NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs, never have in 5e, and that's ok.

[strangebloke]

I've heard enough stories about My Little Pony games and drunken corgi tribe encounters to question this. D&D is an RPG of negotiable affections, happy to service whatever trope/game style you want, and only slavishly devoted to taking your money for a good time. Heck, we've had optional rules for laser rifles in the DMG for decades, Gygax tried to push it on the sci Fi crowd, and you're unlikely to find planet destroying robot insect swarms or surfer druids in fantasy tropes, but you sure can in D&D canon.

Aliens, lazer rifles, and magitech aren't the outliers in the modern fantasy genre you seem to think they are. How long ago was Phyrexia created? How many modern isekai incorporate magitech? Warhammer fantasy has aliens and lazers. World of Warcraft has them too. Is Star Wars fantasy?

DND is broad and has a lot of different things, but within DND the tropes are pretty calcified.

I don't disagree it's had it's influence much like it was in turn influenced by fantasy that came before it, heck, it stole it's approach to spell levels and just about everything else from somewhere; it's not the genesis of tropes and doesn't hold itself to following them.

Sure, DND isn't the originator, just a step on the chain. Even so, fantasy tropes are important to setting up an enjoyable fantasy.

Like I'm not saying everyone has to start in a tavern and get a quest to clear out giant spiders before eventually facing off against a great and terrible dragon... but when you bring a dragon to the story, people are going to have expectations, and you have to acknowledge that, even if your intent is to subvert those expectations.

[meandean]

I dunno what "tropes" have to do with it. There's no "trope" that says Warlocks have a spell called Eldritch Blast that has a verbal component, and never have a spell called Arcane Blast that has no such component. We're talking about very specific D&D rules, not tropes.

The objection in general is very odd to me. If you were playing a mage in an RPG video game and encountered a mage boss, would you expect the boss to have the same attacks, movement abilities, hit points, etc. as you do? You wouldn't (and you'd probably expect him to be superior to you, generally). Would you even expect to be able to gain the boss's capabilities at any point in the game, much less by the time you fought him? I'd imagine anyone trying to make any such argument would be laughed at in that context, and I don't know what the difference is. At least to me, it's completely natural that NPCs don't function the same way PCs do, even if both are "wizards" or "monks" or what have you.

[kazaryu]

5e does not assume that NPCs follow the same rules as PCs, except for convenience sake. A few examples, all of which are MM creatures of playable humanoid races:

Spoiler: Examples

Show

The Acolyte NPC is defined to be a 1st level, wisdom based spellcaster with spells off the cleric list. At that level, a cleric has two 1st level slots. The Acolyte has 3.

The guard NPC's AC is 16 (chain shirt, shield). Yet he can wield his spear in both hands without (by raw) changing his AC.

The goblin NPC's AC is 15 (leather armor, shield). Yet he can use his shortbow without changing his AC.

The Archmage NPC has Magic Resistance as a permanent thing. Without any indication it comes from equipment, and none of the spells he has prepared grant that.

The Assassin NPC gets poison on every attack. And multiattack (emulating TWF, except getting the ability score bonus to damage and not using a bonus action)

The Bandit Captain NPC get Multiattack (2 + 1, obviously TWF except it gets ability score bonus to everything and still has its bonus action left) as well as Parry

The Cultist NPC has Dark Devotion, which is not accessible to PCs in any way as such.

The Cult Fanatic NPC not only has that, but also gets multiattack (TWF), but can also cast with its hands "full". So it can spiritual weapon and make two attacks, despite being a 4th level spellcaster (not a 9th level character, which would be required for Extra Attack).

The Gladiator NPC has Brute and Brave, neither of which are available to PCs. It can also Shield Bash (dealing damage) and can TWF with a weapon and shield. And can use its spear two handed without losing AC (by RAW). It also has Parry.

The Knight NPC has Leadership and Brave and Parry.

Both the Mage and the Archmage can have non-standard familiars despite explicitly casting find familiar.

The Noble gets Parry.

The Priest NPC has Divine Eminence, which isn't a PC-available ability.

The Scout gets Keen Hearing and Sight.

The Spy (despite being a rogue analoge) gets two melee attacks without using a bonus action. And has abilities that use its bonus action.

The Thug get Pack Tactics, as does the Tribal Warrior.

The veteran gets the regular multiattack weirdness around TWF.

