Rules don't apply to me. I'm an NPC.

[Mike_G]

I wanted to start a discussion about how many of us ignore the character building rules for NPC's, and to what extent.

For instance, does anyone actually make the village smith or senior librarian go out adventuring to gain more skill points? Can the king exceed Wealth by Level?


I personally think it's nuts to assume that the elderly chief librarian is a Expert 10+, with a better BAB and more HP that a sergeant of the guard, who is a Warrior 2 or 3. I do use the Warrior NPC class for guards, basic soldiers and such, but my noncombat NPC's have HP, skills and combat stats that make sense by concept, not RAW.

For instance, the head librarian in the capital of the most advanced city would routinely make DC 30 knowledge checks, but if you attacked him, he'd have like 2 HP and no attack bonus. A farmer should be harder to kill.

The King has Nifty Stuff that his ancestors handed down, regardless of his class level. He is the level that I need him to be, regardless of how many kobolds he's killed.

That goes for all NPC's, actually. Adventurers get better by adventuring. Bartenders get better by bartending.

My PCs run into appropriate challenges. For some reason, the 1st level party never gets ambushed by Mind Flayers, and the high level parties never run into three goblins in a 10 x 10 room guarding a chest of copper pieces. If they return to an old tunnel complex they visited 10 levels ago, the goblin tribe there has been displaced by Drow. I'm not saying they are contractually guaranteed four challenges per day of exactly their level, but they won't run into stuff they couldn't theoretically handle or stuff that they could beat in there sleep.

And so on.

I'm not interested in what the books say. I can read, so don't feel the need to cite examples. I'm interested in how others run their games.

[Morty]

That depends. I normally don't bother with changing HP and BAB for NPC noncombatants, because the chances of PCs fighting them are pretty slim. And even then, the problem isn't very big, since a 10th level Expert has no chance against a 5th level PC of any class. The only thing wrong here would be that he or she would be too tough - not very much though, given that you don't have to give an NPC max HP each level and his Con score doesn't have to be high.
As for WBL, I agree that it should only be used when the NPC is supposed to make for a balanced encounter - and even then, it might only represent what he or she uses, not owns. It's logical for a wealthy noble to have more money than a PC who's higher level than him.

[R. Shackleford]

NPCs not following the same character rules as PC is part of Rule 0, and shouldn't violate reasonable suspension of disbelief unless the player pointing it out is a jerk.

Though I think in my case, the NPCs sometimes manage to circumvent the puzzles/traps/monsters that the Party encounters, which causes annoyance to them. I just don't like to play DMPCs. So I might be on the opposite extreme.

Otherwise, they end up trying to kill an NPC which would bork the story too much.

[Crafty Cultist]

NPCs probably get roleplaying XP for their day to day activities. not much mind you, but it adds up over time

[oxybe]

my npcs have all the money, knowledge & power that plot dictates.

the scholar doesn't roll knowledges, he knows things. or he doesn't.

the king & merchants have all the gold, silver & copper they need to keep D&D's not existent economy working.

guards/enemies come in 3 levels:

one-hit wonders/mooks/minions.
just tough enough to pose a viable threat.
"heh. those "adventurers" think they're tough... "

etcetera. really, the only things i bother to stat are things i expect the PCs to kill.

[jmbrown]

The level 10 librarian expert may be more skilled than the level 3 warrior constable, but the librarian isn't going to be fighting anyone unless conscripted. If someone wants to be a rules lawyer about it then I'd say he'd have the "noncombatant" flaw in exchange for skill focus profession.

Regardless, statting NPCs is something you do when it's actually necessary. Nobody cares what level Farmer Joe is unless he gets into a fight and even then he'll fall in a few hits.

