D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[SkidAce]

Same here. And same with the answer upthread about "secret technique". If NPC warriors from the Sheng empire can cast fireball once per day, and I am told that I should enroll in a Sheng garrison for a few years to learn it... DM, be prepared to have the campaign about the group passing as a recruit and knocking at the nearest garrison to learn it (certainly quicker than the average Joe) before resuming standard adventuring activity. At best, have a subclass of Sheng warriors for the fighter if something happen... "my next character will be a Sheng deserter joining the good side. Can I cast fireball?" Heroes being heroes means that they should achieve what they strive to do. It can include, and in my experience often include, becoming the best at something. "Your Kung Fu is too weak for the overwhelming NPC stance!" wouldn't fly with me...
This is especially true of wizards.

I think you may have been referencing my example, in which case, the special training is the reason the NPC has something a player doesn't.

And more often than not, if the player wants to commit to the background/training/ whatever, then they could eventually get the ability also.

 

[Cadence]

<<Ack. I did not mean to post that here! - Deleted>>

 

[Azzy]

For me, the answer is dependent on many things. For games like D&D with classes and levels, I don't think that having the rules for NPCs hewing closely is very benefitial in the majority of cases. For some important NPCs, I can see building with the same rules as PCs, but for the vast majority—just having a monster-style statblock is sufficient.

I think that the idea that PCs and NPCs must be the same comes mostly from 3e. In earlier editions there was a hybrid system (like in 5e)—some NPCs were built as PCs (with some modifications), but you also had monster statblocks for NPC types like beserkers, dervishes, merchants, etc. Even NPCs built like PCs didn't necessarily follow the same rules as PCs (like ability score generation, different class allowances—like dwarf clerics, etc.).

The idea of building NPCs like PCs is nice in theory, by 3e showed how much of an unnecessary pain in the arse that could be. I have no desire to go back to that. Ever. That can die in a fire.

While I don't like the change coming that spellcasting NPCs have spell, er... magical attacks that aren't spells (I think that could have been handled better—see some of @Sacrosanct's monstersamples), I do think having all the details for spell attacks in the statblock is a good thing (less bouncing between books during game is better).

 

[NotAYakk]

All of these questions about the physics of the setting makes me think "poor chemistry, nobody cares about IT".

 

[S'mon]

For sure I never see a party of npc succeed an adventure, unless for sad DM who play alone.

NPCs do succeed IMCs - I default to rolling a D6 - "1" they do really badly, "6" they do really well. So villains can fail and redshirts can succeed.

 

[S'mon]

Do they become named when the PCs talk to them and find out they have one? (Serious question thinking about my two current parties).

They become NPCs when the GM starts thinking of them as a character. Social interaction usually forces that, yes.

 

[Lyxen]

Sure, and if that information/rationale is discoverable within the setting somehow there's no problem at all.

There is no problem, it's not that hard to come by anyway, D&D is designed as a heroic/mythic game (although you can certainly play it differently), so having mythic/legendary/divine/ancestry/whatever reasons is perfectly in line with the genre.

It's the tossed-off "because it's an NPC" answer with no further underlying rationale that has to go.

While I agree that it would be dumb and annoying for a DM to present it that way, as mentioned above, any reasonable DM can come up with reasonable explanations in a wink.

Possible, sure, but highly unlikely. There's only so many times you can use these sort of variations before it all starts looking like a DM just contriving to keep powers out of the hands of PCs/players.

I don't know, Demon Lords and Archdevils have many powers, is the DM contriving to keep them out of the hands of the PC/Players ? The players at our tables are certainly not feeling this way.

Now you're getting it!

I mostly think we were (as is often the case on these forums) speaking past each other's head, you seem mostly to be hand up on a DM saying bluntly "It's a NPC power", not about the underlying principle that there could be some, if there is the right explanation.

Only because none of the PCs happen to have it.

So it's a NPC power then.

It's a known ability that exists in the setting; and one could argue that Polyjuice Potion is step one towards anyone being able to transform to an animal (or sort-of) for a while.

You can always have rules-breaking items and further rules, but the potion is specified not to work on animals and creates a real problem when tried. In any case, it would be quite different.

Hardly surprising, that, as it's entirely built to serve the story first and only.

It depends, some books have clearer and more robust magic systems by far.

Thus far my Sanderson readings haven't exactly sent me running back for more. Not sure why.

Matter of taste, probably, which ones did you try ?

 

[Lyxen]

They become NPCs when the GM starts thinking of them as a character. Social interaction usually forces that, yes.

It doesn't have to be social, but I really think that it all goes back to giving them a name, so that they can be referred to in a plot ot story, so yes, for me it's really when you start thinking about them as characters. Which, by the way, can be totally on the spot, for example when the PCs slaughter orcs and spare the last one, this one instantly becomes an NPC.

 

[Lyxen]

Once again, this is demonstratably false. 5e defines NPCs as:

Actually, the DMG says: "A NONPLAYER CHARACTER IS ANY CHARACTER controlled by the Dungeon Master. NPCs can be enemies or allies, regular folk or named monsters. They include the local innkeeper, the old wizard who lives in the tower on the outskirts of town, the death knight out to destroy the kingdom, and the dragon counting gold in its cavernous lair."

It's not exactly what you are saying, they can be "enemies or allies, regular folks or named monsters" but it's just as much an example as the next sentence, it does NOT say that, out of monsters, only the named ones can be NPCs. It just says that named monsters can be NPCs, it does not forbid other monsters (enemies) to be NPCs too, named or not.

The only definition is that any character controlled by the DM is a NPC, which is the exact definition.

 

[Lyxen]

Also, using that definition (any character controlled by the DM is by definition a NPC), and in particular with the 5e example that named monsters can be NPCs, I present to you Lubash, from T1 - The Village of Hommlet, Area 7 of the Moathouse, an Ogre, clearly a NPC (he has a name, a history, advice about playing him), and a humanoid, and certainly not built along the lines of PCs.

For me, this is significant, since this module is also one where there is good, early advice about playing NPCs from Gygax himself:

Note that there are still pure monsters in the adventure (6 Giant Frogs, 6 Bugbears, 9 Gnolls), all unnamed and sometimes referred to specifically as monsters (These monsters are not please with their loot...), but Lubash has a name, he is clearly a character (and a humanoid), not played by a PC.