Of the MM NPC stat blocks, only the Druid, Commoner, Berserker, and Bandit don't break the PC rules (not counting the fact that all of them have utterly wrong HP, with the level 1 acolyte having 2 HD and the archmage's HD all being d8s...unless he was small in which case he'd have d6s).

And things get even "worse" if you expand to all the humanoid, playable race NPCs in the MM. Heck, the very first monster in the MM, the aarakocra, gets Dive Attack, which isn't a PC option. The Kenku NPC gets Ambusher, which (legacy) kenku PCs don't.

In general, there is a hierarchy of rules, ranging from the very most general to the more content-based.

Almost everyone resolves actions the same. Ok, there are a few monsters that break this (the Marut and his auto-hitting attacks comes to mind), but just about everyone makes Ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls the same way. Neither monsters nor players get to stack advantage or disadvantage (by default). Both PCs and NPCs are hit when the incoming attack roll is equal to or higher than their AC and succeed on saving throws when their roll is equal to or greater than the DC.

Monsters generally follow roughly the same action economy as players, except where simplified. Monsters rarely have bonus actions for their basic attacks, preferring to lump them into Multiattack. Monsters don't get Extra Attack and are restricted to specifically what it says (instead of being able to substitute out for grapples or shoves).

When monsters have the spellcasting trait, those spells are cast similarly to PC spells (requiring the same actions and components, for instance). There is no indication that NPCs can use foci, however, as that requires a specific line in the trait which they do not have (component pouches being the general rule available by default). NPCs cannot cast spells as rituals by default, and are not required to be confined to a single class's spell list or even use the same ability score as "similar" PCs. But many monsters can cast spells or use spell-like abilities that do not have the Spellcasting feature and thus do not, by default, necessarily follow those rules (instead following whatever the trait says instead, such as the Psionics trait of the gith which removes components).

Beyond that, NPCs tend to have access to a superset of PC abilities. That is, they have access to almost everything PCs do and more. And have whatever abilities are convenient for their role in the world and narrative. With explicit permission to play build-a-bear and slot in anything you want or make something up to suit[1].

This is how it always has been in 5e. And it makes total sense for it to be so, since this is not an MMO/isekai where the classes are fundamental parts of the world. PC classes are abstractions and bundles of archetypal abilities that represent abilities present in most D&D worlds and that are deemed balanced for a typical adventuring lifestyle. But there's no guarantee that anyone who is in-fiction called a "wizard" has any of those abilities. People don't introduce themselves as being a Fighter. And no guarantee (or even rational expectation) that no other archetypes exist. Heck, the "evil cultist of an evil god with evil powers" isn't well represented by PC classes at all. Nor is the real necromancer (ie full on army of undead) archetype--even a 20th level necromancer wizard who spends all his slots on maintaining undead struggles to have more than a short company of undead under his control, and then only the weakest ones. There isn't a published spell that can create half (or even a smaller fraction) of the listed undead types in the monster books.

[1]

I 100% agree with this, in fact, i even take it a step further.

most of the rules written in the book regarding how characters interact with the world are exclusive to PC's. This is specifically in regards to things like fully healing on a LR, or how much HP they have. gaining hit dice as part of your class, healing on a short rest, fully healing on a long rest are all things that PC's do. but not all NPC's. and the ones that do, likely only do a few of them.

In practice what this means is that just because a character has a set of skills that *looks* similar to a PC of a certain level, doesn't mean they're actually fit for adventuring the same as a PC of that level. The court mage that you've seen cast 9th level spells, and knows the fundemental laws of magic? cool..he's also never been in a major fight before. he might only have 10hp. on the flip side, the street hedge wizard that barely can string a 3rd level spell together? he's been fighting all his life, for scraps, for respect, for his own life. he might actually be tankier than the parties barbarian...but he also might not recover from those fights the same way PC's do.

[strangebloke]

I dunno what "tropes" have to do with it. There's no "trope" that says Warlocks have a spell called Eldritch Blast that has a verbal component, and never have a spell called Arcane Blast that has no such component. We're talking about very specific D&D rules, not tropes.

