Assassin vs Alert Feat

[The_Jette]

Is it just me, or does it seem a little strange that Assassin's rely on catching the opponent unaware (surprised), while with a single feat (Alert) you can completely bypass the possibility of that ever happening, since you're never surprised? While I understand the point of the feat, am I the only one who thinks that the Assassin's assassinate ability is just a little underwhelming?

[The Shadowdove]

There aren't many monsters taking feats.

It's more beneficial for players vs monster abilities that rely on surprise, of which there are a handful that occasionally come up. Maybe more often depending on the DM.

[Sception]

as a general rule, pcs don't fight pcs. enemies are not based on pc mechanics and, as a rule, never have feats, so pc assassins don't have to worry about it, while npc assassins will typically have features that aren't entirely dependent on surprise, and can always attack other party members if one just seems more alert, and in any event are only around for a single fight, so if some feat or feature of one of the characters saved the day by negating an encounter, then great, they get to feel special for that fight, that's a good thing.

[Talamare]

Monsters don't have Feats
This game isn't balanced for PvP

[The_Jette]

as a general rule, pcs don't fight pcs. enemies are not based on pc mechanics and, as a rule, never have feats, so pc assassins don't have to worry about it, while npc assassins will typically have features that aren't entirely dependent on surprise, and can always attack other party members if one just seems more alert, and in any event are only around for a single fight, so if some feat or feature of one of the characters saved the day by negating an encounter, then great, they get to feel special for that fight, that's a good thing.


Monsters don't have Feats
This game isn't balanced for PvP

I guess I'm the only one here who plays with DMs who stat out almost every enemy as using PC rules.

Edit: His usual quote about PC's is this: "You're just another person in the world. You're not 'special' just because you're a PC."

[Unoriginal]

I guess I'm the only one here who plays with DMs who stat out almost every enemy as using PC rules.

Edit: His usual quote about PC's is this: "You're just another person in the world. You're not 'special' just because you're a PC."

Well at least he's not trying to hide he didn't read the rules.

Combat must be a ****show

[LeonBH]

The assassin's 3rd ability is underwhelming in general, because it only works for a very specific scenario and you often don't have control over when you can use it. At least the Thief can drop ball bearings or caltrops as a bonus action, and can scale walls.

[The_Jette]

Well at least he's not trying to hide he didn't read the rules.

Combat must be a ****show

At one point I was locked in a force bubble (no save) in order to force my character (Monk) to fight one-on-one with a mage-wolf, werewolf variant that has less strength but natural magic. He genuinely seemed confused when I got upset that my character died from that. I had been playing that character for two years!

[Unoriginal]

At one point I was locked in a force bubble (no save) in order to force my character (Monk) to fight one-on-one with a mage-wolf, werewolf variant that has less strength but natural magic. He genuinely seemed confused when I got upset that my character died from that. I had been playing that character for two years!

What levels you and the werewolf were?

Also, seriously? "PCs aren't special", but make special NPCs show up? Why is this dude still your DM?

Let me guess: when a NPC win the initiative, they usually demolish a PC.

[The_Jette]

What levels you and the werewolf were?

Also, seriously? "PCs aren't special", but make special NPCs show up? Why is this dude still your DM?

Let me guess: when a NPC win the initiative, they usually demolish a PC.

My monk was level 8, 6 levels of Monk and 2 of Ranger (for better ranged attack options). The mage-wolf was something like a CR 10 by itself, and carried a magic staff that would be broken if they were about to die to do a retributive strike AOE 1d6 damage per charge left on the staff... And, we had to fight an army of these guys.

Btw, he's not our DM any more. We put up with him for a very long time; longer than I'd like to admit. But, in the end I just couldn't handle his DMing style any more. I guess I'm still just used to his way of playing, and look at every PC ability as something that NPC's can (read:will) have, too.

[Crusher]

I guess I'm the only one here who plays with DMs who stat out almost every enemy as using PC rules.

Edit: His usual quote about PC's is this: "You're just another person in the world. You're not 'special' just because you're a PC."

When I DM I occasionally do that. Depends on the opponent. If its a story-significant humanoid big bad, I'll almost always stat them out. I mean, the characters are significant players in the world (and increasingly so as they gain levels) but they aren't completely unique. Why should a regional warlord famed for his strength and martial ability not get access to GWM?

I mean, if we're talking Mr Non-Recurring-Captain-of-the-Guard then I'll just use a Gladiator (or whatever is difficulty-appropriate). But if we're talking story-important villain, then I'm putting in a little more work. Not because I'm specifically building the bad guy to screw with the party, but because I will have put a little thought into his/her character (backstory, motivation, strengths and weaknesses, etc) and taking character levels or feats off the table restricts my ability to make them interesting.

For example, the party recently fought a slave-lord after a long dungeon slog. The slave-lord was a mastermind rogue archer, so he was dangerous but didn't like going toe-to-toe. He threw his minions at the party while he stayed back and sniped, using his ranged Help action to make the minions more dangerous. The party saw what he was doing, thought through the situation, and decided to focus on eliminating the minions first to take away the Helps and his ability to sneak attack (it worked out for them. They prevailed after a tough fight). I think that's great.

To me, anything that increases the engagement of the players during play (like, for example, re-thinking their battle plan on the fly) helps with the immersion and is a huge win. Feats and character levels, when used sparingly to flesh out someone significant, can help with that.

[Unoriginal]

Giving abilities similar to the PCs' to the enemies is perfectly normal. After all, the Assassin NPC has Rogue (assassin) powers, and the Martial Artist is similar to a Monk.


It doesn't mean they're built like PCs. They're not.

A NPC could have a power similar to GWF, but a DM shouldn't go "and at level 4 they took this feat" etc.

[The_Jette]

Giving abilities similar to the PCs' to the enemies is perfectly normal. After all, the Assassin NPC has Rogue (assassin) powers, and the Martial Artist is similar to a Monk.


It doesn't mean they're built like PCs. They're not.

A NPC could have a power similar to GWF, but a DM shouldn't go "and at level 4 they took this feat" etc.

The way our DM built NPC's was to build a PC, and have them be the villain. If we fought a group of random mooks, they weren't warriors. They were Fighters. They weren't generic spellcasters. They were Wizards, or Sorcerers. And, we could get their gear, but the Wizard's spellbook was always useless, or just not there. And, the Fighter's gear was always useless, too. If we had a Fighter who focused on Greatswords, the enemies were all finesse fighters. If we had a ranged fighter, they were all melee. He literally planned his encounters so that any magical equipment we found was going to be useless; and, got upset if we found a use for it.

