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

[Micah Sweet]

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?

If there's a problem with an NPC using something against a PC, the same problem should exist if the same something is used by an PC against a NPC. PCs are not special.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

But it's not a strawman--not in the least.

You still have rules for NPCs that differ from PCs. You're just drawing an arbitrary line for where PC-type rules start applying vs where they don't.

My only--sole--assertion is that that arbitrary line is being misplaced by those who claim that every (humanoid?) NPC should be built by precisely the same rules that PCs use.

 

[aco175]

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.

You have not spoken with this guy lately have you.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't care about screwing up balance but I very much do care about screwing up in-setting consistency. Thus, I do my best to make sure my ad-hoc NPCs (and many of them are) still fit within what the char-gen rules allow.

Despite my firm advocacy for NPC design freedom, I do actually relate to this. I don't love a lot of the 5e NPC design because it's so wildly out of bounds of what a PC can do. I would never have a halberdier level 8 town guard with 5 halberd attacks per round, for example.

I have some loose constraints I use for humanoid-type PCs, the kind that would generally be expected to have some kind of level and "class".

1) 1 Hit Die per level, generally a d8, but warrior-types might have more and caster types less. They also always have at least 2 proficient saves and 4 proficient skills (if I bother to assign them for combat mooks).

2) Level 1-4 gets 1 base attack, 5-10 gets 2 base attacks, 11-16 gets 3, and 17+ gets 4. This is the baseline for their normal "swing a weapon" action, but a focused warrior type could have maybe 1-2 more, depending on their abilities.

3) The max spell level will generally not exceed the normal full caster progression for a combat-capable NPC. No 5th level spells unless they're level 9. NPCs who violate this rule are either non-combat NPCs (a level 3 healer with greater and lesser restoration as their only spells) or heavily specialized, generally with much weaker hit points and defenses.

4) Besides that, NPCs get the equivalent of about 1 "feat" per level, which justify extra defenses and special attacks. This is a rough eyeball of the potency of special abilities, nothing formalized.

5) Important NPCs will also magical items and/or boons which function as magic items, roughly commiserate with what I would expect a PC of that level to have.

 

[aco175]

How much of this discussion affects only a handful of NPCs in one's game? I feel 99% 0f my NPCs are not statted or even really though about until they meet the PCs. There might be one or two in a upcoming adventure that has a hook or even something on his history. I mean, most are their background. The farmer the PCs stop to talk to is a farmer and never gotten to the point of being a PC.

The one or two NPCs such as the captain of the guard becomes more as he is needed. If the PCs are meeting a 3rd or 4th time he might get stats and a bit on background and skills. This is where I could handwave feats and +2/+1s as well as expertise and just say he has +6 to hit and deals an extra +1d6 damage because he is cool.

I guess the players could try and find out how he deals an extra 1d6 damage, but it has never come up. There could be a simple answer to tell the players such as, because he does not get background, feats, the +2/+1 and combat maneuvers as a PC does. I guess the PC could find a way to drop all their abilities to get this and be easy to play.

 

[TwoSix]

If there's a problem with an NPC using something against a PC, the same problem should exist if the same something is used by an PC against a NPC. PCs are not special.

Well, "should the PCs be special" is really kind of the underlying argument here. And that really depends on what sort of game and narrative you want to play.

 

[Pedantic]

Despite my firm advocacy for NPC design freedom, I do actually relate to this. I don't love a lot of the 5e NPC design because it's so wildly out of bounds of what a PC can do. I would never have a halberdier level 8 town guard with 5 halberd attacks per round, for example.

I have some loose constraints I use for humanoid-type PCs, the kind that would generally be expected to have some kind of level and "class".

This sounds a while lot like how 3.x npc design worked in practice. You stuck to simple math improvement feats unless you were trying to give the NPC some specific trick.

 

[TwoSix]

This sounds a while lot like how 3.x npc design worked in practice. You stuck to simple math improvement feats unless you were trying to give the NPC some specific trick.

It was definitely my 3.5 and PF games (and going back really far, reading about the cores of NPC math in Trailblazer by Bad Axe Games) where I developed my current approach.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, "should the PCs be special" is really kind of the underlying argument here. And that really depends on what sort of game and narrative you want to play.

I dunno. I think that the underlying argument is about whether I should have any free time or sanity as a GM or whether I'm forced to stat out a whole bunch of needlessly fiddly NPCs that will see barely any play.

 

[tetrasodium]

I dunno. I think that the underlying argument is about whether I should have any free time or sanity as a GM or whether I'm forced to stat out a whole bunch of needlessly fiddly NPCs that will see barely any play.

It seems also if the gm should be allowed to use anything not in the phb/mm/etc

Edit: to be clear, I'm 100% in the "hell yes they can & should" but feel that wotc needs to do a better job of making it clear by being explicit about the existence of NPC classes or similar. I'm tired of hearing "well is that in its statblock" whenever a monster whips out a second basic mundane weapon to attack a PC carrying several magical ones rather than standing completely helpless or if a sociable monster npc happens to be merely proficient in something like card games. Back in 3.5 when NPCs could be built like a PC or with NPC classes I never had trouble with minor tweaks or even "NPC class levels" with more dramatic reworks, 5e seems to have convinced a ton of players that if it's not in the statblock it's cheating unless changes are helping the pc