The objection in general is very odd to me. If you were playing a mage in an RPG video game and encountered a mage boss, would you expect the boss to have the same attacks, movement abilities, hit points, etc. as you do? You wouldn't (and you'd probably expect him to be superior to you, generally). Would you even expect to be able to gain the boss's capabilities at any point in the game, much less by the time you fought him? I'd imagine anyone trying to make any such argument would be laughed at in that context, and I don't know what the difference is. At least to me, it's completely natural that NPCs don't function the same way PCs do, even if both are "wizards" or "monks" or what have you.

The whole point of a wizard NPC is that its an NPC who got their powers the same way as the player character. If not in the sense of literally adventuring and gaining XP, at least in the sense that they both studied how to do magic. Giving them powers similar to the PC reinforces their role in the setting as a peer to the PC, which is the whole point of having NPC wizards to begin with. Giving them abilities that are nothing like PC Wizard abilities in any way undercuts the NPC's role as "peer wizard." They don't need to be built as a PC would be built - I am not saying that and I never have - but they need to be similar to reinforce the notion that this world is a real place with real people and not a...

...well, not a thinly veiled hack and slash video game. Like I love Diablo, but if I want to play Diablo I play Diablo. It's much better at being Diablo than DND is. The whole point of using a TTRPG at all (beyond it being a social activity) is that you can interact with the world on a more minute level. Note that some of the most successful rpgs within recent memory have had a degree of PC/NPC transparency. You can take any enemy's armor, spells, or ashes in Elden Ring. Lots of top Skyrim enemies are literally built using the same perks and leveling system the PC uses. Dragon Age games and the first Mass Effect are the same.

The idea that you're only going to encounter an NPC as a blank enemy in a 30x30 room and they're going to have radically different abilities from the PC even when they're supposed to be standing in for the PC's best friend from wizard school is... weird. That's what I mean when I speak about tropes. Wizards should function (for the most part) like other wizards. It's part of the wizard brand.

Like a lots been said about how nothing is lost by making wizard NPCs behave radically different from wizard PCs... but what is actually gained? Very very little from what I can see.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The whole point of a wizard NPC is that its an NPC who got their powers the same way as the player character.

It's really not.

People playbdrawing in a thousand and more fantasy tropes.

A "Wizard" regardless of class mechanics could be.

-Harry Potter magic via blood but then trained
-Chaos manipulators from the World of Recluce, opposite of Order Mages.
-Half Elf renegades combining Elven sorcery and human psionics
-Someone who understands reality.can be warped but not without subtlety because reality can fight back.
-Those born with the Gift who wield Additive and Subtractive magics.

Even in D&D context. Look at the older man in the adventuring party. He carries a staff and wears simple robes. He prepares an alarm spell every night to protect his friends and chants strange rituals to detect magic and omens... oh, and he's a Barbarian.

Or that young woman who studies intently in a magical tome each night, tracing arcane symbols and memorizing lore before unleashing arcane devastation on her opponents. Oh, and she's a tomelock.

[Demostheknees]

The whole point of a wizard NPC is that its an NPC who got their powers the same way as the player character. If not in the sense of literally adventuring and gaining XP, at least in the sense that they both studied how to do magic. Giving them powers similar to the PC reinforces their role in the setting as a peer to the PC, which is the whole point of having NPC wizards to begin with. Giving them abilities that are nothing like PC Wizard abilities in any way undercuts the NPC's role as "peer wizard.”

That’s only one of the many ways an NPC wizard can be presented in a world with PC wizards. For instance, in my current game I have a PC wizard who’s backstory is that of a farmer who is completely self taught as a means of getting away from his familial obligations.

If a quest takes him to the popular, classical university of magic - having NPCs who’s basic abilities are drastically different than his would serve as a great contrast for his journey. If there wasn’t anything to differentiate them, that doesn’t help sell how this PC is different - which is what we want, right? The PCs are different, that’s why they are the PCs…

Even if the PC and NPC had similar training, don’t you want them to have differences to help highlight the Heroes of the story?

[ProsecutorGodot]

That’s only one of the many ways an NPC wizard can be presented in a world with PC wizards. For instance, in my current game I have a PC wizard who’s backstory is that of a farmer who is completely self taught as a means of getting away from his familial obligations.

If a quest takes him to the popular, classical university of magic - having NPCs who’s basic abilities are drastically different than his would serve as a great contrast for his journey. If there wasn’t anything to differentiate them, that doesn’t help sell how this PC is different - which is what we want, right? The PCs are different, that’s why they are the PCs…

Even if the PC and NPC had similar training, don’t you want them to have differences to help highlight the Heroes of the story?