[Crusher]

Giving abilities similar to the PCs' to the enemies is perfectly normal. After all, the Assassin NPC has Rogue (assassin) powers, and the Martial Artist is similar to a Monk.


It doesn't mean they're built like PCs. They're not.

A NPC could have a power similar to GWF, but a DM shouldn't go "and at level 4 they took this feat" etc.

Yes and no. You certainly COULD build an NPC that way, but you don't have to. If a significant NPC is a retired adventurer, you certainly could make them a 4th level fighter (or whatever) and build them that way (I mean, they were an adventurer too, after all). Or you could just stat them as a Thug and call it a day. Either approach is fine. Depends on what you want to do.

[Dudewithknives]

I make almost all my important NPC based on the rules of the system.
They have races, classes, levels ect just like a PC, they just might not have the same stat level, some are lower some are higher.
I tend to run long running campaigns with recurring NPCS so it makes sense that they come from normal class levels.
Monsters I just keep like the book says.

It is simple as this: If the PC's can do it the NPC's can do it.

If you do not want to someday be stuck in a force cage spell and be trapped with no save and no way to get out, don't cast force cage on the villains every fight.

What I hate is when a DM gives the NPC's a special item to make sure they can do whatever it is they want despite what the group wants but then even if the enemy is defeated while using it, the PCs can't have it.

Ex. The group was fighting a ninja of some kind. While fighting the group he went straight up greater invisible. Player asked the DM how a Monk with just cast greater invisibility.
The DM said, "Oh He had a ring that casts Greater Invisibility once per long rest.
The group goes on to beat him anyway.
Group: "Ok, so who get's the ring of 1/LR Greater Invisibility?"
DM: "Oh, he does not have that anymore once you loot him."
Group: "Why the hell not, he just used it 3 rounds ago."
DM: "Because I am not letting you have a ring that broken."

[The_Jette]

I make almost all my important NPC based on the rules of the system.
They have races, classes, levels ect just like a PC, they just might not have the same stat level, some are lower some are higher.
I tend to run long running campaigns with recurring NPCS so it makes sense that they come from normal class levels.
Monsters I just keep like the book says.

It is simple as this: If the PC's can do it the NPC's can do it.

If you do not want to someday be stuck in a force cage spell and be trapped with no save and no way to get out, don't cast force cage on the villains every fight.

What I hate is when a DM gives the NPC's a special item to make sure they can do whatever it is they want despite what the group wants but then even if the enemy is defeated while using it, the PCs can't have it.

Point of interest: at that point in the campaign, we had never trapped anyone in a force cage. This wasn't even the spell "Force Cage" so that part shouldn't matter. It was a "Force Wall" that was shaped into a dome, and was one of the spells in the staff, of which every single "Captain" in their force had one. And, by Captain, I mean the leader of every group of enemies, not just the leader of a legion. We fought so many of those guys that you'd think we'd be good to go, and have at least one of the staffs ourselves, right? Nope. Every single one managed to have just enough hit points to break it before they died. Miraculous, no?

[Crusher]

I make almost all my important NPC based on the rules of the system.
They have races, classes, levels ect just like a PC, they just might not have the same stat level, some are lower some are higher.
I tend to run long running campaigns with recurring NPCS so it makes sense that they come from normal class levels.
Monsters I just keep like the book says.

It is simple as this: If the PC's can do it the NPC's can do it.

If you do not want to someday be stuck in a force cage spell and be trapped with no save and no way to get out, don't cast force cage on the villains every fight.

What I hate is when a DM gives the NPC's a special item to make sure they can do whatever it is they want despite what the group wants but then even if the enemy is defeated while using it, the PCs can't have it.

Ex. The group was fighting a ninja of some kind. While fighting the group he went straight up greater invisible. Player asked the DM how a Monk with just cast greater invisibility.
The DM said, "Oh He had a ring that casts Greater Invisibility once per long rest.
The group goes on to beat him anyway.
Group: "Ok, so who get's the ring of 1/LR Greater Invisibility?"
DM: "Oh, he does not have that anymore once you loot him."
Group: "Why the hell not, he just used it 3 rounds ago."
DM: "Because I am not letting you have a ring that broken."

Yeah, that's just BS. Along with what the_Jette was saying above. Just crappy, lazy DMing.

It is a good reason not to use "player-like" villains very often (ie. PC-race NPCs with class levels, etc). If the party is fighting a level 12 enemy who is a former adventurer, how the heck would they not have any magic items? If they were good enough to survive up to level 12, how could they get that far without finding any magic items (unless its explicitly a no or very-low magic item campaign)? Plus, making that villain an appropriately formidable opponent almost requires giving them magic items, which would then be complete BS to not give to the players if they defeat the villain.

Its a good argument for being careful with those NPCs. Don't use them much, so when you do, they should be interesting. Backstory, personality, a fair bit of build up (they players have been hearing about this person for a while, or perhaps had some run-ins with them prior to the big throw down) so that the fight is WORTH IT from a narrative standpoint.

Plus, if you do it right, you've been marginally under-rewarding the characters for a little while when it comes to magic items (not severely, but enough for a modest grumble). That way when the boss explodes like a loot pinata (not literally, but like... 2 solid, useful, level-appropriate, magic items plus a couple wands and some potions and scrolls, perhaps) it feels EARNED. The party had to beat a tough, interesting, well built-up villain to get a solid reward (which might feel even better since you've starved them slightly) and they're now roughly back on track for where they should be in terms of magic item-finds.

That's how to do it properly.

[LeonBH]

The way our DM built NPC's was to build a PC, and have them be the villain. If we fought a group of random mooks, they weren't warriors. They were Fighters. They weren't generic spellcasters. They were Wizards, or Sorcerers. And, we could get their gear, but the Wizard's spellbook was always useless, or just not there. And, the Fighter's gear was always useless, too. If we had a Fighter who focused on Greatswords, the enemies were all finesse fighters. If we had a ranged fighter, they were all melee. He literally planned his encounters so that any magical equipment we found was going to be useless; and, got upset if we found a use for it.

Honest question. Why is this guy still your DM?

[Unoriginal]

Yes and no. You certainly COULD build an NPC that way, but you don't have to. If a significant NPC is a retired adventurer, you certainly could make them a 4th level fighter (or whatever) and build them that way (I mean, they were an adventurer too, after all). Or you could just stat them as a Thug and call it a day. Either approach is fine. Depends on what you want to do.

Or you could stat them as a NPC Fighter, with NPC HPs, bonus to hit, proficiency and the like, but still with Fighter powers, like several humanoid NPCs in the books.

