D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Cadence]

What?! The game has never tried to place every possible NPC in a PC build. That is just ridiculous

Isn't that what the commoner and expert classes in 3/3.5/PF were for? Watch out for that 20th level baker when you're first level, he'll mess you up with a baguette for a club and take everything you throw at him.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

If you don't think a PC should be able to learn it then why on earth are you giving it to an NPC?

Should be able too and available feature of the class are not the same thing. There are ways to handle abilities outside the class structure.

For example: If a fighter wants to spend a feat, some downtime training, and maybe some gold to learn pack tactics. That seems OK (possibly) to me. It doesn’t have to be something hard coded as a class feature. There lies the path to madness

 

[Lanefan]

What?! The game has never tried to place every possible NPC in a PC build. That is just ridiculous

Every NPC doesn't need a PC build, but those NPCs who are trying to emulate something a PC can do or be would use a PC build to get there.

The Bodyguard is clearly trying to emulate some sort of Fighter. OK, let's start at Fighter and tweak - using abilities the game already has, and gawds know it has enough of 'em - until we can create this guy.

Can't make it work? OK, let's design a new Bodyguard or Brawler class as a sub-class of Fighter and then - even if it's "underpowered" - make it PC-playable. (honestly, I think the game in fact has room for this - a mostly unarmed combat class that isn't a Monk)

 

[Lanefan]

Should be able too and available feature of the class are not the same thing. There are ways to handle abilities outside the class structure.

For example: If a fighter wants to spend a feat, some downtime training, and maybe some gold to learn pack tactics. That seems OK (possibly) to me. It doesn’t have to be something hard coded as a class feature. There lies the path to madness

So, hard-coded as a feat then, available to several suitable classes? That works...for those who use feats.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Every NPC doesn't need a PC build, but those NPCs who are trying to emulate something a PC can do or be would use a PC build to get there.

The Bodyguard is clearly trying to emulate some sort of Fighter. OK, let's start at Fighter and tweak - using abilities the game already has, and gawds know it has enough of 'em - until we can create this guy.

Can't make it work? OK, let's design a new Bodyguard or Brawler class as a sub-class of Fighter and then - even if it's "underpowered" - make it PC-playable. (honestly, I think the game in fact has room for this - a mostly unarmed combat class that isn't a Monk)

Like I said: down that path lies madness, IMO.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

So, hard-coded as a feat then, available to several suitable classes? That works...for those who use feats.

I would say loose coded. I prefer to leave this stuff up to the DM. No need to have hard coded rules for every possible scenario.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Every NPC doesn't need a PC build, but those NPCs who are trying to emulate something a PC can do or be would use a PC build to get there.

The Bodyguard is clearly trying to emulate some sort of Fighter. OK, let's start at Fighter and tweak - using abilities the game already has, and gawds know it has enough of 'em - until we can create this guy.

Can't make it work? OK, let's design a new Bodyguard or Brawler class as a sub-class of Fighter and then - even if it's "underpowered" - make it PC-playable. (honestly, I think the game in fact has room for this - a mostly unarmed combat class that isn't a Monk)

Is it not sufficient to say you could design a class with those features? I see no need to actually make the class that no one is going to use, just so I can say: well it is a “hard coded class feature”

what purpose does that possibly serve to actually make a class just so a DM can justify a feature on an NPC that will have little impact on the game? I feel my DM’s job is plenty hard as it is, why require all this extra work? Seems rather cruel to me for 0 benefit.

 

[Azzy]

I've never really found it to be so; but then I'm not trying to do it with a WotC-era version which are generally more gamist.

That's funny considering that 3.x was more simulationist than any TSR edition.

As written the fit might not be great but a little kitbashing can go a very long way here.

"Little"?

 

[J.Quondam]

After loving and loathing 3e/PF1, I've come to feel it's vastly easier to just give an NPC whatever abilities seem weird or cool or simply suitable for the encounter. If a PC decides they want to learn it, we can work out if/how that's possible at the time. But for me, it's just a waste of effort to pre-determine something like that in advance, knowing full well it won't even come up 99.9% of the time.

 

[Reynard]

It makes me sad that you won't let me go on an epic quest to find a copy of the necronomican, train during my down time for 10 years, and pledge my soul to the great outer void, so that I can have that sweet sweet Darkforce Tentacle Swarm to use against the final BBEG.

Do you need a hug?