D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Helldritch]

I prefer that NPCs model the same fiction as PCs, but I don’t think they need to use the same rules to do it. What I mean by that is, an NPC wizard should feel like a PC wizard. They don’t necessarily need to use the same spellcasting mechanics, because a lot of stuff in the rules for the PC class is irrelevant for an NPC - I as DM don’t need a full spellbook with a bunch of spells the NPC will never use, and a subset of those that are prepared, fueled by spell slots that recover on a long rest. This character is probably only going to be alive for three rounds of combat, I just need to know what he can do in that time. However, I still want the NPC wizard’s spellcasting mechanics to reflect the same reality as the PC wizard. If the PC’s fireball spell is resisted by satyrs and can be countered by counterspell, so should the NPC’s fiery blast ability be, even though it isn’t cast with a spell slot.

Likewise, I don’t really mind PC orcs only being able to dash as a bonus action PB times per long rest, while NPC orcs can do it at-will. As long as they’re both modeling the orcish burst of speed in combat, I’m cool with the specifics varying. But it bugs the hell out of me that NPC orcs have sunlight sensitivity but PC orcs don’t. If orcs are sensitive to sunlight, they should be sensitive to sunlight; doesn’t matter if the orc is a PC or an NPC. I don’t mind if the specific mechanics reflecting that sensitivity are different, but both should model it in some way, otherwise they don’t feel like they’re modeling the same creature.

To the bolded part.
This is why the templates at the end of the MM are so good. They did not have those in 3.xed and it showed. With those templates, doing just about anything becomes easy. And they stay relevant throughout the levels, thanks to bounded accuracy.

 

[Malmuria]

Haaaaa. But if you order chicken at the King of Chicken restaurant (because they are reknown for it) and you are given beef you can say that is not what you wanted. This is exactly what they are doing right here and now. The 5ed was the reunification edition (as they had said in the forum before it went down).

What? When you bought the core books in 2014, if it wasn't what you wanted you could have returned them, whether or not you took part in the playtest. Having taken part of a playtest or answering a survey doesn't mean you are entitled to a specific kind of product, not in 2014 and certainly not now, 8 years later.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No did not. 5ed was made specifically to cater to both the traditionalists and progressists or the new and the old generation of gamers

Next started doing this. Then the sequestered themselves ot just one group and murdered all the good stuff.

Haaaaa. But if you order chicken at the King of Chicken restaurant (because they are reknown for it) and you are given beef you can say that is not what you wanted. This is exactly what they are doing right here and now.

I missed the part where we were talking about chicken and not an IP controlled by a company that has changed without an edition change at least four times.

What you consider minor, starts to add up to quite a lot. They are in fact, building a new edition but they do not want to lose the golden goose. So they keep calling it 5ed where it is more and more appearing that it is no longer the truth.

They're sending up trial balloons for improvement like they do every edition.

And getting the same inane pushback from people who are confused as to the concept of IP ownership.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What? When you bought the core book in 2014, if it wasn't what you wanted you could have returned them, whether or not you took part in the playtest. Having taken part of a playtest or answering a survey doesn't mean you are entitled to a specific kind of product, not in 2014 and certainly not now, 8 years later.

Or.

Ooooor...

They're actually the owner of WotC now because of the playtest.

Also YUM Brands because they took the Pepsi challenge before the stock split.

 

[Reynard]

But I do. I told you my reasons. What are yours? Only preferences or are they based on logic and strong game designs and intents as mine? I am curious to hear about your motivations.

Emphasis mine.

Mine is purely preference. So is yours. No need to paint it as logically superior and of a higher order of design.

My motivation is largely one of wonder: in D&D in particular, for me, the whole point is the PCs enter a world of wonder. That means they encounter things outside of not just their experience, but their understanding -- perhaps even their capacity to understand. The inspiration texts by Howard and Lovecraft and Smith and Lieber are a strong influence on the way I view the fantastic, but even Tolkien embraced the weird with unnamable thing beneath the earth and confounding powers like Bombadil. The way I translate that is stuff that fits on a character sheet is the normal, understandable world the PCs exist in (even if they are exceptional compared to the populace). When they delve forgotten ruins and ancient forests and strange planes, they must be presented with the fantastic. otherwise, what's the point?

 

[BookTenTiger]

And they ignored ME, so I don't know who we is except the very specific group they catered to in the end.

Seriously? Just because they asked your opinion doesn't meant they're obligated to follow it. If Baskin-Robbins asks what flavors we like and I say 'Sawmill Gravy', even if they somehow end up producing it doesn't mean they're stuck with it until they burn down the building and try again.

They're improving their product in (frankly) minor ways for the audience they now have. Again, they decide when to call a thing a new edition and at this point the difference is so minor calling it a new edition would be unprecedented. Like calling 3.5 4e because of Book of 9 Swords; just because you made a minor improvement doesn't mean it's a full edition.

Sawmill Gravy is such a great nasty flavor name.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Emphasis mine.

Mine is purely preference. So is yours.

Mine is based on my manliness, how hard I can flex my pecs and a chemical called mantosterone because testosterone doesn't go hard enough.

I'm manlier than everyone who doesn't agree with me is the point.

Please praise me. I'm sad.

 

[NotAYakk]

Yep, but they are the close match that we wanted. Now? Not so much. The over simplification of foes was tried before. It was dropped for a reason.

Again, who is this we you refer to.

I answered the surveys. I am part of the people who WotC is equally obliged to as any other subset.

The MM monsters are also reasonably close to what I wanted, but spellcasters are still a bit too PC based. I really don't need a list of 20 spells and a dozen+slots to manage for every wizard NPC.

You can still stat up a wizard NPC that uses PC building rules. The monster building guidelines to determine CR from monster stats do not care how many slots the wizard has, they care about how it will do in a short and deadly fight.

