Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Attacking defenseless NPCs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7626638" data-attributes="member: 6857506"><p>Ok, you've said this twice (in this thread), but I'm not seeing anything that indicates your reasons for or the breadth/completeness of your rejection of that principle. I don't know how much stock you put in trying to suss out the intent of the designers, but I observe the following:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There are rules domains that I think it is safe to say are widely understood to not be generally applicable to NPCs, for example, XP, with the possible exception of NPCs that join a PC party. When talking about rules 'parity' between PCs and NPCs, I certainly am not talking about these rules, and I am fairly sure most other aren't either. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There are rules domains for which there is explicit PH/DMG discussion about the choice between using the same rules for NPCs as for PCs, such as classes, dropping to 0 HP, and mob attacks. I'm not talking about these either. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Neglecting (1) and (2), the PH vacillates in its phrasing of rules between using the obviously generic "a/the creature", and the arguably more PC-targeted "you". While particular sections or subsections are often uniform in the choice made between the two, I can't discern any pattern that would indicate that the rules are intended to be of two kinds (generic vs. PC-only). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Again neglecting (1) and (2), the DMG, AFAICT, phrases its guidance and variant rules using the generic "a/the creature". </li> </ol><p></p><p>In addition, I would certainly not suggest that NPC actions that take place off-screen and are not of some immediate interest to PCs should be resolved in the same way as PC actions. So, no, I'm not going to roll a Wisdom(Survival) check to see if mountain lion #8473B in hex #48957 was able to track down prey this morning, as much fun as that would be.</p><p></p><p>So, my conclusion has been that for stuff happening on-screen or "near on-screen" and not covered by (1) or (2), resolving PC and NPC actions in the same way is at least highly reasonable, and, though not obligatory (because there's that sense that nothing in 5e is truly obligatory) is also a reasonable common expectation absent an explicit DM-player agreement that diverges from that practice.</p><p></p><p>My question, then, is within the domain of rules that I have somewhat imprecisely outlined, which of the following are you asserting?</p><p> a) Despite the phrasing of the rules, there is no cogent argument for, as a general principle, resolving PC and NPC actions in the same way.</p><p> b) While the phrasing of the rules might be read to imply that PC and NPC actions are to be resolved in the same way, there are reasons that no competent DM would adhere to doing so as a uniform principle.</p><p> c) While the phrasing of the rules might be read to imply that PC and NPC actions are to be resolved in the same way, there are reasons which on balance mean that to you adherence to that principle seems a poor choice.</p><p> d) Other.</p><p></p><p>(Oh, yeah, (c) => (b), so if you're going to be picky, you can append "AND NOT (b)" to (c).)</p><p></p><p>And of course in appropriate cases, hearing about the reasons would be of interest.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 7626638, member: 6857506"] Ok, you've said this twice (in this thread), but I'm not seeing anything that indicates your reasons for or the breadth/completeness of your rejection of that principle. I don't know how much stock you put in trying to suss out the intent of the designers, but I observe the following: [LIST=1] [*]There are rules domains that I think it is safe to say are widely understood to not be generally applicable to NPCs, for example, XP, with the possible exception of NPCs that join a PC party. When talking about rules 'parity' between PCs and NPCs, I certainly am not talking about these rules, and I am fairly sure most other aren't either. [*]There are rules domains for which there is explicit PH/DMG discussion about the choice between using the same rules for NPCs as for PCs, such as classes, dropping to 0 HP, and mob attacks. I'm not talking about these either. [*]Neglecting (1) and (2), the PH vacillates in its phrasing of rules between using the obviously generic "a/the creature", and the arguably more PC-targeted "you". While particular sections or subsections are often uniform in the choice made between the two, I can't discern any pattern that would indicate that the rules are intended to be of two kinds (generic vs. PC-only). [*]Again neglecting (1) and (2), the DMG, AFAICT, phrases its guidance and variant rules using the generic "a/the creature". [/LIST] In addition, I would certainly not suggest that NPC actions that take place off-screen and are not of some immediate interest to PCs should be resolved in the same way as PC actions. So, no, I'm not going to roll a Wisdom(Survival) check to see if mountain lion #8473B in hex #48957 was able to track down prey this morning, as much fun as that would be. So, my conclusion has been that for stuff happening on-screen or "near on-screen" and not covered by (1) or (2), resolving PC and NPC actions in the same way is at least highly reasonable, and, though not obligatory (because there's that sense that nothing in 5e is truly obligatory) is also a reasonable common expectation absent an explicit DM-player agreement that diverges from that practice. My question, then, is within the domain of rules that I have somewhat imprecisely outlined, which of the following are you asserting? a) Despite the phrasing of the rules, there is no cogent argument for, as a general principle, resolving PC and NPC actions in the same way. b) While the phrasing of the rules might be read to imply that PC and NPC actions are to be resolved in the same way, there are reasons that no competent DM would adhere to doing so as a uniform principle. c) While the phrasing of the rules might be read to imply that PC and NPC actions are to be resolved in the same way, there are reasons which on balance mean that to you adherence to that principle seems a poor choice. d) Other. (Oh, yeah, (c) => (b), so if you're going to be picky, you can append "AND NOT (b)" to (c).) And of course in appropriate cases, hearing about the reasons would be of interest. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Attacking defenseless NPCs
Top