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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.

I don't find the NPC spellcasting rules to be inconsistent - it's just that what they are consistent to is CR, rather than class (hidden or otherwise).

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't find the NPC spellcasting rules to be inconsistent - it's just that what they are consistent to is CR, rather than class (hidden or otherwise).

I know.

But what I think is Saelorn's beef is exactly that. I can certainly understand a general dislike of any rule that is based on something as meta as CR rather than something tangible in-world.

And so I offered an interpretation that allows us to ignore CR and simply view Cult Fanatics and Mages to be consistent with each other

That said, I completely understand why the Mage has a higher CR than the Cult Fanatic - the CR is based on their offensive output, which means a Fireball-lobbing NPC will always have a higher CR.

I just want the CR to be slapped on last. And so I prefer to explain the Cult Fanatic's lesser spell prowess not in terms of "his spellcasting was held back to match his CR" (which I believe is what makes it comes across as arbitrary and pointless, to Saelorn at least) but rather "as a cultist his spellcasting learning is slow and imperfect, so he's not a primary spellcaster. Let's express that through an approximation of a multiclassed or secondary casting character. Then dead last, we look at his offense and slap a CR onto the finished statblock"

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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".

It's more than just a name. It means they didn't go to school together, and they didn't learn from the same teachers, or read the same books. It means that a PC wizard could have been a mage instead, if they had made different life choices. (It kind of reminds me of playing 4E, and wishing I could play as a mage instead of a wizard - recharge spells were way more my style than AEDU, and mages didn't have to follow the magic item treadmill in order to keep their stats up to par.)

And it also means that we have no idea what the rules for creating and advancing a mage actually are; we have a snapshot about what a typical mage looks like at a particular point along its advancement, and everything else is speculation.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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!

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.

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.

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.

 

[pemerton]

I can certainly understand a general dislike of any rule that is based on something as meta as CR rather than something tangible in-world.

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

 

[Azurewraith]

I tend to give npc class levels instead of the appendix stuff as I don't like how simple they are. For me an arch mage is a 15+ wizard same with high priests etc. On the lower end of the scale guards are 1-5 fighters depending on there position.

Its rare that any if it ever comes up in play though.

 

[pemerton]

If there's a choice between two ways to model something, then the system is biased

Against whom?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It means they didn't go to school together, and they didn't learn from the same teachers, or read the same books. It means that a PC wizard could have been a mage instead, if they had made different life choices.

It doesn't have to mean any of that.

 

[pemerton]

I would likely use the mage as the generic NPC caster in the guild since I don't really see the benefit in putting together an NPC with wizard levels when I have something that already represents both wizards and sorcerers. I could even run an NPC bard using the mage and just change up the spells. Warlocks, however, would need some changes, mainly just changing spell slots.

The warlock raises an interesting issue.

The difference between at-will/short-rest warlocks, and at-will/long-rest wizards and sorcerers, is overwhelmingly something that affects players actually playing the game at the table. It changes the resource suites, and the gameplay of resource management.

But in the fiction it's a pretty uninteresting and irrelevant difference, even moreso when it comes to brief encounters between the protagonists (PCs) and the antagonists (NPCs) - so why would we expect NPC build rules to pay any attention to it?

EDIT: That's not to say that there's nothing interesting in the way of flavour differences between wizard and warlock. But the resource mechanics, which are the most salient difference for players choosing what and how to play at the table, aren't it. The flavour difference is spellbooks and arcane study vs a pact with a mysterious or sinister patron. Bringing out that difference in the play of an NPC doesn't depend upon the NPC having any particular resource load-out.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's more than just a name. It means they didn't go to school together, and they didn't learn from the same teachers, or read the same books. It means that a PC wizard could have been a mage instead, if they had made different life choices. (It kind of reminds me of playing 4E, and wishing I could play as a mage instead of a wizard - recharge spells were way more my style than AEDU, and mages didn't have to follow the magic item treadmill in order to keep their stats up to par.)

And it also means that we have no idea what the rules for creating and advancing a mage actually are; we have a snapshot about what a typical mage looks like at a particular point along its advancement, and everything else is speculation.

No, it's just a name.

And no, they could have gone to school together.