[Mike_G]

my npcs have all the money, knowledge & power that plot dictates.

the scholar doesn't roll knowledges, he knows things. or he doesn't.

the king & merchants have all the gold, silver & copper they need to keep D&D's not existent economy working.

guards/enemies come in 3 levels:

one-hit wonders/mooks/minions.
just tough enough to pose a viable threat.
"heh. those "adventurers" think they're tough... "

etcetera. really, the only things i bother to stat are things i expect the PCs to kill.

That's largely how I DM, but prevailing posts here seem to say that people do otherwise. I wanted a sampling.

[Surgo]

I follow all the rules for NPCs to the exact same extent I do to the PCs.

But WBL doesn't make any sense to begin with, so that's out the window. Of course, it's the same for the PCs so I guess that doesn't change anything.

That said, the only statted things are the things the PCs encounter.

[Zincorium]

Account for changes to how a character works with how you reward the PCs for succeeding at besting them. That should solve problems.

Having a level three character that can instantly kill members of your fifth level party, then upon it's (narrow) defeat only giving them experience and treasure for a CR 3 opponent? That's what can't be justified.

The most you should ever have to do is claim that an ability is a feat or prestige class that the characters can't meet the prerequisites for for fluff reasons. And if they seriously want to try and meet the fluff pre-reqs, homebrew something for them.

When it comes to using unofficial stats for things, or not obeying the exact rules for creating things, it's all good as long as it's all friendly.

[Foryn Gilnith]

For instance, the head librarian in the capital of the most advanced city would routinely make DC 30 knowledge checks, but if you attacked him, he'd have like 2 HP and no attack bonus.

Venerable Expert 5. Feats: Skill Focus (several times), Education, Master of Knowledge. Flaws: Frail, Noncombatant. Traits: Illiterate (bought off with skill points, obviously).
Regularly makes DC 30 Knowledge checks. Has a melee attack bonus of -1 and a ranged attack bonus of +1. Has an average of 2.5 hit points.

I play my NPCs by the rules, but that's only because I know the rules well enough to practically do whatever I want rules-legal. If I didn't know 3.5 well, I'd definitely give the NPCs whatever I wanted anyway.

My kings tend to have combat training, though, because most of the time I play in a more early feudal world. If the rulers don't have the muscle to protect their subjects from enemies, they never would have taken their position.

I will send my high-level adventurers absolutely trivial things like the goblin encounter. The goblins will probably run off and leave their chest full of copper pieces behind. If the PCs want to take it... sure, why not? It's not like it will break WBL.

[herrhauptmann]

Spoiler

Show

I wanted to start a discussion about how many of us ignore the character building rules for NPC's, and to what extent.

For instance, does anyone actually make the village smith or senior librarian go out adventuring to gain more skill points? Can the king exceed Wealth by Level?


I personally think it's nuts to assume that the elderly chief librarian is a Expert 10+, with a better BAB and more HP that a sergeant of the guard, who is a Warrior 2 or 3. I do use the Warrior NPC class for guards, basic soldiers and such, but my noncombat NPC's have HP, skills and combat stats that make sense by concept, not RAW.

For instance, the head librarian in the capital of the most advanced city would routinely make DC 30 knowledge checks, but if you attacked him, he'd have like 2 HP and no attack bonus. A farmer should be harder to kill.

The King has Nifty Stuff that his ancestors handed down, regardless of his class level. He is the level that I need him to be, regardless of how many kobolds he's killed.

That goes for all NPC's, actually. Adventurers get better by adventuring. Bartenders get better by bartending.

My PCs run into appropriate challenges. For some reason, the 1st level party never gets ambushed by Mind Flayers, and the high level parties never run into three goblins in a 10 x 10 room guarding a chest of copper pieces. If they return to an old tunnel complex they visited 10 levels ago, the goblin tribe there has been displaced by Drow. I'm not saying they are contractually guaranteed four challenges per day of exactly their level, but they won't run into stuff they couldn't theoretically handle or stuff that they could beat in there sleep.

And so on.

