npc's/bbeg's can do it, why cant I?

[flamewolf393]

So you know when you design an npc or enemy that can do something really cool that isnt RaW and you didnt put any real thought into how they can do it? Well now the player wants to figure out how they did it so that they can do it themselves. "Well that guy was able to command countless hundreds of undead why am I limited to a max number?" Or, "well he had an at will fireball ability, why cant I research how to do it?" Or "he had some weird ability thats never been thought of before? Cool how do I do it?"

How do you handle this? If I make it an artifact/magic item, theres a chance of the pc getting it, or I have to deus ex machina break the thing which gets old. If its from a pact with a god/demon, they can research how to contact that being themselves and make a similar deal. If its something the npc spent a lifetime researching, then why cant they make a pc that did the same thing before becoming an adventurer? All these things make sense in game world to pull off, and players seem to get tired of npcs always having cool toys that pcs cant get access to.

[Jormengand]

Give them levels in a homebrew class with an alignment that isn't compatible with the PCs', or give them an artifact that requires them to be evil/sacrifice their virgin daughter/whatever.

[Gildedragon]

Depends on the ability.
It might have been a necklace of fireballs or wand of fireball
Or the result of a demonic pact
Or a racial ability

But I usually try to stick to raw. Bending may happen but within the parameters I let the PCs bend their characters. Ie if they're the same class as the NPC PCs can learn the trick.
It might take a few feats but that's them apples

[noob]

Maybe it was just something only this npc could do.(like an ability he could pick thanks to an inherited template or something else)
If they did not murder that npc and mind controlled it instead they would have access to that ability but they did not.
examples by raw of two abilities you specified
Eladrins firre have an at will fireball because they were born that way.(they are some kind of angels and they have at will fireball)
That necropolitan necromancer could control an unlimited number of necromancers because he spellstiched himself(and he could because he was an undead) with the animate dread warrior ability and then he use it on necromancers then possibly getting unlimited amounts of undead under his control.
So basically the solution is LA: villains do awesome stuff but they get LA and that is why every villain see adventurers grow stronger than them: it is because they have level adjustment and thus gain levels slower than the adventurers.
So you can say yes to the player asking to cast an unlimited amount of fireballs but tell him also that the way to do that is a template with level adjustment(or taking levels in a prc tailored for spell-casters but which do not progress spellcasting for 10 levels then you will be sure no players in the world will ever try to get that ability) and so that he will be lower levels than the other adventurers(or weaker for things other than throwing fireballs at will) if he wants fire balls at will.
So now that there is a trade off you will see no adventurers interested in something if you strap la 2 to 5 to it.

[CIDE]

This is probably where the eldritch engines (or whatever they're called) from Eberron come into play. A McGuffin with special activation sequences and/or requiring special aligns or locations or whatever. Something that lets the BBEG do X but the players can't do it. If for no other reason than the fact that it may only work on the day the planets align or in a specific location or...whatever.

It could also be a weapon or legacy or something that only a specific alignment/race can use or get the benefit of. The result of a ritual or something equally contrived (or evil) that the players can't/won't do.

[flappeercraft]

I stick to RAW when making BBEG's or other villains. When I don't I either explicitly state I didn't or I make it so that the players can obtain the item or ability but it can be something as far as a quest or a 5 minute chat that allows them to be able to even have a chance to access it.

[HammeredWharf]

If I make it an artifact/magic item, theres a chance of the pc getting it, or I have to deus ex machina break the thing which gets old.

So it's the uber-powerful item BBEG is using and getting hold of it means a huge plot twist, or it's a cool custom magic item the PCs can get as loot and use. I don't see anything wrong with either scenario.


If its from a pact with a god/demon, they can research how to contact that being themselves and make a similar deal.

Making deals with such creatures is usually not a good idea. Besides, that being may not want to deal with the PCs in the first place.


If its something the npc spent a lifetime researching, then why cant they make a pc that did the same thing before becoming an adventurer?

Researching this powerful ability would require more experience than what the PCs have when the campaign starts. Also, there's the same reason why they can't craft their lvl 1 equipment. They only get a limited amount of useful downtime pre-campaign.

