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

[Baron Opal II]

Yes, to a degree. I have no interest in counting skill points (for any system), or making sure all the feats are valid. However, if there is something special about an NPC that would make sense for a PC it needs to be learnable or acquirable.

If an NPC warrior has a tactical maneuver that the PCs haven't seen before, they can learn it if the find the right teacher. The wizards can learn or research a new spell that was cast against them. If there was a special ritual at a fount of power, the PCs can get the same benefit if they do it too. They might not want to endure the trial that granted the NPC power, but if one could discover the path anyone else can too.

 

[dave2008]

Simple enough question. What are your thoughts?

Generally no, it is not necessary. It can be done if you want though. Basically I think 5e got this correct: you have several different options to represent an NPC: monster rules, full PC rules, or the companion rules

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

Also, while 5e lets you do these things it gives no guidance whatsoever as to how to fit them in and-or keep them consistent with how PCs function. This is something I've been poking at (just got to it this week, in fact) for my 1e-variant game.

I don't see any inconsistency in your example.

If you don't want to give the constable 5 attacks, don't give him 5 attacks. Presumably the GM has a brain and if they give the constable 5 attacks there's some reason for that, such as the constable being one of the world's foremost masters of the halberd. Having the freedom to design NPCs without class restrictions doesn't mean that someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to make NPCs that are dramatically different from classes PCs. You just have the creative freedom to do so if you choose.

It feels to me like you're saying that because people are free to choose what they do, they could choose to jump off a bridge, and therefore it's better they had no freedom at all. To which I would reply, don't jump off a bridge.

 

[Reynard]

"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.

I didn't say humans, did I? But the bit about the bone devil came out of an ongoing monstrous example.

"Gotcha" retorts are unbecoming.

 

[Umbran]

I didn't say humans, did I? But the bit about the bone devil came out of an ongoing monstrous example.

"Gotcha" retorts are unbecoming.

The point is less "gotcha" and more "but you do not seem to take into account the fact that the distinction between people and monsters is arbitrary."

 

[mamba]

No, there is no need to and it is more work to have them be symmetrical for no real gain

 

[jasper]

Simple enough question. What are your thoughts?

No. No. No. Never. Well sometimes. If I want a shaman which casts Heals and fireballs it should be no problem. NPCs are the humanoid monsters the DM uses.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I personally prefer that they do, but recognize that it’s not necessary.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, I feel like the simple fix is just "don't do that". If you give an over-the-top ability have an over-the-top justification. Get better at doing ad-hoc, don't give up on it if you screw up balance a time or two.

I don't care about screwing up balance but I very much do care about screwing up in-setting consistency. Thus, I do my best to make sure my ad-hoc NPCs (and many of them are) still fit within what the char-gen rules allow.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't see any inconsistency in your example.

If you don't want to give the constable 5 attacks, don't give him 5 attacks. Presumably the GM has a brain and if they give the constable 5 attacks there's some reason for that, such as the constable being one of the world's foremost masters of the halberd.

If the constable's one of the world's foremost masters of the halberd, that tells me he's got a lot of Fighter levels under his belt; be they from adventuring (the fast track way of levelling) or a whole lot of soldiering or similar (the very slow-track way of levelling).

Having the freedom to design NPCs without class restrictions doesn't mean that someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to make NPCs that are dramatically different from classes PCs. You just have the creative freedom to do so if you choose.

That's just it: I don't feel that freedom should exist nearly to the extent it does now, mostly because exercising it often means not being fair to the players.