NPC vs PCs - It's one rule for them and....

[A.A.King]

Does anyone have any experience were the DM allowed NPC character access to things they couldn't have, or is someone that kind of DM and more importantly is it acceptable? Can a DM grant NPC characters, either random, villainous or helpful to have access to stuff specifically banned for PC characters?

[claypigeons]

Does anyone have any experience were the DM allowed NPC character access to things they couldn't have, or is someone that kind of DM and more importantly is it acceptable? Can a DM grant NPC characters, either random, villainous or helpful to have access to stuff specifically banned for PC characters?

In my experience, giving NPCs things that have bern specifically banned is pretty low. There is a reason you, as a DM, banned it. Play by the rules you've set.

That said, giving a character something they wouldn't normally have can be acceptable. A young person whose father was a knight might be given.armour and a weapon beyond what WBL dictates. Or a BBEG caster with extra spells not on their native list...

[Nirhael]

Most NPCs fall directly under a DM's control and a DM can literally do anything they want in their campaign, if they want every single level 1 Commoner in their towns to own a +5 Vorpal butter knife, that's his call.

Players may or may not be pissed off by it though.

Personally, I avoid giving anything not normally accessible to NPCs unless they're a BBEG, in which case I might adjust WBL, give them some special abilities, etc.

It still depends on the players and the DM, best way to go about it is to have a talk and see the reactions.

[skyth]

Depends on the setting. In Champions, I'm fine with it. In D&D...Not so much.

[OldTrees1]

Does anyone have any experience were the DM allowed NPC character access to things they couldn't have, or is someone that kind of DM and more importantly is it acceptable? Can a DM grant NPC characters, either random, villainous or helpful to have access to stuff specifically banned for PC characters?

Yes.
As a DM I allowed NPCs to have custom abilities just like I allowed the players' PCs to have custom abilities.

I always had a reason/method for how the NPC/PC got the ability. Sometimes the prerequisites of the ability (Say a custom racial Elemental feat) would prohibit the PCs (non Elementals) from gaining the ability. However IF the players were playing PCs that could qualify for the ability, THEN the ability was available if the PCs pursued it.

[King Atticus]

A DM can do whatever he wants, it's his game and what he says goes. That being said if it is specifically banned for players it would be needlessly antagonistic for him to throw the (presumably overpowered) banned element in his players faces by using them himself. It would just cause bitterness and that'll suck the fun out of the game. Much easier to make the ban-hammer swing both ways and have it limit everyone equally.

[A.A.King]

I figured pretty much the same, and yet I can imagine people who had this problem with a DM, or who were the DM who actually did it.

[Spore]

Try to make subtle changes and not giving your ECL 3 commoners huge riches. The urge to murder them will arise. Even in good parties.

[Ydaer Ca Noit]

If it is reasonable yes.
For example you can give craft magic items to an NPC, if he is the last person on the world who knows hot to craft magic items and thats the reason you banned it for players.

But generally giving something to one NPC means that you are giving it to the PCs too - they can ask him to teach them, or they can ask him to use his infinite zone of truth ability to root out corruption in the whole city (true story), or simply loot it if he is enemy (or force him to help them).

[Kerilstrasz]

i use the following ruling and i make sure all my players know about it.

Whatever is allowed for players is allowed for NPCs..
for example: you want Keen & improved crt to stuck? OK.. but npcs use this combo too.. etc etc
If PCs don't have access to something neither do NPCs..
exception: sometimes, in order to promote story, or to add some flavor i may allow certain NPCs have something otherwise prohibited. In these rare occasions though, there would be always a way for PCs to access the very same thing somehow... but again, this is a very very rare occasion.

[Lord Ruby34]

I've been guilty of this as a DM, but my players knew about it. I simply told them that the main bad guys would all have exactly one ability that they shouldn't. Some of them got a feat, or a few extra skill points. The BBEGs, a Paragon Orc Warblade and a Vampire Swordsage/Homebrew PrC got Turn Undead to power devotion feats and +2 BaB for early PrC entry. It was just something I did to make the bosses unique. If I got to redo that though I would have just worked on their builds and done things in a RAW legal way. It probably would have lead to cooler results.

[Coidzor]

Are you thinking like maguffins that allow them to do X when they'd normally be unable to do X so as to allow an encounter to occur or more along the lines of banned material, like banning wizards to the players and then having them face a BBEG Wizard?

[Humble Master]

Generally, having NPC use classes/feats/spells ect. that you have banned is bad form. If the PC's don't get to use Initiate of Mystra (which they shouldn't) you shouldn't then throw a NPC with that same feat at them. If Now, giving NPCs unique abilities or stuff they would not have as a PC is generally fine as long as it isn't ridiculous. If the baron's personal Sorcerer has better magical items than a character his level normally would is fine. Giving the mutated Ogre a third arm that attacks independently is probably permissible and also makes the Ogre a much more interesting opponent. Now, a random Mary Sue Commoner with a Dragon familiar, Wizard spell access and a slew of other abilities is going too far and is also a bad NPC.

