D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Vaalingrade]

What I'm saying is that it's not a good reason to sacrifice what makes sense.

Fun trumps sense.

And frankly sacrificing 'sense' and 'verisimilitude' in D&D is its own reward. The smell as the burn upon the alter of having a fun game is intoxicating.

 

[Maxperson]

Fun trumps sense.

And frankly sacrificing 'sense' and 'verisimilitude' in D&D is its own reward. The smell as the burn upon the alter of having a fun game is intoxicating.

Awesome. I bet you enjoy your game. Mine is different and much more enjoyable to me and my players for not doing what you do.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Nothing I remember or could find that says NPCs have to be humanoids, even if the rules seem to imply. But humanoid doesn't exclude undead. That claim is....weird at the very least (Hello Ctenmillr, or even Strahd!). They just have to be unique personalities with their own traits. Since the death knight came out in 1981 in Fiend Folio, and the DL modules came after, Soth is statt'd out in those modules as a death knight (with unique attributes and personality). He follows the same rules as PC do. I.e., his fireball does the same thing as a 20th level magic user PC's fireball would do. To argue that a 9 HD PC can't cast a 20th level fireball proves they don't follow the same rules is odd to me, because each class does different things anyway. A 20th level cleric will have different casting ability as a 20th level paladin for instance. If his abilities didn't follow the same rules, then there wouldn't even be any mention of "20th level caster ability", it would just define what the power did right there in the stat block. It's literally comparing his powers to a PC of a certain level.

I think one of the fundamental miscommunications happening here is how different posters are understanding "using the same rules as PCs".

In your 20HD death knight fireball example the rules are telling the GM that the fireball spell being cast follows rules as if it were cast by a 20th level caster. This is an argument that the death knight follows the rules of the PCs.

But the death knight description of saying it operates as a wizard20 does not mean that the death knight gets all the abilities of a 20th level wizard on top of all the other abilities listed in the monster entry.

And this is where there is a failure to communicate. There isnt a fundamental stent in the OP what they mean by "using PC rules".

My personal feeling is that I don't want my NPCs (which I define as any character not played a player) to have to follow PC creation rules because I only need them as filled out and started as necessary to fulfill their function. I don't need to design a 17th level merchant (ala 3e just to assign them a persuasion bonus number.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I have complicated feelings about this subject, because while I recognize the utility of shorthanding many aspects of the game - as far as streamlining play is concerned - as a DM, incompletely detailed (and mechanically noncompliant) NPCs leave me feeling sort of ... empty.

I suppose I'm a simulationist at heart, even though I recognize the implicit absurdity of trying to model a subcreational reality according to - sometimes rather arbitrary - rules. For me, it's about trying to marry the mechanical description of an NPC as closely to the character and personality as possible - it's partly an aesthetic exercise I engage in to satisfy an internal sense of consistency. I find that a solid mechanical basis for NPCs can then act as a springboard for the imagination, and that ideas flow naturally from certain mechanical "facts" which can push the game "reality" in sometimes unexpected and exciting directions; they sort of unfold from the mechanical chassis.

I favor high level 3.x with huge numbers of supplements for precisely this reason, as the palette upon which I can draw is simply enormous. But I get that it's not for the faint-hearted, and if I were to come to D&D in 2022, I certainly wouldn't have the time and energy to master that system today. But when I play in this mode none of my energy is really directed toward detailing or developing "adventures," or the game world in anything other than broad strokes - rather, the PCs and NPCs are left to interact, and the game emerges. In that sense, it's good to have as much mechanical info as possible on a given NPC, as the kernel feels more substantial (to me), and allows me to better represent them and their interests.

If I want to do a quickie, I'll just bust out B/X, which remains my other go-to system for precisely the opposite reasons.

 

[Lyxen]

Can the archmage know spells the PCs can't ever learn no matter how high level they get? No.

And this is where even the core game does not agree, for example there are spells which are limited to specific schools even for wizards. If said schools are not available to PCs (for either or both background or power reasons, see below), the PCs will never be able to cast those spells.

And I think that the core of the problem is that as usual people are talking past each other's ear. The main reason for forbidding some powers or spells to the PCs is simply balance. Some powers or effects are way to strong for PCs to wield them as they will and use them again and again during the course of a long campaign. On the other hand, they are cinematic and cool, they suit well the nature of an NPC and the fight it gives to the PC.

As a DM, I don't want to be constrained to think that every single power that I give to an NPC could end up in the hands of a PC, and restrict that power technically so that, if it happens, it will not unbalance things. This is an annoying limitation, and one that 4e rightly removed from the game after 3e (stupidly) gave the players the impression that they could get their grubby little hands on everything that was intended for mostly story/coolness purpose (in particular the (in)famous pun-pun, using the really cook Sarrukh power which made total sense for a monster but which is ridiculous in the hands of a player).

