d20 needs different rules for NPCs

[Gundark]

I must have missed a rule somewhere that says all monsters must have class levels. I don't see any reasons why I should have to use anything but the standard entry on a monster for 99% of encounters. Only recurring NPCs need unique stats.

I never suggested that monster HAVE to have class levels. I think you missed the "for example" part

That's why the DMG has tables listing NPCs of just about every class and level. Again, unless the guy we're dealing with is a multi-session big bad, I don't see a reason to go further than this.

Fair enough

I totally disagree with this. The rules add consistency to a character, defining what they can and can't do. Otherwise, it becomes easy and tempting to just make up new abilities on the spot. I can see making up new spells, magical items, and possibly feats for a bad guy, but not making up new rules entirely.

I'm not suggesting that DM make things up on the spot. I agree that would be a nightmare. What I meant was that there be a set of NPC rules that are different from the what the players must follow (ie. my spycraft 2.0 example)

This has happened to me before. In most cases, I let the PCs have their day. Their luck won't hold out forever, and the next time it might well be one of them that gets killed by some unlucky rolls.

And I have done this before too. However I think (IMHO) that in some way it's a dis-service to the story if the evil leader ended up going down in 2 rounds.

 

[kolikeos]

#3. Villians need to break the rules. They need to be able to do things that the players can't do. They shouldn't have to follow the same rules the PCs do.

i totaly disagree.
i never liked the fact that NPCs can do things PCs can't, such as casting some rituals or making some magic item. in dnd there is no such thing as 'you only *find* magic items' or 'only the *someguy* has a castle' or 'you most have a book *that someone wrote before you* to research that and this', the PCs themselves can build a castle and create magic items and research stuff (and have others use it to learn from) and that is the way i like it. both as dm and player.


this statement just tacked me off... what i wrote probably has nothing to do with the topic of this thread... i did not even read the whole of it yet...

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I voted somewhat interested, but probably should have voted lower. Do villains need to be easier to stat out in D&D? You betchum! Is that only because of the possibility of their having character levels? Nope!

As for #3, if you're gonna fudge for the viallain you'd darn well better fudge for me too, or you can just play with yourself. I don't consider GM fudging to be cheating only if it's done for both sides. If it's only done for the villains, what's the point of playing? Any GM can defeat any group of PCs anytime he wants that way. Where's the challange?

 

[Gundark]

I voted somewhat interested, but probably should have voted lower. Do villains need to be easier to stat out in D&D? You betchum! Is that only because of the possibility of their having character levels? Nope!

As for #3, if you're gonna fudge for the viallain you'd darn well better fudge for me too, or you can just play with yourself. I don't consider GM fudging to be cheating only if it's done for both sides. If it's only done for the villains, what's the point of playing? Any GM can defeat any group of PCs anytime he wants that way. Where's the challange?

Again I think this is me not explaining well enough. I'm not talking about the GM randomly cheating and making stuff up on the spot. Hopefully the edit in my OP carifies.

 

[Shade]

One of the things I disliked about past editions of the game was "NPC only" classes, usually better than anything the PCs could take. I'd hate to see this return.

I love the consistency of the current rules. I know that whatever the enemies can attain, my character could attain as well (meeting all prereqs, of course).

 

[hexgrid]

One of the things I disliked about past editions of the game was "NPC only" classes, usually better than anything the PCs could take. I'd hate to see this return.

I love the consistency of the current rules. I know that whatever the enemies can attain, my character could attain as well (meeting all prereqs, of course).

So if the players can't be dragons, should dragons be removed from the game?
If not, what's the practical difference between an "NPC only" class, and an "NPC only" race?

 

[painandgreed]

Yow...I'm intrigued...tell me more.

As for Mr. Mearls, there was some topic of his posted here I disagreed with, yet thought it interesting that everybody seemed to have great respect for this guy who I had never heard of. So I looked up his website and list of products he had worked on and the only things I saw that I recognised were two White Wolf products I did not like. In fact, one of them was the product that made me realise that WW had gone down hill from their origins and I was no longer getting anything out of their products but only buying out of habit. Follow that up with some more recent topics discused here such as the monster reimage which I completly disagree with what he did, and I see nothing of value for my games in what the man is doing.

As for #3, I completly disagree with there being two separate rules for PCs and NPCs in most games. Classes and abilities available to one should be available to the other. In general, I see this as providing a common yardstick and as being "fair". This goes for both as a DM and player. If the boss or sub-boss can do something, it should be something that would be possible for the PCs to also do, or it puts them at an automatic disadvantage whcih they can never make up. Game balance is harder to garantee as well as determine. If the PCs face and are defeated by an NPC party of similar races with class levels that they themselves have runnign under the same rules, then there is less chance that they will feel they did not receive a fair game. I want the PCs and NPCs running by the same rules, abilites, and restrictions for virisimilitude if nothing else. I find it hurts SoB for there to be classes or powers that are open to NPCs but not PCs for no good reason beyond one is on and one is the other.

 

[Umbran]

NOTE: I'm talking about bosses or sub bosses here. However I think that there should be a "mook" VC as even the NPC classes can be time consuming to generate.

I think for bosses and sub-bosses, I want to go through the detailed work.

But there's a level between bosses and mooks, and I could see the utility for a templated version of class levels for such things. I can also see the utility for a DM who prefers to "wing it" a bit more than I do.

 

[Seeker95]

So... what's the product in which interest I am being asked to express? The product you offer in the middle of the post does not seem to take into consideration the things being discussed on either side of it.

 

[diaglo]

One of the things I disliked about past editions of the game was "NPC only" classes, usually better than anything the PCs could take. I'd hate to see this return.

you'd allow your PCs to be 0 lvl Normal men with no possibility of advancement?


i think i love you, mang. when are you running this campaign. and will it be online. sign me up.