I'm not interested in what the books say. I can read, so don't feel the need to cite examples. I'm interested in how others run their games.

There was a link somewhere, I think on "Bored of the Rings" webcomic, about how many of the most famous members of society were only 5th level. Like Einstein. 18 int base. +2 for age. So 20 int. 8 ranks in knowledge physics or math. So he's getting a +13 right there. Access to a huge library and other learned individuals so that's a +2 or +4 circumstance bonus. Total of a +15 or +17. Then he's got skill focuses feats. Makes it possible for him at 5th level to easily beat a DC 30 knowledge check.

A game of thrones rpg, also had rules about how social station partially negated levels. Stations consisted of Royalty, Great Nobles, Lesser nobles, Knights, Commoner. So if the crown prince was a 4th level warrior, he'd be equal in skill to a 5th level great noble, a 6th level lesser noble, a 7th level Knight, or an 8th level commoner man at arms. This would reflect the fact that he was better fed, better equiped, healthier. And also how good his training was. The king could afford the greatest of weaponsmasters to teach his sons, but some baseborn commoner would have had to learn to fight on the battlefield itself.



Edit: Anyway, for prestige classes and other combat related effects I make my NPCs fit the rules. If I bend the rule, and make a 4th level vampire(supposed to be 6th level) for the party to fight, I choose part of the loot that they'll recieve from an earlier fight, to ensure that they have what they need to fight the vampire.
As far as knowledge skills or something, I'll fudge those a little and not care. Partly because I'll do as stated above, and say that they're talking to the dedicated master of a subject, so he doesn't need to be especially high level to make a DC 30 skill check; because he's built for it.
Besides, when my players are asking an NPC for something, they're probably asking for plot related info having bit real hard on my plot hook. So which should i be a jerk and now avoid telling them what they need to know.

[Aron Times]

Noncombatant NPCs in 4e don't get stats, and are capable or incapable of anything that the DM wants. If you want a wise old man to do some plot exposition on the party's quest, you don't need to figure out his History modifier; he just knows what he is supposed to know.

Basically, there's no need to stat him out since he's not going to fight the party anyway, and even if he did, he would be no match for them.

[Ashiel]

I virtually always follow the rules when creating NPCs. For minor characters, I tend to leave out a lot of stuff from their entry. It's not that it isn't there, but merely that it isn't written down. If there's a minor character (say a farmer), he might have only the following stats listed: Hp, AC, Init, Attack, Fort, Ref, Will, with only 1 skill listed.

In many cases, for NPCs, I don't have to actually stat such characters out in advance (a side effect of DMing a while, and understanding the rules) due to their simplicity. For many low-level NPCs who lack magic items and a lot of special abilities, you can assume average scores, hp, etc for their level. Assume their best skill may have the Skill Focus feat for their feats.

I've always attempted to follow the wealth by level guidelines. For 1st level NPC classed characters (such as orcs and bandits), I had to invent a WBL of about 100gp, which was usually enough for some meager equipment and occasionally a potion or scroll (in the case of adepts), which was plenty of gear.

I never make NPCs with arbitrarily high anything. As noted, I follow WBL, standard ability scores, level limitations, and so forth. For reasons like this, my players always trust me while DMing because they know I will be following the same rules that they are.

I feel that's important in a good DM, because it fosters a sense of well being between the players and their DM, as well as trust. For this same reason, I never fudge dice - EVER.

[Harperfan7]

I do, but only if I'm really sure it will matter at all.

Your major-city librarian for instance, might really be a 10+ expert, but he started with below average str and con, plus he's old or venerable, doesn't carry weapons or wear armor, and has zero combat related feats or equipment. He probably has 10-15hp, but with an armor class of 8-9, he may as well have 2hp.

That 2-3rd level warrior almost surely has more hp and a higher attack bonus than the librarian, and feats/equipment/etc.

Stats work if you do decide to use them for everybody, but it's honestly not all that worth it (sometimes I stat people because I'm bored).

