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

[mamba]

It's a really strange thing that the range of what makes a player character is fundamentally defined by the PHB (plus whatever) but the full range of the rest of the world is essentially limitless.

D&D needs a point based PC construction system.

Doesn’t really change that the players are limited to what points can buy you, unless you think it needs to be used for everything else as well.

In either case I am not interested

 

[Reynard]

Why is it strange? PCs are obviously a bounded subset of what exists within the setting. That’s true of most RPGs.

It isn't strange that they are a bounded subset, it is strange that the bounds are what they are, defined by the specific list of available things (whatever the soure).

That's always been true, of course, and people have always pushed against it. It just occurred to me in the light of this discussion -- especially the "why can't I be a shaman" sub-discussion -- that there is no actual reason for this. The endless list of classes and subclasses in various 3PP books is evidence that people don't want the PC options limited to whatever WotC puts out.

The solution is to built an actual race and class construction system. It doesn't necessarily need to be as broad as, say, Hero, but even something similar to what we had in the 2E DMG would go a long way toward letting players really play what they want.

Anyway, I am just musing on a Saturday morning. It seems silly to point to storm raging barbarians and spell casting swordsmen and dragon blooded sorcerers and then say, "Of course you can't be an alchemist."

 

[aco175]

I don't think they should be build like PCs, but they should have consistent and explicable capabilities - if an NPC Wizard casts fireball, it should have the same effect as when a PC casts the same spell, it should be counterspell-able in the same way, and so on.

(Incidentally, that "consistent and explicable" requirement only applies to those NPCs that are themselves PC-like. An NPC Wizard should about the same as a PC Wizard of the same level, but if the NPC is a bizarre alienist who has been exposed to the undiluted energies of creation, all bets are off!)

I find this generally true for most things. I also like to reserve the right to make a NPC that can cast fireball, or 'ball of fire' that acts like the spell fireball as an ability of some sort. I do not feel that I need to explain it, but the players are free to interact with the idea behind it. Just because it looks and acts like a fireball the PCs can cast does not actually make it one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Isn’t there literally an alchemist subclass for the artificer?

 

[Reynard]

Isn’t there literally an alchemist subclass for the artificer?

Yes. That's obviously not the point.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes. That's obviously not the point.

Sure. The question is why have classes at all. Many games don’t, and I think a lot of people here would be better served by a more freeform system. But classes are one of those quintessential D&D things, so classless D&D is not a thing that is ever gonna happen. So assuming one wants to play D&D regardless, the question is how to deal with the classes. And to me they make more sense if they are tied to the setting and represent conceps that exist in it, rather than just being arbitrary mechanic packages.

 

[Reynard]

Sure. The question is why have classes at all. Many games don’t, and I think a lot of people here would be better served by a more freeform system. But classes are one of those quintessential D&D things, so classless D&D is not a thing that is ever gonna happen. So assuming one wants to play D&D regardless, the question is how to deal with the classes. And to me they make more sense if they are tied to the setting and represent conceps that exist in it, rather than just being arbitrary mechanic packages.

The benefit of arbitrary mechanical packages, especially if they are broad and archtypical and can then be customized with choices as you level (sort of the way Pathfinder 2E does it) is that you can cover more ground. The alternative is a vast proliferation of classes -- which is sort of the situation we already have.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. The question is why have classes at all. Many games don’t, and I think a lot of people here would be better served by a more freeform system. But classes are one of those quintessential D&D things, so classless D&D is not a thing that is ever gonna happen. So assuming one wants to play D&D regardless, the question is how to deal with the classes. And to me they make more sense if they are tied to the setting and represent conceps that exist in it, rather than just being arbitrary mechanic packages.

If there's a concept I want in my setting that's not adequately served by the material I have, I find or make said material and add it in.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The benefit of arbitrary mechanical packages, especially if they are broad and archtypical and can then be customized with choices as you level (sort of the way Pathfinder 2E does it) is that you can cover more ground. The alternative is a vast proliferation of classes -- which is sort of the situation we already have.

You think the stuff in the PH plus artificer is a proliferation? Or are you including 3pp as well (as everyone should)?

 

[Reynard]

You think the stuff in the PH plus artificer is a proliferation? Or are you including 3pp as well (as everyone should)?

The latter. it is unwieldy, unbalanced, and STILL won't actually make everyone happy because some archetype or idea won't be represented.