D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Remathilis]

Also: Have a much smaller stat block. One of the consequences of "no empty levels" design is that direct one-to-one PC class conversions fill up with a plethora of abilities that most NPCs are unlikely to ever use. 1e/2e characters were much simpler.

Nevertheless, there are usually presumed to be populations of PC classes out in the various D&D game worlds. There are numerous references to them throughout pretty much every adventure or setting book. It's just that approximations like the Archmage or Evoker or Warlock of the Fiend are used to represent them. It IS necessary to keep these stat blocks more or less congruent and consistent with (some of the) PC abilities for that representation to function.

I agree. And to me, it's a magic trick. The NPC mage or druid or spy is supposed to invoke the feel of a wizard, druid or rogue without necessarily needing uncanny dodge or arcane recovery. The NPC stats are pretending to represent a member of that class without being mechanically the same.

Then there are some (like noble or performer) that don't really represent a class and are just people. I don't think the guard stat block represents a fighter at any level. Just a guard.

The thing is, nobody says "hey! Telenicus the Merciless isn't a real wizard, he's just an archmage!" The illusion is that the archmage is filling that role of wizard even if he doesn't have real spell slots or a spell book. It requires suspension of disbelief, which you'd think would be easy in silly elf game, but apparently is in shorter supply than I knew.

 

[Maxperson]

So, yuppers, you can build NPC's using the PC rules. Sort of. Again, since you were incapable of telling me what the CR of a 7th level monk was, I'm not really sure how, exactly, you build an NPC using the PC rules, but, let's move on from that.

The fact is, while NPC's can be built using the PC rules, they AREN'T. An Archmage isn't built using PC rules. Like, at all. A Gladiator is not a fighter subclass. It does not, in any way, use any of the class abilities of a fighter. None of the NPC's ANYWHERE in any published D&D material are built using the PC rules. But, sure, you can build NPC's using the PC rules.

Note, while you could build an NPC fighter using the PC rules, you absolutely CANNOT build a gladiator doing the same. It just doesn't work. What class is a Kuo-toa? After all, it's humanoid. So, why does it have 4 HD? Whereas a Kuo-toa bandit (since bandits can be any race and Kuo-Toa are humanoid) only has 2 HD. How does that work? A guard has 2d8 HP. What class is that? So on and so forth

So, yes, you are technically correct. It is RAW to use the PC rules to create an NPC. However, since it is never actually done, and, most of the time it's actually impossible to do and get the correct results, it's not really all that correct at all.

I ignored that because has nothing to do with what we are discussing. We are discussing an NPC built like a PC, not one intended to be a monster to fight. So while I can build an NPC monk using PC rules, I would not do so with the intention of fighting the party. It might happen, but that's not the intent, so CR never plays into it.

The same applies to the NPC archmage. If I am going to build it using PC rules, it's not an archmage I intend the party to fight. You're asking me to prove apples to apply to oranges.

AS for NPCs not being built using PC rules, you are wrong. I've done it and I'm sure many other DMs have done so. That WotC doesn't do it the default that they use in their products means and proves nothing.

I can in fact build a gladiator using PC rules. And a Kuo-Toa. Hell, look at page 283 of the DMG. There's a whole section on Monsters with Classes. Another section on pages 287-288 on modifying classes, including NEW class options, that can be used to make a new gladiator or Kuo-Toa class.

Not only am I technically correct, but I am actually correct. Even if WotC has chosen not to do so in their products to date.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes exactly. Everything you say is factual and everybody is wrong.

In this case that is somewhat true. It's not everybody or everything. It's just the folks trying to say that I am wrong for THIS discussion. Shall I quote you the rules sections again, or are you just going to be dismissive of me and call WotC liars for what they put in their books?

 

[TwoSix]

The thing is, nobody says "hey! Telenicus the Merciless isn't a real wizard, he's just an archmage!" The illusion is that the archmage is filling that role of wizard even if he doesn't have real spell slots or a spell book. It requires suspension of disbelief, which you'd think would be easy in silly elf game, but apparently is in shorter supply than I knew.

It also requires players that don't look at adventurer-type PCs under a lens of "I wonder what type of character build they are."

I have players who don't care. I, personally, don't care. But I have players who do, and I try to respect their preferences by keeping my NPCs "PC-like", with the understanding that NPCs share enough characteristics with PCs to be playable. (Although I don't limit myself to PC-facing "classes".) I definitely don't have NPCs who can't swap out their staff for a dagger.

 

[Remathilis]

It also requires players that don't look at adventurer-type PCs under a lens of "I wonder what type of character build they are."

Yes, that's the kind of metagaming that the DMG warns you about. "Hey, if he's a wizard, why does he have magic resistance? The wizard class doesn't get that!" Or "how did he cast counterspell 3 times AND cast fireball and dispel magic? He should be out of level 3 spell slots!"

 

[GobHag]

In this case that is somewhat true. It's not everybody or everything. It's just the folks trying to say that I am wrong for THIS discussion. Shall I quote you the rules sections again, or are you just going to be dismissive of me and call WotC liars for what they put in their books?

Yes yes, so very gracious of your truthfulness that I am in awe and can do nothing but agree.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, that's the kind of metagaming that the DMG warns you about. "Hey, if he's a wizard, why does he have magic resistance? The wizard class doesn't get that!" Or "how did he cast counterspell 3 times AND cast fireball and dispel magic? He should be out of level 3 spell slots!"

"If you're wondering how they cast or fight
Or other character facts (la la la!)
Repeat to yourself it's just a game
I should really just relax"

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, that's the kind of metagaming that the DMG warns you about. "Hey, if he's a wizard, why does he have magic resistance? The wizard class doesn't get that!" Or "how did he cast counterspell 3 times AND cast fireball and dispel magic? He should be out of level 3 spell slots!"

Yea, I don't allow that either. I'm very upfront with my players that NPCs are unique, and are going to have abilities they may not recognize.

I said many posts ago that I felt like I fall into an underdiscussed middle ground. I don't require NPCs to be built to conform to PC standards. But neither do I build NPCs to be facades simply there to be fought against. A "generic" high-level spellcaster is completely foreign to my approach.

I build NPCs just like I want to see PCs: unique and distinct. It's an approach that renders the idea of a "Monster Manual" for encounters with NPCs that are people utterly useless.

 

[Maxperson]

"If you're wondering how they cast or fight
Or other character facts (la la la!)
Repeat to yourself it's just a game
I should really just relax"

If an NPC or monster does something that "can't be done," they will usually say something just in case I forgot the rule in question. They're very helpful!!

However, if I say something to the effect of, "Yes, I know" or "I'm aware of the rule," they instantly stop and we move on, because they know at that point that this is just some NPC/Monster with a different ability.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But they aren't and won't be because they have different roles.

Try an experiment next game. Give each player an NPC stat block of roughly equal CR and then put them in an adventure where everyone they meet is a PC class. Set the numbers for mid-level (like around 5-8). Tell me how the feel of the game changes. I'm sure certain things will be pretty similar, but their will be obvious cracks (the NPCs can't change weapons or armor, the PCs classes will have a lot of nova potential). The point is that the two don't have the same role and aren't mechanically built to be different to accommodate that. The archmage is an illusion, a more satisfying way to encounter a high power spellcaster. It's mechanics are designed to simulate a good fight, not to be objective reality.

I know that goes against everything you believe, but most people don't care about 1:1 parallelism. They want a game that is easy to run.

I've never cared about what "most people" care about, as if that's a claim you personally can just make on your own anyway. I want a game where everything follows setting logic (not narrative logic), as much as is practical. That is obviously not 100%, but my line is simply at a different place than your line.