Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 9577592" data-attributes="member: 1465">Not that I personally care about this, since I am playing 5.0 and don't see the need for class tags at all: if I want an NPC to use a magic item which requires attunement, they just do, as non-player creatures don't need to follow rules the reason of which is primarily to balance player characters with each other.Having said that, for consistency I agree that at the very minimum the NPC druid should have the druid class tag, and I would expect this to receive an errata-corrige in the future. That's because those NPCs are really meant to be &quot;lite&quot; versions of PC classes in the sense of being easier to use by a DM compared to a fully-detailed character using a PC class, but narratively still very much the same thing; so if they added the tag to wizard and cleric, there is no reason for not having the same tag added to druid.For the others, it's a bit more open to interpretation, as each NPC has its own narrative that does not necessarily match with that of a class. Some probably are effectively meant as monster+class (but still &quot;lite&quot; version for practical use), in which case having the class tag makes a lot of sense. Others maybe not. It's debatable, but for instance I generally use &quot;cultists&quot; as truly lesser dabblers with magical stuff than clerics, something between totally non-magic priests and full clerics, so I wouldn't feel like they particularly need to earn the cleric tag.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 9577592, member: 1465"] Not that I personally care about this, since I am playing 5.0 and don't see the need for class tags at all: if I want an NPC to use a magic item which requires attunement, they just do, as non-player creatures don't need to follow rules the reason of which is primarily to balance player characters with each other. Having said that, for consistency I agree that at the very minimum the NPC [B]druid[/B] should have the druid class tag, and I would expect this to receive an errata-corrige in the future. That's because those NPCs are really meant to be "lite" versions of PC classes in the sense of being easier to use by a DM compared to a fully-detailed character using a PC class, but narratively still very much the same thing; so if they added the tag to wizard and cleric, there is no reason for not having the same tag added to druid. For the others, it's a bit more open to interpretation, as each NPC has its own narrative that does not necessarily match with that of a class. Some probably are effectively meant as monster+class (but still "lite" version for practical use), in which case having the class tag makes a lot of sense. Others maybe not. It's debatable, but for instance I generally use "cultists" as truly lesser dabblers with magical stuff than clerics, something between totally non-magic priests and full clerics, so I wouldn't feel like they particularly need to earn the cleric tag. [/QUOTE]

Verification