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

[Micah Sweet]

The latter. it is unwieldy, unbalanced, and STILL won't actually make everyone happy because some archetype or idea won't be represented.

Well, that's D&D for you. The system you want is either 2e's Skills and Powers (an update of which would admittedly be very cool) or is for a different game.

 

[Reynard]

Well, that's D&D for you. The system you want is either 2e's Skills and Powers (an update of which would admittedly be very cool) or is for a different game.

Yes. This.

 

[Aldarc]

The solution is to built an actual race and class construction system. It doesn't necessarily need to be as broad as, say, Hero, but even something similar to what we had in the 2E DMG would go a long way toward letting players really play what they want.

Anyway, I am just musing on a Saturday morning. It seems silly to point to storm raging barbarians and spell casting swordsmen and dragon blooded sorcerers and then say, "Of course you can't be an alchemist."

To a certain extent, I think that this is what 3e tried to be.

 

[Tony Vargas]

D&D needs a point based PC construction sysystem.

It kinda does: Multiclassing.

It's just that you start with only 1 point, and can only buy 1 level in one class with that point.

 

[Alzrius]

Well, that's D&D for you. The system you want is either 2e's Skills and Powers (an update of which would admittedly be very cool) or is for a different game.

There are several other point-buy character-generation systems for D&D out there (though admittedly it depends on what edition you're talking about). I've long been enamored of Eclipse: The Codex Persona (affiliate link) for 3.5 and other d20 System-based games, because it not only offers an expansive point-buy catalogue of abilities, but because it also has guidelines on how to alter those abilities, introducing either a minor or major weakness/limitation/drawback to a given ability in exchange for either a price-break or a corresponding increase to another aspect of what that ability can do. The result is that you can make almost any sort of character, from The Dark Lord Sauron to My Little Pony's Rainbow Dash.

Having said that, there's a salient aspect to point-buy character-generation (or at least, the aforementioned method of it) that I think often goes overlooked when it's discussed in the context of D&D. All too often, I see a mindset of "how I build my character is my exclusive prerogative, which neither the GM nor the other players can infringe on," and while I understand that point of view, when you have such a flexible method of building characters, there needs to be a greater awareness of how they fit into both the campaign that the GM has designed, and how well they mix with the group's overall cohesion.

Obviously, that's the case for any group's Session 0, but in this case there's special attention called to the fact that the guidelines for altering listed abilities are just that: guidelines. Whether a particular weakness to a power is appropriate (or even possible, within the context of the setting), and how much of a corresponding gain it's worth, have to be run by the GM and receive their approval. For that matter, the GM may have a blanket disallow of certain abilities altogether. Having such a low-constraints system means that the restraints are offloaded onto both yourself and the other players, not that you're free to do whatever you want without oversight or consequences. Approaching this kind of system with a "if it's in the book, it's allowable for me to use, and no one gets to say boo" is just asking for trouble.

But presuming that everyone is acting in good faith, and has no trouble designing things that are interesting character concepts rather than power-gaming the system, then it can allow for a lot of fun ideas that standard class-level character progressions would have a much harder time with.

 

[Reynard]

There are several other point-buy character-generation systems for D&D out there (though admittedly it depends on what edition you're talking about). I've long been enamored of Eclipse: The Codex Persona (affiliate link) for 3.5 and other d20 System-based games, because it not only offers an expansive point-buy catalogue of abilities, but because it also has guidelines on how to alter those abilities, introducing either a minor or major weakness/limitation/drawback to a given ability in exchange for either a price-break or a corresponding increase to another aspect of what that ability can do. The result is that you can make almost any sort of character, from The Dark Lord Sauron to My Little Pony's Rainbow Dash.

Having said that, there's a salient aspect to point-buy character-generation (or at least, the aforementioned method of it) that I think often goes overlooked when it's discussed in the context of D&D. All too often, I see a mindset of "how I build my character is my exclusive prerogative, which neither the GM nor the other players can infringe on," and while I understand that point of view, when you have such a flexible method of building characters, there needs to be a greater awareness of how they fit into both the campaign that the GM has designed, and how well they mix with the group's overall cohesion.

