Shemeska
Adventurer
Difficult question to answer.
I don't like there to be an artificial distinction between "monsters" and the holy chosen PCs. Both of them exist within a world that goes on regardless of their success or not in my view. Neither is automatically better or worse than the other, and I don't really care for treating non-PCs as "monsters" like in 2e or now a wierd shade of that in 4e that seems to relegate anything not a PC to an automatic lesser status as I read it. Not my cup of tea.
That said, as a DM I'll break or ignore the rules for particular NPCs if it makes for a more enjoyable game and a better advancement of campaign plot. Regardless of the rules I'll give abilities to NPCs as it applies to the character, regardless of what the rules care to say that I can or can't do. Rules lawyers would despise me I think.
I don't like there to be an artificial distinction between "monsters" and the holy chosen PCs. Both of them exist within a world that goes on regardless of their success or not in my view. Neither is automatically better or worse than the other, and I don't really care for treating non-PCs as "monsters" like in 2e or now a wierd shade of that in 4e that seems to relegate anything not a PC to an automatic lesser status as I read it. Not my cup of tea.
That said, as a DM I'll break or ignore the rules for particular NPCs if it makes for a more enjoyable game and a better advancement of campaign plot. Regardless of the rules I'll give abilities to NPCs as it applies to the character, regardless of what the rules care to say that I can or can't do. Rules lawyers would despise me I think.