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

[Cruentus]

I have Jotn the Innkeeper...who is immune to charm spells. I just say so and the game moves on. Until one hostile player climbs up on a High D20 and demands to know "how, by the offical rules" the innkeeper has that ability. So then I make up a full character write up, "using the offical rules" and make Jotn immune to charm spells. So now the player is all "happy" as they know all the "rules" that give the innkeeper that one ability.

Some of the descriptions of 'hostile players' or those demanding to know how things work "behind the screen" make me glad I have the group I play with, where it never ever comes up.

If an innkeeper had that ability to be immune to charm, we would assume it was either a magic item, or some 'retired adventurer' type ability. No one would ever actually ask. And if they did, they'd be told "that's for you to find out, if it really matters to you." As in, in-world. Role playing opportunity, activate!

And "monsters" used to be "by the book" to so speak, but over the decades, we never rely on our "meta knowledge" of monsters, because we all know now that we change them up from what is printed, give them different abilities, etc. Only the NPC's (humans, elves, dwarves, etc.), and some monsters like Liches, Vampires, Death Knights, etc. might have actual class levels, and they're built like the PCs.

My most memorable antagonists in campaign were the NPC's with class levels. One campaign, my castle I had built (1e?) was attacked by a lone Cleric who began to tear down my castle with a summoned elemental and then proceed to pound me (at 10th or 11th level Fighter) into the dirt in melee until I made a ridiculous round of rolls and won with single digit hit points remaining. We still talk about that 30 years later.

 

[Lanefan]

Remember we are only talking about the top 10% of NPCs.

I have Jotn the Innkeeper...who is immune to charm spells. I just say so and the game moves on. Until one hostile player climbs up on a High D20 and demands to know "how, by the offical rules" the innkeeper has that ability. So then I make up a full character write up, "using the offical rules" and make Jotn immune to charm spells.

Question 1: What official rule is there that gives someone charm immunity?

Question 2: If there is such a rule, how does or can a PC get the same ability?

Fail to answer either of those questions and I'm out of your game.

So now the player is all "happy" as they know all the "rules" that give the innkeeper that one ability.

And for a good DM this does not matter....as the DM could have just added the "whatever" in an obvious way. Like the Innkeeper is a constrict....so is immune to charm.

Wouldn't that have been made fairly obvious in your narration of said innkeeper, meaning the PC likely wouldn't have bothered trying the charm?

 

[Pedantic]

Some of the descriptions of 'hostile players' or those demanding to know how things work "behind the screen" make me glad I have the group I play with, where it never ever comes up.

If an innkeeper had that ability to be immune to charm, we would assume it was either a magic item, or some 'retired adventurer' type ability. No one would ever actually ask. And if they did, they'd be told "that's for you to find out, if it really matters to you." As in, in-world. Role playing opportunity, activate!

That's all well and good, but I'd quite like to actually have an answer, and not one I decided on in that moment (or if I did, one that has a grounded mechanical justification I could fill out in full later). I don't actually see how the mechanical derivation of the innkeeper's abilities is limiting in a roleplaying sense there.

 

[Cruentus]

That's all well and good, but I'd quite like to actually have an answer, and not one I decided on in that moment (or if I did, one that has a grounded mechanical justification I could fill out in full later). I don't actually see how the mechanical derivation of the innkeeper's abilities is limiting in a roleplaying sense there.

You'd like to have an answer to the innkeeper having that ability as a DM? Or as a player?

The innkeeper's mechanical derivation for me has to do with "he has it because I say so" versus "he has it as a species ability" or "he has it from a ring he kept from his adventuring days". Both of the latter I, as DM, can build in to that particular NPC if his being immune to charm was likely to be a major plot element. Both an ability or a magic items are things a PC could learn about. "Because the DM said so" or "because the 5e stat block says so", has less of a RP element, unless I make it up on the spot where it actually derives, imo.

 

[Vaalingrade]

How often do players demand to learn Rary's Double Jeopardy Laser Grid in situations not constructed to win this specific argument?