[Zanos]

Are you thinking like maguffins that allow them to do X when they'd normally be unable to do X so as to allow an encounter to occur or more along the lines of banned material, like banning wizards to the players and then having them face a BBEG Wizard?
That second bit isn't entirely unreasonable, depending on the setting. If, say, the methodologies of wizards had been lost over the centuries, a wizard could make for a great boss, as a forgotten relic of a time long past. Of course, "nobody can play a wizard because they're OP" is different than "there aren't really many/any wizards in this campaign setting."

I would be rather irritated if a DM flat-out banned something and then turned around and gave NPCs access to it. One of the great strengths of 3.5 is that PCs and NPCs follow largely the same set of rules, and to infringe on that is to invoke my ire, as impotent as it may be. Doing things like giving enemies more wealth than usual or having the BBEG actually use the super special magic items secret powers isn't unreasonable, but I don't expect them to have levels in incantatrix if it was banned.

[Krobar]

As a player I once had a DM that banned Disjunction when we were high enough level to get it. Then he had an enemy wizard hit us with Disjunction.

We all quit his game and started another without him.

[Deaxsa]

As a player I once had a DM that banned Disjunction when we were high enough level to get it. Then he had an enemy wizard hit us with Disjunction.

We all quit his game and started another without him.

sounds like the right call if you ask me.

[Duke of Urrel]

NPCs should follow the same rules as PCs, with a few exceptions that appear in the RAW. For example, NPCs can be influenced by Diplomacy, whereas PCs can't be.

A DM who can't create a challenge for PCs except by arbitrarily slanting the rules of the game in favor of NPCs doesn't make the game fun for anyone. And there's really no need for this.

There are many ways to make NPCs tough without applying a more favorable set of rules to them. As others have pointed out, it's easy to endow NPCs with superior equipment, which they may have acquired by accident or by inheritance. It's also easy to give NPCs a home-turf advantage in surroundings that are favorable to them. Finally, NPCs have their own networks of allies; kill some of them off today, and other NPCs will try to avenge them tomorrow. There are so many perfectly legal ways to make NPCs challenging, so why break the rules just for them? That just shows a lack of imagination, a lack of planning, or both.

I believe a DM may grant a NPC some special power that is forbidden to PCs (of the same class and species) only if this power rests in a unique spell or magic item that the PCs themselves can obtain by defeating the NPC, and this should not be an impossible task, but one that the PCs can eventually achieve.

[Devronq]

Actually I think its fine as long as the NPC aren't using it for the reason it was banned. I personally have done this and had no complaints. Here's an example not a real one but hopefully you know what I mean.
Your PCs use scry and die to much so you ban the scry spell. However you do allow the NPCs to use the spell but they will never use it for scry and die. this i think is ok and i dont see why they wpuld complain about it.

[Big Fau]

I've banned the Big 6 classes, but I have had NPCs with levels in those classes as both enemies and allies to the party (specifically, I use Cleric/Druid enemies and give the party Artificers as allies from time to time).

[Phelix-Mu]

A big issue to consider in if the same rules apply to PCs and NPCs is that the DM must generate dozens of NPCs in the same amount of time the players only need to work on their one character. Sometimes, expediency might dictate that some item or amount of wealth is present where it shouldn't be, or that the enemy wizard has managed to work a way to teleport into a teleport-free zone.

In general, there are so many gaps in the existing rules, that system mastery can probably be used to justify almost any circumstance anywhere. But, for the sake of saving time, I, as DM, maybe haven't worked out the precise nuts and bolts, added up all the modifiers, checked the table, etc. That's DM's prerogative. On the other hand, if the players have their characters investigate the details of NPC convenience technique X, now I do have to do my diligence and bull**** make up the details.

[Sir Chuckles]

I always tell me players:

"If I can use, you can use it. If you abuse it, I abuse it."

In turn, it could be extended to "If you cannot use it, I cannot use it, and vice versa."

[Thurbane]

It's a case by case basis, IMHO.

As a DM, if for a specific reason I want an NPC to have something which I wouldn't allow PCs to have, I'd have no real qualms. It would do this sparingly, of course, and not just for the heck of it.

Conversely, as a player if an NPC had something the DM had specifically banned on my PC I might ask why, but ultimately would accept and be OK with the DMs ruling.

[Talakeal]

While I agree that PCs and NPCs should be on the playing field in principal, I don't think there is anything wrong with making an encounter unique.

Take the Shape Change spell for example.