[Roderick_BR]

I like to give in-world reasons my npcs can do stuff too. Unique magic items and rituals that worked only for him are a good idea.
An example using the undead army is this pact that the bbeg sold his soul or something, and when the pcs beat him, they can clearly see a portal to hell opening up and ripping the guy's soul screaming into the depts of eternal damnation. Then say the book with the spell is in the treasure. See if one of the players are crazy enough to try it. Add in fun stuff like, using the ritual would take a long time and resources (the bbeg took years to get there), plus drawbacks (the person slowly loses Wisdom, which explains why the party sneaked on him so early and managed to hit him with many illusions and hold spells), and then the players won't be too eager to use it, tough that's extreme.
Some minor unique items could be used by the players as normal. You could even get some rare magic item from official obscure sources that the players just dont know, and let them get it as loot.

[OldTrees1]

Regardless of if an NPC has used an ability, my default reaction to a player asking if their PC can learn to X is:
"Sure, give me a bit to figure out the cost a PC would need to pay to gain the ability and I will get back to you."

[OttoVonBigby]

This is probably where the eldritch engines (or whatever they're called) from Eberron come into play. A McGuffin with special activation sequences and/or requiring special aligns or locations or whatever. Something that lets the BBEG do X but the players can't do it. If for no other reason than the fact that it may only work on the day the planets align or in a specific location or...whatever.

A homebrewed incantation (UA pgs. 174-178) can probably be designed to function similarly.

[Thurbane]

Maybe it's the end result of some kind of ritual magic that takes weeks (or months) to cast and needs a certain number of participants, and the effects only linger long enough for the NPC to do what he did.


A homebrewed incantation (UA pgs. 174-178) can probably be designed to function similarly.


Just noticed this: so yeah, pretty much what was already said :P

[ATHATH]

Give them levels in a homebrew class with an alignment that isn't compatible with the PCs', or give them an artifact that requires them to be evil/sacrifice their virgin daughter/whatever.
Of course, there's always the possibility that some or all of the PC's might be totally okay with committing heinously evil acts in order to get a cool and/or unique ability.

[Honest Tiefling]

Give them a reason to have serious pause to take the ability. Sure, shooting fireballs all day, every day is great fun...Until you realize that upon his death he was dragged kicking and screaming into the deepest reaches of hell to suffer. Oh, your character wants to make a infernal pact? Oh, so they only have a measly 16 intelligence, 12 wisdom and can't speak infernal? Are you sure? Are you reeeeeaaaaaaaaaaallly sure? 100% utterly sure? Last chance!

Through some players might try that one, I sincerely doubt anyone is going to repeat any ritual cast by a guy who now has three tentacles bursting out of his face who is ripping off his own skin. If they do, I would think that the player has definitely signed up for whatever you want to happen to them.

An idea for the god angle is that the god has imparted this ability upon their most trusted and important follower...Who you just killed. And then you went through all of his worldly possessions. And then you left without burying the guy. It would be interesting for the god to consider replacing their follower, but it would probably need to include returning some loot (which is less likely to happen then a player willingly growing tentacles) and doing some work for the god. Make it an epic quest for the party to prove their worth and then get some boons in return. They could even be weaker, because the last guy who got the boon didn't redecorate the temple with the blood of the god's followers, so you're still kinda on probation. Or just have the god give more balanced powers because they're a god.

I think if you start cackling with glee and breaking out a d100 and various charts and roll repeatedly while giggling, it might give the players some pause.

[John Longarrow]

One answer that has stopped many inquiries is "Funny what you can get from a deck of many things"...

[Zanos]

I just don't give my NPCS access to powerful abilities that I don't let my PCs access. If they were the same level. Which keeps me conscientious of what kind of shenanigans I let my villains get up to.

As I understand, one shot magic items and selling your soul to the devil are stock excuses, but you don't need them if you just don't make stuff up you don't want your PCs to use.