You could just stat a PC and say it's a NPC, sure, but it'll be wonky as hell in many cases.

[Potato_Priest]

Honest question. Why is this guy still your DM?
Hopefully this answers your question.

Btw, he's not our DM any more. We put up with him for a very long time; longer than I'd like to admit. But, in the end I just couldn't handle his DMing style any more. I guess I'm still just used to his way of playing, and look at every PC ability as something that NPC's can (read:will) have, too.

[GlenSmash!]

The way our DM built NPC's was to build a PC, and have them be the villain. If we fought a group of random mooks, they weren't warriors. They were Fighters. They weren't generic spellcasters. They were Wizards, or Sorcerers. And, we could get their gear, but the Wizard's spellbook was always useless, or just not there. And, the Fighter's gear was always useless, too. If we had a Fighter who focused on Greatswords, the enemies were all finesse fighters. If we had a ranged fighter, they were all melee. He literally planned his encounters so that any magical equipment we found was going to be useless; and, got upset if we found a use for it.

God. i would never waste my precious DM time statting up NPCs with PC rules. It's so much easier to just grab a stat block form the MM or VGtM and just tweak it to what I want.

[Crusher]

Or you could stat them as a NPC Fighter, with NPC HPs, bonus to hit, proficiency and the like, but still with Fighter powers, like several humanoid NPCs in the books.

You could just stat a PC and say it's a NPC, sure, but it'll be wonky as hell in many cases.

Sure, that'd work though it might be awkward. The more abilities an NPC has, and the more incongruous they are, the more likely you'll forget about them mid-fight which is always crappy. Why put in the design time to create something you might forget to use in the heat of the moment? Just use a Thug.

[The_Jette]

Btw, this is one of the reasons that I play AL now. Between the multitude of games I played, either everyone got to be a God; or, the DM kept all players equal in power to the homeless guy living in the gutter. There was no in between, unless I ran it myself. And, I got tired of running, because people expected my games to be one of the other two, and complained when they weren't.

[mephnick]

I guess I'm the only one here who plays with DMs who stat out almost every enemy as using PC rules.

God, I hope so. I don't care who you are or what type of game you run, literally any other prep you can do is a better use of time than building NPCs by PC rules. I hope that concept has died its final death.

You could definitely add an Alert-type feature to any monster statblock you want though.

[Dalebert]

While I understand the point of the feat, am I the only one who thinks that the Assassin's assassinate ability is just a little underwhelming?

The 3rd lvl assassin ability is great when it happens but therein lies the problem. DMs on the whole tend to be very stingy with PCs getting surprise. You definitely have to work for it but even then it can be difficult. And on top of that you also have to have the higher initiative than your opponent. Else they aren't surprised anymore by the time your turn comes around.

What makes it really bad is that the assassin's next two features are truly lackluster. They seem designed for a loner; not someone who's adventuring every day with a group. It will be rare that you truly get a chance to exploit them. Their last feature is nice but it's not until VERY high level so many won't ever get there and those who do won't get to enjoy it for long.

Assassins on the whole are just awful. I can't say never build one. If you can carefully construct a build with multiclassing (gloomstalker?) and feats (alert? Skulker?) to truly exploit that 3rd level feature and also convince your party to work with you to get surprise, possibly even if it means they hang back and don't benefit, then you might be able to make something viable despite it's severe design flaws.

[DivisibleByZero]

am I the only one who thinks that the Assassin's assassinate ability is just a little underwhelming?

It's not just Assassinate.
The entire subclass sucks. With the exception of very specific multiclass first round nova builds, the entire subclass is basically useless.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

God, I hope so. I don't care who you are or what type of game you run, literally any other prep you can do is a better use of time than building NPCs by PC rules. I hope that concept has died its final death.

I fully and completely disagree.

[mephnick]

I fully and completely disagree.

I can't believe you've done this.

[Tanarii]

Or you could stat them as a NPC Fighter, with NPC HPs, bonus to hit, proficiency and the like, but still with Fighter powers, like several humanoid NPCs in the books.

You could just stat a PC and say it's a NPC, sure, but it'll be wonky as hell in many cases.


Sure, that'd work though it might be awkward. The more abilities an NPC has, and the more incongruous they are, the more likely you'll forget about them mid-fight which is always crappy. Why put in the design time to create something you might forget to use in the heat of the moment? Just use a Thug.
It's not awkward to make NPCs using the NPC/Monster rules. What's awkward is putting a NPC built as a PC up against PCs. Because PCs are designed for long term adventuring days of multiple fights, and NPCs are (generally) designed for just one fight. NPCs are also usually relatively higher HP to Damage ratio than PCs, who are pretty heavily oriented to damage output but have correspondingly lower HPs, for any given CR.

Also calculating CR for PCs is a pain in the butt, which is needed (at the minimum) for determining XP, if not for eyeballing difficulty. OTOH it's not exactly easy for NPCs with lots of weird abilities either.


God, I hope so. I don't care who you are or what type of game you run, literally any other prep you can do is a better use of time than building NPCs by PC rules. I hope that concept has died its final death.Some DMs are still into the character build pr0n they were into as players.

[Unoriginal]

It's not awkward to make NPCs using the NPC/Monster rules.

Indeed.



What's awkward is putting a NPC built as a PC up against PCs. Because PCs are designed for long term adventuring days of multiple fights, and NPCs are (generally) designed for just one fight. NPCs are also usually relatively higher HP to Damage ratio than PCs, who are pretty heavily oriented to damage output but have correspondingly lower HPs, for any given CR.

Indeed bis.

[mephnick]

Some DMs are still into the character build pr0n they were into as players.

Embrace your role! Run the world! Fiddle with the system! Houserules! Subsystems! Tables! Worldbuilding! Encounters! Drama! You have so many skills to hone and put to work. Building a PC isn't one of them. Leave that to the peasants.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Embrace your role! Run the world! Fiddle with the system! Houserules! Subsystems! Tables! Worldbuilding! Encounters! Drama! You have so many skills to hone and put to work. Building a PC isn't one of them. Leave that to the peasants.
Or find lazy/newbie players that prefer you build their characters because they know you're good at it. I get to DM against my own builds!

For real, I'll throw my hat into the 'never build your NPC's like PC's' ring. It just doesn't match the system well. If you want an NPC to have a PC ability, simply give it to them. No need to explain how they managed to fit the Alert feat into their build.

(also, seriously, never give any NPC the Alert feat, especially if one of your players is an assassin. That's BS counterplay)

[DivisibleByZero]

(also, seriously, never give any NPC the Alert feat, especially if one of your players is an assassin. That's BS counterplay)

I could not disagree more.

