D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Micah Sweet]

No it's not. It's an approximation designed to create a better combat encounter than a real 18th level wizard would be. It has better HP, extra abilities like magic resistance, a lower proficiency bonus, and missing dozens of features a PC wizard would have. It is designed though to be fill roughly the same narrative space since the NPC doesn't need everything a PC gets and needs a lot more defense to survive combat with PCs.

Which is why they don't need parallelism. The wizard class is designed to handle an adventuring day of different challenges, the NPC a combat encounter. Demanding NPCs and PCs have equal access to the same abilities is insane. The things the NPCs needs are not what the PC needs and vice versa.

Only if your focus is on narrative roles. If your focus is on the logic of a PC and NPC archmage not being different orders of creature by no virtue of the setting, then you want those numbers and abilities for both in a similar range.

 

[Hussar]

No you don't. None of those are proof that WotC are liars with their DMG rules on making NPCs with PC rules. I believe them when they say that making NPCs with PC rules is one of the RAW methods.

Well that’s fairly obvious.

Ignoring thousands of pieces of actual evidence to focus on a throwaway line in the DMG is all that’s needed to come to your conclusions.

After all, why let pesky facts get in the way of a good belief?

 

[Maxperson]

Well that’s fairly obvious.

Ignoring thousands of pieces of actual evidence to focus on a throwaway line in the DMG is all that’s needed to come to your conclusions.

After all, why let pesky facts get in the way of a good belief?

They aren't going to make them as PCs for a module, because the method they default to is the MM version. Their personal default does not negate the other two methods or render those two methods not RAW. There is no evidence in 5e that negates the fact that you 1) can by RAW build NPCs with PC rules, and 2) NPCs are by RAW monsters.

Your evidence isn't.

 

[James Gasik]

There seems to be some confusion about 5e's definition of a monster.

 

[Hussar]

They aren't going to make them as PCs for a module, because the method they default to is the MM version. Their personal default does not negate the other two methods or render those two methods not RAW. There is no evidence in 5e that negates the fact that you 1) can by RAW build NPCs with PC rules, and 2) NPCs are by RAW monsters.

Your evidence isn't.

So, yuppers, you can build NPC's using the PC rules. Sort of. Again, since you were incapable of telling me what the CR of a 7th level monk was, I'm not really sure how, exactly, you build an NPC using the PC rules, but, let's move on from that.

The fact is, while NPC's can be built using the PC rules, they AREN'T. An Archmage isn't built using PC rules. Like, at all. A Gladiator is not a fighter subclass. It does not, in any way, use any of the class abilities of a fighter. None of the NPC's ANYWHERE in any published D&D material are built using the PC rules. But, sure, you can build NPC's using the PC rules.

Note, while you could build an NPC fighter using the PC rules, you absolutely CANNOT build a gladiator doing the same. It just doesn't work. What class is a Kuo-toa? After all, it's humanoid. So, why does it have 4 HD? Whereas a Kuo-toa bandit (since bandits can be any race and Kuo-Toa are humanoid) only has 2 HD. How does that work? A guard has 2d8 HP. What class is that? So on and so forth

So, yes, you are technically correct. It is RAW to use the PC rules to create an NPC. However, since it is never actually done, and, most of the time it's actually impossible to do and get the correct results, it's not really all that correct at all.

 

[Bae'zel]

Just gotta catch up with the thread:

Are we debating whether the Humanoid stats in the MM were built using PC-building rules? Clearly they aren’t, or don’t appear to be. They seem to follow “monster” building rules.

I personally “upgrade” important NPCs into Sidekicks from… Tasha’s was it? Occasionally I build a NPC of great importance as a full-on PC too.

That’s what I do, but for antagonists and minor NPCs I’ll just grab a stat block from the MM as I don’t need further complexity.

 

[GobHag]

They aren't going to make them as PCs for a module, because the method they default to is the MM version. Their personal default does not negate the other two methods or render those two methods not RAW. There is no evidence in 5e that negates the fact that you 1) can by RAW build NPCs with PC rules, and 2) NPCs are by RAW monsters.

Your evidence isn't.

Yes exactly. Everything you say is factual and everybody is wrong.

 

[Remathilis]

Only if your focus is on narrative roles. If your focus is on the logic of a PC and NPC archmage not being different orders of creature by no virtue of the setting, then you want those numbers and abilities for both in a similar range.

But they aren't and won't be because they have different roles.

Try an experiment next game. Give each player an NPC stat block of roughly equal CR and then put them in an adventure where everyone they meet is a PC class. Set the numbers for mid-level (like around 5-8). Tell me how the feel of the game changes. I'm sure certain things will be pretty similar, but their will be obvious cracks (the NPCs can't change weapons or armor, the PCs classes will have a lot of nova potential). The point is that the two don't have the same role and aren't mechanically built to be different to accommodate that. The archmage is an illusion, a more satisfying way to encounter a high power spellcaster. It's mechanics are designed to simulate a good fight, not to be objective reality.

I know that goes against everything you believe, but most people don't care about 1:1 parallelism. They want a game that is easy to run.

 

[Remathilis]

It isn't a wizard. It's an archmage. It's similar to a wizard, but there are differences.

Then it's probably a good thing that I've never made that demand.

They fill a similar narrative space, designed to be a more fulfilling encounter (esp if combat is involved). You can call the archmage a wizard and no one would bat an eye (in fact, they are tagged as wizards in 24, for what use that is).

 

[Shadowdweller00]

They fill a similar narrative space, designed to be a more fulfilling encounter (esp if combat is involved). You can call the archmage a wizard and no one would bat an eye (in fact, they are tagged as wizards in 24, for what use that is).

Also: Have a much smaller stat block. One of the consequences of "no empty levels" design is that direct one-to-one PC class conversions fill up with a plethora of abilities that are cumbersome to write out and that most NPCs are unlikely to ever use. 1e/2e characters were much simpler.

Nevertheless, there are usually presumed to be populations of PC classes out in the various D&D game worlds. There are numerous references to them throughout pretty much every adventure or setting book. It's just that approximations like the Archmage or Evoker or Warlock of the Fiend are used to represent them. It IS necessary to keep these stat blocks more or less congruent and consistent with (some of the) PC abilities for that representation to function.