D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Cadence]

Exactly my problem. Why should someone who is just becoming a better merchant get more hit points, better saves, additional proficiencies, etc. ?

In post #305 I was trying to get at that I didn't think anyone in this thread itself was saying that all NPCs needed to have PC classes. At most that the ones that do PC class type things should be trying to emulate PC classes and that any skills they have should be things a person could have in theory learned instead of being a PC.

@Maxperson Have you claimed in here anywhere that all NPCs need to be written up with PC classes or even have fleshed out NPC classes? And going beyond this thread, did you like or dislike in 3/3.5/PF that skilled commoners and experts automatically came with better BAB and HP?

 

[Maxperson]

Exactly my problem. Why should someone who is just becoming a better merchant get more hit points, better saves, additional proficiencies, etc. ?

Why should a cleric who bashes some orcs with a mace get more spells? Why should a rogue who doesn't practice a single roguish ability get better at them through combat? Why should a wizard who only casts cantrips suddenly be good enough to get 2nd level spells?

Leveling in general hasn't made complete sense, but it's a necessary evil in a system with levels.

 

[Maxperson]

In post #305 I was trying to get at that I didn't think anyone in this thread itself was saying that all NPCs needed to have PC classes. At most that the ones that do PC class type things should be trying to emulate PC classes and that any skills they have should be things a person could have in theory learned instead of being a PC.

@Maxperson Have you claimed in here anywhere that all NPCs need to be written up with PC classes or even have fleshed out NPC classes? And going beyond this thread, did you like or dislike in 3/3.5/PF that skilled commoners and experts automatically came with better BAB and HP?

No. I've said the opposite more than once. I only do character levels for important NPCs. The rest of the time I use a stat block or even nothing at all beyond an idea of the NPCs personality.

I didn't care that commoners and experts gained hit points, etc. in 3e.

 

[Azzy]

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

Sure, there's a spectrum there but D&D always errs on the side of less is more (whereas most simulationists err on the side of decidedly more). Encumbrance was originally measured in an abstracted coin weight, for instance. Hit points... Well, volumes have been written about hit points. In many circumstances, the simulationist attempts were tacked on later (like weapon speed, weapon vs armor mods), were poorly thought out, and/or proved unpopular. Most of these attempts were eventually weeded out, too.

 

[Lyxen]

There should be avenues. Is the price worth it? Maybe, maybe not. How long would it take a fighter to learn the shadowstep ability? He'd have to figure who teaches it, and that's probably someone who isn't nice and might as soon kill you as teach you. He'd have to agree to whatever that person wanted as the price, which might be steep. And it would take time. Again, the point isn't whether the PC WOULD learn it, but that it be possible(not guaranteed) to learn.

OK, first if we are talking about learnable skills only, it's a bit different, just wanted to point out that that shadowstep is magic and might not be a skill, but a gift, linked to a race, a blood line, a divine status, etc.

Yes, but it's very rare. 19 times out of 20(far less often really) the players don't even ask, so I don't bother to even figure it out unless someone does.

Which is a polite way of saying "it's NPC only".

They are racial. Undead isn't a race, it's a category. Death Knight would be the specific race of undead, and those abilities are innate to the race.

Lord Soth was human, that is his race. After that, I don't think that various types of undeads are considered races. But anyway, as it's mostly magical, I think we can agree that it's not something that can be learned.

This is just not true. From the get go I've been talking about learnable skills, not any sort of innate racial ability.

OK, as mentioned above, this simplifies things a bit, but at the start of the discussion, it was any NPC ability (and seeing that any monster can be a NPC...).

Why should a cleric who bashes some orcs with a mace get more spells? Why should a rogue who doesn't practice a single roguish ability get better at them through combat? Why should a wizard who only casts cantrips suddenly be good enough to get 2nd level spells?

Leveling in general hasn't made complete sense, but it's a necessary evil in a system with levels.

The thing is that whereas there are mandatorily levels for PCs, there are not for NPCs / Monsters. So why impose that constraint on them ?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Because even if they wouldn't, it's weird to say "you can't learn to do that, because you're a pc." The pc has the same question as the player, and the pc doesn't know they're a pc.

That is not the same thing. I’m not suggesting a PC can’t possible do that thing. But is not something that is simple part of class feature. It would have to be carried out differently

 

[Maxperson]

Just posing impossible conditions is exactly like forbidding it with extra steps...

What part of "possible" says "impossible" to you? Nothing I described in that post or any other that I've made here suggested that the DM make it impossible.

And the problem is that you are assuming that there is no "in-fiction reason to be unable to learn". For example, "Aura of Murder. As long as the death’s head is not incapacitated, hostile creatures within 5 feet of it gain vulnerability to piercing damage unless they have resistance or immunity to such damage." You have to be a fanatic of Bhaal, and therefore evil, in a campaign that does not allow evil PCs. Moreover, it's not learned, it a gift from the god.

I don't have a "no evil" rule in my game. If a PC wanted to pledge service to Bhaal, he could. He would be owned(body and soul) by Bhaal at that point and Bhaal would make use of him. I wouldn't make him an NPC, but you can be very sure that Bhaal would order specific murders and give other jobs to further Bhaal's influence to the PC.