The the PCs can have that ability, the NPCs and mobs can have that ability.
If you can do it to them, then they can do it to you. It's not BS counterplay.
If you don't want any NPC or mob to have that ability, then you should ban that feat from your game. That's what's fair.

That's like saying that you should never allow an enemy to cast shield, especially if the wizard has magic missile.

[Potato_Priest]

The the PCs can have that ability, the NPCs and mobs can have that ability.
If you can do it to them, then they can do it to you. It's not BS counterplay.
If you don't want any NPC or mob to have that ability, then you should ban that feat from your game. That's what's fair.

I definitely disagree with this. PCs and NPCs have fundamentally different roles in the game, deserving of different mechanics, and regardless of what's "fair", some abilities make a better (read:more fun) game when only allowed for one or the other.

Do you think PCs should have an option to get legendary actions, because NPCs can have them?

[Waterdeep Merch]

The the PCs can have that ability, the NPCs and mobs can have that ability.
If you can do it to them, then they can do it to you. It's not BS counterplay.
If you don't want any NPC or mob to have that ability, then you should ban that feat from your game. That's what's fair.
No, it's not fair.

This is a game. NPC's are not players. If they fight the players, they represent obstacles to them in the game. An obstacle that is unfairly built to completely remove the core benefits that a player has built up over potentially years of gameplay is not a fair obstacle, especially as the DM had every opportunity to not do this.

This is exactly like a pre-4th DM seeing the rogue at their table and strictly using undead, oozes, and constructs and then claiming 'well, it's fair because they could be there'. No it's not.

[DivisibleByZero]

I definitely disagree with this. PCs and NPCs have fundamentally different roles in the game, deserving of different mechanics, and regardless of what's "fair", some abilities make a better (read:more fun) game when only allowed for one or the other.

Do you think PCs should have an option to get legendary actions, because NPCs can have them?

Legendary actions exist to counter the many Actions that players collectively get as a party.
Otherwise it's: Mob 1 action, Party 4+ actions
Again, that's fair.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

This is exactly like a pre-4th DM seeing the rogue at their table and strictly using undead, oozes, and constructs and then claiming 'well, it's fair because they could be there'. No it's not.

No, it's not. Giving one NPC the Alert feat is like using an undead, ooze or construct in one encounter. It is entirely reasonable to put obstacles of different challenge levels in front of the players. What isn't reasonable - and what literally no one is advocating for - is designing encounters to lock particular players out from the totality of the game.

[youtellatale]

Going to just throw in my 2 cents here and say that PCs should be treated differently then NPCs. The DMG does state that you can use the PHB to create NPCs with the same rules as PCs, so there is that (p96 DMG). But if we're taking that into consideration then it is also important to remember that those same rules tell us that the PCs are the stars of the game and not NPCs.

If a GM/DM is so hell-bent on creating starring characters then they need to write a novel and not run a game. If you're a GM/DM creating a GMPC, whether it is a villain or a party member, then (in my opinion only) you're looking to be on the other side of the screen and should do so. The whole situation of "if it's good for the group then it's good for the GM/DM" is the most petty, crappy excuse you can use to screw over your players. The game should be fun and your GM/DM trying to screw you over by directly countering your abilities is just bad form.

Again, this is my opinion and YMMV.

[Waterdeep Merch]

No, it's not. Giving one NPC the Alert feat is like using an undead, ooze or construct in one encounter. It is entirely reasonable to put obstacles of different challenge levels in front of the players. What isn't reasonable - and what literally no one is advocating for - is designing encounters to lock particular players out from the totality of the game.
That's fair enough, but I wouldn't say 'no one' except perhaps in context of this conversation right now. Plenty of DM's do exactly that, and we hear horror stories about them all the time. Point being, the occasional obstacle that is awkward or difficult for a party member to overcome every now and then is a good challenge, provided the scenario is still winnable and the player doesn't feel completely useless. Overuse of these situations leads to frustration and annoyance, is unfair, and is generally poor game design.

So I suppose an addendum- not 'never', but 'sparingly'.

[DivisibleByZero]

So I suppose an addendum- not 'never', but 'sparingly'.

And that I can agree with.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Going to just throw in my 2 cents here and say that PCs should be treated differently then NPCs. The DMG does state that you can use the PHB to create NPCs with the same rules as PCs, so there is that (p96 DMG). But if we're taking that into consideration then it is also important to remember that those same rules tell us that the PCs are the stars of the game and not NPCs.

If a GM/DM is so hell-bent on creating starring characters then they need to write a novel and not run a game. If you're a GM/DM creating a GMPC, whether it is a villain or a party member, then (in my opinion only) you're looking to be on the other side of the screen and should do so. The whole situation of "if it's good for the group then it's good for the GM/DM" is the most petty, crappy excuse you can use to screw over your players. The game should be fun and your GM/DM trying to screw you over by directly countering your abilities is just bad form.

Again, this is my opinion and YMMV.

Whoa, I don't think anyone's talking about GMPCs. I definitely don't think they're appropriate in basically any situation. Nor are the people advocating building NPCs using PC rules talking about taking center stage. I'm pretty sure I'm the most extreme advocate for player power in games on these forums.


That's fair enough, but I wouldn't say 'no one' except perhaps in context of this conversation right now. Plenty of DM's do exactly that, and we hear horror stories about them all the time. Point being, the occasional obstacle that is awkward or difficult for a party member to overcome every now and then is a good challenge, provided the scenario is still winnable and the player doesn't feel completely useless. Overuse of these situations leads to frustration and annoyance, is unfair, and is generally poor game design.

So I suppose an addendum- not 'never', but 'sparingly'.

This I can agree with. We all agree that building challenges that marginalize specific players consistently is bad DMing, no matter how those challengers were built, right? The place we differ, I think, is whether particular methods of building challenges lead to worse outcomes than others.

If a DM is running a game set in a city and every creature in the game world has been customized to have the Alert feat, that's bad DMing - but the customization is the result of bad DMing rather than a cause. Do you think that's a fair statement?

[Mikal]

I could not disagree more.

The the PCs can have that ability, the NPCs and mobs can have that ability.

So do you give your PCs lair and legendary actions?

I mean, you said earlier that legendary actions are meant to be used to help a lone creature against a party.
Alert is meant to be used by a lone player against the mobs of stealthy enemies seeking to do them in or to help with the hundreds of initiative rolls they'll make over the PCs career.

In other words, Alert is balanced to be used by players, yet you'll give it to NPCs.
So despite what you said about legendary actions, which are balanced to be used by NPCs, will you also give them to players?