This is the real, basic reason. If I put a Death Knight in play, the Hellfire Orb and the Parry make for an awesome adversary, as my players experienced on Friday. But my players are reasonable people and understand this, which is why the Halfling Sorceress will never pester me to cast the Hellfire Orb and the Lizardfolk Ranger will never pester me to learn the Parry.

If pushed by annoying players (as was often the case in 3e and, thankfully, never before and never after), I will come up with any background reason to justify it without any problem (just as any powergamer can easily create a background that will justify the silliness of his build, it's honestly not that hard). As I've proven with many examples, not only is it easy to do, but it's also a perfect trope of the genre not to have the right birth/connection/blood/deity whatever.

Now, I can perfectly understand some DMs wanting a different relation with their players who are more in the spirit of 3e, if this is what works for them, all power to them. But what 4e restored and 5e confirmed is that the creative power of the DM does not have to be constrained by these limitations. PCs are immensely powerful but along specific paths to somewhat preserve the balance (strongly for 4e, in a more relaxed way for 5e), NPCs just reflect the openness and incredible variety of the world around them and are not constrained by these paths, and that's the end of it.

So please, don't criticise DMs for using these creative possibilities, it's the intention of the game since 4e, and the fact that a game is not about player empowerment in that particular direction is not a mark of an inferior game, players might be empowered in many other aspects of the game, and the freedom that the DM gets from not being constrained by those rules might also be the mark of more creation and inventivity about story or coolness. To each his own...

 

[Lyxen]

In your 20HD death knight fireball example the rules are telling the GM that the fireball spell being cast follows rules as if it were cast by a 20th level caster. This is an argument that the death knight follows the rules of the PCs.

Not at all, it's just showing that the Death Knight is following the rules of the game, and an indication of the power of the spell for rules purpose, in particular magic resistance (as this was a 1e thing). It certainly does not say that it's following PC rules.

As a proof, in 5e, the Death Knight is a 19th level spellcaster, but the class is not even written down so one cannot say that it follows PC rules. Factually, It's the spellcasting ability of a paladin, considering the charisma stat and the spell list, but that is simply for convenience and simplicity purpose, and this is why it causes me absolutely no problem that it's translated into a number of powers to be used, which will allow an easier tracking. And this especially since they have already done the job with the Hellfire Orb, which does not follow at all any PC rule and is just a damaging ability.

In a sense, it's only a kind of fireball, but notice how it has inflated the description from a single word to a full paragraph, requiring quite a bit of complexity to describe things again. It was justified for me in the sense that it iconic, but doing that for each of the other powers, while it certainly could be done, would really increase the complexity of both writing and describing the creatures, which would in turn making it more difficult and lengthy to run.

It did not prevent me describing the destructive wave and the banishment in colorful terms when running it, and my players liked it. Some of them obviously recognised the spells but wisely kept their mouth shut because what would have been the point, exactly ? Show off their knowledge of the game ? Interrupt and slow it down ? Thankfully, they are more mature than this.

But the death knight description of saying it operates as a wizard20

No, it does not, never did, and telling it that way just goes to fuel people who incorrectly believe that it was following PC rules, it's not.

My personal feeling is that I don't want my NPCs (which I define as any character not played a player) to have to follow PC creation rules because I only need them as filled out and started as necessary to fulfill their function. I don't need to design a 17th level merchant (ala 3e just to assign them a persuasion bonus number.

And this is where I completely agree with you. 4e and 5e have restored creative freedom to the DM, and we are able to use it without being criticised for imaginary flaws of not being faire to these poor players, it's just the nature of the game, totally supported by the nature of the genre.

 

[Lyxen]

I suppose I'm a simulationist at heart, even though I recognize the implicit absurdity of trying to model a subcreational reality according to - sometimes rather arbitrary - rules.

And for me, that is the core of the problem. It is absolutely arbitrary and based only on what YOU think is the correct structure because you find it aesthetically pleasing as it fits that of the PC classes.

For me, it's about trying to marry the mechanical description of an NPC as closely to the character and personality as possible - it's partly an aesthetic exercise I engage in to satisfy an internal sense of consistency. I find that a solid mechanical basis for NPCs can then act as a springboard for the imagination, and that ideas flow naturally from certain mechanical "facts" which can push the game "reality" in sometimes unexpected and exciting directions; they sort of unfold from the mechanical chassis.

