D&D 5E (2014) Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?

[GX.Sigma]

I only give NPCs class levels if one of the following conditions is true:

• The character is supposed to be exceptionally good at something (whether through advanced training or talent), or
• I intend the character to be a big, interesting part of an encounter or adventure, or
• I have worldbuilding reasons (like there are wizards of all eight schools constantly at war with each other),

AND

• It is vital that the PCs experience this mechanically.

So, in my campaign, Count Strahd definitely has class levels. He has Arcane Recovery and a spellbook with more spells to choose from.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Spell access isn't tied to hit dice. It's tied to what level the NPC casts at. It's coincidental, at best, that NPC spellcaster examples have the same caster level and number of hit dice. The evidence of this is that the Acolyte, Cult Fanatic, and Druid have more hit dice than caster levels.

That's a good point. I hadn't noticed that before. So spell access is tied to caster level, and caster level is whatever they feel like (but not greater than hit dice).

At least they're consistent with how pointless and arbitrary their rules are.

 

[pdzoch]

Most my NPC do not have class levels. They only have capabilities and skills necessary for their description and purpose in the story. However, I have learned that such NPCs can not survive traveling with the adventuring party unless they have class levels (and the requisite HP).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

That's a good point. I hadn't noticed that before. So spell access is tied to caster level, and caster level is whatever they feel like (but not greater than hit dice).

At least they're consistent with how pointless and arbitrary their rules are.

The NPC building rules aren't arbitrary just because you don't like the reasoning behind them.

I find "NPCs have whatever stats and traits are necessary for their challenge rating" to be a lot more useful as a DM than I ever found the relation between class levels and CR to be in 3rd edition -for reasons including, but not limited to that a 5th edition spellcasting NPC has a different CR for having a different spell selection (the example casters in the monster manual being "off" in that their listed CR and spell selections don't match - likely intentionally so that a DM swapping spell selection wouldn't end up with an over-potent-for-claimed-CR opponent, which is just another way the design of 5th edition makes sure that if any estimation is off it is under, because raising things up to appropriate power is much easier and better received in general than toning things down), rather than the guideline pretending it doesn't matter if the most potent spell the NPC can cast is disintegrate or Drawmij's instant summons so the CR is the same, and making a high-level "kills things with weapons" threat being a matter of seeing how much damage a particular CR should do and describing/dividing that out among the number of attacks I decide will be most engaging rather than having to select all manner of fiddly option like feats, classes, and so on.

I view the difference between 5th edition and 3rd edition, where NPC (and monster) building guidelines are concerned, as being the difference between working out the details that actually matter (the end result hitting the mark) and adhering to the idea that everything must operate on the same rules in the same fashion with zero exceptions (the correct process being used - even when that clearly produces results that don't hit the mark).

 

[Maxperson]

I’m curious as to how common it is for NPCs in various campaigns to be built using the classes presented in the Player’s Handbook. This question ties into both world building (How special is a 1^st level character?) and game prep (Is putting together stats for NPCs a worthwhile use of time? Do characters build using PHB rules make interesting adversaries?), so I’m interested in seeing not just the poll responses but the reasoning behind them.

For my part, I chose the second option: “Class levels are common for NPCs, but not universal.” In my world, first and second level characters, especially fighters and rogues, are fairly common. New recruits into the army might not be fighters, but most veterans will be (Spellcasters are somewhat rarer, as the world is relatively low magic, but anyone who does use magic was probably built using one of the PHB classes). This means that first level characters are competent but relatively unexceptional in their training but that they have the ability to distinguish themselves relatively quickly, as higher level NPCs become increasingly rare. I've found this philosophy to work very well but see how others with different worldbuilding assumptions or less interest in using prep time to build characters could have different preferences.

I use class levels for many, not not all NPCs. They are fairly common, though. So no, 1st level characters are not special for their class. What makes them special is that PCs are destined for great things. The vast majority of NPCs with class levels in my game don't go above 7th level. PCs on the other hand skyrocket past that number doing great things along the way. That's what makes them special.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Unless an NPC is going to survive more than 1 combat, I usually don't bother.

However, I tend to "backdoor" class abilities as needed. In other words, the NPCs actually are PC classes, but they're using simplified abilities from the default stat blocks until I need them. In particular, if the PCs allow the NPCs to short rest, well, they're going to get some short rest ability action going on or otherwise find a way to recover. NPCs aren't expected to survive any encounter they're in, nor are the expected to return. I'll compensate for that as needed. They may not have the exact same abilities as the ones that the PCs get, but they'll get something equivalent.

Major NPCs tend to get full stats, and sometimes that means PC classes or a mix of PC and NPC stats. Honestly, it depends on the day. I tend to ad hoc a lot of DMing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I view the difference between 5th edition and 3rd edition, where NPC (and monster) building guidelines are concerned, as being the difference between working out the details that actually matter (the end result hitting the mark) and adhering to the idea that everything must operate on the same rules in the same fashion with zero exceptions (the correct process being used - even when that clearly produces results that don't hit the mark).