If not... then that's a little hypocritical, using a PC balanced ability on an NPC but not allowing a PC the use of an NPC balanced ability.

[DivisibleByZero]

So do you give your PCs lair and legendary actions?

Keep reading before you try to pick a fight with me. This has already been addressed.

[Mikal]

Keep reading before you try to pick a fight with me. This has already been addressed.

Read my edit. You didn't address, you deflected.

[clash]

The first thing I tell everyone about the assassin class is, that they should read the level 3 ability as:


ASSASSINATE Starting at 3rd level, you are at your deadliest when you get the drop on your enemies. You have advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet.

Which is useful in and of itself particularly because you are much better off hiding as a bonus action at the end of your turn rather than the beginning of it and chances are if you roll well on initiative none of your allies will be positioned to give you sneak attack. This ability also works against people with the alert feat assuming you can still beat their initiative.

Secondly, if you want any of the other subclass abilities (level 9 and 13 specifically) to be worth anything at all. You need a dm who rules intuitively on surprise. By the rules a creature is only surprised when they are not aware of you or your party when the fight begins. The way I have always ruled it is that you someone is surprised if they are not aware of any threats when the fight begins. So if they see you but think you are an ally and you attack them they are going to be surprised. With that simple rules fix suddenly the other subclass abilities have lots of more synergy with the assassinate abilities, and with a little creativity you should be getting assassinate crits an appropriate amount of time.

[MeeposFire]

I definitely disagree with this. PCs and NPCs have fundamentally different roles in the game, deserving of different mechanics, and regardless of what's "fair", some abilities make a better (read:more fun) game when only allowed for one or the other.

Do you think PCs should have an option to get legendary actions, because NPCs can have them?

What is funny is that I did give that ability to fighters at level 20 as their new capstone (I moved extra attack part 3 to level 17 like cantrips get boosted) called it "Legendary" and it boosted some skills that relate to army and stronghold use (trying to tie into old school fighter high level abilities) and 1/long rest the fighter can go legendary and get a suite of legendary actions that they can use throughout a combat. It makes them feel really awesome for one fight a day which is about what I think that sort of 20th level ability should do.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

So do you give your PCs lair and legendary actions?


No, I don't give my PCs lair and legendary actions. I also don't give lair or legendary actions to characters I build using the PC character building rules. If, in a hypothetical future game, PCs could play as races that had LL abilities I'd let them use those abilities when allowed and appropriate, but I haven't yet come across a scenario where a PC could play a character that got access to them.

It's a bit of a straw man to suggest that because an ancient red dragons gets a particular set of abilities those abilities should be equally available to a gnome fighter; the debate is over like characters.

[Mikal]

No, I don't give my PCs lair and legendary actions. I also don't give lair or legendary actions to characters I build using the PC character building rules. If, in a hypothetical future game, PCs could play as races that had LL abilities I'd let them use those abilities when allowed and appropriate, but I haven't yet come across a scenario where a PC could play a character that got access to them.

It's a bit of a straw man to suggest that because an ancient red dragons gets a particular set of abilities those abilities should be equally available to a gnome fighter; the debate is over like characters.

I disagree. MM entries are in no way based on PC mechanics. If you're going to allow PC mechanics such as feats to exist, which are used to provide players special abilities, then discussing whether or not to allow PCs access to NPC only mechanics should be on the table.

Unless you think +5 init and essentially negating a subclasses key ability is balanced. Or perhaps giving them a nice +10 damage boost on their attacks with a swarm of Kobold archers with Sharpshooter.

After all, a PC gets a "particular set of abilities". If you're allowing them to be equally available to the Dragon, then why can't some "particular sets of abilities" that the Dragon gets not be allowed for PCs?

[Unoriginal]

A gnome fighter boss could have lair actions. Hidden mechanisms all over the room that they can activate, for exemple.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

A gnome fighter boss could have lair actions. Hidden mechanisms all over the room that they can activate, for exemple.

They could! And if I were to use that character as an NPC, I wouldn't build them like a PC.


I disagree. MM entries are in no way based on PC mechanics. If you're going to allow PC mechanics such as feats to exist, which are used to provide players special abilities, then discussing whether or not to allow PCs access to NPC only mechanics should be on the table.

Have you got a rule that would suggest that?

[MeeposFire]

I fully and completely disagree.

That is ok I fully and completely disagree with you in the strongest friendly terms.

There was really only one edition* (3e) that built everything including NPCs in similar manner to PCs and while really liking the idea at first (it just seemed so right at them time) it became one of the key reasons why I refuse to DM that edition because if I play it as is it requires too much work for the fun that I get out of it or I mess with the whole thing to where it works but by then I may as well play any other edition of D&D since that is what I am trying to emulate.

*Some may try to claim that older editions of D&D made NPCs using PC rules but that is not exactly true. AD&D and older D&D had most humanoid and demihumans stated out as 0 level characters or as monsters. Monsters were not designed like PCs so only a very small subset of NPCs were actually made like PCs and that was only if you wanted to do that. It also helped that PC building back then was also really fast and easy since there were so few choices to make and abilities to write down. SO I still stand by my statement that 3e is rather unique in this regard.

[Mikal]

Have you got a rule that would suggest that?

Can you show me an entry in the MM that has class levels and/or feats?

[Unoriginal]

Let's look at the abilities of the Assassin NPC entry from the MM:



Assassinate. During its first turn, the assassin has advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn't taken a turn. Any hit the assassin scores against a surprised creature is a critical hit.

Evasion. If the assassin is subjected to an effect that allows it to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, the assassin instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw,. and only half damage if it fails.

Sneak Attack (1/Turn). The assassin deals an extra 13 (4d6) damage when it hits a target with a weapon attack and has advantage on the attack roll, or when the target is within 5 feet of an ally of the assassin that isn't incapacitated and the assassin doesn't have disadvantage on the attack roll.


As all can see, they have abilities similar to a Rogue PC's ones.

Does it mean they're buitl like Rogue PCs? No, it doesn't.

A 12HD PC Rogue would have 6d6 of Sneak Attack, for exemple, while the Assassin NPC has 4d6.

[MeeposFire]

Let's look at the abilities of the Assassin NPC entry from the MM:



As all can see, they have abilities similar to a Rogue PC's ones.

Does it mean they're buitl like Rogue PCs? No, it doesn't.

A 12HD PC Rogue would have 6d6 of Sneak Attack, for exemple, while the Assassin NPC has 4d6.