[lbuttitta]

Give them levels in a homebrew class with an alignment that isn't compatible with the PCs', or give them an artifact that requires them to be evil/sacrifice their virgin daughter/whatever.
I agree with Jormengand about special restrictions, if you don't want your players to gain these abilities; but are the abilities in question really that game-breaking? Personally, if the players very much want the ability in question, I would give them some way to attain it, if it wouldn't be too unbalancing.
Of course, if it would be, then MacGuffin ahoy, but otherwise, perhaps make it possible to get.

[Azoth]

Thankfully for me, I have much higher system mastery than my players. This means they tend to write off any crazy stunts my NPCs pull off as an overly complicated and convoluted optimization trick that I used. They have no desire to use things that are "complex", and as such rarely ask how I accomplished it.

[lord_khaine]

Regardless of if an NPC has used an ability, my default reaction to a player asking if their PC can learn to X is:
"Sure, give me a bit to figure out the cost a PC would need to pay to gain the ability and I will get back to you."

I think this is the best solution by far. The vampire template is a excellent example of how something can be a lot cheaper for an NPC than it is for a player. So if they really want to get it then they can also learn it. They just need to invest in getting a expensive template.. and might need to sacrifice a few levels in the way to balance things.

[Karl Aegis]

Pretty sure Dungeon Master's Guide II has rules for giving someone a unique ability in exchange for a level adjustment.

[Quertus]

Short answer: don't do that.

You know all those special snowflake characters that people complain about? This is just, "now that I'm DM, how do I validate having a special snowflake?". The answer is, you don't. It's really that simple.

The other reason you don't is because it's just stupid to add something to the game as an exception, without thinking through the reason for the exception. Unlike most white dragons, this one is blue, and immune to fire. Why? Don't know. No. That's not a smart move. Not only might the players want to investigate this anomaly, but understanding how it happened in the first place can help you introduce the creature, provide lore about it, and otherwise make it for seamlessly into your world. And likely help provide hooks for further adventures.

[Telok]

What I've generally done is to write up a 3 or 5 level PrC that's thematically appropriate for the bad guy. If the PCs want to pursue that path they can, but my PrCs always involve trade-offs. The trade-off may not be completely mechanical, it may be a RP thing or something, but it's always there.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LeXM2-lPofHX3WcNzo27PrzKCwp38yAFlixx6N_XwmI/edit?usp=sharing

[Thurbane]

I'm surprised the "BadWrongDM" comments took this long in the thread to appear, to be honest.

@Quertus in my personal experience, it's never been about having a "special snowflake" NPC; it's having a plot device or something cool for the players to marvel at that would potentially break the game on Pun Pun level if the players had it. It's OK for a BBEG to have access to a ritual that will free an Elder Evil or horde of corrupted titans to destroy the world; for the PCs? Not so much.

I know a lot of people read the words "plot device" as "railroading", but that's not always true.

[John Longarrow]

Unlike most white dragons, this one is blue, and immune to fire.

For the one time I've done this, ring of fire resistance and many, many castings of prestidigitation to change from white to a sky blue.

Dragon was living in an area with very few clouds so did something it thought was smart... used camouflage to look like the day time sky. It also spent a fairly long time getting the ring to avoid issues when fighting Remorhaz... Course none of this came up in game since they killed it before they could question it about its odd color.

It did throw them initially since they didn't use lightning against it (figuring it would be immune) and were impressed at how easily it shrugged off fire. Then they decided "Hey, still got these cold spells"... That didn't work so well either. :smallsmile:

[Quertus]

I'm surprised the "BadWrongDM" comments took this long in the thread to appear, to be honest.

@Quertus in my personal experience, it's never been about having a "special snowflake" NPC; it's having a plot device or something cool for the players to marvel at that would potentially break the game on Pun Pun level if the players had it. It's OK for a BBEG to have access to a ritual that will free an Elder Evil or horde of corrupted titans to destroy the world; for the PCs? Not so much.

I know a lot of people read the words "plot device" as "railroading", but that's not always true.