The bolded part here is the critical part, he's "taught" magic, and you label him as a wizard... that's it.

You've agreed and proven the point even if you didn't intend to. Wizards "learn" magic, through study. Of course there's no expectation of a 1 to 1 comparison but there's an expectation that people who have "learned magic through study" will have similar enough ability that people around them will have created a blanket term to identify them as, such as "Wizard". "Wizard" behave in an expected way, and if you have someone calling themselves a "Wizard" and not behaving in that expected way, people will become confused because they actually do have a level of understanding of what exactly a "Wizard" is, it's not only a game term.

Even in D&D context. Look at the older man in the adventuring party. He carries a staff and wears simple robes. He prepares an alarm spell every night to protect his friends and chants strange rituals to detect magic and omens... oh, and he's a Barbarian.

Or that young woman who studies intently in a magical tome each night, tracing arcane symbols and memorizing lore before unleashing arcane devastation on her opponents. Oh, and she's a tomelock.

And this is where you, again, prove the point rather than disprove it. "Wizard" exists as a classification in fiction, not just as a game mechanic. These characters don't have a strict mechanical label as a Wizard but the process and even functionality of their ability is enough to be labeled in world as a type of Wizard and not subvert peoples expectations. Their abilities are close enough and within the same bounds of ability that "Wizard" might not be an inaccurate title.

Further, you're detracting from your own argument by implying that this old man or young woman would be recognized as a Barbarian or Warlock when they outward present as a "Wizard". Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't the basis of this argument that a mechanical class shouldn't translate directly into fiction? With all the information you've given, they're a "Wizard" through and through, and even mechanically, are functioning very similarly in regards to their spellcasting abilities.

[PhantomSoul]

[...] The PCs are different, that’s why they are the PCs…

While I'm not sold on the reasoning (the PCs are potentially just the ones you happen to control -- the NPCs are just as much part of the world as you are, and you're not necessarily inherently different), BUT part of it being a world is also that the books are giving ONE example (or sets of examples) that don't in the least capture everything that exists in the world, even all of the things that you might give a comparable label to. Not every Monk necessarily has identical abilities just because the example of a monk we're given has a specific set (and then another specific set from the subclass)!

[strangebloke]

It's really not.

People playbdrawing in a thousand and more fantasy tropes.

A "Wizard" regardless of class mechanics could be.

-Harry Potter magic via blood but then trained
-Chaos manipulators from the World of Recluce, opposite of Order Mages.
-Half Elf renegades combining Elven sorcery and human psionics
-Someone who understands reality.can be warped but not without subtlety because reality can fight back.
-Those born with the Gift who wield Additive and Subtractive magics.

Even in D&D context. Look at the older man in the adventuring party. He carries a staff and wears simple robes. He prepares an alarm spell every night to protect his friends and chants strange rituals to detect magic and omens... oh, and he's a Barbarian.

Or that young woman who studies intently in a magical tome each night, tracing arcane symbols and memorizing lore before unleashing arcane devastation on her opponents. Oh, and she's a tomelock.

Sure, a 'wizard' in lore can be context dependent. It could mean you're part of a rich kids club, or that you're a sage who knows a lot about arcana (but is crap at casting magic), or that you have a degree from the wizard academy (but don't ask how you got it)

But you wouldn't use an abjurer wizard to simulate any of those. You wouldn't use the old archmage statblock either. You'd use the noble or a knight (with slight alteration) or maybe the street magician statblock. The "abjurer wizard" statblock represents an clear, simple archetype - the same archetype as the PC class, which is why WotC used the same word. You can use it for non-wizard NPCs. You can use other things for wizards in your setting. But the idea that when an NPC is called druid, we are not supposed to surmise anything at all about this statblocks intended archetype, is truly wild to me.

And... ultimately, non-spell aoe abilties with no components like that have typically been the domain of psionics in DND. If I were to use the abjurer wizard, it would be as a pure psionicist, which is not the intent of the devs (again, they call it a wizard) and is at best a happy accident. The abjurer wizard has abilities that don't feel appropriate for the archetype, that also create unfortunate rules interactions.

Again, its possible that you want to have a psion who's a wizard in terms of in-universe job - that's fine - but a newer DM trying to find a statblock to use alter for this purpose would look for a psion NPC, not a poorly labeled wizard.

