Should NPCs Have to Follow the Same Rules as PCs?

[WayneLigon]

I think they should follow the same rules in the sense that there should be absolutly nothing an NPC can do that, by dint of training, luck or birth, a PC cannot do. I don't expect human PCs to be able to charm with a glance, since that's a special racial ability of Race X but I'd expect that if a player wanted to play a member of Race X, then by gosh he should be able to charm with a glance.

 

[DwarvenDog]

Hopefully, they proceed thinking "This is odd. We'd better be careful, and investigate it further. This guy could be too strong for us, or he could have some funky ability, or there could be something entirely separate and hidden going on."

This may end up being a bad example, but let's say they do all these things, it plays out well, there's some good creepy investigation and play is approaching the climax.

If the ability to raise the dead, in this particular example, is not indicative of the challenge presented by this kobold, then what is? What are the tools through which the PC's determine whether this little bugger is too much for them?

 

[Mouseferatu]

If the ability to raise the dead, in this particular example, is not indicative of the challenge presented by this kobold, then what is? What are the tools through which the PC's determine whether this little bugger is too much for them?

If the PCs have done all these things, then they have observed--either directly, second-hand, or both--what the kobold's overall abilities are, and have gained at least some sense of his general power level accordingly.

 

[Jack99]

Should NPCs Have to Follow the Same Rules as PCs?

Yes. Everything else just breaks the consistency of the game world by making the PCs some kind of mutants.

Derren! I have missed your positive outlook of things! Where have you been mate, playing 4e?
/duck

I'm a big believer in the idea that the only rule the DM has to follow is "Do whatever is best and most fun for the adventure and the campaign."

So if the adventure calls for a kobold who can create artifacts and cast raise dead, but is otherwise the equivalent of a 2nd-level character, that's what I'm going to create.

This. This should be in bold, italic, underlined and in size XXXL.

NPCs needn't follow the same rules as PCs. They should have whatever powers the DM wants to define for them. PCs benefit from a structure to manage their advancement, etc. over a longer period. This kind of thing for NPCs and monsters is just a waste of time.

This is good too.

 

[jensun]

There's a difference though between knowing EVERYTHING about magic and knowing how magic generally works within the game setting. If Raise Dead exists as a high-level effect, (or substitute whatever you like for Raise Dead) it's a known element of the game world and seeing it come into play at a much lower level is jarring.

On the flip side the rules produce their own level of restriction and annoyance.

If I want the my elderly patriarch of Pelor who has spent most of his life in monastic seclusion and prayer I may well want him to be able to Ressurect or cast Commune without adding Cleric 13 to my notes and making him badass in all sorts of other ways which clearly dont model him at all.

 

[Snoweel]

On the flip side the rules produce their own level of restriction and annoyance.

If I want the my elderly patriarch of Pelor who has spent most of his life in monastic seclusion and prayer I may well want him to be able to Ressurect or cast Commune without adding Cleric 13 to my notes and making him badass in all sorts of other ways which clearly dont model him at all.

Excellent point.

This always bothered me as well.

 

[Knight Otu]

I'm coming around to "No, NPCs don't need to follow the same creation rules as PCs, but should at least maintain the illusion that they do." In other words, if they have an ability that PCs can't have, or can't have at that level, there should be a reason for it. If the human wizard with nothing oh so special about him can cast an iceball spell, then other human wizards with nothing special shouldn't be barred from learning that same iceball spell. If the human wizard is a Legate of Ymir or something, on the other hand, the iceball might be a supernatural gift that other wizards might not be able to duplicate.

 

[Breschau of Livonia]

In my game it's not so much a choice as a requirement that NPCs have different character generation rules.

With a family to raise and a > 40 hour per week job spending the time to generate NPCs the same way a PC is generated isn't really possible.

That said, I do agree the rules should make it easy to create plausible characters.

 

[Nifft]

...and your point is?

What should be fair: player expectations.

What need not be fair: anything else.

May as well ban owlbears. Dragons don't make sense either, you know.

Who brought up "make sense"?

-- N

 

[Scribble]

If the PCs have done all these things, then they have observed--either directly, second-hand, or both--what the kobold's overall abilities are, and have gained at least some sense of his general power level accordingly.

This is something that I think is a "big shift" in 4e, and one that I also think is a big shift back to the original way of the game...

3e's almost "obsessed" need to have a rules explanation for almost everything that could be done, seemed to force people in a way to "metagme think."

Oh, he can cast raise dead? We'd better be carefull... Became "He can cast raise dead? he must be an X level priest, so we'd better watch out for X abilities.

One of the things that really peved me off about 3e actually... it let the "rules lawyers" assume too much power.

"He can't do that he's obviously not an X level kobold priest!!!"

I'm hoping once people get used to the system. (re used to the system) it will once again get back to: "Oh man, watch out, he can do something nasty..."