What can I say, I was trained in badwrongfun long before it was a thing. :smalltongue:

Even if it isn't always the DM doing a dumb, I figured someone ought to point it out, as I've seen both far too many DM special snowflakes (which I probably don't mind as much as most people do), and far too many not thought through mechanics (which I probably mind more than most people do) in my time.

... And why is it bad for PCs to have the power to destroy the world? They already have that power simply by choosing to ignore the BBEG. I feel I must be missing your point.

[Darth Ultron]

Well....3X and Pathfinder do have thousands of ways to do things. You want a character to do X, there is likely a way in the rules all ready.

If you need too, making a homebrew feat, spell, item, class, or whatever also works. It is easy to also make it something ''hard'' for a player to get, make it ''not worth getting'' or make it have a ''high cost''. The Fang of SSeth has a great power:Improved Invisibility (with silence and no scent) for 8 hours...you just need to take a bunch of levels in that prestige class.

[Bakkan]

When I DM, the only abilities I use that my players can't are those connected to (sometimes homebrew) monsters and races without level adjustment.

Also, if an ability would be too destructive in the hands of the PC's, it would be too destructive in the hands of the villain.

[Thurbane]

... And why is it bad for PCs to have the power to destroy the world? They already have that power simply by choosing to ignore the BBEG. I feel I must be missing your point.


Also, if an ability would be too destructive in the hands of the PC's, it would be too destructive in the hands of the villain.

It's a pretty standard fantasy trope, and a D&D adventure staple, to have the party stop a BBEG from completing a ritual (RHoD says hi), unearthing an artifact, or some other agenda or action that will either literally end the world, or cause the death and suffering of many innocents.

Unless the party is Evil, Lawful/Neutral-Indifferent or Chaotic-Crazy, this will generally be seen as a bad thing.

There's (at least) two takes on this topic:

1. NPCs, including monsters and BBEGs, are bound by the exact same rules as the PCs. (note: "monsters" can often skirt around by having unique powers not easily replicable by a PC party of a certain level)

2. NPCs, BBEGs etc. have access to stuff that is specifically NPC only. Earlier editions did this much more than 3E does.

I don't believe either approach is specifically right or wrong...just different.

I do get that a lot of people, especially advocates of player/DM equality and player "agency", will have issue with the latter approach.

[Bakkan]

It's a pretty standard fantasy trope, and a D&D adventure staple, to have the party stop a BBEG from completing a ritual (RHoD says hi), unearthing an artifact, or some other agenda or action that will either literally end the world, or cause the death and suffering of many innocents.

Unless the party is Evil, Lawful/Neutral-Indifferent or Chaotic-Crazy, this will generally be seen as a bad thing.

A group not interested in destroying the world won't want to use such a spell or artifact or whatever, so I don't see a danger in letting them have it. A group that is interested in destroying the world will now have busybodies trying so then from using said spell or artifact.



There's (at least) two takes on this topic:

1. NPCs, including monsters and BBEGs, are bound by the exact same rules as the PCs. (note: "monsters" can often skirt around by having unique powers not easily replicable by a PC party of a certain level)

2. NPCs, BBEGs etc. have access to stuff that is specifically NPC only. Earlier editions did this much more than 3E does.

I don't believe either approach is specifically right or wrong...just different.

I do get that a lot of people, especially advocates of player/DM equality and player "agency", will have issue with the latter approach.

I certainly don't mean to disparage the other way of doing things, but I definitely fall strongly in camp 1. As you suggest, this is because I highly value the players having narrative agency in the game. I believe one of the keystones of that is making the PC's fully a part of the world, having access to anything any NPC in their position would.

[Mechalich]

Within 3.X/Pathfinder specifically, the general ruling should probably be that NPCs should not have access to any abilities that the PCs could theoretically have access to via RAW or RAI. That is how the system was specifically built to function and doing so is an important part of respecting player agency. Now, there's nothing wrong with NPCs having obscure prestige classes, feats, spells, or other abilities that the PCs don't functionally have access to, but that's different from having different rule sets for PCs versus NPCs.

