D&D General Should NPCs be built using the same rules as PCs?

[EzekielRaiden]

If the gm is given the design space but they space is linked too tightly with consistency then it goes from being a useful thing to fit the gm's needs to being a maze the GM needs to navigate that simply falls apart when the PCs get a bit too high in level or happen to take particular build/gear/buff choices.

And I'm saying, any ruleset where NPCs are built using only (and precisely) identical rules to what PCs are built with will, necessarily, be what you describe here--that is, so long as the game has sufficient complexity to actually offer interesting character-building choices, of course. A trivial game avoids this problem...and is trivial, which is pretty clearly even worse.

When someone says, "NPCs should be built using the same rules as PCs" they are explicitly meaning identical rules. Not "mostly similar rules, with a few exceptions," they say "same" and they mean it. And being restricted to exclusively rules identical to what PCs use is a recipe for many, many problems solely to have slightly more verisimilitude purely for the DM, because players have no idea whether a creature was built with PC rules or not.

It's fine to make sure NPCs work under the same general framework--ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws, that sort of thing. That's important for maintaining consistency, so the players can build up a "language of mechanics" to borrow a video game design term. But fully identical? Every NPC needs to have a "class" and only choose feats PCs could choose etc. etc.? No. Bad idea.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes and no. It would potentially make the NPCs easier to build and consistent-among-themselves is good, but still run aground on a) the "Why can't I do that?" problem, going both ways;

Is this really a problem? I've literally never, in any game I've ever played or run, had a player respond like that. Much the reverse, in fact; as players we enjoy being surprised and wouldn't even consider demanding to play a monstrous being. Wouldn't this mean you couldn't have ancient dragons, because players would want to play ancient dragons if you used them? Etc.

and b) the fact that you'd still have to make mechanical adjustments to transfer an NPC into a PC (or vice versa), something that ideally you never have to do because they're the same thing to begin with.

Does this happen with any degree of regularity? Is this actually an issue or is it a theoretical possibility one wishes to leave open?

Because it sounds, to me, like you're invoking a prospect that is quite rare in the current culture of play, in order to ask for rules which affect literally every combat ever, in highly deleterious ways.

 

[Aldarc]

If a caster player asks why they can’t do what a NPC can do, then there are many ways to handle it.

Maybe the wizard can research the spell; however, their research is either imperfect at replicating the NPC’s spell or the wizard discovers that the NPC’s own version of the spell was impractical, dangerous, or unsuitable for their own magic, so the spell gets adjusted.

The cleric asks their god and the god says,* “I liked this NPC better than you” or “I think that this spell is more appropriate for you. Enjoy.”

* Or the warlock consults their patron.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If a caster player asks why they can’t do what a NPC can do, then there are many ways to handle it.

Maybe the wizard can research the spell; however, their research is either imperfect at replicating the NPC’s spell or the wizard discovers that the NPC’s own version of the spell was impractical, dangerous, or unsuitable for their own magic, so the spell gets adjusted.

The cleric asks their god and the god says,* “I liked this NPC better than you” or “I think that this spell is more appropriate for you. Enjoy.”

* Or the warlock consults their patron.

Yes, you can invent such reasons. But if you just give the NPCs the same spells the PCs get, you don't have to. I really see no significant drawback in doing this. Most statblocks are supposed to represent fairly generic stock characters, so it is just weird if every bloody one of them has some bizarre unique magic (yet similar to the other NPCs using the same statblock.)

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, you can invent such reasons. But if you just give the NPCs the same spells the PCs get, you don't have to. I really see no significant drawback in doing this. Most statblocks are supposed to represent fairly generic stock characters, so it is just weird if every bloody one of them has some bizarre unique magic (yet similar to the other NPCs using the same statblock.)

You don’t see any significant drawback to this approach, but it’s clear that there are many people in this thread who don’t share your opinion and find this approach detrimental to their ability to run or hack the game.