The only details that actually matter are the ones that are created through application of the correct process.

The point of playing a codified RPG that has actual rules is that it provides a neutral, un-biased source of reference, so you're not just playing Calvinball. If the DM is just going to make up whatever stats they feel like, then there's no legitimacy to any of it - you didn't overcome Alistaire Kaine, Archmage of Leng, you overcame a set of numbers which were designed to provide the desired level of challenge, in the form of someone named Alistaire.

An RPG absolutely must start with the fiction - the true reality within the game world - and have that reality converted without bias into its one true mechanical representation, or else there's no point to any of it. Any mechanical interaction that involves those numbers is meaningless if the process of deriving the numbers is biased, which is going to be the case whenever there is more than one process for determining those numbers.

If you have the option to write an NPC using PC rules, or using monster rules, then the influence of that character upon the world and the narrative is going to depend on your choice of how to represent them, rather than anything inherent to the character.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If the DM is just going to make up whatever stats they feel like, then there's no legitimacy to any of it - you didn't overcome Alistaire Kaine, Archmage of Leng, you overcame a set of numbers which were designed to provide the desired level of challenge, in the form of someone named Alistaire.

That is a distinction without a difference.

An RPG absolutely must start with the fiction - the true reality within the game world - and have that reality converted without bias into its one true mechanical representation, or else there's no point to any of it.

That's not a fact.

Not everyone views game rules as though they are intended to be reality simulation devices. I, for example, view game rules as though they are nothing more than the vehicle through which my players and I experience a shared fiction - which is not at all hindered or lessened by "archmage" and "wizard" not being forced to match mechanically; especially when considering that the practical difference is only that when a DM looks to see what an archmage NPC is capable of doing in the span of the 5-ish rounds that it will be in play, there aren't as many lines of text spent on information of no immediate relevance.

The only details that actually matter are the ones that are created through application of the correct process.

Which is exactly the sentiment resulting in my extreme preference for the 5th edition guidelines.

 

[Jester David]

That's a good point. I hadn't noticed that before. So spell access is tied to caster level, and caster level is whatever they feel like (but not greater than hit dice).

At least they're consistent with how pointless and arbitrary their rules are.

Arbitrary, yes. Pointless, no.

They just decided that NPCs that only have to exist for 2-5 rounds in combat don't need the same level of complexity and to obey the same rules as adventurers that exist for every round of every encounter for twenty levels.
That an NPC that is a challenge to a PC shouldn't have to follow the same math as a level 20-ish PC.
That a level 1 fighter likely isn't the same challenge rating as a level 1 wizard, while a level 20 fighter likely isn't the same challenge as a level 20 wizard.

Having run a bunch of Pathfinder lately with human NPC opponents (wrapped up the Skull & Shackles AP) I can tell you that high level NPCs just don't cut it compared to monsters of the supposed same CR, and one of the big points of failure is hit points. Monster Hit Dice has always gone up twice as fast as CR, but that seldom works with the PC rules as increasing the hit dice to match other monsters while obeying PC rules means lots of extra complexity and class features. It's far easier to just "cheat" and give the NPCs extra levels. When I was running 3.5e and Pathfinder homegames I regularly gave out a warrior level or 2-3 expert levels to boost the ol' Hit Dice without significantly boosting the CR. Just so the enemy would pose an appropriate threat.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

They just decided that NPCs that only have to exist for 2-5 rounds in combat don't need the same level of complexity and to obey the same rules as adventurers that exist for every round of every encounter for twenty levels.

The original selling point was that NPCs were just a simplified model of the same underlying reality, because you didn't need to know all of the details. They would have all of the same stats where it mattered, and the other stuff could be determined easily enough in the off chance that it actually became relevant. They failed to deliver on that.

Having run a bunch of Pathfinder lately with human NPC opponents (wrapped up the Skull & Shackles AP) I can tell you that high level NPCs just don't cut it compared to monsters of the supposed same CR, and one of the big points of failure is hit points. Monster Hit Dice has always gone up twice as fast as CR, but that seldom works with the PC rules as increasing the hit dice to match other monsters while obeying PC rules means lots of extra complexity and class features.

CR is pretty far into the realm of meta-game, as far as mechanics go. Another way of looking at that is to say their formula for calculating CR based on class levels becomes inaccurate on the high end (and I'm not arguing with that). But there's no reason to sacrifice the integrity of the model, by giving NPCs unique bonuses to make them as challenging as their CRs would indicate, when they could just tweak the CR formula to say that a level 18 wizard is actually a CR 12 encounter.

If a game system encourages you to "cheat" in order to make it work as intended, then it's a poorly-designed system. House rules can fix that, unless it's so broken that it's easier to just play a different game. I'm not sure whether Pathfinder crosses that line. I'm pretty sure that 5E does.