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

[Eric V]

I've tinkered, but only with adding 5 levels of Champion to Orogs and Orcs for Iuz's Legion of Black Death.

Adding Monk levels to Githzerai for various levels of chellenge for that race might be cool. If I ever use them for an extended period that might be worth investigating.

Basically, I feel like adding Champion, Thief, and Assassin levels is a much easier task for obvious reasons. That's usually enough for NPC bad guys though

 

[steeldragons]

I see the Age of Binary [Extremists Only] Thinking is alive and well.

There are, at least, a few potential options between "common" and "rare."

So, while no vote placed, my response would be "NPCs have class-levels sometimes."

 

[S'mon]

I share your views on the relative unimportance of combat. But I don't see how using MM stats improves any out-of-combat interactions. If I'm running King Rudolph, I can run him as a 0th level nothing or I can say, "Oh, he's been trained for war; he's a 5th level Battlemaster," and either way pretty much ignore his stats from then on. How is that more complicated than creating a King MM stat block and using it every time?

The words "He's a 5th level Battlemaster" is not complicated, nor is it useful to me - I might as well write "He's a good warrior". Neither constitutes a stat block.

Re stat blocks, I find attributes, skills & spells can be useful for playing NPCs outside of
combat, though there are some noncombatant NPCs I avoid statting, where no stats
would do them justice.

Comparing MM stat blocks to PC-type stat blocks, the former take far less work and are somewhat
more flexible in letting me create exactly the character I want.

"How is that more complicated than creating a King MM stat block and using it every time?"

I don't create generic king stat blocks for major NPCs, I create tailored MM style stat blocks, either from scfratch or modifying an existing stat block. They're a lot more useful than the words '5th level battlemaster'.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

(1) Monsters already have limited-use abilities that need to be tracked. Champion Fighters are less complicated than Magma Mephits.
(2) If you're running two dozen monsters, you already need a good solution for tracking state, HP at a minimum. If you have two dozen orc NPCs and they are all 5th level Champions with Second Wind and Action Surge, then in the same place where you write down their HP, mark down when each one has used its Second Wind/Action Surge.

As a DM, you also need to consider if any of them have used their abilities since they've had a chance to rest, in the same way that you need to consider whether a spellcaster might have used some of its spell slots beforehand.

And it's not just the limited-use abilities that are annoying. There's also the fighting style, that weird half-proficiency thing that they get, and whatever else. I don't know where you're getting that magma mephits are more complicated than Champions, because the simplest PC-built character has more abilities to monitor than any monster-built character that isn't legendary or a spellcaster.

 

[Blue]

I don't build NPCs with classes. I might have jotted down an NPC "8th level cleric", but that doesn't mean if I detail them out it will be a real PHB 8th level cleric - might not have weapon and armor profs and various special abilities, mostly around casting. But even there I might not bother pick all spells known, just a few in use. Might also assume that there are plenty of "non-adventuring" spells, like "Oath of Marriage" or "Bless Crops" or whatever based on the god.

For people they fight, Foe HPs and damage don't aways equate to PC HPs and damage, and trying to force foes into the PC mold because they happen to use a word to describe them doesn't work. A bandit might have sneak attack, but doesn't mean they are properly built as a rogue with all of the rogue's abilities.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I see the Age of Binary [Extremists Only] Thinking is alive and well.

Where some things are complicated, other things are simple.

Murder is bad. It is always bad. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.

Meta-gaming in an RPG is bad. It is always bad. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.

Treating NPCs differently from PCs is meta-gaming, and therefore bad. It is always bad. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I mean, did you notice how the NPC archmage has a lower save DCs than its spell slots and Intelligence would suggest, because spell access is tied to hit dice but proficiency bonus is tied to challenge rating?

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.

At least 4E was honest with its shenanigans - it didn't try to pretend that PCs and NPCs were following the same rules at different granularity!

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

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The words "He's a 5th level Battlemaster" is not complicated, nor is it useful to me - I might as well write "He's a good warrior". Neither constitutes a stat block.

Huh. Go figure. For me that's a sufficient stat block, especially for someone I didn't plan to use in combat.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As a DM, you also need to consider if any of them have used their abilities since they've had a chance to rest, in the same way that you need to consider whether a spellcaster might have used some of its spell slots beforehand.

And it's not just the limited-use abilities that are annoying. There's also the fighting style, that weird half-proficiency thing that they get, and whatever else. I don't know where you're getting that magma mephits are more complicated than Champions, because the simplest PC-built character has more abilities to monitor than any monster-built character that isn't legendary or a spellcaster.

A 5th level Champion has two limited-use abilities: healing d10+5 on a bonus action, once, and Action Surge, once.

A Magma Mephit has two limited-use abilities: Heat Metal, once, that eats your concentration and results in having to keep track of which mephits are concentrating on what, and a breath weapon that requires you to roll for recharge every round after using it.

The Champion looks a lot simpler to me. I don't buy the idea that allocating the fighting style is difficult. You just say, "these two dozen Champion orcs all have the Defense fighting style so they are AC 19 in their everyday chain mail-and-shield." Orcs that get damaged get a pip once they've used their Second Wind, or a an underline if they've Action Surged. (And I'd probably just have them all Action Surge on the first round of combat anyway.)

Two dozen Magma Mephits would be far worse than that. Drawing arrows to keep track of which PCs they're heating metal on, a pip whenever their breath weapon is unavailable, erasing that pip every time they roll to active it, remembering​ to roll every round, etc.

 

[spectacle]

The only time that an NPC gets class levels in my campaigns are when those NPCs are specifically adventurer companions of the party that are meant to be permanent non-employed allies mechanically operated by the players but given voice and personality by the DM - every other type of NPC gets a treatment like the NPCs in the Monster Manual appendix; hit dice, special abilities like spellcasting or multiple attacks, but not actually a specific level in a specific class with all the features attached to such.

Basically, NPC Archmage = yes; NPC 18th level wizard = no (unless a permanent party member in an appropriately-leveled party)

That's what I do too. If I want an NPC that mimics a PHB class I will give them whatever features borrowed from that class I find appropriate, but never straight class levels.