And what I find slightly annoying is the fact that you believe that because some of us are not following the class structure, our NPCs are less consistent. But it's not the case, because you actually can create NPCs which bring their character and personality closer to their mechanical description when you let go of the constraints.

Two simple examples, one thanks to @Sabathius42:

• Simple merchant, I don't want him to have an overwhelming charisma because it does not fit his position, character and personality, but I still want him to be a very savvy merchant, while having ZERO reason to be of a class that gives him expertise in deception and persuasion. Well, I just create him that way, 14 charisma, just a few hit points, expertise in both skills, and I have a very consistent merchant, much more than if I had had to give him class levels to give him expertise.
• His bodyguard, I want the bodyguard to have skills that simply do not exist, but he is a simple bodyguard and certainly not the match for an experienced high level fighter. I just take a standard "warrior-type" NPC and strap on a few abilities and here you go. The combination of Goading Attack, Mental Fortitude, Body Shield and Protection Reaction ensures that he makes a very efficient bodyguard, something that PCs can never really be unless they are very high level and come with all sort of other abilities which are not only totally irrelevant to the bodyguard, but would also make it much harder to run, much longer to create, and actually inconsistent in the situations in which he is encountered.

Both these NPCs are technically absolutely correct, were easy to create and will be easy to run, will be easily understandable as characters by the PCs, their technical abilities perfectly match what the players will expect, while still possibly managing some surprises if a fight comes up and the bodyguard effectively covers the merchant when that one tries to run.

I favor high level 3.x with huge numbers of supplements for precisely this reason, as the palette upon which I can draw is simply enormous. But I get that it's not for the faint-hearted, and if I were to come to D&D in 2022, I certainly wouldn't have the time and energy to master that system today. But when I play in this mode none of my energy is really directed toward detailing or developing "adventures," or the game world in anything other than broad strokes - rather, the PCs and NPCs are left to interact, and the game emerges. In that sense, it's good to have as much mechanical info as possible on a given NPC, as the kernel feels more substantial (to me), and allows me to better represent them and their interests.

And my perspective is that not only are you doing a huge amount of work (which is fine if you have the time for it and enjoy it, of course, but it's still time that I could have spent writing complex intrigues and plots for example), but the end result, constrained by PC rules, is certainly not guaranteed to provide either more verisimilitude or fun to the players.

If I want to do a quickie, I'll just bust out B/X, which remains my other go-to system for precisely the opposite reasons.

Well, with 5e, I have what I consider the best of breed, a system in which I can create mechanically if I want to, but also do a quickie as above.

 

[Lanefan]

And this is where even the core game does not agree, for example there are spells which are limited to specific schools even for wizards. If said schools are not available to PCs (for either or both background or power reasons, see below), the PCs will never be able to cast those spells.

If said schools are not available to PCs my first question is "Why the hell not?" and if the answer is for power reasons my second question would be "If those spells are that unbalancing why are they even a part of the setting?". By the second question, I mean that if a school of wizards out there have access to these too-unbalanced spells why haven't they made better use of them by taking over the setting or whatever? Has the DM taken a broader view and asked what these spells in the hands of unscrupulous NPCs would have lead to in the setting over the long term?

This is why a DM can't just throw this stuff in "for fun" without giving it some real thought. Everything has broader implications and affects on the setting.

That said, if you don't care about the setting's ongoing believability then all this is fine.

And I think that the core of the problem is that as usual people are talking past each other's ear. The main reason for forbidding some powers or spells to the PCs is simply balance. Some powers or effects are way to strong for PCs to wield them as they will and use them again and again during the course of a long campaign. On the other hand, they are cinematic and cool, they suit well the nature of an NPC and the fight it gives to the PC.

If they're too powerful for PCs to have they're too powerful for NPCs to have. Remember, the NPCs who have this power can and likely will also have been using it "again and again" all the way until they meet the PCs - and even beyond that, if the PCs lose or the NPCs flee - with whatever downstream effects that may have on the setting.

As a DM, I don't want to be constrained to think that every single power that I give to an NPC could end up in the hands of a PC, and restrict that power technically so that, if it happens, it will not unbalance things. This is an annoying limitation, and one that 4e rightly removed from the game after 3e (stupidly) gave the players the impression that they could get their grubby little hands on everything that was intended for mostly story/coolness purpose (in particular the (in)famous pun-pun, using the really cook Sarrukh power which made total sense for a monster but which is ridiculous in the hands of a player).

Pun-pun arose because 3e gave too many powers to everyone and as a result a few broken combos slipped through the cracks.

Have less powers for everyone - PC and NPC alike - and the chances of a pun-pun error drop dramatically: it's easier to check for broken combos.

