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

[Crimson Longinus]

That a same character would be represented by different mechanics in different game is not analogous to the same character being represented by different mechanics in one game. That different games have different rules has no bearing to have rules consistently applied within one game.

 

[The Stray]

That a same character would be represented by different mechanics in different game is not analogous to the same character being represented by different mechanics in one game. That different games have different rules has no bearing to have rules consistently applied within one game.

Whyever not, though? An NPC is not bound by their stats anymore than a PC is, so why couldn't two states (a version that's a monstrous version for normal use and a more detailed version for PC use if they join a party) exist?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why?

Because what makes different games different is that they function differently. This has absolutely nothing to do with representing things consistently within one game. Should be pretty obvious.

 

[The Stray]

Because what makes different games different is that they function differently. This has absolutely nothing to do with representing things consistently within one game. Should be pretty obvious.

I edited my response above, but you seem to have already been typing a reply, so I'll reiterate:

It's widely held that a PC is not just the abilities they have on their sheet...they are more than the sum of their mechanics. Thus, then, it follows that NPCs and monsters aren't the sum of their mechanics, either.

And I don't see the point of clinging to a foolish consistency for consistency's sake. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative. Mechanics are brushstrokes and pencil lines on a canvas, not the iron-hard physics of a universe.

I've used Paragon Monsters before -- multi-state monsters that actively have different stat blocks to represent different stages of a fight, different tactics that change the game state the way some video games have multi-stage boss fights. how much simpler, then to represent an NPC two different ways, based on the needs of the game?

 

[aco175]

I find it strange that I can make a giant with 22 STR and nobody questions it, but I cannot make an orc with 22 STR without some seeming to argue that it is bad form since orcs which are monsters and can be a PC in some books cannot get a 22 STR if it was a PC, so I'm playing wrong. Or, at least, I need to tell them something as to why this orc can get a 22 STR.

 

[Maxperson]

Agreed. I'm not stopping you.

That didn't answer the question. You guys are placing huge importance on the difference between PC races and monsters, but from what I can tell all a PC race is, is a monster that the designers got around to making for PCs as well. Centaurs were a monster until they became a PC race. Duergar as well.

So what's the difference between a Duergar and a Skulk or other monster other than the designers got around to making a Duergar a PC race?

 

[Vaalingrade]

And the DM in this case is also a player.

Well if we're going to admit this now, there's a whole lot of conversations that need revisiting, not just needlessly limited the NPC design space.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That didn't answer the question. You guys are placing huge importance on the difference between PC races and monsters, but from what I can tell all a PC race is, is a monster that the designers got around to making for PCs as well. Centaurs were a monster until they became a PC race. Duergar as well.

So what's the difference between a Duergar and a Skulk or other monster other than the designers got around to making a Duergar a PC race?

Nothing really, but certain monsters are certainly easier to make a PC race than others. The rules you're using, whether official or otherwise, still matter, and if you decided that these races are PC-playable, than I believe anything an NPC can do should potentially be something a PC can do, and vice versa. A PC elf and an NPC elf are not different orders of being.

 

[Xetheral]

Personally, I get additional value out of building NPCs consistent with the PC rules (even if not to the same level of granularity) because I run sandbox and semi-sandbox games where encounters are not designed to be level-appropriate. Accordingly, I need to be able to telegraph the threat posed by likely foes (either on my own initiative or in response to the PCs trying to investigate a potential enemy), and it's a LOT easier to accurately telegraph threat levels when the NPC is built according to a framework the players are familiar with. For example, if I show a human swordsman making three attacks with one action, my players are able to infer that the NPC has at least eleven levels of the Fighter class. If I didn't build NPCs according to the PC rules, then showing the enemy making 3 attacks doesn't permit any inferences about the NPCs other abilities.

As a bonus, when I do give an NPC an ability or combination of abilities not easily explained by class levels, my players are able to infer that something special is happening, and that it might be worth investigating (whether to co-opt, disable, or otherwise thwart). If instead any NPCs could have any collection of abilities, I'd have to explicitly highlight anything meant to be special, which my players and I find less fun than letting the players discover the intriguing inconsistencies on their own.

As a player, while I can and do happily play at tables without PC/NPC symmetry, it does drive me bonkers when an NPC has a monster ability thematically similar to my character's abilities, but implemented with incompatible mechanics. For example, I once played a Thief Rogue who spent lots of money buying the advanced poisons from the DMG, and dutifully using Fast Hands to apply those poisons to my weapons. It was maddening to fight against Drow who had monster abilities that let them deal massive poison damage with every attack without permitting saving throws, without needing to repoison their weapons, who weren't constrained by limited supplies, and whose leftover poison couldn't be looted.

 

[Umbran]

But what do you really think?

Mod Note:
Folks, the snark helps the conversation not at all. If you're in conflict, avoid it. It doesn't make you more correct, or more likely to be taken seriously.