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

[TwoSix]

Or he was born that way: a sorcerer bloodline whose only feature is protection from charm.

Exactly this. I'm highlighting this example because if you say "You can't have a sorcerous ability without being a 1st level sorcerer, and if you're a sorcerer you have to be able to cast spells", then that's precisely the sort of play I desperately want to avoid.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The result of creation of NPCs = the creation of PCs in a background of ceteris paribus, leads to a world of High Magic, particularly in D&D's later editions. Not everyone is in favour of that style of setting and thus they are willing to sacrifice verisimilitude/consistency for the sake of not having to account for that world-building element in the setting.

It is neither right nor wrong, it all depends where you want to draw the Gamism line in this particular category for the sake of simpler world-building.
As someone who enjoys Low Magic campaigns, I'd prefer to "fix" the classes so that creation rules are the same for PCs as they as for NPCs. Problem is I have not put in the necessary effort, so for now, I let the Narrative and the Gamist system guide me so that I need not worry about the world being populated with so many high-powered beings, with powers as that of the PCs, existing all at the same time.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The result of creation of NPCs = the creation of PCs in a background of ceteris paribus, leads to a world of High Magic, particularly in D&D's later editions. Not everyone is in favour of that style of setting and thus they are willing to sacrifice verisimilitude/consistency for the sake of not having to account for that world-building element in the setting.

Good post, but I have a quibble. Whether or not an NPC uses the same rules as a PC impacts consistency, but I dispute in impacts verisimilitude.

A baker with a +10 in cooking utensils must be a retired adventurer impacts verisimilitude more than recognizing that an NPC that isn’t an adventurer is better at non-adventurer things than a dungeon crawler.

Also, the fact that certain features just aren’t available to PCs also doesn’t impact verisimilitude: after all, the players can’t play monsters either.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Good post, but I have a quibble. Whether or not an NPC uses the same rules as a PC impacts consistency, but I dispute in impacts verisimilitude.

A baker with a +10 in cooking utensils must be a retired adventurer impacts verisimilitude more than recognizing that an NPC that isn’t an adventurer is better at non-adventurer things than a dungeon crawler.

Also, the fact that certain features just aren’t available to PCs also doesn’t impact verisimilitude: after all, the players can’t play monsters either.

I take your point!
Just for clarification, somewhere upthread they made the distinction the topic was about NPC (not monsters) although of late those lines have become blurred.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I take your point!
Just for clarification, somewhere upthread they made the distinction the topic was about NPC (not monsters) although of late those lines have become blurred.

I'm with @Lanefan here. We're talking about PC-playable species, not monsters.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Exactly this. I'm highlighting this example because if you say "You can't have a sorcerous ability without being a 1st level sorcerer, and if you're a sorcerer you have to be able to cast spells", then that's precisely the sort of play I desperately want to avoid.

I'm a big fan of Loser Mutant sorcerers as NPCs who have like the one spell and have had to get super creative using it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I take your point!
Just for clarification, somewhere upthread they made the distinction the topic was about NPC (not monsters) although of late those lines have become blurred.

It’s an arbitrary distinction to say, for instance, that you have no issue with an duergar having +10 to crafting, but it is a problem if it is a dwarf.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s an arbitrary distinction to say, for instance, that you have no issue with an duergar having +10 to crafting, but it is a problem if it is a dwarf.

Yes, because duergar are playable in exactly the way Astral dreadnoughts aren't.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Yes, because duergar are playable in exactly the way Astral dreadnoughts aren't.

Except duergar aren’t playable, unless you are using a particular splatbook. So why duergar or derro or azer, but not dwarves?

 

[The Stray]

I'm with @Lanefan here. We're talking about PC-playable species, not monsters.

This is a distinction without a difference. NPCs are not PCs, playable race or not. All NPCs are monsters. Or, if you prefer, all monsters are NPCs.