Also, pun-pun can't get into the hands of a player if Kobolds and other monsters can't be PCs. Errors upon errors, this took.

This is the real, basic reason. If I put a Death Knight in play, the Hellfire Orb and the Parry make for an awesome adversary, as my players experienced on Friday. But my players are reasonable people and understand this, which is why the Halfling Sorceress will never pester me to cast the Hellfire Orb and the Lizardfolk Ranger will never pester me to learn the Parry.

Your players are putting reasonableness ahead of advocating for their characters. A character advocate's first response would often be "What would it take for me to be able to do that?", simply because what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

And there's a flip side as well: there's no such thing as PC-only powers and abilities. If a PC can do it, an equal NPC can do it also.

Now, I can perfectly understand some DMs wanting a different relation with their players who are more in the spirit of 3e, if this is what works for them, all power to them. But what 4e restored and 5e confirmed is that the creative power of the DM does not have to be constrained by these limitations. PCs are immensely powerful but along specific paths to somewhat preserve the balance (strongly for 4e, in a more relaxed way for 5e), NPCs just reflect the openness and incredible variety of the world around them and are not constrained by these paths, and that's the end of it.

I get this, but at the same time if I think an opponent can't be made worthy with the abilities available to it (and to PCs) the answer isn't to just give it more abilities willy-nilly, the answer is to add more opponents!

So please, don't criticise DMs for using these creative possibilities, it's the intention of the game since 4e, and the fact that a game is not about player empowerment in that particular direction is not a mark of an inferior game, players might be empowered in many other aspects of the game, and the freedom that the DM gets from not being constrained by those rules might also be the mark of more creation and inventivity about story or coolness. To each his own...

The DM is - or should be! - constrained by the setting every bit as much as the players; and here "the setting" includes spells and abilities extant within that setting that are not specifically innate to a species.

 

[Lanefan]

And what I find slightly annoying is the fact that you believe that because some of us are not following the class structure, our NPCs are less consistent. But it's not the case, because you actually can create NPCs which bring their character and personality closer to their mechanical description when you let go of the constraints.

Two simple examples, one thanks to @Sabathius42:

• Simple merchant, I don't want him to have an overwhelming charisma because it does not fit his position, character and personality, but I still want him to be a very savvy merchant, while having ZERO reason to be of a class that gives him expertise in deception and persuasion. Well, I just create him that way, 14 charisma, just a few hit points, expertise in both skills, and I have a very consistent merchant, much more than if I had had to give him class levels to give him expertise.
• His bodyguard, I want the bodyguard to have skills that simply do not exist, but he is a simple bodyguard and certainly not the match for an experienced high level fighter. I just take a standard "warrior-type" NPC and strap on a few abilities and here you go. The combination of Goading Attack, Mental Fortitude, Body Shield and Protection Reaction ensures that he makes a very efficient bodyguard, something that PCs can never really be unless they are very high level and come with all sort of other abilities which are not only totally irrelevant to the bodyguard, but would also make it much harder to run, much longer to create, and actually inconsistent in the situations in which he is encountered.

Both these NPCs are technically absolutely correct, were easy to create and will be easy to run, will be easily understandable as characters by the PCs, their technical abilities perfectly match what the players will expect, while still possibly managing some surprises if a fight comes up and the bodyguard effectively covers the merchant when that one tries to run.

Can either one be created by a player using the PHB and-or house rules? (assume for the nonce that a player for some reason wants to play a merchant)

If yes, all is good. If no, there's a problem.

Also, were it me I'd stat out the bodyguard as if it was a PC anyway, because for all I know the party will take a shine to him and try to hire him into their crew!

In any case, it's in part for reasons like this that I don't and never will use 3e-5e style feats. Bleah! For me that bodyguard would just be a lowish level Fighter specialized in unarmed combat and with an unusually high (but PC-achievable!) Wisdom or Charisma* for a Fighter.

* - not sure if I'd go high Cha for the persuasion or low for the intimidation here; tough call. Maybe there'd be two bodyguards, one of each.

And my perspective is that not only are you doing a huge amount of work (which is fine if you have the time for it and enjoy it, of course, but it's still time that I could have spent writing complex intrigues and plots for example), but the end result, constrained by PC rules, is certainly not guaranteed to provide either more verisimilitude or fun to the players.

You and others keep raising the spectre of a huge amount of work, and this is a straw man. There's nothing stopping you from just quickly choosing and assigning stats, feats, abilities etc. rather than rolling them - the only constraint is that the end result be something that could in theory be generated by rolling it up the long way.

Now if 5e gives you too many feats and abilities etc. to choose from and thus bogs down the process that's a fault of the system.

