Do NPCs have to follow the rules?

[hong]

The rules you follow don't have to be the DMG's. They just have to follow a logic the players can learn and use - something more than "the DM felt like it". This can give your world a verisimilitude you won't get using ad hoc characters that have skills and abilities just because it's how you think it should be at that moment.

I think we've veered off into a tangent that really has nothing to do with what the thread was about originally. Nobody is saying that consistency is bad. The original poster, however, was asking about the _letter of the rules_ -- ie, how much detail is needed in creating NPC stat blocks, how skill points should be allocated, what abilities NPCs should have, etc. I don't see anything wrong with a bit of fudging when no-one will notice the difference.

 

[Snoweel]

Actually, there's something to be said for using the rules for the sake of the players...

You see, the PCs live in the game world. They have a sense of how the world works - they can observe people and make certain reasonable deductions based upon what they see. But, the players cannot make such deductions unless there's some consistency in how the NPCs are constructed.

Metagaming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

KILL THE HERETIC!!! KILL THE HERETIC!!!!

Dude, the PC's should not be able to guess the highest level of spells an NPC can cast based on the abilities of her familiar.

Among other things.

 

[Painfully]

I'm with hong on this one. As long as the DM has a method that provides believable and balanced NPCs, whether using the core rules or their own more loose guidelines, the players have no room for complaint.

That said, players expect consistency from their DMs, and a DM has the responsibility to know the rules and how/why they were put into place before he bends or breaks those rules.

Experienced DMs can be quite good at adapting their campaigns as they go along, but things like NPCs, which can be prepared beforehand, probably should be.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

But you're not allowed to balance your encounters as you see fit! Even as the DM, you're expected to follow the rules because the rules are the only thing that stands between despotic autocracy at the table, and a good game!

Agreed... 1000%

Most of my major NPCs follow the rules, except for the money they are accorded... I can't justify giving a 3rd Level "Sergeant" that much cash... Likewise, even a 1st level Aristocrat can have some serious coin.

Yep - this is a major major problem. However, there is a big difference between assets... and "gear useable on an adventure".

 

[Darkness]

If I need to create an NPC before the game, I use my own tables.

And if I need an NPC's stats on the fly, I use the tables in the DMG.

 

[Gez]

Why not just use the tables in the DMG?

Because, for example, their melee combattants are all tin-cans unless they can't use heavy armor (druid, rogue, ranger, monk). All characters, especially fighters, are extremely customizables, it would be a shame to have always the same cloned NPCs with same feats, ability scores, and gears.

Furthermore, these tables don't include prestige classes, multi-classing, and additional game material added by every sourcebook published after the DMG, from MM to... Well, it's hard to cite the last one.

Sure, these tables are useful -- but sometimes you don't want to use them.

The biggest thing against them is that they describe average characters -- NPCs without prestige classes, multiclassing, or rare feats. They're quite bland. Yet, they don't use the "bland character classes", aka warrior, adept, expert, commoner, aristocrat.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Yeah, but the impression I got was that we were discussing "generic" NPCs. The types of NPCs you're talking about are more than generic, and deserve to be detailed by the DM.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

You do realize that running a 20th level wizard this way would probably increase his effective level by 50% if not more. In addition if I was a player in your game I would quickly become pissed when it became apparent that powerful spellcasters like this would always appear the have exactly the spells needed no matter how the situation. You have effectively created a 20th level sorcerer whose casting list is the entire PHB. Not fair at all.

Okay, I have a question. It's a chore to make NPCs (including monsters with class levels) in 3E, due to all the prerequisites, class skills, and so forth. I really long for the old days where you just pick a class and roll hit points.

Anyway, it would be much easier if I just picked the abilities I want and just ignored the character creation rules.

Examples:

-
- archwizard, 20th level, attack +15, all knowledge skills at +10, Spellcraft +25, Concentration +25, 100 hp, all metamagic feats, pick spells as needed from the list

CR: either ignore it and assign experience ad-hoc, or choose a CR based on how tough the fight was compared to other fights.

Thanks,
Mike

 

[Gez]

Yeah, but the impression I got was that we were discussing "generic" NPCs. The types of NPCs you're talking about are more than generic, and deserve to be detailed by the DM.

Maybe I'm biased, but I consider that no NPC above level 7 is generic...

 

[mmu1]

I think how much you can get away with depends almost exclusively on what kind of game your players like.

If they're satisfied with just being 'entertained' by the DM, they usually won't care much about the rules. On the other hand, if they want to feel like they have a real influence on the game world, they'll usually expect you to be consistent and to follow the same rules their characters have to put up with.

However. if your game really demands that a low-level guard see someone, just be a man about it and make that arbitrary call - there's no point in creating an NPC with absurd stats to hide behind and pretend that you're letting fate decide. Just don't do it in a situation where you'll make a PC look like a fool, or where you'll be short-circuiting some well thought out plan the players care about - everything else should be fair game, as long as you don't go overboard and keep these unusal occurences rare enough to be plausible...