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

[Hussar]

You do know that monsters are NPCs and NPCs are monsters, right?

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.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

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.

 

[Lanefan]

You do know that monsters are NPCs and NPCs are monsters, right?

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.

Thus, Hobgoblins are monsters unless they are PC-playable in this specific campaign. Humans, playable in pretty much every campaign ever, are never monsters by this definition (this is one area where 1e really made things confusing).

Under these definitions, a monster can be designed any old which way you like in that there's neither need nor requirement to line them up with PCs of the same species. But once a species becomes PC-playable then what NPCs of that species can and can't do needs to match what PCs of that species can and can't do.

The same is true of items. If an item is PC-usable then it should work the same when either an NPC or a monster is using it. If an item is not PC-usable, e.g. a 10-foot long Frost Giant's axe that no PC can ever hope to wield, then that axe can do whatever.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

What about the things consistent worldbuilding needs?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

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.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It isn't a wizard. It's an archmage. It's similar to a wizard, but there are differences.

Demanding NPCs and PCs have equal access to the same abilities is insane.

Then it's probably a good thing that I've never made that demand.

 

[Maxperson]

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'm arguing 5e RAW there. I differentiate as well in my personal game.

 

[Hussar]

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’ve got thousands of npcs from ten years of modules that say you are wrong.

Not a single npc built using pc classes. Even going back to things like Out of the Abyss, none of the npcs are built using pc rules.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

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.

I haven't communicated very well - I'll try again.

I'll use an asterisk (*) to connote what might be considered an ideal or archetypal manifestation of the class - i.e. not a mechanical suite within the rules (i.e. PHB Paladin), and not one which has a particular cultural manifestation within the campaign world (e.g. Paladins of Pelor in Nyrond). *Paladin describes a campaign-neutral idea which is not rooted to any time, place or culture. In this model - your model - *Paladin is a thing-in-itself, without any particular context.

A class which embodies a very specific set of skills and abilities (e.g. paladin, wizard) can be purposefully embedded in the campaign world if it is contextualized - e.g. a holy order of knights or a wizardly order. If it is given a particular cultural context in the milieu, it does not require that *Paladin or *Wizard be invoked, because its manifestation is specific - it is limited by a time, place and function within the imagined world.

But as soon as the Paladin class becomes universal - if it is deprived of a specific context - its existence creates certain paradoxes or dissonances. E.g:

Q: Why do all Paladins in all times and places have the same powers and abilities, regardless of their religious disposition and cultural context?

My Answer: Paladin is a convenient mechanical shorthand to bestow a suite of abilities on a character.
Your Answer: Because of *Paladin. Paladins partake of the nature of *Paladin - they have paladin-ness.

The follow-up question, from me, is obvious: what is the source of *Paladin? Where is *Paladin located? It is not embodied in the rules.

The answer to this question is equally obvious to me: it is located in your head.

 

[Maxperson]

I’ve got thousands of npcs from ten years of modules that say you are wrong.

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.