D&D 5E Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?

[CapnZapp]

To the extent that the point is anything other than providing a consistent and unbiased basis for resolving uncertainty, it is at odds with the entire reason why we have a codified ruleset in the first place.

If there's a choice between two ways to model something, then the system is biased - the outcome of any interaction will depend on the choice of which model to use, rather than anything inherent to the creature being modeled.

If there's no choice involved, but there are still two different ways to model the same in-game reality (based on out-of-game differences, like whether it's a PC or an NPC), then the system is causally inconsistent - the outcome of any interaction will depend on factors which do not exist within the reality being modeled.

Not sure what your point is. Of course it's biased.

You want depth or you want simple? For PC's the players do the nitty gritty, so I choose depth. For NPCs that will likely die in six seconds, I choose simple.

But you don't have to!

 

[CapnZapp]

But how are classes and levels (or even hp, for that matter) something tangible in-world?

What is your question, Pemerton?

(Just asking because I can't see the line from my discussion with Saelorn to here)

 

[Maxperson]

So that's the entire 2E era and 3E era which followed this rule. It's a period of twenty years which, barring 4E as a failed experiment, continues right up to the modern day.

Um, no. I've never had an issue with NPCs that had PC stats in any edition. I didn't DM 4e, so I can't speak to that one. So no, no it wasn't a failed experiment. Maybe you just didn't use them right.

 

[Azurewraith]

Um, no. I've never had an issue with NPCs that had PC stats in any edition. I didn't DM 4e, so I can't speak to that one. So no, no it wasn't a failed experiment. Maybe you just didn't use them right.

As for 4e npcs with PC stats ended badly.. but then I did optimize the npc with all the nasty tricks the char op boards could come up with... long story short the PC's got to big for their boots killed 2 out of the 5 before going down her self.

 

[delericho]

I'm yet to give an NPC class levels in 5e. I don't expect ever to do so.

 

[Mercule]

I picked door number 2 (common, not universal), but it's more complicated than that.

I don't really worry about statting them up with class levels, but do try to mirror the power progression. So, there are no arcanists with 3 third-level slots and 5 1st level slots, but no 2nd level slots -- as a silly example. NPCs that are adventurers probably have PC classes, straight-up. NPCs that aren't adventurers (town guard, court wizard, cloistered cleric, etc.) just are what they are and they're written up to fit their role. If pressed, though, I could probably convert any NPC to a PC class if, say, a PC died/retired and it made sense to allow the player to take over the NPC.

As a note, trying to meticulously apply PC rules to NPCs was part of what burned me out on DMing 3.5E. By the time we got to 15th level of a pure home-brew game, it took me more time to craft a single all-human adversary encounter than we spent playing a whole session. The "whatever goes" NPC builds for 4E killed that edition for my group. The coup de grace was an Eberron adventure from Dragon that had an agent of the Aurum who could control PC actions with ridiculous frequency (either high recharge or at-will); when a player asked how he could get that ability and I had to answer, "You can't, no matter level or focus" it really soured things.

So far, 5E seems to be a happy medium. You can see how NPCs could be built from PC classes, most of the time, but it's easy enough to tweak something here or there without breaking anything.

 

[Jester David]

Maybe an orc witch-doctor (or whatever) had access to a slightly different set of spells from a standard priest, or a different weapon selection. It has different mechanics because it's modeling a different entity. There's still exactly one true way to model each distinct character.

Great example.
The orc witch doctor didn't use the PC rules. It had an extra 1d4 hit dice for each level of priest it took and still used the monster attack rules rather than the priests'.
Most of the bodyguards and warriors and such just gained a bonus hit points and fought as a slightly tougher monster. Which 5e is actually fairly close to since it works a little like this, adjusting monsters with a couple modifications but otherwise using the existing statblock.

So that's the entire 2E era and 3E era which followed this rule. It's a period of twenty years which, barring 4E as a failed experiment, continues right up to the modern day.

Adding class levels to monsters and challenging NPCs with class levels was always rather vestigial in 2e. Most NPCs were 0-level commoners. You could have fighter and mage NPCs but there wasn't really any rules support or advice.
And the xp calculation rules in the DMG really didn't reflect the challenge of a creature: a level 3 mage was worth more xp than a level 3 fighter.
Even then there was a lot more fudging and customization, as the rules were less codified. You could just add a hit dice or extra power.

Of course... you could handwave things in 3e as well. Need a slightly higher CR monster? Give it a couple extra HD and a bonus feat. Bam. Basically just applying a homebrew template. So long as it's done in advance and full xp is awarded it's not "cheating".

And heck, even Pathfinder is moving away from using the full PC rules for monsters. They introduced 4e style monster rules for Pathfinder Unchained.

Using full PC rules for monsters is problematic. Monsters don't need feats for special abilities. And they don't need to use the same math as PCs, gaining attack bonuses and save bonuses based on their Hit Dice. That doesn't work. The requirements of the game mean that monsters should be hit more often and take more damage than PCs.

To use your parlance, once of the "failed experiments" of 3e was 0-Hit Dice monsters like orcs advancing as PCs. Because orcs and such needed special rules content, which meant feats and prestige classes that were NPC specific. Which was odd. And they still needed to be balanced as PC options. But monster balance and PC balance are not the same.
Giving a PC the ability to raise the dead once a short rest would be crazy good, but a hostile monster with the ability would be fine since it would only be usable once in a fight before it dies. The difference between recharging on a short rest or a long rest means nothing to a monster. And they don't need to worry about saving spells to last an entire day.
Similarly, many PC abilities are useless for monsters. Especially exploration based ones. A monster has no use for bardic Song of Rest.
Divorcing NPC powers from PC powers means you can have the orc Eye of Gruumsh do Gruumshy things without a prestige class, that are balanced for a monster. And it also means the king NPC can have king-based powers related to commanding guards and granting attacks or even legendary actions. Without having to design a "king" prestige class, "royalty" template, or "Hail to the King, Baby" feat at the same time.