Indeed NPC/monster stats are based on CR not hitdice. It is clear you can add something like alert to a NPC and you could even call it alert but it would not be a feat for them and would not be gained by trading in an ASI as they do nto get those. It would just be an ability with an identical name and ability.

[Tanarii]

Honestly, if iI wanted an NPC to not be surprise-able, I'd just give them a Sentinel Shield or Weapon of Warning. They're fairly easy to come by magic items anyway, so no skin off my teeth if the Pcs get their hands on them.

[youtellatale]

Whoa, I don't think anyone's talking about GMPCs. I definitely don't think they're appropriate in basically any situation. Nor are the people advocating building NPCs using PC rules talking about taking center stage. I'm pretty sure I'm the most extreme advocate for player power in games on these forums.


I think you missed what I was getting at. By building PC level NPCs that's exactly what DM is doing, especially if they are recurring and constantly in the story. GMPCs aren't just party members and it's important to remember that. Having a BBEG who is recurring and uses PC foils might be good for some games but for most it is annoying and seems spiteful. I'm not saying that GMs have to use enemies straight from the books, but building your own PCs under the guise of an NPC that's going to stick around (either as a party member or villain) is, to me at least, just another way to get a GMPC. If GMs want to build PCs and run them then they need to be on the other side of the screen.

[Waterdeep Merch]

This I can agree with. We all agree that building challenges that marginalize specific players consistently is bad DMing, no matter how those challengers were built, right? The place we differ, I think, is whether particular methods of building challenges lead to worse outcomes than others.

If a DM is running a game set in a city and every creature in the game world has been customized to have the Alert feat, that's bad DMing - but the customization is the result of bad DMing rather than a cause. Do you think that's a fair statement?
Yes, that rings true. The fear I'd have would be a new DM thinking they should use PC rules for the majority of their enemies in lieu of using the (admittedly confusing, we could use a better guide on it) monster/NPC creation tools and then doing their best to optimize them as a player would, putting together teams of NPC's that could wind up automatically countering certain types of gameplay.

This is purely hypothetical, as I haven't seen this sort of behavior since 3.x, but in that scenario, say this new DM happens to know the potency of Alert. Then say they consider it fair to hand it out to every team of bad guys on guard duty since the players could've done it, too. It sounds reasonable on the surface- wouldn't your average guard be alert to their surroundings?- but it means that it's almost impossible to get the drop on your enemies, ever. That's not especially good design in general, but it's really nasty to anyone who had class features that relied on what Alert prevents, namely assassins.

Hence why I think handling NPC's like monsters is helpful: the approach. You're not trying to build a balanced character, you're trying to build a balanced encounter. Or imbalanced, possibly, but in a specific or deliberate way. This way you're looking at the numbers and abilities in a more obstacle oriented manner, and it's easier to avoid accidentally making an enemy that's frustrating to fight. You can absolutely do this by building an NPC as a PC too, though the additional steps it takes to consider the impact each PC ability might have on encounters can get lost in the noise.

[The_Jette]

I looked away from this post for, like, one hour and it gained a whole new page... Honestly, gaining advantage on the first attack in the first round, and only against enemies who haven't gone yet, doesn't seem especially useful when compared to some of the other archetype abilities like higher armor class, or forcing the outcome of a roll twice a day (Diviner Wizard). Even compared to the extra damage a Ranger gets if the enemy they're attacking is below max hp makes Assassinate seem a little weak. That's all I was trying to say.

Side note, my old DM had such a large list of DMPC's that it really isn't funny. They'd just drop in and out as often as he wanted. Some were even demi-gods, converted from other gaming systems...

[krugaan]

Indeed NPC/monster stats are based on CR not hitdice. It is clear you can add something like alert to a NPC and you could even call it alert but it would not be a feat for them and would not be gained by trading in an ASI as they do nto get those. It would just be an ability with an identical name and ability.

They're clearly analogous, if not identical.

Still, the reasoning for this should be about gameplay, not rules.

(... and then he looked around and realized where he was...)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Can you show me an entry in the MM that has class levels and/or feats?

DMG, page 96. I presume you haven't got a citation supporting giving player characters monster abilities?


I think you missed what I was getting at. By building PC level NPCs that's exactly what DM is doing, especially if they are recurring and constantly in the story. GMPCs aren't just party members and it's important to remember that. Having a BBEG who is recurring and uses PC foils might be good for some games but for most it is annoying and seems spiteful. I'm not saying that GMs have to use enemies straight from the books, but building your own PCs under the guise of an NPC that's going to stick around (either as a party member or villain) is, to me at least, just another way to get a GMPC. If GMs want to build PCs and run them then they need to be on the other side of the screen.

Sure - but this is about bad storytelling, not about DMs building nonplayer characters using the rules in the PHB. A BBEG who's recurring, monologues frequently and has plot armor is probably bad whether he's a Dwarf Ftr 1/ Pal 3 with feats, an Archmage from the back pages of the Monster Manual or a red dragon.



Hence why I think handling NPC's like monsters is helpful: the approach.

Fully agree, and I suspect you'll agree with me and Harry Callahan when it comes to DMing: "A man's got to know his limitations."

[Mikal]

DMG, page 96. I presume you haven't got a citation supporting giving player characters monster abilities?

*Flips to page 96*
...Oh. Yeah. That.

https://the-artifice.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/cross.and_.vampire-700x505.jpg

...You win this round! (Can anyone photoshop a DMG for the cross there...?)

[The_Jette]

Sure - but this is about bad storytelling, not about DMs building nonplayer characters using the rules in the PHB. A BBEG who's recurring, monologues frequently and has plot armor is probably bad whether he's a Dwarf Ftr 1/ Pal 3 with feats, an Archmage from the back pages of the Monster Manual or a red dragon.

It'd be even better if he was all 3!!! A red dragon who frequently shapeshifts into a Dwarf pretending to be a fighter/paladin, but is, in actuality, a generic Archmage using his abilities to fake all of it. And, above all, he loves to hear the sound of his own voice!

[Xetheral]

I prefer having PCs and NPCs on the same chasis, so I quike like that 5e brought back the ability to use PC rules to create NPCs. Yes, it can be more time-consuming to create NPCs that way, but it doesn't have to be. A quick note of race and class levels suffices for most NPCs, and that takes mere moments. If a little more is needed, attributes and skill proficiencies don't take much longer. If and when a particular NPC needs combat stats, that can be done on the fly. (Wizard spellbooks take the longest to create, but it's easy enough to do that between sessions if a spellbook ends up as loot).

And the point about calculating CR being tricky is moot at my table--I don't use CR for encounter building (I run semi-sandbox games) or XP (I use fiat leveling).