He'd also need to still fit in with the party or the player would have to make another PC that did fit in. If the party was an evil one, fine. But if a member of a good heroic group pledges service to Bhaal like that, it would be a disruption to the game and the PC would have to be retired and brought back out in a future campaign where it was appropriate.

That sort of oath, though, is exactly the sort of cost I'm talking about. The PC CAN learn it, but probably will decide not to because of the cost. Or he might. It's still a possible ability to get for the PC.

Simply that if you have to take a PC path to progression (since they seem to be the only ones available), how do you designe a reasonnably good merchant with expertise in bargaining but no fighting skills at all ?

I've never argued that the PC path progression is the only one, though. I'd simply give the merchant a stat block.

And again, you are assuming that it's just a skill. But first, it might not be a skill that can be learned, it can be magic that only operates on specific individuals (again, common fantasy trope), and second, once more, are you ready to allow abilities that are incredibly powerful in a PC hand like Parry (+6 to AC as a reaction, absolutely at will).

And again, trading off with something unacceptable to a player does not count, it's just as good as saying no with extra steps.

If there is an in-fiction reason why it's not learnable, then it's not.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, first if we are talking about learnable skills only, it's a bit different, just wanted to point out that that shadowstep is magic and might not be a skill, but a gift, linked to a race, a blood line, a divine status, etc.

Sure. It might, and if there's an in-fiction reason why it's not learnable or gainable(by making the same pacts, etc.), then the PC can't get it.

Which is a polite way of saying "it's NPC only".

If suddenly everything is a special gift or whatever and is unobtainable by a PC, then that's some significant bad faith on the part of the DM. Some things will be unique. Some will just involve high price. Some will be pretty easy.

Lord Soth was human, that is his race. After that, I don't think that various types of undeads are considered races. But anyway, as it's mostly magical, I think we can agree that it's not something that can be learned.

Humans are not undead. Races in D&D can change. Reincarnation changes race. If you've read Fizban's, a dragon can turn people into Dragonborn and the PC's race changes. Become undead changes your race. Humans are humanoid.

Look at vampires. They retain memories of their former lives, but no racial abilities. Those go away and they gain the new vampire racial abilities. Death Knight is a race, but one with a name that sounds more like a class.

The thing is that whereas there are mandatorily levels for PCs, there are not for NPCs / Monsters. So why impose that constraint on them ?

I don't impose it. I'm just saying that I was okay with it for 3e, because the same nonsense happened to the PCs. In 5e I use stat blocks or no stats at all for the vast majority of NPCs. Only a very few get class levels and/or full roll ups.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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

And as far as trying to figure out balance for a PC goes, just give powerful abilities a high cost. The player will either determine that 1) it's not worth it or 2) it is worth it. If it's not worth it, you don't need to be concerned. If it is worth it, you've already roughly balanced it with the drawback, and if the remainder is a little bit unbalanced in favor of the PC, well that sort of thing is fun for the player so it falls squarely into the, "context of how it makes the game more fun" category.

Once again I think everyone is talking past each other to try to be right.

If I asked you if it's OK to give an NPC an ability that isn't listed in any of the class rules would you would say YES? This is what @Lyxen is saying is "NPCs follow different rules than PCs".

If I asked Lyxen if they would allow a player to gain access to an NPC ability at the expense of something else I'm guessing they would say they would consider it. I think you both agree on that as well.

If I asked you both if PC should have access to absolutely every power ever used by NPCs (besides racial ones) I'm guessing you both would say no because so e things just do not work for players (ghost possession as an example).

There really isn't anything you fundamentally disagree upon other than your definitions of "NPCs using PC rules".

 

[Maxperson]

Once again I think everyone is talking past each other to try to be right.

I don't have to try.

Serious answer. I'm not trying to be right. I'm just telling my point of view and why I do the things that I do.

If I asked you if it's OK to give an NPC an ability that isn't listed in any of the class rules would you would say YES? This is what @Lyxen is saying is "NPCs follow different rules than PCs".

Yes. With very few exceptions, the same process could potentially be undertaken by the PCs. For instance, if I gave an NPC bodyguard a Shattering Defense ability that said that anytime a PC rolls a 1 when attacking him, he breaks that PC's weapon with his weapon, that skill would be potentially learnable by a PC. If on the other hand that Bodyguard's god granted him skin that shatters the weapons of his enemies when they roll a 1, it would be very hard and unlikely for a PC to achieve that. It would be possible, though, if the PC could somehow contact that god and offer something of equal value.

If I asked you both if PC should have access to absolutely every power ever used by NPCs (besides racial ones) I'm guessing you both would say no because so e things just do not work for players (ghost possession as an example).

Agreed.

There really isn't anything you fundamentally disagree upon other than your definitions of "NPCs using PC rules".

I don't even think we disagree there, since I think that NPCs can both use PC rules(RAW) and stat blocks(RAW) and nothing at all(RAW). I think he holds those same views.