That being said, there's some considerable wiggle room. First, and perhaps most important: spell research. The BBEG (or his/her minions) has the power to research new spells, and since those spells are exclusive to this person, the PCs don't get to have them until at least after they've seen them in action and chosen to research them for themselves or after they've defeated that person and captured their spellbook (if it wasn't destroyed when the BBEG was killed or if the campaign didn't just end there). Second: wishes. You can justify a lot by saying a NPC got off a particularly well-adjudicated wish, maybe with a little help from a friendly deity with a thumb on the scale. This is a bit weak sauce, but its not entirely unreasonable for certain things that wouldn't normally be permissible but aren't actually that powerful at whatever level+optimization point you happen to be operating at. Third: epic spells. If you've hit the epic levels at all, or if there just happen to be epic spellcasters in the setting at all, the rule limitations are largely suspended because an epic spell can be crafted to do anything.

[Thurbane]

A group not interested in destroying the world won't want to use such a spell or artifact or whatever, so I don't see a danger in letting them have it. A group that is interested in destroying the world will now have busybodies trying so then from using said spell or artifact.

True. I guess that's what I get for trying to answer two quotes at once. The doomsday device scenario probably wasn't the ideal example in your case.

In regards to your point, yes, a good party having the power to destroy the world isn't always a bad thing.

Still, I personally wouldn't entrust it to even my most LG exalted Paladin player: the saying "power corrupts" exists for a reason. And there's stuff like domination, possession or similar effects. Not to mention, there's always a chance of someone just being a jerk. "Hey guys, I have to leave the game due to real world commitments. Hey DM, Bob the Paladin suddenly decides to fall. Hard. You know the McGuffin of Doom we confiscated from Lord Necropants in that game last year? Yeah, after renouncing his faith and pledging his soul to Atropus, he activates it. OK, seeya - have fun building new characters, and a world for them to be in!". :smalltongue:

OK, I know that would never happen with my players, but still.

In the case of less-than-world-ending powers, the temptation to use it is going to be even higher.

Yes, at a certain level, a lot of characters will have the power to warp reality to their whim, and it becomes a "gentleman's agreement" not to wreck the game/campaign.

I'm still OK with NPCs having access to stuff that can do this at lower levels than PCs might.

Different strokes for different folks.


Within 3.X/Pathfinder specifically, the general ruling should probably be that NPCs should not have access to any abilities that the PCs could theoretically have access to via RAW or RAI. That is how the system was specifically built to function and doing so is an important part of respecting player agency. Now, there's nothing wrong with NPCs having obscure prestige classes, feats, spells, or other abilities that the PCs don't functionally have access to, but that's different from having different rule sets for PCs versus NPCs.

There's a big difference between a whole set of different rules for NPCs, and some things being designated NPC only.

Player agency - the catchphrase of the moment. It was only a matter of time. Well, technically I mentioned it first. :smalltongue:

I don't think anyone here is advocating that NPCs should be able to click their fingers, and next thing players wake up shackled and stripped of all gear in a prison cell: just that sometimes it's OK for NPCs to be able to do stuff that an equivalent PC may not.

There's a bunch of "A wizard did it" stuff that player's can't replicate built into pre-written modules. It's not all that uncommon, really. To say "That is how the system was specifically built to function <snip>" is basically just a personal opinion.



I'm starting to think I'm really out of touch with most of the current generation of players. Maybe it's my age, or having started in older systems. :smalleek:

[Mordaedil]

Neverwinter Nights has an interesting side-quest that kinda approaches this.

Hundreds of years ago, a pair of brothers lives in and guarded a homlet near Neverwinter, where the older brother was a wizard who sought how to become a baelnorn, while his brother was a cleric who invited the village children and would read them stories at night. The older brother calls in Belial, the prince of lies, to help him figure out the ritual on how to become a baelnorn and he is taught for the most part the correct procedure, but he is tricked into doing one thing that was entirely unnecessary; he has to slaughter the children of the village to complete the ritual. He then tricks his brother into inviting all the children and slaughters them and completes the ritual, except he becomes a lich, not a baelnorn. The younger brother, driven insane by the attrocities of his older brother, steals the phylactary and runs over to his shrine to Lathander and Lathander deems himself unfit to judge the crimes commited and seals everyone into a pocket time, where the events keep replaying and repeating themselves, driving the brothers insane.