[potatocubed]

My NPCs can do anything I need them to do and have a reasonable chance of succeeding at anything they should have a reasonable chance of succeeding at. This includes unique combat abilities and/or spells that the PCs don't have, although I do try to design those so that they're fair.

This is in part because I'm too lazy to stat up proper NPCs (especially 3.5 ones) and in part because it dissuades metagame thinking. The characters don't know every detail of the world they live in (Knowledge checks aside) and so the players don't either.

[Samb]

I am the DM and NPCs are my creation. I have a vision about an NPC, I will make said vision rules be damned.

That being said I do try to adhere to the rules, but in the end, I'm the boss of this adventure, and if I feel the need to make a ninja/zombie/dinosaur/cyborg/saint, then by jove that's what I'll have.

[AslanCross]

I sometimes ignore weapon proficiency rules for NPCs. I've seen statblocks in adventures ignore them---one notable example would be Azarr Kul in the Red Hand of Doom adventure. He's using a heavy pick, which is a martial weapon.

I just took this to be an application of the vague Monster Manual rule that says "a creature is proficient with any weapon in its statblock," which is kind of a chicken-and-egg rule.

[Psychosis]

I stat out important (read: named and maybe reoccuring) NPCs, but otherwise they can do whatever I feel is reasonable. It just gets things done faster.

[Morty]

I remember a thread on another forum dedicated to creating minor NPCs for the heck of it as well as for potential use by GM. I made some myself and it was quite fun. It was also quite funny how I made a sergeant of the city watch a 2nd level fighter and someone else made his sergeant a 3rd level warrior.

[Tehnar]

For NPCs that are usually just for interaction, I denote them with something like Hum War 3, or Elf Exp 5.. etc. If a NPC is skilled at something that the PCs need, then I will also add that skill modifier (for example a blacksmith, or a sage).

It is actually pretty easy to get very high skill checks with low level NPCs, especially if they are human.

Where I do fudge things is in the minion monster department. Just give some monsters a general bonus of +1 hit and saves, +5 hp when I dont feel like advancing them or looking to add classes.

[Eldariel]

WBL isn't even a rule, it's a suggestion. I don't think NPC WBL is really good for anything except quickwriting hostile characters whose deaths won't overequip the party. As such, yeah, ignore that.

I also assume that adventuring isn't the only way to earn XP (and consequently, there are very few level 1 characters in any games I run; of course, PCs don't start on 1 either).


So in effect, those few points I solve completely within the rules.

Though my parties WILL run into challenges they can't handle (at least in straight combat; such challenges rarely really care about them so diplomacy or runomacy with maybe a bribe of appropriate size tends to allow them to...survive) AND walkovers.

Too big a part of the world to really do it in any other way, IMHO. Otherwise players will think they can fight and beat anything they face.



Also, I maintain the topic should be "Screw the rules, I'm an NPC!"

[Darrin]

This looks like a job for Assertion 12.

[Tyndmyr]

The level 10 librarian expert may be more skilled than the level 3 warrior constable, but the librarian isn't going to be fighting anyone unless conscripted. If someone wants to be a rules lawyer about it then I'd say he'd have the "noncombatant" flaw in exchange for skill focus profession.

Regardless, statting NPCs is something you do when it's actually necessary. Nobody cares what level Farmer Joe is unless he gets into a fight and even then he'll fall in a few hits.

This. I don't really care if farmer Joe is a commoner or an expert. He could be either, but frankly, it's not going to make a difference 99.x% of the time. I don't stat out every single person the players could *possibly* fight...just notable characters.

WBL for them is fine, but keep in mind that their WBL is typically tied up in tools of trade, etc, not in easily portable gold. Sure, the expert may have masterwork tools and a nice cottage, but he's not likely to have around more gold than that used in his daily trade.