 

[Lyxen]

If said schools are not available to PCs my first question is "Why the hell not?" and if the answer is for power reasons my second question would be "If those spells are that unbalancing why are they even a part of the setting?".

Because they are cool, and show the power of antagonists. Avada Kadavra ! is totally unbalanced and very, very scary, obviously a NPC only spell. Still it exists and it's at the core of what makes the story as good as it is.

By the second question, I mean that if a school of wizards out there have access to these too-unbalanced spells why haven't they made better use of them by taking over the setting or whatever?

But they are, actually, they are the threat ! Of course, to be stopped by a band of unlikely heroes, come on, it's the core of the genre !

Has the DM taken a broader view and asked what these spells in the hands of unscrupulous NPCs would have lead to in the setting over the long term?

Obviously, see the example above.

This is why a DM can't just throw this stuff in "for fun" without giving it some real thought. Everything has broader implications and affects on the setting.

But it does. Look at Lord Soth or Voldemort or Stradh, they have had setting-wide implications.

That said, if you don't care about the setting's ongoing believability then all this is fine.

I'm sorry, but this is a very low blow, and totally unjustified. The fact that a few NPC are very powerful individually is certainly taken into account in the setting, and in the story, as is the manner in which it influences the story.

You have absolutely zero reason to denigrate other points of view like this, both the fantasy genre but also most of the settings show that you are wrong in this.

If they're too powerful for PCs to have they're too powerful for NPCs to have. Remember, the NPCs who have this power can and likely will also have been using it "again and again" all the way until they meet the PCs - and even beyond that, if the PCs lose or the NPCs flee - with whatever downstream effects that may have on the setting.

First, it's absolutely untrue, a Death Knight having Parry at will will not make a huge difference on the setting. The Hellfire Orb does not make him more dangerous than a lot of lower level wizards. It does, however, make him scary for adventurers on one encounter, and his evil influence is well felt on the setting as well.

Pun-pun arose because 3e gave too many powers to everyone and as a result a few broken combos slipped through the cracks.

That is true, but the real reason of pun-pun is using the sarrukh power, which is not and should never have been available to PCs, whereas on the other hand, it makes perfect sense in the setting for the domination of scaly creatures in their era. And YES, it was totally integrated in the setting with its consequences. Is that a reason for giving it to PCs, obviously not.

Have less powers for everyone - PC and NPC alike - and the chances of a pun-pun error drop dramatically: it's easier to check for broken combos.

Unfortunately, it's the "play only at low level" answer, which is not satisfying in a epic game like D&D. But if you want to make full use of all the levels, you can certainly do so, but it requires some control.

Also, pun-pun can't get into the hands of a player if Kobolds and other monsters can't be PCs. Errors upon errors, this took.

And yet we have kobolds PCs officially in 5e, but no punpun because some powers are for NPCs/Monsters only.

Your players are putting reasonableness ahead of advocating for their characters.

And they have no right to "advocate for their character", they are there to play the game, amongst friends, with all the same intent, to have fun. They are not there to nitpick and whine and confront the DM with demands.

A character advocate's first response would often be "What would it take for me to be able to do that?", simply because what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

And the answer would be: Why don't you go ask Zariel to see if she can do that for you, but if she does, you will become an NPC, since you will hae decided to completely depart from the flow of the campaign. Where is the problem in that ?

And there's a flip side as well: there's no such thing as PC-only powers and abilities. If a PC can do it, an equal NPC can do it also.

Not necessarily, as a DM, why would I ever claim that right ? I can do whatever I want, and it might be cooler and more appropriate to giving my players a good time.

I get this, but at the same time if I think an opponent can't be made worthy with the abilities available to it (and to PCs) the answer isn't to just give it more abilities willy-nilly, the answer is to add more opponents!

Of course, rather than one Voldemort with Avada Kadavra, let's just put 20 incompetent death eaters instead, it obviously does the same effect.

The DM is - or should be! - constrained by the setting every bit as much as the players; and here "the setting" includes spells and abilities extant within that setting that are not specifically innate to a species.

That is your opinions, but if I may, it's a purely gamist view, which is your own and certainly not supported by either the genre (see all my examples above) or by the rules.

Listen, I'm sure you are a great DM, but you are working using constraints that work for you and your table and that are not necessary for many other gamers (or actually writers of the genre) to create extremely entertaining media for other people. It does not give you any right to impose these constraints on others and to criticise them for being inconsistent, we are also very consistent but using different paradigms than yours. And although you could certainly say that creativity flourishes under constraint, there will be at least the same amount of voices telling you that not having constraints and having more creative freedom is great for them. After that, it's just a matter of taste, and to each his own.