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

[Composer99]

Simple enough question. What are your thoughts?

In 5e? No, for most NPCs. You'll end up with an NPC who has a whole pile of mechanics you're never going to use, either because they won't last long enough in combat or because they won't get into combat. That's a waste of the DM's time and effort building them, running them, or both.

Even for special NPCs, where it makes sense to use at least some PC-facing mechanics, care must be taken; if they're going to be combat adversaries and they're built just like PCs, they'll be glass cannons relative to other NPCs.

 

[Quickleaf]

Simple enough question. What are your thoughts?

My answer is emphatically "No, NPCs should NOT be built using the same rules as PCs."

But my reason why might surprise you.

The suite of options facing players is large and complex with many moving parts - these rules/tools are intended for a zoomed-in "micro management" of resources and decisions based on the assumption that one player runs one PC.

However, the DM's circumstances are completely different because they run many NPCs, monsters, the setting, and overall their mental burden is significantly spread out across more things.

Thus, NPCs should be built with that burden in mind – easy to run, no micromanagement, limited resources the GM needs to track.

Say I wanted to create a Barbarian-type NPC who acts as a bodyguard for a BBEG. I look at the rules for Reckless Attack and Rage, and those really are prime examples of player-facing "micro management" features. So I would not use those directly. However, I might create a trait for this NPC that is inspired by Rage, giving them the quaggoth's Wounded Fury trait and perhaps something like this:

Wrath of the Guardian. As a reaction to being within 5 feet of a hostile creature making an attack or spell against the BBEG, the bodyguard becomes wrathful engine of death. They deal an additional die of damage with melee attacks and gain resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. They retain these benefits until knocked unconscious, the BBEG is no longer present, or if their turn ends and they haven't attacked that hostile creature since their last turn.

 

[The Stray]

If it's problematic in the hands of the always-on-screen PCs then it's problematic in the hands of anyone in the setting.

While this might be true, the problem isn't usually a setting problem. Again, this is a problem that comes down to the function of the NPC as they exist as a Doyalist game construct, not as they exist as a fictional representation of a being within the Watsonian dialectic. Game balance usually only exists in the space between NPCs/Monster and PCs, or between PCs and other PCs. NPCs do not need to be balanced against other NPCs and/or Monsters (if such a distinction is important to the ruleset in use), and NPCs have no niches to protect.

It helps, I believe, to think of the NPCs as always being on screen in their own stories that just don't happen to be getting told at the moment, and work from there.

Are you rolling mighty and epic battles of NPC vs. NPC against yourself on the regular, then? Because that sounds like a lot of tedious and potentially pointless work.

And believe me, I get the temptation to do this (and rolled the odd attack roll or saving throw when I was unsure if a specific NPC could affect another one when constructing stories for prep work), but it was always in service to creating material that the players, at least, would eventually see, even if their characters didn't learn of the events until much later. But the occasional roll-off against myself is a far cry from considering them to being always on-screen just off-screen. Heck, sometimes when I'm doing this, I specifically want to show off a way a particular NPC is breaking the setting rules in some way, in order to foreshadow these abilities for the players who follow my incessant bluebooking.

Or you use a simpler system for building them that still always gives results that fall within the parameters already defined by the game's rules for PCs.

Sure, but this is still a cheat, isn't it? You'll still get results you wouldn't get doing a level-by-level build sometimes, it's just less noticeable because it doesn't tend to be in the NPC's favor.

Yeah, we differ greatly here. I'd rather think of the characters as people first, and game pieces second (if at all). Therefore...

... "it's what the character would do" is not only always a valid defense here, it's how I expect characters to be played: true to themselves and doing what they would do in whatever situations they're in; and (given that it's all in good fun among friends) table considerations largely be damned. Clear separation of character feelings from player feelings is, however, essential; start taking things personally IRL and you'll not last long here.

And yes, sometimes people play wangrod characters. This doesn't necessarily mean they're wangrod players. Flip side: I've had (mercifully few) people play perfectly decent inoffensive helpful characters and yet still be wangrods as people at the table.

There's usually a clear difference between wangrod characters and wangrod players. If the other players are entertained by the joker, then it's not an issue. I suspect this is more a difference of philosophy than one of actual action, but we're not at each other's tables so I don't know.

Exactly. I never said (or never meant to say) that a stay-at-home class was intended to be PC-playable. I mean, if someone really wanted to play one as a PC I'd allow it, but I'd give clear warning they'd be setting themselves up for a miserable time after which if a miserable time ensued I'd have no sympathy.