The point is, the rituals to become a lich is very unclear, but having the requirements be lies or trickery can be useful in dissuading your players from taking it.

[noob]

Neverwinter Nights has an interesting side-quest that kinda approaches this.

Hundreds of years ago, a pair of brothers lives in and guarded a homlet near Neverwinter, where the older brother was a wizard who sought how to become a baelnorn, while his brother was a cleric who invited the village children and would read them stories at night. The older brother calls in Belial, the prince of lies, to help him figure out the ritual on how to become a baelnorn and he is taught for the most part the correct procedure, but he is tricked into doing one thing that was entirely unnecessary; he has to slaughter the children of the village to complete the ritual. He then tricks his brother into inviting all the children and slaughters them and completes the ritual, except he becomes a lich, not a baelnorn. The younger brother, driven insane by the attrocities of his older brother, steals the phylactary and runs over to his shrine to Lathander and Lathander deems himself unfit to judge the crimes commited and seals everyone into a pocket time, where the events keep replaying and repeating themselves, driving the brothers insane.

The point is, the rituals to become a lich is very unclear, but having the requirements be lies or trickery can be useful in dissuading your players from taking it.
I do not see why needing to lie to people would make becoming a lich any harder for a pc.
Also slaughtering children do not seems any repulsive for many player.

[Yahzi]

Maybe it's the end result of some kind of ritual magic that takes weeks...
The one weakness of adventurers: patience.

They will crawl through the pits of Hades and murder angels at the throne of Heaven, they will sell their souls for a song and bet the fate of worlds on a dice roll... but ask them to sit still for three weeks and you've won.

:smallbiggrin:

[OldTrees1]

I'm starting to think I'm really out of touch with most of the current generation of players. Maybe it's my age, or having started in older systems. :smalleek:

I don't know. Maybe it is the wording or the accent?

Question:
After a session wraps up one of your players talks with you about their character and how something an NPC did inspired them. They describe the thing the NPC was able to do and how something like that would fit into the character concept they are roleplaying. They ask you if there is a way for their character to work towards something like that ability that would help round out/flesh out the character they are playing.

Provided there are no OOC concerns like time (which obviously can be a real factor IRL), how would you respond? What is your general answer, what are the alternative answers and when would they show up?


I know personally there are times when an ability will be too strong in the hands of the PCs even for the final leg of the campaign. However other abilities that are reasonable on a CR 4 NPC will be reasonable on a Lvl 10 PC.

[Azoth]

If it is a dead BBEG or a variation of a trick I have used before, then I will walk them through how I got the effect to work from a mechanical angle. If it is a still living BBEG, I will hint at the method, but won't walk them through it.

Now if it is just a reoccurring NPC that can be interacted with fairly regularly, it will depend on the IC relationship that they have as to wether or not I give them anything. Now digging around might turn up some people from the NPCs past that can clue you in.

[Thurbane]

Question:
After a session wraps up one of your players talks with you about their character and how something an NPC did inspired them. They describe the thing the NPC was able to do and how something like that would fit into the character concept they are roleplaying. They ask you if there is a way for their character to work towards something like that ability that would help round out/flesh out the character they are playing.

Provided there are no OOC concerns like time (which obviously can be a real factor IRL), how would you respond? What is your general answer, what are the alternative answers and when would they show up?

I know personally there are times when an ability will be too strong in the hands of the PCs even for the final leg of the campaign. However other abilities that are reasonable on a CR 4 NPC will be reasonable on a Lvl 10 PC.

How would I respond? Well, it depends on a couple of factors. Primarily, is the ability in question going to problematic for the game in either the short or long term.

Generally speaking: as one of the more system-savvy members of my group, I'd probably suggest some RAW options that are available to the PC to achieve similar results. I already do this a fair bit. For instance, a player might show me their level-up info, and I'd say "Interesting feat choice. You know, there's another feat in a different book that achieves a similar end, but your character would actually get more mechanical benefits out of it", for their consideration.