That’s only one of the many ways an NPC wizard can be presented in a world with PC wizards. For instance, in my current game I have a PC wizard who’s backstory is that of a farmer who is completely self taught as a means of getting away from his familial obligations.

If a quest takes him to the popular, classical university of magic - having NPCs who’s basic abilities are drastically different than his would serve as a great contrast for his journey. If there wasn’t anything to differentiate them, that doesn’t help sell how this PC is different - which is what we want, right? The PCs are different, that’s why they are the PCs…

Even if the PC and NPC had similar training, don’t you want them to have differences to help highlight the Heroes of the story?

I mean. You've chosen an unconventional wizard background, sure, but not everyone will. If you conform narrowly to a 'normal' wizard archetype when your character isn't supposed to be that... its not really the DM or systems fault if the standard magic place seems pretty 'normal' too.

But either way, PCs will always have differences from NPCs, and there are (and were) lots of ways to represent this. Having inconsistent rules interactions isn't the way.

[Rukelnikov]

The whole point of a wizard NPC is that its an NPC who got their powers the same way as the player character. If not in the sense of literally adventuring and gaining XP, at least in the sense that they both studied how to do magic. Giving them powers similar to the PC reinforces their role in the setting as a peer to the PC, which is the whole point of having NPC wizards to begin with. Giving them abilities that are nothing like PC Wizard abilities in any way undercuts the NPC's role as "peer wizard." They don't need to be built as a PC would be built - I am not saying that and I never have - but they need to be similar to reinforce the notion that this world is a real place with real people and not a...

...well, not a thinly veiled hack and slash video game. Like I love Diablo, but if I want to play Diablo I play Diablo. It's much better at being Diablo than DND is. The whole point of using a TTRPG at all (beyond it being a social activity) is that you can interact with the world on a more minute level. Note that some of the most successful rpgs within recent memory have had a degree of PC/NPC transparency. You can take any enemy's armor, spells, or ashes in Elden Ring. Lots of top Skyrim enemies are literally built using the same perks and leveling system the PC uses. Dragon Age games and the first Mass Effect are the same.

The idea that you're only going to encounter an NPC as a blank enemy in a 30x30 room and they're going to have radically different abilities from the PC even when they're supposed to be standing in for the PC's best friend from wizard school is... weird. That's what I mean when I speak about tropes. Wizards should function (for the most part) like other wizards. It's part of the wizard brand.

Like a lots been said about how nothing is lost by making wizard NPCs behave radically different from wizard PCs... but what is actually gained? Very very little from what I can see.

Completely agree.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

And this is where you, again, prove the point rather than disprove it. "Wizard" exists as a classification in fiction, not just as a game mechanic. These characters don't have a strict mechanical label as a Wizard but the process and even functionality of their ability is enough to be labeled in world as a type of Wizard and not subvert peoples expectations. Their abilities are close enough and within the same bounds of ability that "Wizard" might not be an inaccurate title.

Further, you're detracting from your own argument by implying that this old man or young woman would be recognized as a Barbarian or Warlock when they outward present as a "Wizard". Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't the basis of this argument that a mechanical class shouldn't translate directly into fiction? With all the information you've given, they're a "Wizard" through and through, and even mechanically, are functioning very similarly in regards to their spellcasting abilities.

Except we're arguing that the word doesn't uniformly refer to a specific set of rules or a spellbook. So no, it doesn't disprove the point.

The two game examples have plenty of abilities that are magic or supernatural but not spells
For the rest. Harry Potter and Swird if Truth Wizards are 100% in the Sorcerer theme from a D&D mechanics standpoint. Except they also use a bunch of magic that themes divine as well.

Chaos Wizards are also genetic based and again cross lines between arcane and divine.

Again, could keep going but don't need to.

Also, since this was the specific point I Doce into, None of these non D&D Wizards have spellbooks.

[Rukelnikov]

Except we're arguing that the word doesn't uniformly refer to a specific set of rules or a spellbook. So no, it doesn't disprove the point.

The two game examples have plenty of abilities that are magic or supernatural but not spells
For the rest. Harry Potter and Swird if Truth Wizards are 100% in the Sorcerer theme from a D&D mechanics standpoint. Except they also use a bunch of magic that themes divine as well.

