D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[NotAYakk]

A level 4.5 fighter with neither a subclass nor ASI, if we weaken Action Surge.

So if we add in, say, a couple Battlemaster maneuvers and Polearm Master, suddenly the veteran starts really falling behind.

Or we make the fighter a champion (almost a noop subclass), and use toughness to build up HP.

Right ballpark is my point.

 

[Quartz]

The question is relatively straight forward: do you prefer that NPCs and monsters operate by the same rules as PCs, or that they operate by their own rules.

I like it when they can; I also like it when they don't have to.

I'm mostly familiar with 3E and before so I'll go from there. It's great that you can create a NPC or creature from the ground up with all the correct HP, abilities, and whatnot. That's fantastic when you hand the character sheet to a guest player to play. But equally you can toss all that out the window and just scribble a few relevant notes because you won't need 90%+ of all the rest.

 

[Lyxen]

Yes. With very few exceptions, the same process could potentially be undertaken by the PCs. For instance, if I gave an NPC bodyguard a Shattering Defense ability that said that anytime a PC rolls a 1 when attacking him, he breaks that PC's weapon with his weapon, that skill would be potentially learnable by a PC. If on the other hand that Bodyguard's god granted him skin that shatters the weapons of his enemies when they roll a 1, it would be very hard and unlikely for a PC to achieve that. It would be possible, though, if the PC could somehow contact that god and offer something of equal value.

Agreed.

Yep. To be honest, this was the initial reason for my position, that every NPC power would be available wound be way too much. That some, in particular the ones that you coud potentially get from training would sometimes be available, why not of course.

I don't even think we disagree there, since I think that NPCs can both use PC rules(RAW) and stat blocks(RAW) and nothing at all(RAW). I think he holds those same views.

Indeed I do, I like 5e in that domain because of the flexibility here.

 

[Maxperson]

Yep. To be honest, this was the initial reason for my position, that every NPC power would be available wound be way too much. That some, in particular the ones that you coud potentially get from training would sometimes be available, why not of course.

Sure, but at what cost? So the PC needs to train. That could take years and the PCs generally don't have that long. Or maybe that ability is being worked on and will be the new 20th level capstone ability for him. I'm not suggesting that new abilities just be given to PCs because they practice a bit.

 

[Lyxen]

Sure, but at what cost? So the PC needs to train. That could take years and the PCs generally don't have that long. Or maybe that ability is being worked on and will be the new 20th level capstone ability for him. I'm not suggesting that new abilities just be given to PCs because they practice a bit.

I think we agree there as well, when I'm saying "available", I don't mean "immediately, without cost". It might be the case for some, but not for all. After that, it's really going to be on a case by case basis, depending on the DM, the setting, the characters, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

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,

If you don't think a PC should be able to learn it then why on earth are you giving it to an NPC?

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?

Do it however you want - making pack tactics a low-level warrior feat might be simplest in the 5e system - but do it, yes.

And if pack tactics is something that works well in bar fights but is unlikely to help much in field combat, that's fine. Note it as such in the feat write-up so players are fully informed, and carry on.

 

[Reynard]

If you don't think a PC should be able to learn it then why on earth are you giving it to an NPC?

Is this a serious question?

 

[Cadence]

Is this a serious question?

Sure. Why should an NPC have a trained or granted power that a PC who chose the right background and character concept couldn't aspire to theoretically reach. Why should it be gated off?

 

[Lanefan]

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...

Advocating means, in part, pushing the rules envelope for any advantages that might be hanging around. And I wouldn't call you a tyrant for pushing back against that advocation, I'd instead call you a DM who is doing his job.

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.

If you as DM say "No evil PCs" I walk out.

Why?

Because you're telling me how to play my character, and that just doesn't fly. Further, because you're willing to tell me how to play my character in this aspect it's clear I can't trust that you won't - then or later - tell me how to play it in other aspects. (examples I've seen posted by others in this forum include no in-character romances, character must be of the player's gender, etc.)

Guidelines are fine. Hard rules are not; and the only way you-as-DM can turn my character into an NPC is if I willingly hand it over to you (and in my view this includes even if-when I-as-player have left an ongoing campaign; the character still belongs to me and you need my permission to do anything significant with it).

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.

If the other players don't want it that's one thing, but as a DM I've always seen it as my job to more or less run whatever the players put in front of me; and this can (and does!) include all kinds of left turns, unexpected actions, and plain ol' crazy ship.

Sure, at session 0 I'll make a few preferences very clear as to what I don't like DMing (usually revolving around players trying to turn the game into Economics 101 by becomeing businesspeople instead of adventurers), but if a character and-or class exists as playable within the setting I don't restrict what a player can do with it.

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.

If game-element X works a certain way this time but a different way next time under similar circumstances, how are the players supposed to be able to make informed decisions?

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.

Even though it had bogged down as you say, I found myself even more disappointed with it once Sanderson took the helm.

 

[Lanefan]

@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?

Internal setting consistency.

The PCs are first and foremost members of the setting's general population. A PC Elf, for example, is just like any other Elf in the setting. A PC Ranger is just like any other Ranger in the setting. PCs aren't special snowflakes just because they come with PC stickers on 'em, and I want the mechanics to reflect this.

That said, the PCs might become special snowflakes because of what they do in the setting during their adventuring careers, but never because of their PC status alone.

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)?

All my PCs might be martials now but it's ironclad guaranteed that won't always be the case, and I have to look beyond the immediate here-and-now at the campaign-wide picture.

dave2008]
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?

Yes. In fact I'm sometimes that player myself, but only if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

If I'm playing an Elf and I see another Elf do something a typical Elf PC cannot, I ask (to myself) how and why can this be; and then in-character try to find the answers. And I'm by no means alone in this; if that NPC Elf has something that we can use, we want it.

Of course, it might not be the wisest idea for our characters to get it - e.g. let's say an Elf Fighter managed to Dominate a few of us during combat, on wondering how he did that we find a magic headband but the poor schlub PC who puts it on is in turn immediately Dominated by a major Demon who had been using the Elf Fighter as a puppet - but the opportunity should be there for us to find out if we can.