NPCs don't need it too

[Pex]

It's common to say that when a player wants to do something unusual and/or powerful where it's not certain if the rules say it's ok the Thing is allowed but then warn the bad guys can do it too. I accepted that as a given, but I'm having doubts. We say it's a feature in 5E that NPCs and monsters aren't built using the same rules as PCs. I'm ok with that, but then why is it only one way? Why can't PCs, being built using different rules than NPCs and monsters, have things they don't? PCs don't get Legendary Actions, Legendary Saves, in combat rechargeable Very Powerful Attack Forms, Lair Actions. I understand why the bad guys have them and not objecting their existence but questioning why can't PCs be unique in their way?

Something PC unique that immediately comes to mind is Death Saves. A DM might give them to particular NPCs for whatever reason, but generally a bad guy (or NPC ally) who goes down is dead. Any bad guy NPC can be built using a PC class, so if the class as a PC can do it so can that bad guy. That's the catch. If the class as PC can do it so can the class as NPC. Of course a DM can declare no NPC or monster will have a PC Thing by fiat of not creating an NPC or monster having it, but should/could there be such things? Even if it's a house rule ability, is it ok for a PC to be able to do something unusual and/or powerful that does not bite them back with a warning "But NPCs can do it too"?

[Lucas Yew]

While I hate to admit it, PCs do have something uniquely better in that manner; their higher Proficiency:HD ratio. Though I'd like humanoid NPCs at the very least to follow the same rules (thus needing a simple NPC class or two), the ship has sailed, alas. (sighs)

[Onos]

Those are probably the two most obvious examples of PCs being different. I mean, other than having class levels which decide their options anyway.

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with making stuff PC only in 5e - as noted, NPCs are built completely differently anyway. On the other hand, it can be nice to give NPCs some extra stuff from time to time. I usually stat up any "followers" as weaker PCs for my table to use as they please.

[Greywander]

For me it's a matter of verisimilitude. If the tactic is sound enough for the PCs to use it, then it makes logical sense that other people would make use of the same tactic as well. Perhaps no one else thought of that tactic before the PCs did, but if they see the PCs doing it, and it seems effective, then why wouldn't they copy it? If other people never employ a given tactic despite being aware of it, then it must be because there is some kind of flaw in that tactic that keeps it from being effective. The PCs can still try it, but there should be a suitable drawback.

Long story short, if it's something that works so the PCs keep doing it over and over, then there really isn't any reason for everyone else to not be doing the same thing. If it works, people will do it. If people aren't doing it, that's because it doesn't work.

That said, this applies more to fluff actions than crunch actions. Things like death saves or legendary actions are parts of the mechanical system, not part of the "simulation", so to speak. There's nothing someone can "do" to gain the ability to make death saves, it is an ability granted to the PCs because they are the protagonists of the story. Just like hit points, these are a gamified abstraction layered on top of the narrative. The people in the world don't in-character acknowledge the existence of death saves. Thus, you can make them a special thing just for the PCs without breaking verisimilitude (although the more such effects you hand out, the more it will stress the suspension of disbelief).

[JackPhoenix]

There's difference between the PCs and NPCs using different features and abilities.... after all, wizard has different class features than barbarian too... and both using different set of general rules.

[fbelanger]

The rules for death save is more like: usually don’t bother to roll death save for monsters unless you feel it need to.

Lucky and indomptable is much like legendary resistance.

A DM might allows players who settle a lair to have lair action in an important fight to defend their home.

The thread title can also be « usually NPCs don't need it tool ».

[Chronos]

Indeed, there are situations where my PCs might have a fight in one of two specific locations where I am planning on using the "lair action" rules.

But back on topic, it's not just about abilities, it's about tactics and rules interactions. Like, one that came up at my table: Can you cast a Wall of Force bubble, and then cast an Insect Plague inside of it? I mean, yeah, you could rule that player Walls of Force work differently than NPC Walls of Force, but that's getting kind of silly. They're the same spell, with the same rules in the book, and the book never says "Here's the PC version of the spell, and here's the NPC version". And then, if that combo does work for players but not NPCs, which spell is even the difference? What happens if a player casts one spell and an NPC the other one?

[MoiMagnus]

Even if it's a house rule ability, is it ok for a PC to be able to do something unusual and/or powerful that does not bite them back with a warning "But NPCs can do it too"?

