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

[Vaalingrade]

I don't think the OP was about bone devils. it was about people, like alchemists and healers and bandits and stuff.

It would also be about the worst monsters of all in D&D: Wizards.

Do you want to deal with a full wizard stat block for every one of those buggers? I sure don't.

Edit: Also, there's no alchemists in 5e. You just... can't build them like a PC unless they're a rich PC that buys all their alchemy from the lack of crafting rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

The word used was "should". Not "must" or "ought". It is subjective, based on the experience you want. For me to get the experience I want, they (more or less) should.

Yeah, personally I would phrase that as a preference, whereas “should” comes across to me as… not exactly an imperative, but approaching one. But it’s perhaps a semantic distinction. I think we agree that either approach can be appropriate depending on the goals and preferences of the designer.

 

[Reynard]

It would also be about the worst monsters of all in D&D: Wizards.

Do you want to deal with a full wizard stat block for every one of those buggers? I sure don't.

Edit: Also, there's no alchemists in 5e. You just... can't build them like a PC unless they're a rich PC that buys all their alchemy from the lack of crafting rules.

This is in D&D general. We are talking broadly.

Or, if you like, I use a 3PP or homebrew alchemist class.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, and this comes back to my point about people having some abilities of a class but not all; and how to mechanically fit that in with the existing game mechanics.

Personally I think this is fine. Characters are gifted, and whilst some NPCs are equally so, some might not be and would have just learned some of the class features etc. For example, I have no problem with a temple priest, who has cleric's casting capabilities but have not actually ever bothered to learn weapon or armour proficiencies, as they simply never had need for them.

And not all NPCs need a class. Some can just be basically commoners with perhaps an extra skill, proficiency or a feat. It mostly makes sense to think more powerful people in terms of classes.

 

[Lanefan]

The game totally allows for those things. You make them an NPC, and they don't have to follow the rules for PC design.

Want to make an NPC constable who is proficient with a halberd but can't wear armor heavier than leather. 5e lets you do that.

Want to make an urchin with expertise in slight of hand but no weapon proficiencies whatsoever? 5e lets you do that too.

It's only PCs who have to stick with their class features (outside DM fiat).

Except then you risk adding inconsistencies and setting precedents you maybe don't want to set.

Your examples are both fine, in that they represent weaker-than-class abilities. The red flag comes out when you start giving them stronger-than-class abilities, e.g. the halberd-wielding constable gets 5 attacks per round with it while a PC Fighter wielding the same weapon only gets one or two.

Also, while 5e lets you do these things it gives no guidance whatsoever as to how to fit them in and-or keep them consistent with how PCs function. This is something I've been poking at (just got to it this week, in fact) for my 1e-variant game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is in D&D general. We are talking broadly.

Or, if you like, I use a 3PP or homebrew alchemist class.

That might be fine for you, but when I surprise the party with Luchadogres and their halfling babyface because I randomly watch a certain episode of Jackie Chan Adventures, I'm not going to make up a bunch of PC-balanced luchalibre abilities; I'm just going to tag on a suplex power to that halfling and give him 30 STR.

 

[TwoSix]

Never mind the players would never know the exact attack or damage bonuses!

We generally roll in the open, so damage and attack modifiers are pretty easy to zoom in on.

 

[Reynard]

That might be fine for you, but when I surprise the party with Luchadogres and their halfling babyface because I randomly watch a certain episode of Jackie Chan Adventures, I'm not going to make up a bunch of PC-balanced luchalibre abilities; I'm just going to tag on a suplex power to that halfling and give him 30 STR.

I'm not sure you are arguing with the right person.

 

[TwoSix]

Except then you risk adding inconsistencies and setting precedents you maybe don't want to set.

Your examples are both fine, in that they represent weaker-than-class abilities. The red flag comes out when you start giving them stronger-than-class abilities, e.g. the halberd-wielding constable gets 5 attacks per round with it while a PC Fighter wielding the same weapon only gets one or two.

Also, while 5e lets you do these things it gives no guidance whatsoever as to how to fit them in and-or keep them consistent with how PCs function. This is something I've been poking at (just got to it this week, in fact) for my 1e-variant game.

I mean, I feel like the simple fix is just "don't do that". If you give an over-the-top ability have an over-the-top justification. Get better at doing ad-hoc, don't give up on it if you screw up balance a time or two.

 

[Mort]

4e uses different statblocks for literally the same creature. That was enough by itself once I learned to turn me completely off their monster design.

Yes, 4e recognized that giving monsters different roles could lead to more fun, more dynamic combats. A DM was under no obligation to use the different roles/blocks, but (IMO) it enhanced the game.

Frankly it's no different then stating an NPC as a cleric vs. a fighter vs. a rogue etc. as one did in 3e- but more streamlined and much easier to execute.