D&D General Should NPCs be built using the same rules as PCs?

[Micah Sweet]

There's the dreaded "player knowledge" - one amusing example from a story hour, here, I think, many years ago, a PC is in a combat, and a hidden enemy has cast Wall of Ice three times, he concludes, confidently, that it must be a Sorcerer...
...turns out to be a Bone Devil, which, in defiance of any/all rules governing PCs, duplicates the 4th level spell at will.

Then there's character knowledge, which, in later eds, is covered by checks.

Is that something bone devils can normally do? Bad luck then.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is the key thing right here: if an NPC can do it then a PC should be able to do it (assuming pre-reqs, if any, are met), and vice versa.

I'm not going to waste time balancing for PC use that which is there only for the space of a scene.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is that something bone devils can normally do? Bad luck then.

Sure, Bone Devils - in 3.5
...in 1e, they could, but only 1/day.

 

[Lanefan]

Any player who wants NPCs to be built like PCs are free to spend an hour(or more) a week writing up NPCs for their DM.

Why oh why does this always get brought up? It's a straw man.

The point is not that NPCs have to be built the long way every time, it's that when they're built by faster means (including being made up on the spot) the results still fit within what building them the long way could produce.

 

[Lanefan]

There's the dreaded "player knowledge" - one amusing example from a story hour, here, I think, many years ago, a PC is in a combat, and a hidden enemy has cast Wall of Ice three times, he concludes, confidently, that it must be a Sorcerer...
...turns out to be a Bone Devil, which, in defiance of any/all rules governing PCs, duplicates the 4th level spell at will.

As Bone Devils aren't PC-playable (at least not in any game I've ever heard of!) this is all good stuff.

 

[Vaalingrade]

A lot of people are talking about like sad city guards and bartenders and like... normal people, but remember this concept originally (and by originally, I mean 3e only) applied to all monsters and is why monsters can't just have all their rules in their statblock, forcing you to keep a PHB on your knee all night because damn it, we needed to know the demon prince of fire knows produce flame.

 

[Lanefan]

My point was more along the lines that the vast majority of pickpockets aren't rogues. If every 5 year old pickpocket got sneak attack and the rogue's compliment of weapon proficiencies, that would be a silly world indeed (IMO).

Yes, and this comes back to my point about people having some abilities of a class but not all; and how to mechanically fit that in with the existing game mechanics.

 

[Reynard]

A lot of people are talking about like sad city guards and bartenders and like... normal people, but remember this concept originally (and by originally, I mean 3e only) applied to all monsters and is why monsters can't just have all their rules in their statblock, forcing you to keep a PHB on your knee all night because damn it, we needed to know the demon prince of fire knows produce flame.

I don't think the OP was about bone devils. it was about people, like alchemists and healers and bandits and stuff.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Maybe Bob isn't a 1st-level Fighter. As the constable of a tiny fishing village he could easily just be a commoner; or a commoner who's had a bit of training in grappling and with a billyclub but that's it.

This points to - and is an example of - another gap in the rules I've been poking at recently: commoners who have a few quasi-class-like abilities but nowhere near enough to be fully a member of that class.

Take for example the hunters in a hunter-gatherer society: they'll all have some tracking and outdoors skills but none of them are actual Rangers. How can that be mechanically reflected in a manner consistent with the game's class-based structure?

Ditto Bob the Constable here. He's not a Fighter per se, yet through long practice knows a bit about the few elements of combat reqired for his job; probably well enough that he can at least do those as if a 1st Fighter. The game doesn't allow for guys like him in the rules, and IMO it should somehow.

I'm the other way around: if you're a priest, that by default means you are a Cleric; as one of the key things that defines a priest from an acolyte or lay person is the divinely-granted ability to cast spells.

That said, just because you're a Cleric doesn't mean you have to adventure, and many don't. Stay-at-home temple Clerics can still gain xp, though extremely slowly by adventuring standards, through doing good works, tending to their followers, making appropriate sacrifices, and so forth.

The game totally allows for those things. You make them an NPC, and they don't have to follow the rules for PC design.

Want to make an NPC constable who is proficient with a halberd but can't wear armor heavier than leather. 5e lets you do that.

Want to make an urchin with expertise in slight of hand but no weapon proficiencies whatsoever? 5e lets you do that too.

It's only PCs who have to stick with their class features (outside DM fiat).

 

[CleverNickName]

Simple enough question. What are your thoughts?

Nah, I'd rather not. It's a level of effort that I don't really need, and it makes the NPCs more predictable to the players. I prefer to keep them guessing.

Players: "So this priest at the temple...is he a cleric or a paladin?"
Me: "He's a priest."
Players: "That's...not a helpful answer. We're trying to figure out if he can cast raise dead or not."
Me: "You could always ask him."