D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?


log in or register to remove this ad

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Random NPC quote from page11 that again doesn't distinguish between an NPC and "monster", but I thought was interesting and didn't have a better place to put it.

View attachment 150111
I was going to quote this bit at some point. It just further shows that even NPCs created with classes still don't (along with dwarven clerics, etc.) follow the same rules as PCs.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
All of these questions about the physics of the setting makes me think "poor chemistry, nobody cares about IT".
I do!

download (1).jpg
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Repeating a thing over and over again does not make it true. Yes, there were classed NPCs in every edition of D&D. But there were also unclassed monster statted style NPCs such as "brigands" in every edition of D&D, as well as various monsters that referenced PC abilities in various ways from spells to "fights as a x level fighter." Please stop acting like what you are saying is some absolute truth when it is clear you are cherry picking to make you seem right. It is not adding to the discussion in any way.
If you're going to include monsters with abilities that worked like spells, then 3e didn't require it, either. If you're talking about humanoid NPCs, then starting with 1e they were statted out. Brigands in 1e were 0 level, which is why they didn't have a single hit die(class level) and only a few hit points. The leaders were all NPCs with class levels. The same with elves, gnomes, dwarves, etc. Their leaders all have class levels, usually multiclass. It was expected for any NPC that was above average and not a monster to be a PC class of some sort.
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
If you're going to include monsters with abilities that worked like spells, then 3e didn't require it, either. If you're talking about humanoid NPCs, then starting with 1e they were statted out. Brigands in 1e were 0 level, which is why they didn't have a single hit die(class level) and only a few hit points. The leaders were all NPCs with class levels. The same with elves, gnomes, dwarves, etc. Their leaders all have class levels, usually multiclass. It was expected for any NPC that was above average and not a monster to be a PC class of some sort.
And here we are making the arbitrary distinction between "monster" and NPC to keep an argument going that has little bearing on the actual question posed by the thread: do YOU think that NPCs and monsters should have to sue the same rules as PCs? The argument over whether a brigand is an NPC or monster is irrelevant, as is the same question for the "archmage" in 5E. It's not important. What is important is can that brigand have abilities unavailable to the PCs, and can that archmage know spells the PCs can't.
 



Sacrosanct

Legend
And here we are making the arbitrary distinction between "monster" and NPC to keep an argument going that has little bearing on the actual question posed by the thread: do YOU think that NPCs and monsters should have to sue the same rules as PCs? The argument over whether a brigand is an NPC or monster is irrelevant, as is the same question for the "archmage" in 5E. It's not important. What is important is can that brigand have abilities unavailable to the PCs, and can that archmage know spells the PCs can't.
As someone who was part of that rabbit hole discussion, I agree with you. It's not relevant and I shouldn't have been pulled in.

So I go back to my original statement. I think they should--in an easier system like AD&D or B/X. But in a more complex system, then no, they shouldn't, because it's too much work on the DM. The more character options you have, the harder it is to align NPC rules with PC rules to have spells/powers/abilities all match.

Basically, can you create a PC in edition X in a few minutes, even at higher levels? Then sure, it makes sense. Or does it take a time commitment to create a PC at higher levels? Then no. It takes me longer in 5e to create a level 15 PC due to all the options available than it does for me to create a level 15 AD&D character. I don't even want to think about 3e lol. This is especially true in systems where wizards aren't dependent on enemy spellbooks to find new spells like they were in AD&D.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
And here we are making the arbitrary distinction between "monster" and NPC to keep an argument going that has little bearing on the actual question posed by the thread:
So there's nothing arbitrary about it. The distinction between monster NPCs and other NPCs has been clear since at least 1e. It was clear in 2e. Clear in 3e. I assume clear in 4e and clear in 5e. Treating the clear subcategories as different is the way it has always been.
do YOU think that NPCs and monsters should have to sue the same rules as PCs?
Why would I think that when they are clearly different subcategories of NPCs? When it comes to wage earners you don't treat the subcategory of "below the poverty line" the same as the subcategory "middle class," so why would I expect two very different NPC subcategories to be treated the same?
The argument over whether a brigand is an NPC or monster is irrelevant, as is the same question for the "archmage" in 5E. It's not important. What is important is can that brigand have abilities unavailable to the PCs, and can that archmage know spells the PCs can't.
Not in 1e they didn't. In 1e, 2e and 3e they swung melee weapons and/or shot at people with bows/crossbows. An NPC "archmage" in all three of those editions would be a high level statted PC class wizard. This change in the way non-monster NPCs work happened I think in 4e and remains in 5e. It wasn't present in 1e, 2e or 3e.
 
Last edited:

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top