[R. Shackleford]

Noncombatant NPCs in 4e don't get stats, and are capable or incapable of anything that the DM wants. If you want a wise old man to do some plot exposition on the party's quest, you don't need to figure out his History modifier; he just knows what he is supposed to know.

Basically, there's no need to stat him out since he's not going to fight the party anyway, and even if he did, he would be no match for them.

I was wondering that. I've only ever played 4e, so I went into this topic thinking, "Why do I need to stat them? My players aren't that bloodthirsty."

I didn't realize you had to stat out NPCs in other editions. That seems really cumbersome.

[Tyndmyr]

You don't *have* to. It's not as if WOTC sends thugs to your door if you dont.

Really? What? I'm sorry sir, I'll never speak of that again. Ouch! Why won't you stop hitting me?

[Kylarra]

I don't recall this being an issue in 2e, so I guess it's mostly in 3.X where people cared about NPCs being statted out like PCs.

[Mike_G]

I was wondering that. I've only ever played 4e, so I went into this topic thinking, "Why do I need to stat them? My players aren't that bloodthirsty."

I didn't realize you had to stat out NPCs in other editions. That seems really cumbersome.

Well, you don't have to do anything. There are rules for it in 3.5, so you could, in theory, stat out everyone in the city using the same character generation system as the PC's.

My point was that that system makes assumptions I don't care for, (like everything increases together: more ranks in knowledge = more BAB and HP) and it's more work than it's worth.

I just wondered who else wings it and who else actually follows the rules.

[Tyndmyr]

It's pretty easy for even a rather low level character to have a pretty high skill modifier if he specializes in it at all. Hell, you only need to be level two to start picking up synergy bonuses. Yes, a higher level can have a higher overall modifier, but if a smith has a +10 to his weaponsmithing, and takes ten making items, he can be a quite effective smith. This is easily achievable at level two.

Hp and BaB tend to go together, yes, but even that's a bit rough, and is heavily con/class dependant.

[Oslecamo]

I didn't realize you had to stat out NPCs in other editions. That seems really cumbersome.

You don't need, but it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

For example, the OP claims the head librarian of the village should be able to routinely make DC30 Knowledge checks. That means he thinks every village should totaly have an Einstein level dude in charge of the library. I doubt anyone else agrees with him on that point, but hey, it's his campaign.

So if the rules allowed for a lv1 expert to routinely make DC 30 knowledge checks, then we would have people complaining that lv1 experts are super genius and blah blah-locate city bombo-blah blah-tome of weaboo fighting magic-blah blah exalted-blah blah monks vs wizards-blah blah thread locked.

The rules are guidelines, and the DM isn't called MASTER for nothing.

[Saph]

I didn't realize you had to stat out NPCs in other editions.

You don't. Nobody does. (At least, I've never met anybody who does, but I'm sure that now I've posted it someone is going to pop up and prove me wrong.)

Typically when I'm DMing 3.5, I write out character sheets for:

1. Major NPC antagonists that the PCs are going to face, eg enemy generals and recurring villains;
2. NPCs that are going to be travelling with the party for whatever reason (this is the least common category);
3. and dragons. I always feel dragons are important enough that they should be personalised.

In my Red Hand of Doom campaign I think I gave the character sheet treatment to a total of six or seven NPCs over thirteen or fourteen sessions. So I only wrote up a sheet every two sessions or so.

That said, I'm with Foryn in that I do think the rules should apply to NPCs as well as to PCs, so I try to make sure that NPCs still work on basically the same rules system that the PCs do, even if the numbers aren't specified.

So the king's court wizard may not have a character sheet, and I may not have written anything in particular down for him beyond a name and a one-line description. And he may have a bunch of weird spells in his spellbook and several odd special abilities. However, he doesn't get to break the rules just because he's an NPC; any spell he can learn the PCs can learn too, and everything he can use is theoretically within their reach as well, even if they're probably never going to encounter it or care enough to research it if they do.