Hussar
Legend
You can play petty semantic games all you like. But, the point is, and one more time:You do know that monsters are NPCs and NPCs are monsters, right?
NPC's are not created using PC rules.
You can play petty semantic games all you like. But, the point is, and one more time:You do know that monsters are NPCs and NPCs are monsters, right?
No it's not. It's an approximation designed to create a better combat encounter than a real 18th level wizard would be. It has better HP, extra abilities like magic resistance, a lower proficiency bonus, and missing dozens of features a PC wizard would have. It is designed though to be fill roughly the same narrative space since the NPC doesn't need everything a PC gets and needs a lot more defense to survive combat with PCs.You're asking for something irrelevant. The MM version is an abbreviated version. That's why there are three ways to make NPCs. Most of the time you don't need a full PC creation, but by RAW you can do it.
In fairness, I do differentiate between the two: a monster is a creature or species that is not PC-playable and an NPC is one that potentially is.You do know that monsters are NPCs and NPCs are monsters, right?
What about the things consistent worldbuilding needs?No it's not. It's an approximation designed to create a better combat encounter than a real 18th level wizard would be. It has better HP, extra abilities like magic resistance, a lower proficiency bonus, and missing dozens of features a PC wizard would have. It is designed though to be fill roughly the same narrative space since the NPC doesn't need everything a PC gets and needs a lot more defense to survive combat with PCs.
Which is why they don't need parallelism. The wizard class is designed to handle an adventuring day of different challenges, the NPC a combat encounter. Demanding NPCs and PCs have equal access to the same abilities is insane. The things the NPCs needs are not what the PC needs and vice versa.
Semantics matter in something like this. Monsters are NPCs, NPCs can be made with PC rules, therefore monsters can be made with PC rules. This is all RAW whether you like it or not.You can play petty semantic games all you like. But, the point is, and one more time:
NPC's are not created using PC rules.
It isn't a wizard. It's an archmage. It's similar to a wizard, but there are differences.No it's not. It's an approximation designed to create a better combat encounter than a real 18th level wizard would be. It has better HP, extra abilities like magic resistance, a lower proficiency bonus, and missing dozens of features a PC wizard would have. It is designed though to be fill roughly the same narrative space since the NPC doesn't need everything a PC gets and needs a lot more defense to survive combat with PCs.
Then it's probably a good thing that I've never made that demand.Demanding NPCs and PCs have equal access to the same abilities is insane.
I'm arguing 5e RAW there. I differentiate as well in my personal game.In fairness, I do differentiate between the two: a monster is a creature or species that is not PC-playable and an NPC is one that potentially is.
I’ve got thousands of npcs from ten years of modules that say you are wrong.Semantics matter in something like this. Monsters are NPCs, NPCs can be made with PC rules, therefore monsters can be made with PC rules. This is all RAW whether you like it or not.
Your big bolded sentence there doesn't exist by the way. It's something that players, not WotC made up. The actual WotC rules are that NPCs do not have to be created using PC rules, but can be.
I haven't communicated very well - I'll try again.Paladin might not be the best example here, in that as they are bound to deities those deities might have set some overarching ground rules on what "paladins" can and cannot do.
Thieves or rogues might be a better example; for game purposes we treat them all as being the same in terms of skills at any given level, but in the fiction one could well have received more/better training in one aspect (say, hiding and stealth) than another. Assignable skill points covers this well, but they're also a bloody nuisance in practice in a game like mine that has level loss as a possibility.
Clerics even more so, as one could argue some sort of investiture or ceremony (even if self-applied) is used to "welcome" a cleric into a new level or further-in circle.
No you don't. None of those are proof that WotC are liars with their DMG rules on making NPCs with PC rules. I believe them when they say that making NPCs with PC rules is one of the RAW methods.I’ve got thousands of npcs from ten years of modules that say you are wrong.