And PCs gain a new ability each level, because a single person is managing just that character. But a DM running an enemy party needs to keep track of all the abilities of a potential enemy party, which is unnecessarily complex.
This is not a theoretical problem: I'm running Madness at Gardmore Abbey where one of the opponents is a five-man band of evil adventurers. That would be hellish in 3e/PF. Especially since 5/6ths of the abilities won't be used in the 4 rounds the rivals will be on the scene.
And if I decide to design those NPCs by hand, I'm not creating a full PC with stat increases or feats and the like. I can just make up the numbers and abilities, taking inspiration from a couple token signature PC abilities so the NPC feels like they have class levels, without copying the exact rules verbatim. I can give out some extra Hit Dice, adjust the ability scores, not pay attention to saves and skill proficiencies, and not worry about a background that is wholly irrelevant.


BUT if you want to stat up an NPC using full PC rules just like in 3e, you still can. That's still a thing. Not only is there nothings stopping you, but the rules for doing so are in the DMG. That's just not how they're presenting characters and NPCs in the book.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Against whom?

A biased system (in this context) is one which requires bias to operate. It's not impartial. It can't tell you what the stats of a thing actually are - it can only tell you to make a choice, between two different sets of stats. Then, what happens with that thing within the game world depends on the DM's meta-game choice about which representation to use, rather than anything inherent to the thing itself. The DM has biased the representation of the thing, to suit personal preferences.

The outcome of any encounter with the thing, then, is a matter of DM's bias in how to represent it, rather than a matter of role-playing. The choices that the players make on behalf of their characters become meaningless, because the DM is manipulating reality around them in order to promote a preferred outcome.

Not sure what your point is. Of course it's biased.

You want depth or you want simple? For PC's the players do the nitty gritty, so I choose depth. For NPCs that will likely die in six seconds, I choose simple.

It's not about depth or simplicity. It's about fairness and objectivity. The DM's job is to determine what the character is within the game world. The system's job is to determine what the one true mechanical representation is for that character.

It doesn't matter how complicated it is, as long as the distinction reflects real in-game differences rather than artificial meta-game constructs such as PC or NPC.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Adding class levels to monsters and challenging NPCs with class levels was always rather vestigial in 2e. Most NPCs were 0-level commoners. You could have fighter and mage NPCs but there wasn't really any rules support or advice.

There was plenty of rules support for NPC fighters and mages, but it was all in the PHB. In the absence of any indication otherwise, there's zero reason to expect that an NPC would be any different from a PC. If a given elf happens to be a fifth-level mage, then we have the rules for what a fifth-level mage is.

Of course... you could handwave things in 3e as well. Need a slightly higher CR monster? Give it a couple extra HD and a bonus feat. Bam. Basically just applying a homebrew template. So long as it's done in advance and full xp is awarded it's not "cheating".

That's not handwaving, though. Monsters in 3E had a thing in their stat block which described their advancement, saying what sort of hit die and save progressions they used, and how big such a creature could actually get. If this Bulette is bigger and stronger than a typical one, then you just need to figure out how much bigger and tougher it is, and the formulas would tell you how all of its numbers change to reflect that different reality.

Using full PC rules for monsters is problematic. Monsters don't need feats for special abilities. And they don't need to use the same math as PCs, gaining attack bonuses and save bonuses based on their Hit Dice. That doesn't work. The requirements of the game mean that monsters should be hit more often and take more damage than PCs.

It's probable that they went too far in their strive for equality. In as much as a giant frog is not the same thing as a dwarf barbarian, they don't also need to get better in the same ways at the same rates. It seems like they were just a little bit too impressed with their own cleverness at creating a unified system for hit dice, and it didn't quite hold up as well as they'd hoped.

To use your parlance, once of the "failed experiments" of 3e was 0-Hit Dice monsters like orcs advancing as PCs. Because orcs and such needed special rules content, which meant feats and prestige classes that were NPC specific. Which was odd. And they still needed to be balanced as PC options. But monster balance and PC balance are not the same.

No, humanoid races advancing by class rather than as monsters was one of the great successes of 3E - it was integral to creating a consistent and unbiased world. Orcs and dwarves really are similar enough, in terms of how they work, that they should be represented in the same ways. An orc is not a giant frog, or a demon, or even a dragon; it's a person, with a particular set of physical and social traits, whose capabilities are primarily derived from skill and knowledge. And likewise, their abilities had to be balanced for a PC because they were just learned abilities - if an orc witch-doctor could raise dead once per hour, then you would need a good reason for why a PC cleric with the death domain (or whatever) couldn't do the same.

Granted, there were a lot of special feats or prestige classes for them, and that was annoying. It wasn't necessary, though, and it wasn't even part of the core game. It's just a problem of having too many supplements. Don't blame a good game for falling apart in supplements. The same can be said for Pathfinder.

And PCs gain a new ability each level, because a single person is managing just that character. But a DM running an enemy party needs to keep track of all the abilities of a potential enemy party, which is unnecessarily complex.

There is nothing about having only one character per person that necessitates gaining a new ability at each level. Fighters were fine in early D&D, even though they had no special abilities. Additional complexity makes it difficult for a DM to run a party full of such characters, but any gain from having complex classes is nebulous.

 

[Valetudo]

The way i always looked at it, you have two type of opponents . People and monsters. People , even if they arent using a pc class should follow similar guidelines, so basically no solo style. Monsters on the other hand can come in all sorts of styles. So you can hava human or demihuman boss that uses a pc class, or a monster that is solo style. Atleast thats how i run my homemade npc and villians.