My point was that the game gives no mechanics for DMs to construct stay-at-home classes or characters (e.g. the 16th-level NPC temple Cleric who just cast Resurrection on your companion) and yet the game (in all editions) always seems to assume - or in some cases outright say - they exist and didn't necessarily gain all those levels through adventuring.

Ah, alrighty, I can see where that would be a problem, then.

3e had the right idea but, as with many things it did, went completely overboard with it. That said, the point of those NPC classes was that they were very stripped down, mostly to make them so sub-optimal that nobody would want to play one.

(a far easier fix is to simply have it that stay-at-home classes don't and can't gain xp from either combat or risk-taking but instead have to (very slowly) gain them some other way)

Well, they succeeded.

 

[RainOnTheSun]

When most NPCs are built using the same rules as PCs, an NPC who has whatever abilities they need to have feels powerful and mysterious. "Uh-oh, this guy is special somehow! This is Serious Business!"

When most NPCs are bespoke stat blocks with only the abilities they need for a single encounter, an NPC with all the class abilities of a PC feels skilled and dangerous. "Uh-oh, it's another paladin/warlock/Jedi/double-O agent/Kryptonian/master of Tiger style kung fu! This is Serious Business!"

Contrast is useful. Establish a rule and break it when it's dramatic to do so.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When most NPCs are built using the same rules as PCs, an NPC who has whatever abilities they need to have feels powerful and mysterious. "Uh-oh, this guy is special somehow! This is Serious Business!"

When most NPCs are bespoke stat blocks with only the abilities they need for a single encounter, an NPC with all the class abilities of a PC feels skilled and dangerous. "Uh-oh, it's another paladin/warlock/Jedi/double-O agent/Kryptonian/master of Tiger style kung fu! This is Serious Business!"

Contrast is useful. Establish a rule and break it when it's dramatic to do so.

If NPCs are built by consistent rules for themselves, even though those consistent rules are not the same as the consistent rules for PCs, would that not give both benefits?

 

[Lanefan]

If NPCs are built by consistent rules for themselves, even though those consistent rules are not the same as the consistent rules for PCs, would that not give both benefits?

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; 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.

 

[tetrasodium]

If NPCs are built by consistent rules for themselves, even though those consistent rules are not the same as the consistent rules for PCs, would that not give both benefits?

Not always. There's been mentions of other systems where NPCs of various forms have anything they need to fill the role the GM is using them for & that anything is important in avoiding over/under-prep while keeping NPCs from exploding into uselessly gigantic statblocks too large for the GM to juggle on top of running the game.npc classes as a concept allow the gm to have the tough as nails bartender everyone knows not to cross in a hypothetical seedy bar that caters to a tough crowd of adventures to whip out the right spell for the situation that the gm needs and backfill in conditions about how much is involved in linking said spell to the bar's location through working with the guild or whatever even when the spell is different than the phb version or freshly minted by the gm... that's important because we have a hypothetical "tough as nails bartender that everyone knows not to cross" and that is no longer true if Bob can simply ignore or cross him without care now that he's level x. 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.

Building from the justification for why they follow whatever the GM needs goes beyond that hypothetical bartender to include masterminds with their own organization and powerbase to draw from being able to convincingly do those things While leaving the GM free to build out the relevant bits no further than needed while allowing the NPCs to draw from the full weight of their role rather than requiring the gm to be the mastermind without an organization supporting him in using a consistent ruleset to equip the NPC with needed tools.

NPCs can be both adversaries and allies at different times and they need to have the fluidity to accomplish that without overly burdening the gm.

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; 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.

Well you could do that by contracting with the proper guild authorities to enchant your business with all the conditional triggers and such after you have the various permits and such. Don't forget the side effects and time involvement either playerbob, people say that there's a reason why so many bars hire low level adventures to kill giant rats and spiders in the basement. Sure you could learn to do that kind of enchanting, but it's super specialized and what take quite a few levels just to learn part of the process that takes a whole team of guild enchanter's.... no playerbob it's not just security and safety, they bind it to the location with a bunch of conditions so it's cheap and easy enough to be useful for the bar without someone needing to build a deific artifact or something each time the bartender wants to stop s brawl.. it's just not useful for adventuring

 

[Aldarc]

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; 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 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.

 

[Andvari]

NPCs should be quick and easy to build for GMs. If that can be accomplished using the same rules as PCs, great. If not, they can be built using different rules that allow them to be built quickly and easily. My time is spent better elsewhere than on a stat block no one else is even going to see.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm of the opinion that it depends on your setting and how unique you imagine the characters to be...
Do you want every cleric met to have abc spells? Every character to have that many hit points? ...etc