I'd endeavour to answer the player's query as early as time permitted; most likely in an email over the next couple of days. The length of our sessions are generally quite short, and we all have fairly extensive real life concerns eating up a lot of our spare time.



FWIW, I always try to keep my NPCs, monsters and BBEGs as RAW as possible. I have a bit of a thing about it, actually. I rarely house rule or home brew stuff onto them; in fact, I'm not sure I ever have in 3.5. At most, I have been known on the very odd occasion to use a 3rd party feat, template or spell if it'll help an NPC achieve an end that I couldn't otherwise get to by official RAW.

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate in regards to DMs being allowed to have NPC do things that PCs can't necessarily do.

[OldTrees1]

How would I respond? Well, it depends on a couple of factors. Primarily, is the ability in question going to problematic for the game in either the short or long term.

Generally speaking: as one of the more system-savvy members of my group, I'd probably suggest some RAW options that are available to the PC to achieve similar results. I already do this a fair bit. For instance, a player might show me their level-up info, and I'd say "Interesting feat choice. You know, there's another feat in a different book that achieves a similar end, but your character would actually get more mechanical benefits out of it", for their consideration.

I'd endeavour to answer the player's query as early as time permitted; most likely in an email over the next couple of days. The length of our sessions are generally quite short, and we all have fairly extensive real life concerns eating up a lot of our spare time.



FWIW, I always try to keep my NPCs, monsters and BBEGs as RAW as possible. I have a bit of a thing about it, actually. I rarely house rule or home brew stuff onto them; in fact, I'm not sure I ever have in 3.5. At most, I have been known on the very odd occasion to use a 3rd party feat, template or spell if it'll help an NPC achieve an end that I couldn't otherwise get to by official RAW.

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate in regards to DMs being allowed to have NPC do things that PCs can't necessarily do.

Huh, I pegged you for a higher frequency of homebrew (I have found older generation DMs to be more likely to homebrew than the new 3.5 DMs).

However your response seems familiar to us newer gamers (from my limited experience DMing for players). So you are not losing touch with the new wave yet.

[Darth Ultron]

There's (at least) two takes on this topic:

1. NPCs, including monsters and BBEGs, are bound by the exact same rules as the PCs. (note: "monsters" can often skirt around by having unique powers not easily replicable by a PC party of a certain level)

2. NPCs, BBEGs etc. have access to stuff that is specifically NPC only. Earlier editions did this much more than 3E does.

.

I'm a type two myself, but I do handwave it in 3x/Pathfinder most of the time. There are plenty of ways to do things ''in the rules'', things few players would do to just get the one ability. Like ten levels in a prestige class. And few players are willing to make a whole character to ''just get one ability'', no matter how cool.

A great ''trick'' in 3x is croupt/exalted spells, then you can have an amazing effect at a huge downside cost...

[Zanos]

The older brother calls in Belial, the prince of lies, to help him figure out
Of all the things you could summon to ask for advice...

[Lvl 2 Expert]

You could always claim you don´t know how the NPC did that. That was some weird stuff, must be epic. But who would ever hand out something that powerful to a completely random ogre that showed up just as you were trying to enter this cave?

They'll get to the end of the campaign before they realize you've been angling them along for the entire ride. And at that point, let them have that ability for the final chapter (through some means that can't be replicated in the next adventure).

[Thurbane]

Huh, I pegged you for a higher frequency of homebrew (I have found older generation DMs to be more likely to homebrew than the new 3.5 DMs).

I take an odd sense of pride in having my stuff as non-homebrewed as possible. I'd like to think that NPCs etc. could be lifted from my game and dropped into most other campaigns without anyone having to scratch their head about them too much. My general rule of thumb is "Would this be legal for the Iron Chef or Villainous competitions on this forum?".