Obviously, that's the case for any group's Session 0, but in this case there's special attention called to the fact that the guidelines for altering listed abilities are just that: guidelines. Whether a particular weakness to a power is appropriate (or even possible, within the context of the setting), and how much of a corresponding gain it's worth, have to be run by the GM and receive their approval. For that matter, the GM may have a blanket disallow of certain abilities altogether. Having such a low-constraints system means that the restraints are offloaded onto both yourself and the other players, not that you're free to do whatever you want without oversight or consequences. Approaching this kind of system with a "if it's in the book, it's allowable for me to use, and no one gets to say boo" is just asking for trouble.

But presuming that everyone is acting in good faith, and has no trouble designing things that are interesting character concepts rather than power-gaming the system, then it can allow for a lot of fun ideas that standard class-level character progressions would have a much harder time with.

Also, most point buy character generation systems have the built in danger of spending a lot of points to create a comepltely worthless character. This is especially true with systems that use a single pool to "buy" everything. Inevitably someone spends half their points on Culinary Arts and next to none on combat skills.

 

[Eric V]

I'm fine with some hacks to simplify the process, but yes, ideally. The rules should lead to knowable outcomes, where the players can make decisions about the potential capabilities of others from a shared set of norms.

I don't know why everyone's abilities in a fantasy world should be knowable.

 

[jgsugden]

The answer depends upon your lore. Why do PCs advance as they do, and should that reason apply to beings other than the PCs?

In my lore there is a condition called God Touched. It allows a being to advance as PCs do through character levels, it gives them access to death saves rather than the basic death rules I apply (which are that you continue to add to negative hp, you die when your negative hp equals you hit dice plus your con bonus), and they can gain insiration. All PCs have it, and about 1 in 1000 others have it. Without it, it would take 60 years of study to achieve 5th level as a wizard, and 200 years to get to 7th. Mastering 5th level spells as a 9th level caster would be something only extremely old dwarves and elves could manage - unless they're God touched.

In general, I use abbreviated class mechanics when I build an NPC that is God Touched. I don't worry about the fine details, but I use the D&DBeyond characetr builder to create them. When building non-God touched, I usually just use a basic stat block and then modify it to fit my needs.

This is the general approach I've used for 30+ years. It works very well in my homebrew campaign.

For other DMs that have run games for me, they treat PC mechanics as a unique thing for that PC. There are not a bunch of 'rogues' running around. Instead, when we encounter a thieves guild, there will be a bunch of nondescript PCs and the leaders will have a bespoke group of abilities. You won't see an army that all has sneak attack, but you might encounter a group with a bunch of thugs and leaders that are good at quietly knocking you unconcious or using magic to hide that there is an attack/theft going on. That has also worked real well.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The answer depends upon your lore. Why do PCs advance as they do, and should that reason apply to beings other than the PCs?

In my lore there is a condition called God Touched. It allows a being to advance as PCs do through character levels, it gives them access to death saves rather than the basic death rules I apply (which are that you continue to add to negative hp, you die when your negative hp equals you hit dice plus your con bonus), and they can gain insiration. All PCs have it, and about 1 in 1000 others have it. Without it, it would take 60 years of study to achieve 5th level as a wizard, and 200 years to get to 7th. Mastering 5th level spells as a 9th level caster would be something only extremely old dwarves and elves could manage - unless they're God touched.

In general, I use abbreviated class mechanics when I build an NPC that is God Touched. I don't worry about the fine details, but I use the D&DBeyond characetr builder to create them. When building non-God touched, I usually just use a basic stat block and then modify it to fit my needs.

This is the general approach I've used for 30+ years. It works very well in my homebrew campaign.

For other DMs that have run games for me, they treat PC mechanics as a unique thing for that PC. There are not a bunch of 'rogues' running around. Instead, when we encounter a thieves guild, there will be a bunch of nondescript PCs and the leaders will have a bespoke group of abilities. You won't see an army that all has sneak attack, but you might encounter a group with a bunch of thugs and leaders that are good at quietly knocking you unconcious or using magic to hide that there is an attack/theft going on. That has also worked real well.

That's cool.

In my games it varies to a degree. Sometimes the PCs are more special and sometimes less. At a minimum, I always treat classed characters as elite. Effectively, they're the equivalent of Special Forces in our world. Not every guardsman is a fighter, in the same sense that not every security guard is a navy seal.

A fair number of NPCs will have some subset of class features, but the NPCs who have a class are the exception, not the rule.