The new monsters do not erase the old ones. They are intended to be easier to run for a DM using them in a fight, and probably even easier to mimic and modify.

I mean, I personally can use 5e CR guidelines to say "I need a CR 3 threat" and generate stats from that (I had to do some math to make this easy, it isn't set up that way). You can also generate stats for a monster, and derive a CR from that. If your stat generation is "roll up a PC", that is one way to generate stats. If it is "take an ogre and modify", or invent your own NPC class, or port over a Bot9S character, or port over a red box small white dragon ... all of those work.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, but In creating 5ed, they went on by asking us through survey and playtests what WE wanted. At this point, they have a.moral obligation to keep their word that this is our edition.

LOL. Are you serious? A "moral obligation"? There are lots and lots of things that are moral obligations. This is not one of them.

Open a 1e module. Look at an NPC. They literally had class levels. Casters has the same spells as PCs in the same format.

Every class in Drafon magazine? They were NPC classes (people just used them as regular classes). Including the death knight. They were in the exact format of pc classes. I’m sorry if you’re annoyed, but I suspect it’s because you aren’t familiar with the rules rather than old schoolers doing revisionist history.

Only if it was a human or demi-human. Not if it was an orc or a hobgoblin. Why did NPC MU's have to follow those rules, but, an orc didn't? Orcs and hobgoblins in no way actually reference any levels at all. Even the picture that you posted above only lists the levels for a HUMAN NPC. How much XP was that human NPC worth if you fought and killed it? Oh, that's right, no one actually knows because it would never be listed anywhere and you had to basically just make it up. Was a 5th level elven fighter worth more or less xp than a 5th level human one? After all, that elf has infra vision, which should make it worth more xp according to the rules. Who knows?

Dragon magazine 222 answers your question. It has the death knight class. You might want to hold off on your gloating phrases like “laughably easy to disprove” when you didn’t disprove anything, and in fact the seem to be proven wrong yourself by the actual material (issue 222 in this specific case). Maybe instead of being so entrenched in assumptions, back off a little and ask why so many people are repeating the same thing. Is it more likely they are all delusional and are using revisionist history, or is it more likely they experienced the same things back in the day and are recalling actual rules? I suspect you might be less annoyed if you held back on the knee jerk reactions.

People do have rose colored glasses at times, I won’t dispute that. But if everyone is saying one thing and you weren’t gaming yourself back then, then perhaps they should be given a little bit of thought before replying with such condescending phrases. Because when you say something like that when it’s clearly not, it doesn’t look good for the strength of your position and people will tend to dismiss your entire argument, even if there are things worth considering in them.

So, I only had to wait twenty years for that to come out? Fiend Folio, where I find the Death Knight capable of casting fireball in plate mail, gets released in 1981, Dragon 222 in 1995. Guess I only had to wait 14 years. Apparently it's a class though. Amazing how you knew that it was a death knight class over a decade in advance.

Yeah, pretty much standard revisionist history. And, sorry, but, I was gaming back then too. Started in 1980, to be honest. So, instead of presuming to tell me about "the way things were", howzabout sticking to facts? And, frankly, so far, "everybody" is two people, you and @Helldritch. See, I'm not pretending like my play preferences were somehow "the way things were". I'm not the one making claims. I'm the one holding up a big sign that says, "NOPE." The "facts" that have been presented - that it was standard for PC's and NPC's to follow the same rules from AD&D to 3e and then into 5e simply isn't true. 3e did that, very clearly. But AD&D? Nope, barely at all. The only rules that got applied to NPC's was if the enemy was a human or demi-human. If it wasn't? Then all bets were off.

 

[Sacrosanct]

LOL. Are you serious? A "moral obligation"? There are lots and lots of things that are moral obligations. This is not one of them.


Only if it was a human or demi-human. Not if it was an orc or a hobgoblin. Why did NPC MU's have to follow those rules, but, an orc didn't? Orcs and hobgoblins in no way actually reference any levels at all. Even the picture that you posted above only lists the levels for a HUMAN NPC. How much XP was that human NPC worth if you fought and killed it? Oh, that's right, no one actually knows because it would never be listed anywhere and you had to basically just make it up. Was a 5th level elven fighter worth more or less xp than a 5th level human one? After all, that elf has infra vision, which should make it worth more xp according to the rules. Who knows?


So, I only had to wait twenty years for that to come out? Fiend Folio, where I find the Death Knight capable of casting fireball in plate mail, gets released in 1981, Dragon 222 in 1995. Guess I only had to wait 14 years. Apparently it's a class though. Amazing how you knew that it was a death knight class over a decade in advance.

Yeah, pretty much standard revisionist history. And, sorry, but, I was gaming back then too. Started in 1980, to be honest. So, instead of presuming to tell me about "the way things were", howzabout sticking to facts? And, frankly, so far, "everybody" is two people, you and @Helldritch. See, I'm not pretending like my play preferences were somehow "the way things were". I'm not the one making claims. I'm the one holding up a big sign that says, "NOPE." The "facts" that have been presented - that it was standard for PC's and NPC's to follow the same rules from AD&D to 3e and then into 5e simply isn't true. 3e did that, very clearly. But AD&D? Nope, barely at all. The only rules that got applied to NPC's was if the enemy was a human or demi-human. If it wasn't? Then all bets were off.

I ALREADY posted how humanoids like orcs were described using cleric or magic user levels for casters. And dragon magazine was full of NPC classes since the beginning. Please stop calling it revisionist history when you haven’t even bothered to read the history.

Your position is not looking any better the more you double down on things I’ve already shown in this thread alone that disprove it. I’ve literally provided you screen shots that prove what we’re saying.