"But the NPCs can do it too" mostly applies in situations were the PCs are trying to interpret a rule/ability/lore/power that is available to everyone but was previously not interpreted like that by the DM.

Example:
The DM was convinced that you could not cast counterspell and another non-cantrip spell during the same round. The PCs point to the DM that the rule is "spell in bonus actions => no non-cantrip spell in action" and not "max one non-cantrip spell per round" as the DM though. The DM agree that the players is allowed to cast counterspell and another non-cantrip spell, but "the NPCs can do it too". Because it's not something exceptional. It's not a genius idea that the PC had with a Eureka "And what if we tried to cast a second spell this round??!?". It's the rules of the universe that were updated, and there is no good reasons for the NPCs to keep behaving in the obsolete way.

Counter-Example:
A player takes in-universe decades to craft a new spell from scratch for his wizard. After completing the adequate quest to be awarded this new spells, if would be completely unjust for the DM to say "but NPCs can do it too" and giving this same spell to random mages.

Each time there is a new features to be used by the PCs, the DM has to ask to himself: "Is it something unique to the PCs, by nature of having been created specifically for them, or is it something that from all reasonable points of view should have been accessible to every NPC because that's just part of the common rules for everyone?". This is often linked to the question "How believable it is that nobody before them ever though about that, including pure luck through random accidents?".

It follows that the higher levels are the PCs, the more lax the DM should be about it. It is unreasonable that a first year wizard find a brand new use to Magic Missile that totally change the world (unless it is an interaction of Magic Missile with a technology which is brand new). It is totally reasonable that a renowned director of a university of magic, top mind of the known world, find a new clever way to abuse the Wish spell.

[MaxWilson]

While I hate to admit it, PCs do have something uniquely better in that manner; their higher Proficiency:HD ratio. Though I'd like humanoid NPCs at the very least to follow the same rules (thus needing a simple NPC class or two), the ship has sailed, alas. (sighs)

Hmmm? What's stopping you from using exclusively leveled NPCs if you want to?

[fbelanger]

Dnd is one rare game where by design, the dm is allowed to tweak the rules on the spot. Some players will ask for more coherence, some won’t.

[Pex]

I thought of something else unique to PCs. Agency. An NPC cannot use Persuasion or Intimidation against a PC without the player's permission. A player can choose to accept and roleplay the result of a die roll, but that's unique to the player. PCs have the freedom to choose their responses to whatever an NPC says. NPCs in turn are enslaved by dice. Certainly a DM can fiat no dragon can ever be Intimidated by a PC, but Persuasion is not out of the question. NPC and monster behavior outside of combat is relegated to a die roll with PC interaction. They have to be to avoid inherent DM bias. Roleplaying can lead to no die roll at all and the NPC/monster just responds, but generally speaking they lack free will. PCs can make them do minor things with their words.

[Lucas Yew]

Hmmm? What's stopping you from using exclusively leveled NPCs if you want to?

Oh sure, I have all the power to tinker the world rules if I'm the DM (of my home campaign setting, most likely), but it's more like as explained below.

If my retired PC, recycled as a NPC, has changed base proficiency bonus total (up or down doesn't matter, the very change itself does so), I actually get some serious psychosomatic migraine because it shatters my sense of verisimilitude, which I cherish most as my principle of life.

Yes, it's a personal problem of personality (ironclad INTJ for the last few decades without any temporary deviation) issue, speaking the guy who got into a heated fistfight at the tender age of 7 because some other kid who did not know about the en passant rules accused me of cheating when I used the move... :smallfrown:

----

P.S. While trying to make up a numerical example for my second sentence before ditching the attempt, I accidentally found this near match case of Level and CR...

17th level Fighter (roughly between 157~174 HP depending on CON), owning a pair of +3 greatsword (hitting with a +14 bonus for 6.5+8 average damage per ordinary hit, total 6+6+3 possible hits for the first 3 turns for an average total damage of 217.5) and plate armor, retires from adventuring and effectively becomes a NPC (CR 18(!), for having a defensive CR of 10 and offensive 26 averaged)

[JNAProductions]

"But the NPCs can do it too" mostly applies in situations were the PCs are trying to interpret a rule/ability/lore/power that is available to everyone but was previously not interpreted like that by the DM.

