of a bunch of class skills seems ok (but I might warn the player that those skills might be much less useful to the party than some others).

 

[Lyxen]

Again, I can't think of a single actual at the table occurrence where a player in a D&D game came away from an encounter unhappy that an enemy could do things they couldn't do.

Yep, same experience here, over many, many years of gaming...

In 3e, I have had players asking me how an NPC could do certain things and questioning whether I had computed bonuses properly, which I found really annoying, but it was mostly to reassure himself that I was not "cheating" as a DM, which is a very bizarre and disrespectful thing to do as I'm never playing against the players anyway, but it's not exactly the same thing.