D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[jmartkdr2]

Does the answer change depending on whether you are a player or GM, I wonder? Some of these responses suggest so.

I think the bigger split is between people who see the game as a simulation of something or not (really.)

In theory, in-universe everyone's playing by the same rules. But at the meta level (as players and dm's) some characters are main characters and some are not. It makes sense that we have ore details about main characters -

So how many mechanical shortcuts can we take with the third goblin on the left who's probably gonna die as on the wizard's turn anyways? Obviously there's no "correct" answer, just a bunch of opinions.

I don't think players really care what the dm uses for a statblock so long as they aren't prevented form doing reasonable things like talking, attacking, casting spells - and for a throwaway gobbo I can do that with nothing but AC, hp total, and an attack bonus and damage amount. (everything else is +0). But I don't know that that's enough for me to run a satisfying game.

 

[Lyxen]

You see, monsters were following a pattern. Same with playable races as we have shown.
I don't care how they do in other future editions. What we say is that this way was tried before and was a failure as it was rejected massively.

I don't agree here. First, 4e was not massively rejected. It actually did fairly well, but not as well as pathfinder which had the advantage of continuing 3e which was quite successful in its own way, but even more importantly yo have really, really good adventure paths (something that D&D has never really managed to do well). But the fact that 4e was not as successful as it could/should have been does not mean that the specific way of handling NPCs was a failure. There were many parts of 4e which were appreciated, for example minions, and I don't think that you can say that because it was in 4e a feature was a failure.

IF they really want to do it. Then they should do it with a new edition and make it canon. I for one, liked how it was in 4ed. But this is a departure from what made 5ed so good.

It is not. Honestly, I usually agree with you, but on this one, you are focussing on spellcasting "humans" and associated races. But if you look at NPCs in general, many of them simply don't follow at all the rules for PCs, they have very different hit dices and abilities. The only thing that looks like PCs are spellcasters, but even then it's only for their spell lists. And even the casters have almost none of the features of the classes that their spellcasting list looks like.

This is not what we were promised and this is not the way to go. If you want to change how the game is played. Fine. Make a new edition and be done with it. Do not change a whole edition for the sake of changing it.

First, it's not a mandatory change, it's really a minor one, and you still have NPCs with actual casting lists even in the latest supplements. So don't overreact.

 

[Lyxen]

There is no additional explanation of what those spells do. They are just listed. Why? Because they are the same as spells the PC uses.

First, that is just a shortcut to avoid describing so many things in detail, but even then what you are saying is not true, for example "once per day summon 9-1 6 large (20%). 7-12 huge (30%), 2-8 giant (40%) or 1-4 phase (10%) spiders" is a very specific ability that relates to nothing a PC class could do.

Same for example with Demogorgon and his Hypnotise (Should he fix the gaze of both upon his enemies he is able to hypnotize, etc.), or Juiblex with his slimes (He is also able to spew forth a jellylike slime (combining the effects of an ochre jelly and green slime) once per turn (every ten melee rounds) with a 15’ range and a blob size of 3 cubic feet.). Orcus can "create illusion (as a wand of that kind)", not a PC ability.

Of course, it would be silly to do that for each of the numerous abilities of powerful creatures like this, but there are clear examples showing that they have specificities that PCs will not duplicate.

 

[Cadence]

But, hang on, your example just counters what you claim - Lolth does not follow PC rules AT ALL. Sure, she's using the PHB defined spells, fair enough. But, did she have to use the spell components? What level caster is she? At will spells? No PC class in the game has that. How is she casting unlimited dispel magics? That's impossible using PC classes. Nothing in the game can do that.

She's a demoness/goddess. Arguing she proves anything about NPCs seems bizarre to me from either side.

Thank you, btw, for providing such excellent examples of how NPC's didn't follow PC build rules in AD&D though.

The 1e DMG sure makes them sound like NPCs work like PCs in a lot of cases. (In particular, there is discussion of henchmen and levels).