Sometimes I'll run a campaign where they're more than that. In the campaign I'm currently running, the PCs were all servants of the God-King, and carry his mark. The mark grants them some potent abilities, but more importantly, it marks them as agents of the God-King's authority. Most of the NPCs are quite deferential to them, which created a bit of a unexpected learning curve. Near the beginning of the campaign, all of the NPCs they were talking to were acting nervous, which they initially found suspicious. I thought they were about to go full murder hobo, until one of the more observant players pointed out, "Hey guys, I think they're just intimidated by us".

 

[Lanefan]

I'm sorry, but from a world building perspective, that doesn't make sense to me. If I want to make a man who's trained 20 years with the halberd but has never laid eyes on plate mail, I need to give him proficiency in plate mail (even if he's never even seen a suit of plate)? Or make him a barbarian or monk, with all the additional things those entail (rage/ki)?

Fairness exists in the CR guidelines. If I make the constable a CR 10 NPC, then I know he's not a fair encounter for a level 1 party. Whether he's a high level fighter or a custom NPC doesn't enter into the fairness equation, IMO. Am I suddenly required to let the PCs play a fire breathing lizard before I'm allowed to have them face a dragon?

Not at all. Fire-breathing lizards aren't a PC-playable species therefore no symmetry is required.

But I'm assuming here that ol' Constable Bob is Human (let's take it that he is, for these purposes), meaning that as a Human his mechanics and those of a Human PC should match up. If they don't, there's a consistency problem in the setting: why can't Bob do what a PC can, or why can't a PC do what Bob can. (and "just because" is not an acceptable answer to that rhetorical question ) In 5e, for example, this would also mean that Bob in theory gets whatever species-based mechanical benefits a Human PC would get, because if it's species-based that by default means it applies to every member of that species on the planet. (in most other editions Humans are the flat baseline , and thus a poor example for the point I'm trying to make)

Which means, if you allow Bob to function as a 20th-level Fighter* when it comes to halberd use and yet not know plate mail from plate glass, those same mechanics have to be available to Human PCs...which doesn't square very well with the adventuring-class paradigm the game is built on, where a class bestows kind of an all-or-nothing ability set.

Now you could, I suppose, break out all the various dozens if not hundreds of abilities given by classes and say that each character (PC and NPC alike) gets x number of these abilities, mix and match, per y-number of xp earned; but that would make it in effect a classless game and IMO not really D&D any more.

* - by this I mean when using a halberd he uses the same combat matrix or BAB or whatever as would a F-20; my shorthand term for this is "Fight Level", or FL.

FWIW, IMCs, if it makes sense that a PC could learn something, they technically can. The fighter PC could potentially convince the constable to train him. It would likely take years, where the fighter devotes himself to training with the halberd and not adventuring, and there's no guarantee that the campaign wouldn't end before that happens (and I'm always transparent on those points) but it is an option.

That's cool.

Another good example that was mentioned in this thread was priests. If I want to make a spellcasting priest, I need to give them weapon and armor proficiencies, even if the priest has never had a day of such training in their lives? That doesn't make sense to me.

That's why there needs to be what I call "stay-at-home" versions of these classes. That said, a good case can be made for most Clerics getting at least some basic weapon and armour training anyway, for if they ever need to come to the defense of their temple, or their lay people.

If you really think it's unfair, there's nothing stopping you from making NPC classes for every type of NPC, like a single-weapon-master for the constable or a cloistered-cleric for the priest, and allow players take those classes (despite the fact that they'd largely be trap options that are overall worse than the existing classes).

That's actually the route I'm very slowly starting to go, with the specific intent that these classes or part-classes be such obvious trap options (as in so clearly sub-optimal, e.g. they specifically don't and can't gain xp from killing things and taking risks) that nobody in their right mind would play one. They'll even be labelled up front as unplayable as field adventurers.

So far I've vaguely waved at Artificer (stay-at-home designer and crafter of magic items) and Sage (stay-at-home researcher and fount of knowledge).

To me, that seems like a huge waste of time that I could otherwise invest into other elements of my campaigns. I prefer bespoke NPCs as the default.

What I'm trying to do is fill holes in the system where there's no mechanical support for common archetypes. It's work I only have to do once (my favourite kind!), I just have to do it.