Example:
The DM was convinced that you could not cast counterspell and another non-cantrip spell during the same round. The PCs point to the DM that the rule is "spell in bonus actions => no non-cantrip spell in action" and not "max one non-cantrip spell per round" as the DM though. The DM agree that the players is allowed to cast counterspell and another non-cantrip spell, but "the NPCs can do it too". Because it's not something exceptional. It's not a genius idea that the PC had with a Eureka "And what if we tried to cast a second spell this round??!?". It's the rules of the universe that were updated, and there is no good reasons for the NPCs to keep behaving in the obsolete way.

Counter-Example:
A player takes in-universe decades to craft a new spell from scratch for his wizard. After completing the adequate quest to be awarded this new spells, if would be completely unjust for the DM to say "but NPCs can do it too" and giving this same spell to random mages.

Each time there is a new features to be used by the PCs, the DM has to ask to himself: "Is it something unique to the PCs, by nature of having be created specifically for them, or is it something that from all reasonable points of view should have been accessible to every NPC because that's just part of the common rules for everyone?". This is often linked to the question "How believable it is that nobody before them ever though about that, including pure luck through random accidents?".

It follows that the higher levels are the PCs, the more lax the DM should be about it. It is unreasonable that a first year wizard find a brand new use to Magic Missile that totally change the world (unless it is an interaction of Magic Missile with a technology which is brand new). It is totally reasonably that a renowned director of a university of magic, top mind of the known world, find a new clever way to abuse the Wish spell.

I'll echo this.

I 've never seen it as "Barbarians can Reckless Attack, therefore any NPC should be able to!" but only to stuff like Wish-Simulacrum chaining.

[Tvtyrant]

It's common to say that when a player wants to do something unusual and/or powerful where it's not certain if the rules say it's ok the Thing is allowed but then warn the bad guys can do it too. I accepted that as a given, but I'm having doubts. We say it's a feature in 5E that NPCs and monsters aren't built using the same rules as PCs. I'm ok with that, but then why is it only one way? Why can't PCs, being built using different rules than NPCs and monsters, have things they don't? PCs don't get Legendary Actions, Legendary Saves, in combat rechargeable Very Powerful Attack Forms, Lair Actions. I understand why the bad guys have them and not objecting their existence but questioning why can't PCs be unique in their way?

Something PC unique that immediately comes to mind is Death Saves. A DM might give them to particular NPCs for whatever reason, but generally a bad guy (or NPC ally) who goes down is dead. Any bad guy NPC can be built using a PC class, so if the class as a PC can do it so can that bad guy. That's the catch. If the class as PC can do it so can the class as NPC. Of course a DM can declare no NPC or monster will have a PC Thing by fiat of not creating an NPC or monster having it, but should/could there be such things? Even if it's a house rule ability, is it ok for a PC to be able to do something unusual and/or powerful that does not bite them back with a warning "But NPCs can do it too"?

PCs get the entire game world warped around their group struggle, how much more special do you need them to be?

Mechanically the issue is thousands of Internet people looking for exploits on the Internet vs. 20 people trying to make an exploit free system. TO optimization tricks can either be hard banned or allowed to be used by both NPCs and PCs because otherwise the game devolves into invincible PCs. Like a CS server; either no one hacks or everyone is allowed to hack, otherwise its just the hackers crushing everyone.

[HappyDaze]

I thought of something else unique to PCs. Agency. An NPC cannot use Persuasion or Intimidation against a PC without the player's permission. A player can choose to accept and roleplay the result of a die roll, but that's unique to the player. PCs have the freedom to choose their responses to whatever an NPC says. NPCs in turn are enslaved by dice. Certainly a DM can fiat no dragon can ever be Intimidated by a PC, but Persuasion is not out of the question. NPC and monster behavior outside of combat is relegated to a die roll with PC interaction. They have to be to avoid inherent DM bias. Roleplaying can lead to no die roll at all and the NPC/monster just responds, but generally speaking they lack free will. PCs can make them do minor things with their words.

This is not universally true. In my games, NPCs can use social skills against PCs, and PCs must react appropriately. I'm up front with "you direct your character, but your character is not you" from the beginning, and players that don't like that don't need to play at my table.

[MoiMagnus]

I thought of something else unique to PCs. Agency. An NPC cannot use Persuasion or Intimidation against a PC without the player's permission.