 

[Lanefan]

And I think this is largely a function of a design decision that did not have to be ie was essentially arbitrary: we will just use the spells we already created because we're lazy (in the "good lazy" way of not wanting to reinvent the wheel). I prefer it elsewise. That 1000 year old lich from a lost arcane empire which had magic undreamt of by modern mortals absolutely shouldn't be casting "magic missile" and "charm person."

Agreed.

But if it's instead casting "charm missile" and "magic person" as arcane spells then for consistency it's studying them from a book* and that book has to be around there somewhere; and if the PCs find and decipher said book then those spells become part of the setting.

* - or other surface that can be written on: I once has a vampire caster whose "spellbook" was written on the inside walls of the crypt it lived in.

 

[Lanefan]

See, I don't get this. This is just flat out not true. NPC's did not work like PC's at all. Dragons had spells, but, no MU levels. Heck, lots of creatures could cast spells but didn't have specific caster levels, nor even a class. 1e and 2e in no way applied the PC rules to NPC's.

Well, they did and they didn't, on an inconsistent basis.

For example, what class was a brigand?

Fighter or Thief, usually, or some combination of the two; depending on the specifics of the character in question.

And if this wasn't written down the DM still had to figure it out, in order to know which combat matrix to use for them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But, hang on, your example just counters what you claim - Lolth does not follow PC rules AT ALL. Sure, she's using the PHB defined spells, fair enough. But, did she have to use the spell components? What level caster is she? At will spells? No PC class in the game has that. How is she casting unlimited dispel magics? That's impossible using PC classes. Nothing in the game can do that.

So, no, the monsters most certainly aren't following PC rules. At all.

I mean, good grief, how do you even use Dispel Magic in that stat block? Dispel Magic in AD&D requires a caster level check - with the percentage of success based on the difference between the levels of the two casters. So, how does that even work?

Thank you, btw, for providing such excellent examples of how NPC's didn't follow PC build rules in AD&D though.

Sorry, I didn't paste the very next sentence:

"
In her
humanoid shape, Lolth is a 16th level cleric/l4th level magic-user"

You were saying?

Remember what I said about knee jerk reactions and not reading the source material yourself before doubling down?

edit But either way, the point still stands. When creating NPCs in AD&D, you used class templates by and large. There are numerous examples of humanoids being given class levels to represent shamans or witch doctors (I don't like that word, but that's another story). The spell abilities of these creatures matches the spells PCs get for the vast majority of NPCs you're looking at (unless they are powerful demons or devils, which have their own powers naturally).

As a general rule, AD&D used the same basic rules and templates for NPCs as classes. The books and adventure modules and Dragon articles are rife with supporting evidence to this. Almost every example of a humanoid I can find that isn't a generic monster has classes assigned, starting with the mad hermit from KotBL and being in nearly every other adventure module since.

 

[Lanefan]

What class was a Death Knight? And how come it can cast a Fireball while wearing Plate Mail?

10th level Fighter, weren't they? (or was it 12th, too lazy to look it up right now)

And it's not "casting" Fireball. There's no hand-waving or casting time or components etc., it just points and shoots* as an innate ability and the effect generated just happens to work the same as a high-gas fireball.

* - or the fireball-ish effect comes from its eyes as a gaze feature? been a long time since I've run one of these....

 

[Sacrosanct]

Fighter or Thief, usually, or some combination of the two; depending on the specifics of the character in question.

or the Bandit class itself, as it appeared in Dragon #63 from 1982

 

[Hussar]

She's a demoness/goddess. Arguing she proves anything about NPCs seems bizarre to me from either side.


The 1e DMG sure makes them sound like NPCs work like PCs in a lot of cases. (In particular, there is discussion of henchmen and levels).

Again, only humans and demi-humans.

Unless we are arguing that NPC=human/demi-human, all these asides really don't matter.

-------

@Sacrosanct - reread what you just posted.
"
In her
humanoid shape, Lolth is a 16th level cleric/l4th level magic-user"

Now, reread the picture you posted. "As a giant spider..."

You were saying? One of us needs to read the source material, and I'm thinking it's not me.