As written it is HORRIBLY broken, and a single shape changing wizard can and will make the rest of the party irrelevant and bog down the game as they look through 6 books for the perfect form to bypass any given encounter.

Clearly this is not fun for the game.

On the other hand if you have an evil wizard boss as a one of encounter, and each round he changes into a different shape, this just makes for a challenging and entertaining fight, it doesn't wreck the campaign in any way and isn't even significantly more powerful than a standard enemy wizard if the DM doesn't spend several hours before the fight looking for the perfect counter to the party.

Heck, even something as simple as fast healing or DR on all the PCs can ruin a low op game, while on a monster it is just another ability.

[Dalebert]

My PF DM has banned PCs from any item creation feats other than spell completion items and spell trigger items. His reasoning is he wants us to at least weigh the cost and consider keeping items we find instead of replacing everything with the perfect item at essentially the same cost (half market price). So if we want a specific item that we haven't been fortunate enough to find, we have to pay full price for it.

[shadow_archmagi]

Yeah, I'd totally do it.

I have no qualms about saying "Okay, nobody be a wizard, wizards are OP" and then having an NPC wizard. That's because if I'm running the wizard, I don't have to worry about limitless magical power causing problems. As mentioned above, the PCs are a half-dozen powerful individuals, ergo, in order for one villain to challenge them he'll need to have powers comparable to six men.

"Balance" isn't really relevant- It's not a chess game, it's a story, and stories are often feature overwhelming odds and villains who uncover powers forbidden to most mortals.

That said, bannings should be carefully considered and are generally an unhelpful tool- if I don't want to deal with a wizard, I'll talk to the player who really likes to play wizards and ask him if he might consider playing another class because dealing with wizards is a big headache and it'd make DMing a lot more fun for me if he picked something else.

[A.A.King]

I can understand that you say "A PC might abuse it, but an NPC won't because he/she is me" as a reasoning to give an NPC access to something, like the mentioned Wizard. However, personally I think it might be better to pinpoint what you find broken about something, usually it's a possible combo or combos, and then just agree to let them use the thing but not in the ways stipulated.

[Kennisiou]

I occasionally allow NPCs to have things the players cannot, yes.

NPC villains occasionally have DM fiated items (that the PCs later receive assuming they aren't destroyed in the fight, which has only ever happened twice once when sundering the powerful item was a quest goal and once when we had a sundering focused psiwarrior monk whose combat strategy was "break everything"). I've had players fight bigbads who were gestalted in non-gestalt campaigns. I've made low-magic campaigns where a major villain was a caster who was abusing his unique powers and causing major strife. I've made mid-tier campaigns where a major villain was a high-tier class. I will create villains statblocks using means other than those assigned to the players for chargen (and occasionally give this treatment for non-villains, but then it's pretty rare).

I understand why some would find this kind of thing taboo, but for me I feel like creating situations in which the heroes are mismatched or at some sort of strategic disadvantage is... normal. It's totally normal. It's usually about 1/3 to 1/6 of the combats that occur. And I just don't say anything wrong with that -- especially when you need some way to make enemies into valid combat threats for a party full of powerful players. It doesn't matter how many flunkies you give a big bad, it's often very hard to create ones that do a good job of surviving more than a turn or two of focused fire from the party.

[Ravens_cry]

I can understand that you say "A PC might abuse it, but an NPC won't because he/she is me" as a reasoning to give an NPC access to something, like the mentioned Wizard. However, personally I think it might be better to pinpoint what you find broken about something, usually it's a possible combo or combos, and then just agree to let them use the thing but not in the ways stipulated.
Yes, a gentleman's agreement and mutual understanding is far better than a thousand ban lists.
That being said, if something is banned, it's banned in my opinion.
Having an NPC or baddie use it is just rubbing it in the players faces and rather in poor taste to boot.
As a D&D DM, your power may be unlimited, but your responsibility constrains your actions significantly.

[Yukitsu]

I'll do this is the game is a horror campaign, which can only function if the players are relatively or completely mundane, but the NPCs usually need to be supernatural in order to make it interesting.

[molten_dragon]

Does anyone have any experience were the DM allowed NPC character access to things they couldn't have, or is someone that kind of DM and more importantly is it acceptable? Can a DM grant NPC characters, either random, villainous or helpful to have access to stuff specifically banned for PC characters?

For the most part I create NPCs using the same rules as the PCs are allowed to use. Sometimes I bend them slightly. The NPC might have higher than wealth by level, or they might get an extra feat if they really need one for what I have in mind, but I don't want to up them another three levels.

The only other exception I make is that I occasionally use certain prestige classes like Urpriest and Beholder mage for NPCs that I don't allow PCs to use. And that's mainly because the fast progression doesn't break the game for an NPC the way it does for a PC.