As per RAW, a PC cannot use Persuasion or Intimidation against a NPC without the DM's permission (the DM is the only one to call for skill checks, if the DM do not call for a dice roll, there is no dice roll), and a NPC can totally use those skills against a PC even without the player's permission (since again, that's the DM who chose when a skill check can be done or not).

Though all of that is kind of pointless since in the end, a RPG is a collaborative game: nothing get done without the agreement (explicit or implicit) of the remaining of the table.

There is not that much difference between a player saying "no" to "the NPC succeeded at persuasion and you now agree with him" and a player saying "no" to "the NPC succeeded at stealth and you are now drinking poisoned wine".
The only difference is the implicit agreement that a lot of tables have that the "the DM should not mess up with PC's absolute free will", because of the blurry line between the PC's choices and the Player's choice. But that's a table convention, not a rule of D&D.
[IMO, tables where players are happy to sometimes "play against their own will" to RP mind control / madness / ... are much more interesting, assuming the DM does not abuse this privilege and still let us with agency most of the time]

[Tanarii]

"Fine, but if you get a reputation for massacring surrendering enemies out of hand, the enemies might start doing it to you too."

I've used something like that before. Does that ping on your tyrannical DM radar?


I thought of something else unique to PCs. Agency. An NPC cannot use Persuasion or Intimidation against a PC without the player's permission.
There are plenty of systems that the social skill can be used on the Pcs with merely restricted agency instead of removing its entirely. Or even for PC on PC interactions. D&D is not one of them.

Forbidden Lands has a Manipulate skill. If you succeed, the creature you used it on is given a choice:
- attack the manipulator
- counter offer a reasonable price for doing it

That's restricted agency if used on PCs, but not entirely removed. It also means the manipulator is taking a risk they'll start a fight, and that they have to decide if they want to pay the price. So far I've found it works out okay when used on PCs, but you may have to ask 'do you really consider that a reasonable price.'

[Pex]

"Fine, but if you get a reputation for massacring surrendering enemies out of hand, the enemies might start doing it to you too."

I've used something like that before. Does that ping on your tyrannical DM radar?



Only after the second TPK.

[Trustypeaches]

I think this argument is often used in response to tactics, not features.

[MaxWilson]

Oh sure, I have all the power to tinker the world rules if I'm the DM (of my home campaign setting, most likely), but it's more like as explained below.

If my retired PC, recycled as a NPC, has changed base proficiency bonus total (up or down doesn't matter, the very change itself does so), I actually get some serious psychosomatic migraine because it shatters my sense of verisimilitude, which I cherish most as my principle of life.

Yes, it's a personal problem of personality (ironclad INTJ for the last few decades without any temporary deviation) issue, speaking the guy who got into a heated fistfight at the tender age of 7 because some other kid who did not know about the en passant rules accused me of cheating when I used the move... :smallfrown:

----

P.S. While trying to make up a numerical example for my second sentence before ditching the attempt, I accidentally found this near match case of Level and CR...

17th level Fighter (roughly between 157~174 HP depending on CON), owning a pair of +3 greatsword (hitting with a +14 bonus for 6.5+8 average damage per ordinary hit, total 6+6+3 possible hits for the first 3 turns for an average total damage of 217.5) and plate armor, retires from adventuring and effectively becomes a NPC (CR 18(!), for having a defensive CR of 10 and offensive 26 averaged)

But your fighter has exactly the same stats and proficiency bonus as a PC and an NPC. He remains a 17th level NPC Fighter. What's the problem?

There's a strange misconception out there that classes and levels are only for PCs, but the DMG disagrees, and even has NPC-only class options like Oathbreaker. There is no reason for your fighter's stats to change just because he's no longer attached to a player.

[Mr Adventurer]

PCs tend to have vastly more class features and magical items. That's their unique aspect.

But I think it's fundamentally a mistake to be making this comparison. Verisimilitude between PCs and NPCs isn't important to the playing of the game.

You can change that at your table. But the answer to the question in the OP is "the game doesn't think it's important".

[Lunali]

PCs have to be balanced against each other lest one of them steal the spotlight from the others, NPCs only have to be balanced against the entire party of PCs. Because of this, it is entirely reasonable for NPCs to have access to abilities that would be unbalanced in the hands of players.