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

[Pedantic]

Personally I think this is fine. Characters are gifted, and whilst some NPCs are equally so, some might not be and would have just learned some of the class features etc. For example, I have no problem with a temple pries, who has cleric's casting capabilities but have not actually ever bothered to learn weapon or armour proficiencies, as they simply never had need for them.

And not all NPCs need a class. Some can just be basically commoners with perhaps an extra skill, proficiency or a feat. It mostly makes sense to think more powerful people in terms of classes.

I think it actually makes a lot of sense to make "having a PC class" a relatively rare thing in a given population. If you were careful about your metaphysics (and gave more attention to class design) you could make whatever it is that allows a character to grow that way be a known, limited in-universe factor. "Protagonism" as an inherent trait.

I miss demographic tables, even if they were never particularly well thought out. I'd love to know just how many characters of various levels/classes to expect in a given population.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Are you the local Cleric?"
"Yes, I am, how can I help you."
"One of our friends was killed by a Gazebo"
"Oh, my goodness me!"
"We were hoping you could help us."
"Of course, I can register his death in the church's records and set up the funeral for you... will you be wanting paid mourners? .. our paid mourners are really rather good, mostly, except for Giles the Ham...."
"What, no, like Raise Dead, aren't you 9th level?"
"I am an initiate of the aubergine ostler to the order of St. Bureaucrates the Cromulent!"
"...a what to the where of the who?"
"As I already confirmed to you a cleric - a scribe, a keeper of holy writ and temporal records..."
"C'mon, Steve, this isn't funny, can we get Mike raised or what?"

 

[R_J_K75]

100% no. Creating memorable and challenging NPCs should be quick and to the point but not necessarily follow the same rules as creating a PC. Breaking a NPC down to the lowest common denominator while still having relevant abilities should be quick and simple. Considering they are call NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS they should not follow the same rules.

 

[CleverNickName]

Except then you risk adding inconsistencies and setting precedents you maybe don't want to set.

Your examples are both fine, in that they represent weaker-than-class abilities. The red flag comes out when you start giving them stronger-than-class abilities, e.g. the halberd-wielding constable gets 5 attacks per round with it while a PC Fighter wielding the same weapon only gets one or two.

I mean, there's nothing wrong with having an NPCs that far outpace the party. It's pretty unrealistic to assume that every NPC is going to be weaker than the party, and that the party's fighter is going to be just as good (if not better) than every constable they meet.

If the party is supposed to be fighting that constable later? Yes, the constable should be of an appropriate challenge rating. But if the party's fighter just decides to attack the constable because he thinks it would be funny or he wants to show off, well...maybe he should spend the night in jail.

 

[Mort]

I mean, there's nothing wrong with having an NPCs that far outpace the party. It's pretty unrealistic to assume that every NPC is going to be weaker than the party, and that the party's fighter is going to be just as good (if not better) than every constable they meet.

If the party is supposed to be fighting that constable later? Yes, the constable should be of an appropriate challenge rating. But if the party's fighter just decides to attack the constable because he thinks it would be funny or he wants to show off, well...maybe he should spend the night in jail.

While I agree with the overall point (That there should certainly be NPCs that FAR outpace the party and making assumptions is often dangerous) - at a certain point, the party fighter absolutely SHOULD assume that he could wup the "normal" town constable. Fighters need to become "world beaters" too!

Now could there be a situation where the town constable is not "normal?" Absolutely! Say the group stumbles upon a town where a high level fighter has retired and decided to become the constable because he was bored. That could lead to a fun (and awkward) situation. But it certainly shouldn't be the norm once the group reaches high level.

I've always hated the treadmill approach to adventures, where no matter how powerful the group becomes, they always seem to be the least powerful people they deal with because the power level keeps moving past them. Let the group enjoy the fact that they're the big boys on the block - there are plenty of ways to challenge them from there!

 

[LordEntrails]

Simple enough: No.
NPCs should not be built the same way PCs are.

 

[CleverNickName]

While I agree with the overall point (That there should certainly be NPCs that FAR outpace the party and making assumptions is often dangerous) - at a certain point, the party fighter absolutely SHOULD assume that he could wup the "normal" town constable. Fighters need to become "world beaters" too!

Now could there be a situation where the town constable is not "normal?" Absolutely! Say the group stumbles upon a town where a high level fighter has retired and decided to become the constable because he was bored. That could lead to a fun (and awkward) situation. But it certainly shouldn't be the norm once the group reaches high level.

I've always hated the treadmill approach to adventures, where no matter how powerful the group becomes, they always seem to be the least powerful people they deal with because the power level keeps moving past them. Let the group enjoy the fact that they're the big boys on the block - there are plenty of ways to challenge them from there!

You're absolutely right, of course. And that point is going to vary from table to table.

In my campaign, that point where the party's fighter absolutely should assume he can whup the normal town constable is right around the end of the campaign. After they've taken the ring to Mordor and saved Middle Earth, Sam and Frodo can do whatever they want in The Shire. "My friends," the king himself will say, "You bow to no one." The days of running in terror from Farmer Maggot are long behind them.

Until then? They put their shoes on one at a time just like Rosie Cotton.*


*if Hobbits wore shoes, that is. Look, it's allegorical okay?

 

[Umbran]

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

"People" is a far more interesting concept when something other than humans on your planet are sentient.

Please allow me to introduce Rasputin M. Boney, late night bartender at the Belching Minotaur...

Monsters can be people too.

 

[Pedantic]

"People" is a far more interesting concept when something other than humans on your planet are sentient.

Please allow me to introduce Rasputin M. Boney, late night bartender at the Belching Minotaur...

Monsters can be people too.

Sure, he regularly runs pop-ups made entirely of ice thanks to that convenient innate species ability, and has a few lemures trapped in eternal barback duty.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, 4e recognized that giving monsters different roles could lead to more fun, more dynamic combats. A DM was under no obligation to use the different roles/blocks, but (IMO) it enhanced the game.

Frankly it's no different then stating an NPC as a cleric vs. a fighter vs. a rogue etc. as one did in 3e- but more streamlined and much easier to execute.

Its not the same, because it's one ststblock per NPC, and their stats shouldn't (imo) change based on what level the PCs are. That just drives me crazy. It did not make the fight more fun for me.