D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Lanefan]

It might not be the official definition, but I consider an NPC to be any GM controlled unique creature. Mooks and fodder and most non-intelligent creatures typically don't fall into that category. Non-player character. To me, that infers personality. Those dozen goblins attacking? Nope. Brugor, the goblin leader? Yep.

Which means the status of an individual creature can change, under your definition. For example Brugor might be an NPC but if he gets killed and the PCs end up capturing and questioning Rugit, who was previously the third goblin mook in the left flank. This interaction changes Rugit's status from monster to NPC.

I'm not sure that the status being able to change on the fly like that helps any with what we're trying to answer here, but it's worth noting in any case.

 

[Lanefan]

If you give your master swordsman a special move that you just make up because it is fun and cool (Redirecting Ripost: as a reaction the master swordsman may redirect a melee attack that would have hit him to an enemy that is within 5 feet of both the master swordsman and the attacker; use the original attack roll to determine if the new target is hit by the attack) do you feel obligated to make that ability available to PC fighter types (as a feat or maneuver or whatever)?

Yes.

Edit to add: the PC might have to learn it, of course. My bigger - and I mean WAY bigger - issue is that if the ability exists now with this particular swordsman it means the ability has almost certainly existed in the setting all along*, which means that had it been known about all along players might have made different decisions with their PCs.

* - the swordsman had to learn it from somewhere, and even if self-taught there's no way he'd have been the first to dream up that move.

 

[jgsugden]

I have a mechanic driven answer for this:

In my game there is something called being 'God Touched'. When the Raven Queen ascended to Godhood, she stole the powers of a mighty God and kept only a little for herself, while sending the rest out into the world to give to mortals, mostly human. Those are the beings that can advance in levels at he pace PCs do, that get death saves, etc... Other humans might spend 70 years of study to become the equivalent of 5th level PCs ... and a long lived elf might spend 1000 years to be 9th level.

Mechanically, God Touched get class levels, and non-God touched get static monster stat blocks (usually - there are exceptions in both directions to this role for convenience).

 

[Reynard]

Yes.

Edit to add: the PC might have to learn it, of course. My bigger - and I mean WAY bigger - issue is that if the ability exists now with this particular swordsman it means the ability has almost certainly existed in the setting all along*, which means that had it been known about all along players might have made different decisions with their PCs.

* - the swordsman had to learn it from somewhere, and even if self-taught there's no way he'd have been the first to dream up that move.

Yeah, we're just too far apart on this one to come to any sort of mutual agreement. I think the idea that PCs are entitled to be able to learn spells or techniques used by NPCs is just silly. First of all, abilities that exist to make a single fight more interesting are almost certainly not balanced against PC abilities which are forever. Second, as I have said, wonder is a huge part of play for me as a GM and that means PCs encountering stuff they have never seen before and barely comprehend -- and that they certainly can't have.

 

[Yardiff]

Yes it is, as this thread is asking about play style preferences, that makes it on topic.

They then provide evidence that this is also the default D&D game assumption using existing monsters.

I dont see those MM "creatures" as official anything other then simplified beings that a GM can use without needing to build complete PC beings to throw at the PCs. Nothing of those entries imply that classes are strictly meta game info.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, we're just too far apart on this one to come to any sort of mutual agreement. I think the idea that PCs are entitled to be able to learn spells or techniques used by NPCs is just silly. First of all, abilities that exist to make a single fight more interesting are almost certainly not balanced against PC abilities which are forever. Second, as I have said, wonder is a huge part of play for me as a GM and that means PCs encountering stuff they have never seen before and barely comprehend -- and that they certainly can't have.

I very much agree with the bolded bit, only my version of the clause after it would read " -- but that they might be able to grow into someday if things work out well".

 

[TwoSix]

If you give your master swordsman a special move that you just make up because it is fun and cool (Redirecting Ripost: as a reaction the master swordsman may redirect a melee attack that would have hit him to an enemy that is within 5 feet of both the master swordsman and the attacker; use the original attack roll to determine if the new target is hit by the attack) do you feel obligated to make that ability available to PC fighter types (as a feat or maneuver or whatever)?

I feel obligated not to shut the line of inquiry down if the player inquires about it. I feel no obligation to have it statted out in a PC acquirable way prior to using it in game, though.

If the player is willing to jump through the narrative hoops to learn and master the ability, though, absolutely. I'd probably consider it a boon at that point, not something that needs to have a character resource spent on it.

 

[TwoSix]

Your first statement is a play style preference.

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

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

No. As usual, it is a fight to the death until one true way to play D&D has been determined!

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

You are required to denote that it is your preference on Every. Single. Post. or it can and will be used against you in the court of obnoxiousness.