My list of house rules is very small, and generally in the players favour (i.e. I give Fighters 4 skill points/level and an expanded list; 1/2 Orcs take a -2 to Int or Cha, players choice; Improved Toughness counts as Toughness for all reqs; if a set list caster like a Warmage takes the Extra Spell feat, it acts as their Advanced Learning class feature etc.).


However your response seems familiar to us newer gamers (from my limited experience DMing for players). So you are not losing touch with the new wave yet.

Good to know, thanks. :smallsmile:

[Telonius]

I'm pretty much on board with Thurbane. Really, there's so much that's mechanically possible given enough class levels or fiated wealth. There's not often a need for inventing an entirely new ability, and I really like using the same mechanical rules as the players. "Not often" is not the same thing as "never" - I've homebrewed a few monsters, and come up with a PrC or two. But unless there's an extremely good reason to withhold it (ruining a surprise, tipping off a double-agent's identity, something like that) I would make it available to the players as well before the campaign began. There's nothing like seeing the players' faces when I show them the build of the bad guy after a very tough fight, and they realize it was fully rules-legal, and made with the same options they had available to them.

[Pex]

I used to believe the same thing. Whatever the BBEG can do, I want a hypothetical PC be able to do it too even if no one in the party of that particular game would ever be able to do it themselves. It was a cosmic sense of fairness. It didn't have to be exactly the same. I didn't care a medusa could petrify at will. A wizard could cast Flesh to Stone. It's fine an undead could give negative levels. It's relatively easily fixed, and besides, there's the spell Enervation. A lot of my justification was based on magic.

However, one day while planning for an adventure I wanted the bad guys to have particular abilities via feats and their class for a challenge. The feats were never used before in our group, so it would be something new. In this case it was the various teamwork feats. The adventure was run. The players got the "oh snap" feeling as the feats were used, and they defeated the bad guys. It was when I got home reviewing what happened that I realized the builds were not RAW legal. I made an error in prerequisites that made it impossible for the build to exist at the level I had the bad guys be. Because they were rogues they were short in BAB. It wouldn't be the only time I erred. I was doing a Children of the Corn type scenario where child witches were cooking the adults of the town using the Cook People hex. They were 3rd level witches. Cook People was just flavor text for the scenario. I hadn't realized at the time Cook People is a Major Hex; thus they had to be at least 10th level. The PCs were just barely 6th level.

In neither case was the encounter too powerful for the PCs. The players didn't even know the difference, and it really didn't matter. That's when I realized that it wasn't an inherently bad thing for NPCs to be built differently than PCs. The game mechanics doesn't matter on how an NPC can do what he does. What only matters is if the final result power level of the NPC is appropriate for the intended power level of that encounter. It makes designing encounters easier for the DM because he has so many NPCs and monsters to deal with the minutiae of details can become overwhelming if trying to be exactly RAW. A player only has his PC, so it's easy to keep track of the minutiae. Also, an NPC is only on camera for that one encounter. As DM you have fiat control on how his abilities affect the game world. An NPC has teleport at will. The DM can arbitrarily say that doesn't mean he teleports everywhere all the time. Such a power in the hands of a player is an entirely different thing. An NPC with at will teleport only matters for the one encounter he exists. A PC with an at will teleport matters for every encounter for the rest of the campaign. The degree of disruption is greater.

Explain this to the players. PCs should have their own cool things to do. They don't need to be able to do what the BBEG did. Besides, the BBEG had that amazing thing. The PCs did not and never could, but in the end, the PC defeated the BBEG anyway so who is truly stronger? Stroke the players' egos. :smallsmile:

[Quertus]

That's when I realized that it wasn't an inherently bad thing for NPCs to be built differently than PCs. The game mechanics doesn't matter on how an NPC can do what he does. What only matters is if the final result power level of the NPC is appropriate for the intended power level of that encounter.

And, really, the same could be said for PCs. It doesn't matter if they follow the rules, or if their builds are legal, only that they have the appropriate power level for their level. Or, depending on how large a range of power level your group can accept, perhaps not even that. All that really matters are whether people are having fun.

[Mordaedil]

Of all the things you could summon to ask for advice...
He did pretend to be a regular pit fiend, who got paid in a different manner.