D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Lyxen]

If the PC needed a +7 in persuasion or deception that would come with years of training in a market, maybe I would let the PC swap out some other character things to get it. (Did you give up your school of magic training because you worked in the market place? A point of to hit and your armor training?).

You do realise, thought, that it's not something that PCs can do anyway, this swapping of things ? And that it would be (as @Lanefan says) a bad precedent to allow it in cases like this as it would "create a precedent" ?

It seems common in games I've been in to use rule 0, which you mention upthread, to let players modify the classes to fit their vision (a weapon proficiency they might not have by RAW, a different spell list for their cleric, etc...). Merchant training instead of a bunch of class skills seems ok (but I might warn the player that those skills might be much less useful to the party than some others).

But then, by doing that, you are already saying that the merchant has at least one level in a PC class, with everything else that goes with it including other more combat orientated proficiencies that he does not have any reason to have.

So actually, simply by forcing this at start, you are undermining the consistency of the character as he needs to function in the world.

 

[Cadence]

Yep, same experience here, over many, many years of gaming...

In 3e, I have had players asking me how an NPC could do certain things and questioning whether I had computed bonuses properly, which I found really annoying, but it was mostly to reassure himself that I was not "cheating" as a DM, which is a very bizarre and disrespectful thing to do as I'm never playing against the players anyway, but it's not exactly the same thing.

In one of the 5e games I'm running, the party a month or so ago thought they were fighting a druidy type who pulled out a reaction that goes with another class. It certainly surprised at least two of them and they were curious if it was a special item or something. (Nope, you just guessed the wrong class. And it surprised me that they were that shocked by it.)

 

[Lyxen]

In one of the 5e games I'm running, the party a month or so ago thought they were fighting a druidy type who pulled out a reaction that goes with another class. It certainly surprised at least two of them and they were curious if it was a special item or something. (Nope, you just guessed the wrong class. And it surprised me that they were that shocked by it.)

Some players are like that, and games like 3e suited them well, there was a certain amount of predictability due to metagaming that allows the players to take decisions that they thought tactical. It's fine to game like this, it's just not my preference.

In the genre, be it movies/books/shows/whatever, adversaries are not categorised into strict boxes, with only specific abilities. They always surprise the protagonist with unexpected moves and capabilities that increase the uncertainty and the feeling of a dangerous adventure.

This is my prefered way of playing, and as a side bonus it allows players to really roleplay their characters as if they were in a real fantasy world rather than one where all the strings are visible. Once more, if some people prefer to game the world rather than experience it, it's fine, it's just a question of preference, it's just not my own.

 

[jmartkdr2]

To read the question another way: I do wish I could use pc building rule to make balanced-for-combat npcs. The fact that I can't use a 5th-level fighter as a reasonable challenge in 5e DnD annoys me and is a flaw in the game.

Like I get why (they wanted smooth progressions of pc abilities that also look like the traditional progressions) and know not to, but I feel like I should be able to, ya know?

 

[Cadence]

You do realise, thought, that it's not something that PCs can do anyway, this swapping of things ? And that it would be (as @Lanefan says) a bad precedent to allow it in cases like this as it would "create a precedent" ?

I'm pretty sure (checks the log for precedent) that if I can swap all of the rules in a 5e game for 3e and still claim it's 5e (!?!?) (double checks to make sure that was read correctly) that allowing customization of character classes is ok.

But seriously, I'm not sure I've had a DM since the mid80s not allow some flexibility in what the classes could do if it seemed balanced and fit the world - so I am super with that. I'm also fine with a DM who doesn't want to do that. Would the precedent problem be if I let one player do what seemed reasonable and balanced in terms of power level and world availability, and didn't let someone else?

But then, by doing that, you are already saying that the merchant has at least one level in a PC class, with everything else that goes with it including other more combat orientated proficiencies that he does not have any reason to have.

So actually, simply by forcing this at start, you are undermining the consistency of the character as he needs to function in the world.

It feels like there are several different arguments going on in this thread.
1) Do all NPCs need a PC class?
2) Do all NPCs need to have a regular class structure?
3) Do all NPCs need to roughly try to model something that could fit into a world where certain skillsets are modeled by the PC classes and others could be modeled by NPC classes I guess if anyone had the time for that?
4) Do powers NPCs have need to be gainable by the PCs right now.
5) Do powers NPCs have need to be gainable by a new starting PC if they did the appropriate things to get it, including possibly forgoing other powers or playing an NPC class (which might not have existed in written form until it was needed by the player wanting to do these things and convinced you they would do it if you wrote it up)?

I don't think conflating these helps anything. I'm voting yes for 3 and 5.

How am I saying the Merchant has a PC class? I am not invoking 1. Has anyone in this thread invoked 1?

@Lanefan , is there something you feel the above list is missing? Which are you arguing for? (And thanks for any feedback!)

If being one of the sacred chosen of nameless deity requires training since 6 months old... then a player who wants that power needs to have in their background that they started at 6 months old and everything that comes with that. How does that undermine anything?

 

[DND_Reborn]

The fact that I can't use a 5th-level fighter as a reasonable challenge in 5e DnD annoys me and is a flaw in the game.

Out of curiosity I want to clarify what you mean by "can't" here.

Do you mean you literally can not use one? In which case why not?

Or

Do you mean you "can" but they aren't a reasonable challenge?

Or

Something else?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well it is a fighter in late stage D&D...

 

[Maxperson]

And here is where the unbroachable difference lies: insofar as I care about what "makes sense" (which isn't a lot in the first place) it is only in the context of how it makes the game more fun. I don't care about simulation at all, and I don't care to go through the process of balancing a one time NPC ability for 20 levels of PC use.

I don't want to play a simulation, either. There's a whole lot of real estate in-between, nonsense and simulation, though. I'm in that area.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Out of curiosity I want to clarify what you mean by "can't" here.

Do you mean you literally can not use one? In which case why not?

Or

Do you mean you "can" but they aren't a reasonable challenge?

Or

Something else?

It's an unreasonable fight - the fighter hits twice as hard as a level-appropriate monster, but has half the hit points. The fight is basically rocket tag.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The bodyguard having abilities that no class has is a big red flag: either those abilities should be made avilable to at least one playable class (even if they're of no use in the field) or the bodyguard shouldn't have them.

Why? Bodyguard is not a PC class. If there was one it may have abilities very different from existing classes. Why would you restrict what a bodyguard can do / be for really no reason I can see?