Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8634381" data-attributes="member: 6855114">I much prefer the later. But the previous comes from an old confusion.That confusion comes from the fact that NPC can represent both playable characters and non playable characters. Is a dragon an NPC? Yes. So is the 4th level Sorcerer played by the DM or the side kick played by one of the players. NPC usually stands for character played by the DM. At one time, there was Monster NPC and NPC but distinction disappeared as soon as it appeared. But that distinction was crucial.A monstrous NPC should not be on the same rule set as the characters. While a "standard" NPC should follow the same rules as a PC (barring some exceptional circumstances that is). Mixing the two types of NPCs simply muddied the water and made it so that it can be totally acceptable that a non monstrous NPC does not follow the same rules as a PC. Which sucks a bit IMO simply because some parts of the game simply fall apart because now, some concepts can be done with NPCs but not with PCs. This dichotomy is welcome by some and hated by others (or others like me, it is viewed with both contempt and appreciation). Using different rules for NPC ease the life of DM but at the cost of verisimilitude for a few players. Mainly those that are DMs themselves but also for some of the more rule oriented players in the game. Why can't I be casting X as a bonus action like X NPC did? Why can't I use this divine spell and this arcane spell? This NPC did it and should not be able according to the rules in the PHB. These kind of questions will not come to life until players mature enough in the game knowledge to start questioning the rule and the "strange" application made to NPCs. While if all non Monster NPC that comes from playable stock follows the same rules as PC, you will never get questions like this.</blockquote>

Verification