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

[The Crimson Binome]

[...]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.

If that was the case - if the NPC wizard was just a PC wizard with a lot of the cruft removed - then that would be fine. It's not, though. The NPC has more HP and lower save DCs. It will survive to cast more spells, or to escape, which would not happen if you had chosen the other model. It could determine whether a PC lives or dies, or consumed a valuable potion which would otherwise be used to survive at a later date.

Monster-built NPCs are so far from PC-built NPCs as to be entirely irreconcilable. You say that you care about sharing a fiction with your players, but any fiction derived from such an inconsistent process would be terrible and full of holes.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Monster-built NPCs are so far from PC-built NPCs as to be entirely irreconcilable.

Which is intentional, and not inherently a bad thing.

You say that you care about sharing a fiction with your players, but any fiction derived from such an inconsistent process would be terrible and full of holes.

That's not a fact.

 

[Jester David]

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.

The selling point a decade and a half ago. The game shouldn't be required to stick by the conventions of 15 yo design, especially when it caused problems (I.e complexity, which reducing is one of the top three design goals of 5e).

They failed to deliver on that.

They delivered it two editions ago. It was never a goal this time.

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.

You *can* very easily make a full PC and use it as an NPC. Nothing stops you. And you can calculate the CR like any other monster. It even says so in the DMG. You just don't *have* to. The rules provide an option.

If a game system encourages you to "cheat" in order to make it work as intended, then it's a poorly-designed system.

It was "cheating" fifteen years ago. The rules have changed*. By default NPCs now use the same rules as all other opponents, who use different rules from PCs.

*Or rather, changed back as that was how it was in 1e/2e.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I have the urge to link this...
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8v3a?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-NPC-Codex

 

[Mouseferatu]

Monster-built NPCs are so far from PC-built NPCs as to be entirely irreconcilable. You say that you care about sharing a fiction with your players, but any fiction derived from such an inconsistent process would be terrible and full of holes.

Except, of course, that this hasn't been the case in four out of five editions, and the shared fiction between DM and players in almost every campaign I've ever run or played in or even just heard about hasn't been harmed in the slightest.

But by all means, continue to express your personal preferences as universal truth, despite the fact that most people clearly have different experiences. This is, after all, a forum for discussing pure fantasy without the slightest basis in reality, and you've clearly got substantial enthusiasm for that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It was "cheating" fifteen years ago. The rules have changed*. By default NPCs now use the same rules as all other opponents, who use different rules from PCs.

*Or rather, changed back as that was how it was in 1e/2e.

I won't speak for 1E, because that was before my time. In 2E, a mage was just a mage, whether it was PC or NPC. There was only one way to represent that reality. The same was true for priests, paladins, rangers, and so on. There was only one true way to represent each character. You never had to choose.

Some fighter-types had different numbers, because they weren't quite fully-qualified fighters. That's a different reality, though. It's like the difference between a Fighter and a Warrior in 3E - it's only a different map because it corresponds to a different territory.

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.

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

So I noticed that the save DC matches the CR, which is all the NPC rules say should match.

I find that 5th edition is clear about NPC/Monster rules being entirely different than PC rules even when they bear similarity.

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.

Hang on just a minute.

Pointless? Arbitrary?

The point is to not have to follow all the intricacies of PC chargen. That's not pointless, that's easy and quick and... and... completely wonderful!

Arbitrary? Nope, not in the slightest. Monsters don't follow as many rules and restrictions as player characters do, but the monsters are (barring mistakes) created following a set of guidelines. Just a much looser set of guidelines than in the PHB.

For instance, I don't believe it is necessary to have such a dim view on the NPC rules, Aaron. What the "evidence" about Cult Fanatics et al tells me is that they're either multiclassed characters or they are secondary casters.

Of course, there really isn't "evidence" one way or the other. So let me phrase it this way: I choose to interpret the data as 1) full spellcasters having one "caster level" per hit dice, and 2) all NPCs are consistent with this rule, because 3) I view the NPCs with less "caster levels" (than HD) to be simply less focused on spellcasting.

Whether a Cult Fanatic is multiclassed (levels of Fighter-Rogueish? Thug levels?) or simply a secondary caster (posibly of a sort not available in the PHB) is immaterial imo.


Zapp

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

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.

Whatever, man.

If you insist, I will then call the NPC "Mage" a "different entity" from a Wizard. It's just that 100% of my player characters and 5% of my npcs happen to be "Wizards" and 95% of my npcs* happen to be "Mages".

*) At least the ones studying arcane magicks with an intellectual bent...

Not sure what this gains you, but if that floats your boat... *shrug*



As a DM, the single worst aspect of 3E/PF is how npcs didn't have simplified building rules. At high levels, the prep work became unbearable.

If I have to choose one single thing 5E does better than 3E (and there are LOTS) I guess everything else falls away and I will be forced to choose the "NPCs aren't PCs" decision


Edit: But you know what Saelorn? We don't have to argue, because we can both eat the cake! You can always create NPCs using the full PC chargen rules (both for your own adventures and to replace NPC stats in published modules), after all.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

For instance, I don't believe it is necessary to have such a dim view on the NPC rules, Aaron.

It seems like you are saying I have a dim view of the NPC rules, and that is not the case, so I am confused.

 

[CapnZapp]

It seems like you are saying I have a dim view of the NPC rules, and that is not the case, so I am confused.

Apologies for the confusion.

I merely meant that saying the NPC Spellcasting rules are inconsistent is possibly a bit too pessimistic. I believe the alternative interpretation I offered allows for a view of those NPCs classes that is consistent with a "full spellcasters have one caster level per hit die" view.