D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Crimson Longinus]

Can PCs decide to know and to memorize fewer spells if they want? Is anyone who wants NPC casters done PC like worried about low level utility spells for the archimage encounter? Is it just that they would like NPC wizard spells to have the same backstory and interoperability as the PC ones?

Yeah. I don't think most people need the NPCs to be fully statted like the PCs, merely that the parts that are statted work roughly the same way.

 

[Haffrung]

Let's say for example that the party defeats Balkalathe the Indomitable, Sorcerer-Priest of the Outer Dark, who cast The Soul Rending Shriek of Mal'athazar -- 18d6 necrotic damage (DC 19 Con save for half) plus 2d6 charisma drain (DC 21 Wis save for half). The party wizard says, "I want to learn that spell!"

How do you handle that, assuming it was just an ability in the stat block and not a written up spell?

“You don’t know what that spells is.”

That’s it.

In my worlds, the magic system is not mechanistic and transparent. There are no magic schools or comprehensive catalogues of spells. Monsters and NPCs may well have access to strange spells and effects that are unknown to the PCs.

 

[Scott Christian]

What is your preference?

I prefer PCs to have their own rules.

I also prefer a select few NPCs to share the PC's rules.

 

[NotAYakk]

Stating "the drow is a 10th level cleric" is makes it easy for the module writer but hard for the DM running the module.

When I write my own stuff, I'm both. And the sum of the work is harder because of that model.

When I'm using someone else's stuff, there are a hell of a lot more DMs running it than people writing it.

---

The concept of "spell" should be clear. How spells are fueled should vary.

"The mage has a spellbook and can cast each of the following spells from it once before completing a long rest. (List of spells). In addition, the mage can cast each of (list of spells) as rituals once each before completing a long rest."

"The death cultist has a single 3rd level spell slot and knows the following spell-abilities it can cast with it:

• A
• B

Lifedrinking Blade: +7 vs AC, 1d4+3 piercing and 2d8 necrotic damage. This attack has advantage on a creature with less than maximum HP. If it hits, the cultist regains their 3rd level spell slot. They can regain a spell slot this way up to 4 times before completing a long rest."

Neither of these use PC spellcasting rules. They have spells, the spells have levels (or the slots do), there is some resource management.

They are not PC classes, they are not built as PCs, they are built to be simpler to run, and built to probably die within the first time they fight a PC (but not always).

---

NPCs that are "fighter like" are great; even "battlemaster like" (subclass inspired). But I have neither the time nor inclination to build NPCs as PCs nor run NPCs as PCs.

In 5e, look at the Champion. They are quite clearly a Fighter-type. They aren't a Fighter.

 

[Weiley31]

For regular joe schmo smuck NPCs, no they shouldn't. (that would probably be too much work) For key NPCs and BBEGs then yes.

Heck when making said key NPCs and BBEGs, I go even full in by rolling for their stats while applying the Tasha's floating +2/+1 to em. If I get Forgotten Realms style hero NPCs stat spread for em, so be it. If a key/major Gunslinger NPC is given the Gunner feat then they get said feat. So on and so on.

 

[Weiley31]

I will say this though: I wish, stat block wise, there were more "class" like monster stat blocks. Sure the Drow Arachnomancer is a good monster stat block for a Warlock and the Champion monster Stat block is probably the npc/monster version of the class, but I need more like something that is a "Ranger" monster stat block or a "Battle Master" monster stat block. (so far right now there are such "class" monster stat blocks that even represent said "classes" at a beginner's Tier and ones that could be considered high leveled versions of em as well. Like the Arachnomancer being a high leveled Warlock)

Granted, I don't mind adding Battle Master Combat Maneuvers to a monster stat block which would follow the PC class's DC calculations, but it still would be nice.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think players prefer that NPCs use the same rules and mechanics as the PCs, because it helps inform them of what they can expect from each NPC... gives them clues about their comparative strengths and weaknesses, their abilities, that sort of thing.

As a DM, I like to nip that in the bud as soon as possible. I make it abundantly clear that the NPCs are not using the same set of rules. Legendary Actions and Resistance are usually their first clues that the Big Bad cult leader isn't "another cleric." By the time he starts casting strange spells that nobody has ever heard of and using new special abilities that I wrote, there's little room for doubt.

 

[Burnside]

I created NPCs in 1E and 2E that used exactly the same rules as PCs. But in 3E, the idea that NPCs had to have the same level of mechanical complexity as PCs, given the insane mechanical complexity of 3E PCs, made DMing 3E feel like a huge burden. I'm happy with 5E's solution.

 

[Li Shenron]

The question is relatively straight forward: do you prefer that NPCs and monsters operate by the same rules as PCs

If they are adventurers, yes

 

[Helldritch]

I feel like we don't get to tell them what they consider a new edition. It's their IP, not ours.

Yes, but In creating 5ed, they went on by asking us through survey and playtests what WE wanted. At this point, they have a.moral obligation to keep their word that this is our edition. If they want to go the 6ed direction, I have absolutely no trouble with that and I would embark on that wagon without second thinking. But a major rework of the 5ed principles such as these (and it goes way deeper than mere npc and monsters) should, no must warrant a new edition. This would make me way happier and a lot more understanding than the perversion they are doing right now.

Personally, 5ed has its flaws and a new edition would solve a lot of these (or might have the potential to do it)