I happen to find that the more NPCs and PCs operate the same mechanically, the more the game world is belivable, and the more it feels "alive", rather than just being a backdrop for an adventuring game. I want each PCs to be just another denizen of the game world, rather than something foreign that operates on unique rules. I'm well aware my preferences in this regard are idiosyncratic.

[The_Jette]

Honestly, the issue is with DM's who look at a party with a PC Assassin and starts handing out customer items like this:

Potion: Coffee
After consuming, the creature has the benefit of the Alert feat for 8 hours. If more than one is consumed per day, the character gets the shakes, which causes disadvantage on ranged attacks. The consumer is also immune to any Sleep affects, but not unconsciousness.

Yes, my DM would make something like that, and supply it to an army of Hobgoblins and Orcs. Why? F--k you, that's why.

[StoicLeaf]

making NPCs/villains as PC chars? yes.
making an evil adventuring group that mirrors my PCs using PC rules? once in a blue moon.
making entire mob packs as PCs that are specifically tailored to counter my PCs? only if I really want them dead but at by this point I should have probably talked to them about whatever it is that's rustling my jimmies.

[Stygofthedump]

I DM and the assassin at my table is brutal, that first hit generally takes an opponent out of combat, or seriously injures, he's also mobile and can easily disengage after that hit. He is fast and has alert feat he generally goes first. He also has some (overpriced) poisons that can augment his options in a pinch.
The party is in general quite stealthy so I guess this assists in getting surprise.

BTW You get advantage if you act first but only get a free critical hit if enemy is surprised, Correct?

[Potato_Priest]

I DM and the assassin at my table is brutal, that first hit generally takes an opponent out of combat, or seriously injures, he's also mobile and can easily disengage after that hit. He is fast and has alert feat he generally goes first. He also has some (overpriced) poisons that can augment his options in a pinch.
The party is in general quite stealthy so I guess this assists in getting surprise.

BTW You get advantage if you act first but only get a free critical hit if enemy is surprised, Correct?

Yep. That is indeed the case.

[Jerrykhor]

It sounds reasonable on the surface- wouldn't your average guard be alert to their surroundings?- but it means that it's almost impossible to get the drop on your enemies, ever. That's not especially good design in general, but it's really nasty to anyone who had class features that relied on what Alert prevents, namely assassins.


Not true, guard duty is incredibly boring work, because 99% of the time, nothing is happening. So your average guard is most likely not aware of his surroundings due to being very, very bored. Being alert actually takes some concentration, and therefore is quite tiring to keep up for long periods.

[Naanomi]

The only time I’ve statted up NPCs exactly like PCs is when I was specifically running a story of ‘the PCs are competing against other groups of adventurers to accomplish a goal first’; and all the other adventuring groups were built using PC rules

[Tanarii]

The party is in general quite stealthy so I guess this assists in getting surprise.

BTW You get advantage if you act first but only get a free critical hit if enemy is surprised, Correct?
Yeah. And the party being stealthy is important to an assassin, because getting surprise depends on the entire party succeeding in its stealth checks.

Or else splitting the party sufficiently they count as separate groups. Distance needed for that isn't specified, so it's on the DM. I require 30ft separation, which is about the distance between the average for a starting surprise encounter (2d6x5) and a normal encounter (2d6x10) if you use the DM's screen distances. That's not a huge amount, so it makes scouting / ambushing a viable tactic.

[opaopajr]

I am absolutely fine with NPCs using PC stuff, even being statted out directly from the same rules. I never run NPCs as "0th lvl"-equivalent nobodies disconnected from the PC system, in any rpg system I run. You can never presume your PCs will outclass whomever you meet in my settings -- choose your battles carefully.

Further, I wholly approve of the idea that 'you are not the only heroes'. Your PCs are not special, the only messianic saviors of the world. However your PCs have something far more valuable than any other NPC in my setting: my GM attention to observe your player agency.

So those two things I am cool with your GM. Zero problem there for me.

That said, sounds like he's there more to sandbag and deny you and your PCs at every turn. It's needlessly adversarial, which is tedious to me. "OK, you're the GM, you win because setting says 'die!', we get it. Done with your power trip?"

So he may be mouthing things I wholly support. But I don't find his GMing style to actually be neutrally supportive to the players. He's not celebrating your creative choices, for good or ill, with contextual consequences. It's merely consistently punitive, as if he's needing to display his power.

I do not connect his NPC design, or non-heroic baseline atmosphere, to his adversarial GM style. But I do commiserate that punitive, adversarial GMing style is not fun for me either.:smallsmile:

[mgshamster]

Any ability a PC can use an NPC can use too, while not allowing abilities NPCs have for player use sounds a lot like, ♫ Anything you can do I can do better.♫

[gloryblaze]

Any ability a PC can use an NPC can use too, while not allowing abilities NPCs have for player use sounds a lot like, ♫ Anything you can do I can do better.♫

But PCs CAN use any ability an NPC can use. It's called True Polymorph! :smallbiggrin:

(And if you wanted to use the Tarrasque's abilities, go ahead and grind to level 30. I'll wait!)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Any ability a PC can use an NPC can use too, while not allowing abilities NPCs have for player use sounds a lot like, ♫ Anything you can do I can do better.♫

Like it or not, it's within the DM's rights.

[youtellatale]

Like it or not, it's within the DM's rights.

It 100% is within the DM's rights. There are lots of things that DMs do that I don't like at games that I play in, but every table is different so YMMV. I think that DMs should really know the table and know the players before they do things that could be quite conflict inducing. Actual conversations tend to help prevent drama, at least in my experience.

[LeonBH]

Any ability a PC can use an NPC can use too, while not allowing abilities NPCs have for player use sounds a lot like, ♫ Anything you can do I can do better.♫

The trick is to not have NPCs who can use an ability the PCs don't have.

A statted NPC follows all the rules that PCs use, and should be at most equal in level to the PCs, with point buy stats. Any weapons on their person is loot worthy and should be useful for the PCs.

This way, it doesn't sound like that song.

Also, the key factor is really the WHY. Why did the DM roll up a PC? If it's to play with the players as a fellow player, that's silly. If it's to power trip them, the players should leave. But if it's used as a tool to deliver a story or hook, then by all means, the DM should continue.

[DivisibleByZero]

It 100% is within the DM's rights. There are lots of things that DMs do that I don't like at games that I play in, but every table is different so YMMV. I think that DMs should really know the table and know the players before they do things that could be quite conflict inducing. Actual conversations tend to help prevent drama, at least in my experience.

