D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Xetheral]

I understand the frustration, that being said, it's not that hard to correct. First, contrary to previous editions, in 5e, unless I'm mistaken, once applied, the poison stays on the blade for one minute, which is way longer than most fights, so there should not be a reason to reapply it.

As for applying it, for the sake of fairness, I would require NPCs like drows and assassins to use bonus action to apply it, with the assumption that they did it before combat in most cases. After that, find additional doses is another matter. Poison is not that balanced in the game, never has been whatever the edition, sop allowing too many doses of very potent poison for PCs is unbalancing the game, and I'm not sure that there is much that can be done about this.

Some individual poisons differ, but the general rule for injury poisons is that they stay potent until delivered through a wound or washed off. However, in general they only work once, and then have to be reapplied, which is why the action type to reapply it matters. My Battlemaster/Thief could use a bonus action to apply poison, which I'd get on my first successful attack. Poison-using NPCs, however, get the bonus poison damage on all of their attacks without needing to reapply it, even when they get multiple attacks per round. So simply saying that the NPC applied it before battle doesn't work as an explanation after the first hit.

 

[Maxperson]

The Drows described in the MM are likely Lolth followers. it look like a good fiction explanation.
If a DM use drow in another context, poison usage should be replaced or explain differently.
Drow are free from evil now, they should be free from poison too!

That's a good start, but there needs to be more. Did she grant it to them by altering their bodies magically? if so, then the PCs can still get it, they just need to devote themselves to Lolth. Is she just giving them a specific poison? If so, the PCs can still use it by looting it off of their bodies.

The important part is consistency and the ability for a PC to do the same thing, even if it comes a a cost too high to pay, like becoming a full Lolth believer and being magically altered.

 

[SkidAce]

... this sort of Schrodinger's Drow ...

Hmmmm.

"Are they dead?"

"Not until you look at them..."


/scurries off to recreate homebrew world on basis of simultaneous existent/non existent drow.

 

[Maxperson]

Hmmmm.

"Are they dead?"

"Not until you look at them..."


/scurries off to recreate homebrew world on basis of simultaneous existent/non existent drow.

Why do you think they're so reliant on poison? They gotta kill you quick!

 

[jdrakeh]

I generally refer to PCs as "Protagonist Characters" and NPCs as "Non-Protagonist Characters" because that more accurately reflects how they're used in my games.

I generally agree with you about monsters and NPCs not needing to be created using the same rules as PCs (in fact, creating monsters and NPCs using nearly the same rules as PCs has caused me to burn out as a GM of some games).

The exception is if the rules for creating PCs are simple and elegant. Like Risus. What I did not like, for example, were 3x and Pathfinder 1e for foisting what were ultimately very complex NPC/monster creation rules on the GM.

 

[Lyxen]

While I think ability score damage are complicated, it was one of the way to do it well: it was effectively a NPC-only option because the players very rarely cared if the foe they damaged would die after a few hours or minutes... they wanted them defeated now. Assassins could thrive using a hit and run tactic, leaving their target as good as dead for story purpose, it would force the use of ressources from the heroes (like restoration or equivalent potions) and provide very little imbalance.

I completely agree, but you see right here in your reasoning that it's a game reason, not a world reason. There is no world logic around it, it works technically but it does not really make sense. And that's all that I'm saying, there have been good technical implementations, but they relied for balance on a difference between PCs and NPCs which does not really make sense in the world (which is different from acquiring powers).

 

[Lyxen]

I generally agree with you about monsters and NPCs not needing to be created using the same rules as PCs (in fact, creating monsters and NPCs using nearly the same rules as PCs has caused me to burn out as a GM of some games).

Yes, same for me, it's a very real difficulty and thy 3e thankfully is the oddball in the editions in that respect.

 

[Krachek]

That's a good start, but there needs to be more. Did she grant it to them by altering their bodies magically? if so, then the PCs can still get it, they just need to devote themselves to Lolth. Is she just giving them a specific poison? If so, the PCs can still use it by looting it off of their bodies.

The important part is consistency and the ability for a PC to do the same thing, even if it comes a a cost too high to pay, like becoming a full Lolth believer and being magically altered.

Giving physical poison to handle put us back to the usual situation. Not so good.
Magic alteration or infusion is a nice explanation.
Can PC have this? Why not! live in a Drow city, struggling with other noble houses for power,
making constant raid to supply the city for slaves and sacrifices, that should qualify to be a Lolth followers and receive innate poison attack. Just writing « Lolth follower » on top of the character sheet is not enough!

I doubt a players will last long, role play a character in the constant fear of Lolth, fulfilling all her demand or her high priest demand. note that Lolth demand will rapidly interact within party asking to eliminate all non followers in the party. Being a Lolth follower is being trap in a miserable life under the continual fear of a tyran that manipulate you, giving power but always at the price of having more control over you.