 

[TwoSix]

Ah, that's a difference between us: for me, Cleric is very much a thing within the fictional space; and if a Cleric can cast Guardian of Faith then people in the fiction who know a bit about Clerics (including almost all seasoned adventurers) have every reason to expect she can cast various other common Clerical spells up to and including the same degree of difficulty (i.e. spell level) as GoF.

Yea, certainly is. I've never really liked "class in the story" going back to when I was starting off in 2e, but I recognize I'm a minority in that preference.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yea, certainly is. I've never really liked "class in the story" going back to when I was starting off in 2e, but I recognize I'm a minority in that preference.

I remember an adventure in Dungeon or something where it says 'the party sees a rogue' and I'm like 'how do they know they're a rogue?'

 

[RainOnTheSun]

Their official rogue diploma, of course. They didn't spend four years at Thieves' Guild University to be called a crook or a mugger, thank you very much.

 

[bloodtide]

Question 1: What official rule is there that gives someone charm immunity?

Question 2: If there is such a rule, how does or can a PC get the same ability?

Fail to answer either of those questions and I'm out of your game.

Seems like an odd demand that the DM has to be so defensive and say "ok, look here on this page" and the hostile players look over the page to approve of what the DM is doing.
"Ok...DM....page 111 says constructs are immune to charm....so we will drop this...for now " just does not make for great game play.

And guess your saying you refuse to have any homebrew ever.....and that's a bit harsh.

Wouldn't that have been made fairly obvious in your narration of said innkeeper, meaning the PC likely wouldn't have bothered trying the charm?

That is my point though. When you have hostile players who are doing the "attack the DM game" all the time, the wise DM just stops their attack before it even happens.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I say yes and no.

• Any "adventurer" type NPC should follow PC* rules (rogue/wizard)
• "Monster" type NPCs use monster rules (young dragon vs adult dragon)
• "Monstrous Adventurers" get monster rules plus adventurer rules (i.e. adult dragon/rogue) which can be used to cover >90% of special cases
• Non-adventuring NPCs can use different rules but they should be a similar framework and shouldn't have any significant abilities not available to adventurers (i.e. "noble")

*The universal exception is the "Servant of Fate" class, which is full of game breaking features and can only be taken by NPCs. It usually involves some custom monster template IMO. If a PC finds a way to take this class, they hand the character to the DM. Servants of Fate should be either very rare or horrifyingly common depending on the game.

The big thing to me is to know where the competency breakpoints are and that they make sense. I.e. what roll does a "journeyman" tradesman make vs a newly minted "master" tradesman and how does that compare to PCs with the equivalent skills?

Because I have seen games where a "retired mercenary" PC needs a half dozen adventures of advancement to match a typical security guard. And that sucks.

5e simplifies most of it as proficiency bonus is standardized and simple as compared to spending 3.x skill points. I am truly irritated that DMG didn't have a simple "non-class" generic NPC framework. I mean, if the default peasant "non-class" is defined as 3+d0 hp and get 4 skills, Expertise in one skill at level 1. Each time they increase their PB, they gain another skill, another Expertise and the primary stat for their Expertise provides a +1 bonus.

Add race & age modifiers / gm flavoring on top if you care that much.

This covers most ills as the default NPC has a +0 except on their 3 skills that are +2 and their expertise is +4. 3hp.

An advanced NPC has +0 except on 3 skills that are +3, and they are +7 in their 2 areas of expertise. 3hp.

NPCs of renown are +0 except on 3 skills they are +4 and they are +10 on 3 areas of expertise. 3hp

Legendary NPCs are +0 except on 3 skills they are +5 and they are +13 on 4 areas of expertise. 3hp

Mythic NPCs are +0 except on 3 skills they are +6, and they are +16 on 5 areas of expertise. 3hp

This covers like 90% of non-adventuring NPCs as all you need is their skills, expertises and race modifiers in the statblock. It lets PCs judge themselves against NPCs in useful ways, which also goes to setting expectations on PCs interacting with NPCs.

The typical 5th level PC knows they are on par with an Advanced expert and need to seek out a Reknowned or Legendary NPC for them to have a material chance of providing insights the PC can not.

The honey-tongued 5th level elven bard may be on par with most Renowned diplomat NPCs and can gain a suitable reputation.