Edit: I would also remind you that I have never sat at table where a player raised a fuss about or asked why a NPC could do something that they could not. So the idea that this problem of creating explanations would be averted if PCs and NPCs were built the same feels a bit like designing my house based on the remote possibility of an alien invasion. I honestly would rather my house be designed according to more practical day to day concerns rather than remote what-ifs.

 

[Hamilburg]

Our views on the appropriateness of symmetry aside - what about when PC-style builds just lead to really unfun patterns when used against PCs? The nova capabilities of some kind of paladin/fighter multiclass with action surge and smite would be VERY volatile. Or AC stacking bladesinger builds?

4e was very explicit about the underlying math of monsters, but 5e has it too - and PC creation process can easily drift outside those boundaries. At least we are free of the 3.x idea that a level X character somehow should translate directly to CR Y?

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, you can invent such reasons. But if you just give the NPCs the same spells the PCs get, you don't have to. I really see no significant drawback in doing this. Most statblocks are supposed to represent fairly generic stock characters, so it is just weird if every bloody one of them has some bizarre unique magic (yet similar to the other NPCs using the same statblock.)

I mean, most of my NPCs that use spells generally use spells from the official rules or slightly tweaked variations.

But even if they do use more specific spells, very very few of my NPCs use anything analogous to wizardly magic, where the spell would actually be retrievable by reading their looted spellbook. No one expects to be able to discover the techniques by someone with sorcerous talent, or someone bound to an extraplanar creature.

The fact that my players virtually never play wizards (I've had a total of one wizard in the past 10 years, and that was a replacement character that lasted about 4 sessions) means that the lack of spellbook loot isn't an issue. If I did have a wizard in the party, I'd probably make spellbook magic slightly more common.

 

[TwoSix]

and b) the fact that you'd still have to make mechanical adjustments to transfer an NPC into a PC (or vice versa), something that ideally you never have to do because they're the same thing to begin with.

I'm not sure on what this means. This sounds like a case where the NPC is allied with the PCs, and would need to be converted to a PC, perhaps on character death?

I mean, I would either say "Sure", and let them play the NPC block, or say "This character doesn't make sense as a PC, and I need them to stay an NPC." If I'm converting a PC to an NPC (for some reason), I would just not adjust their stat block.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is this really a problem? I've literally never, in any game I've ever played or run, had a player respond like that. Much the reverse, in fact; as players we enjoy being surprised and wouldn't even consider demanding to play a monstrous being. Wouldn't this mean you couldn't have ancient dragons, because players would want to play ancient dragons if you used them? Etc.


Does this happen with any degree of regularity? Is this actually an issue or is it a theoretical possibility one wishes to leave open?

Because it sounds, to me, like you're invoking a prospect that is quite rare in the current culture of play, in order to ask for rules which affect literally every combat ever, in highly deleterious ways.

For one thing, I believe that for @Lanefan , much like for myself, the "current culture of play" isn't really relevant to their games, and doesn't affect the question. Also, he was talking about using similar rules for NPCs from playable species, not non-playable monsters like your ancient dragon straw man. You run across an NPC priest, or guard, or what have you, they shouldn't have any ability a PC couldn't possibly have access to.

 

[Lord Shark]

I have yet to have a player at a table I was sitting at ask why they can’t do what a NPC does. Many play video games where this sort of design philosophy is highly prevalent. I don’t think that designing around this “problem” is any way practical or beneficial for most tables. It feels like a solution created for a self-created problem.

In fact, having one pool of abilities for both PCs and NPCs is arguably more video-gamey -- you can see it in MMOs, for instance, where there's only so much of the budget that can go to animations and power design, so NPCs end up using copied versions of PC abilities.

Plus, using PC-available spells or abilities to represent every kind of NPC ability leads to over-familiarity. If an angel, a dragon sorcerer, a wizard, and a fire elemental all conjure walls of fire, why should they work exactly the same and do exactly the same damage?

Having played and run games that use both kinds of approaches, I'm now firmly on the side of "no." As a player, I don't particularly care whether NPCs have abilities I do or not, and as a GM, not having to worry about following the rules of PC creation makes it so much easier to design NPCs.