Sure, a conversation is potentially in order if the DM is deviating from the rules, if your table feels that conversation is necessary.
Personally, I don't feel that way at all.
But if what he's doing is in the rules? No conversation needed. That's what this is. It's in the rules.

VILLAINOUS CLASS OPTIONS DMG pg 96
You can use the rules in the Player's Handbook to create NPCs with classes and levels, the same way you create player characters.

No conversation needed. Any DM can create any enemy any way that he wants to, whether it be by an MM entry, or a deviation from an MM entry, or giving them class levels and feats, or whatever. Creating enemies is kind of his J.O.B. after all. No conversation needed.

If you think that the DM creating enemies differently than you want him to create enemies is conflict inducing.... the problem might not be with the DM.

[Willie the Duck]

Honestly, the issue is with DM's who look at a party with a PC Assassin and <specific example>
Why? F--k you, that's why.

So honestly it has nothing to do with specific rules, and more to do with the fact that you had a 'DM vs. Player' style DM? Sounds about right. Thing is, there's virtually nothing you can include in a ruleset which will inoculate the game from this problem.


But if what he's doing is in the rules? No conversation needed. That's what this is. It's in the rules.

VILLAINOUS CLASS OPTIONS DMG pg 96
You can use the rules in the Player's Handbook to create NPCs with classes and levels, the same way you create player characters.

No conversation needed. Any DM can create any enemy any way that he wants to, whether it be by an MM entry, or a deviation from an MM entry, or giving them class levels and feats, or whatever. Creating enemies is kind of his J.O.B. after all. No conversation needed.

Honestly, the presence or absence of this line of text in the rulebook makes no difference, in my mind. DMs have been mixing and matching NPCs-made-as-PCs opponents and Monster Manual entry opponents since the beginning of the game, in every edition, and the absence or presence of text 'allowing' them to do so has been truly irrelevant.

The only difference, I feel, is this--in WotC-era games the whole relatively solid and consistent (although not necessarily accurate) Challenge Rating system* erroneously makes it appear that there should be absolute challenge symmetry, or at least some formulaic relationship between NPC character made using PHB rules of a level X, and Monster Manual entry monsters of CR Y. And that's just not going to be the case.
*as opposed to the TSR era much more vague x- value or 'what level dungeon encounter charts this monster is included on' methods

So it doesn't come down to whether a DM is 'allowed' to use 'classes and levels' NPCs, but whether it is a good idea to use them as adversaries. And that's going to come down to DM skill.

[KorvinStarmast]

Monsters don't have Feats
This game isn't balanced for PvPBingo.

Well at least he's not trying to hide he didn't read the rules.
On the other hand, DM is master of rules.

. He literally planned his encounters so that any magical equipment we found was going to be useless; and, got upset if we found a use for it. That's the attitude of DM versus Player that one had hoped died with 1e. Oh well, I guess it didn't.

I make almost all my important NPC based on the rules of the system.
They have races, classes, levels ect just like a PC, they just might not have the same stat level, some are lower some are higher. I tend to run long running campaigns with recurring NPCS so it makes sense that they come from normal class levels.

Monsters I just keep like the book says.

It is simple as this: If the PC's can do it the NPC's can do it. That can work. I have a variety of NPC's at various levels who are built exactly as a PC for a different reason; if someone wants to play now and again, or can only play now and again due to schedule, it can be handy for them to just play an NPC for a particular adventure that is pre built. Have not done that in 5e, but in previous editions that was a common tool I had that made the games open to whomever could make it. That sort of think really depends on your gaming group, however.

Do you think PCs should have an option to get legendary actions, because NPCs can have them? That's a good question, and may be addressable in the Boons section of post level 20 play. To get lair actions, though, I'd make the PC's build or design a lair. :smallbiggrin:

Going to just throw in my 2 cents here and say that PCs should be treated differently then NPCs. The DMG does state that you can use the PHB to create NPCs with the same rules as PCs, so there is that (p96 DMG). But if we're taking that into consideration then it is also important to remember that those same rules tell us that the PCs are the stars of the game and not NPCs. That's a point well made.


*Some may try to claim that older editions of D&D made NPCs using PC rules but that is not exactly true. AD&D and older D&D had most humanoid and demihumans stated out as 0 level characters or as monsters. Monsters were not designed like PCs so only a very small subset of NPCs were actually made like PCs and that was only if you wanted to do that. It also helped that PC building back then was also really fast and easy since there were so few choices to make and abilities to write down. SO I still stand by my statement that 3e is rather unique in this regard. Did you play AD&D 1e? I'd suggest you read a few of the modules. The NPC's were built like players, with classes and everything. (though I agree with you, it was a lot faster to do). The OD&D text explicitly says that any and everything in the game that isn't the PC's is a "monster." From page 12 of Men and Magic:

Monsters can be lured into service if they are of the same basic alignment as the player-character, or they can be Charmed and thus ordered to serve. Note, however, that the term "monster" includes men found in the dungeons, so in this way some high-level characters can be brought into a character's service, charisma allowing or through a Charm spell. Some reward must be offered to a monster in order to induce it into service (not just sparing its life, for example). The monster will react, with appropriate plusses or minuses, according to the offer, the referee rolling two six-sided dice and adjusting for charisma:
If you look at the encounter table in Greyhawk, for example, you'll find an entry for "Sharpers." Huh, what's a Sharper? It's the level name for a thief at the level 6. We ran into a band of hight level thieves in the dungeon in our first campaign. (I remember that it led to a disagreement at the table, but that's off topic). Look at encounter table 3 from Greyhawk. If rolling up a random encounter, you could get any of the following:
3
1 Wights
2 Heroes
3 Swashbucklers
4 Thaumaturgists
5 Magicians
6 Cutpurses
7 Sharpers
8 Harpies
9 Wererats
10 Giant Snakes/Spiders
11 Giant Weasles/Hogs
12 Ochre Jelly

Entries 2-7 were PC class leveled humans/demi humans. They were respectively Fighting Men level 4 and 5, Magic User 5 and 6, and Thief 5 and 6.

The encounter tables and henchman/hireling tables in the AD&D 1e DMG also used NPC's built on a PC chassis.

In the MM, however, when you got to bandits, brigands, berserkers, and dervishes (etc) the ones who tended to be built special like PC's were the various leader types. All others were as 1st level fighters / 1HD fighters, with equipment as noted.

Not true, guard duty is incredibly boring work, because 99% of the time, nothing is happening. So your average guard is most likely not aware of his surroundings due to being very, very bored. Being alert actually takes some concentration, and therefore is quite tiring to keep up for long periods. yeah.