D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Weiley31]

Doesn't this thread exist to discuss play style preferences, and the pros and cons of each approach?

Probably.

 

[Reynard]

There's a reason I didn't say treasure and actually gave, you know, an example of something that would balance it immediately.

You wrote "drawback" and that's it. Forgive me if I misunderstood your meaning.

 

[Maxperson]

You wrote "drawback" and that's it. Forgive me if I misunderstood your meaning.

I said a few posts ago that you could balance it with like a permanent -4 con penalty(or whatever you deemed appropriate). That's immediate and costly.

 

[guachi]

The main benefit to me for an NPC to be statted like a PC is that I don't have to remember bespoke rules for every NPC that might be met along the way.

We are close with all NPCs and monsters having attributes and saving throws but trying to remember what the special abilities of the NPC almost-a-Fighter or NPC not-quite-a-Wizard is more than I really want to do.

 

[Cadence]

I

The problem, though, is that D&D has never (despite 3.xe's best efforts) been a simulationist game. Even Gygax got up on a soapbox about this. The game mechanics are not the game's laws of physics, they are rules to provide players (including DMs) a fair and consistent (lol, mostly) framework through which they can play pretend about elves and dragons. Trying to insert simulationist "sensibilities" ionto D&D is an object lesson in futility. If you prefer a simulationist standpoint, other games (like GURPS, so I'm told) do it far better. D&D and games based on its chassis are a bad fit for a simulationist mindset, and this is something that has been noted since nigh the beginning.

It feels like it's always been a dial or slider somewhere between the two, and not a simulate everything/don't reflect any detail switch. Attempts at weapon speed, encumbrance rules, ASIs due to age, darkvision based on the infared or ultraviolet... to not so much

 

[Arilyn]

I used to feel that PC and NPC abilities should match up, but after the joy of running and playing 13th Age I no longer feel that it is necessary.

 

[Lyxen]

No. I'm saying that giving an enemy a unique non-racial ability that cannot possibly be gained by a PC is nonsense.

Well, I expect that you are not playing 5e since most enemies are built that way.

So, actually, seeing that most people playing 5e (and 4e, actually) probably don't bat an eye at this, I suggest that, rather, your proposition above is nonsense, and unsupported by anything in the games themselves.

You can impose that constraint on your games if you want, but please don't try to impose it on others and tell them that they are doing wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I expect that you are not playing 5e since most enemies are built that way.

Built with unique abilities. Not built in such a way that the DM cannot allow a PC who is interested in learning the ability to find a way to learn it. So yes, I am playing 5e

So, actually, seeing that most people playing 5e (and 4e, actually) probably don't bat an eye at this, I suggest that, rather, your proposition above is nonsense, and unsupported by anything in the games themselves.

Nothing nonsense about it. So what if an NPC has a unique learned ability. The DM can by 5e rules(the rules serve the DM and not the ther way around), allow a PC to learn it.

You can impose that constraint on your games if you want, but please don't try to impose it on others and tell them that they are doing wrong.

Er, it's literally the opposite of a constraint. I'm giving the PCs something extra that makes the game more sensible.

 

[Lyxen]

Bodyguard isn't an NPC class, either. It's a job. A job that a PC fighter, ranger, paladin, monk, cleric, etc. can all do.

But, at equal training or cost, not as well as a specialist who trained specifically for that rather than for fighting monsters in dungeons. Moreover, the adventurer probably wants more than sitting as a bodyguard all day.

And you have still not explained how you would design a simple merchant good at his trade but with zero fighting ability with a PC constraint.

Further, PC and NPC are purely metagame constructs. There is no difference in the game world, so in world restrictions based on those things make no sense.

Actually, there are differences, the PCs can progress in level, whereas the NPCs can't. PCs have always been special, exactly like heroes in the genre. It does not preclude some NPCs to do that as well, but is your world with so little variety that everyone has to be equal and that there are only a very few well defined paths to power ? Again, that is not what you find in the genre, and there is exactly zero reason in the rules to impose this upon your setting. You are of course free to do this on yours if it's what you want, but please don't tell us that it's better in any way, and certainly not that it's requested by anyone or anything.

 

[Maxperson]

But, at equal training or cost, not as well as a specialist who trained specifically for that rather than for fighting monsters in dungeons. Moreover, the adventurer probably wants more than sitting as a bodyguard all day.

I agree. The question isn't whether the PC WILL want to learn the ability and do what it takes. The question is whether or not the PC is capable of learning an ability that there is no in-fiction reason to be unable to learn.

And you have still not explained how you would design a simple merchant good at his trade but with zero fighting ability with a PC constraint.

I don't understand what this has to do with my argument.

Actually, there are differences, the PCs can progress in level, whereas the NPCs can't.

By 5e RAW some NPCs can. Not all NPCs have no class levels, but this is a Red Herring anyway. Whether or not NPCs gain levels is entirely irrelevant to whether or not a PC should be able to learn a skill that has no in-fiction reason to be barred from the PC.