Chaos Wizards are also genetic based and again cross lines between arcane and divine.

Again, could keep going but don't need to.

Also, since this was the specific point I Doce into, None of these non D&D Wizards have spellbooks.

The point is that "wizard" is more than a game term. Wizard has an in world meaning, in a setting where magic is abundant, and there are different ways creatures have access to these powers, its expected to have terms for the different kinds of caster.

Any army or merc company won't just have "spellcasters", they need to know if this is a spellcaster I can give a scroll in order for them to be casting this spell multiple times tomorrow, or they can't. Such a distinction would be necessary in world, and thus have an associated term. That term can be wizard, mage, umbrella or caterpillar, it doesn't matter, the point is that its an in world term, with associated weight. So if the PCs that work by those rules are referred to as "wizards", then the other "wizards", should be similar enough to the PCs with those faculties, otherwise they would be referred to as something else.

[Demostheknees]

You've agreed and proven the point even if you didn't intend to. Wizards "learn" magic, through study. Of course there's no expectation of a 1 to 1 comparison but there's an expectation that people who have "learned magic through study" will have similar enough ability that people around them will have created a blanket term to identify them as, such as "Wizard". "Wizard" behave in an expected way, and if you have someone calling themselves a "Wizard" and not behaving in that expected way, people will become confused because they actually do have a level of understanding of what exactly a "Wizard" is, it's not only a game term.

I don't really see how these new NPC wizards are acting out of the expected behavior of wizards. They cast spells that fit within a specific school of magic, the stat-block descriptions say that they learned their magic through study, and they all seem to be particularly inclined towards intelligence rather than other traits. That sounds like a wizard to me.

If Wizard is not a "game" term, why do we care so much that one part (their attack action) of their stat-block isn't explicitly a spell? For me that falls clearly into an abstraction of something in fiction that is presented as an easy-to-manage game mechanic. For my part, I think that it is ambiguous enough that as a DM I will be ruling that it is indeed a spell, and interacts in all the ways we expect it to.

[Anymage]

Any army or merc company won't just have "spellcasters", they need to know if this is a spellcaster I can give a scroll in order for them to be casting this spell multiple times tomorrow, or they can't. Such a distinction would be necessary in world, and thus have an associated term. That term can be wizard, mage, umbrella or caterpillar, it doesn't matter, the point is that its an in world term, with associated weight. So if the PCs that work by those rules are referred to as "wizards", then the other "wizards", should be similar enough to the PCs with those faculties, otherwise they would be referred to as something else.

We have rules for spellcasters who gain their powers through study, through a magical bloodline, through a pact, through mad science, through faith, and through nature. Each one working subtly differently. I'm okay with the idea that there are even more subdivisions, and that someone operating on prepared caster rules where they can have a new spell loadout tomorrow is going to be vanishingly rare. It's only a problem if you have regular PC turnover where you have to justify where all these PC types come from. However it takes work to die in 5e so that's unlikely, and if people at your table keep swapping characters you're already facing continuity problems.

And... ultimately, non-spell aoe abilties with no components like that have typically been the domain of psionics in DND. If I were to use the abjurer wizard, it would be as a pure psionicist, which is not the intent of the devs (again, they call it a wizard) and is at best a happy accident. The abjurer wizard has abilities that don't feel appropriate for the archetype, that also create unfortunate rules interactions.

I still think that all the wizardlikes in MotM having a free subtle spell is more oversight than intent. Making an oversight like that doesn't say nothing, but I'll want some solid evidence if you want to convince me the intent was for characters to wreak destruction while sitting and inconspicuously sipping their tea.

[Psyren]

The problem I see is that all PCs do have to follow PC rules and thus are unable to really take part in anything beyond that tiny slice of what's possible.

They actually don't. That's just the default. Default rules != "what's possible", and never have.

And then if I'm not bound by PC rules and the gamemaster is willing to let my character learn to use NPC abilities ... we're solidly in homebrew territory, and why did I spend money on this book? This book that doesn't even offer a justification for why PCs have a limited subset of NPC abilities?

Generally your DM is the one buying/using books with NPC abilities in them, so you should probably be asking them that question. I can certainly think of multiple other reasons besides PC/NPC fidelity to buy a monster book - convenience, ideation, aesthetics etc - but without knowing your DM I can't speak to which reason spoke to them. All I can say is if they (or you) are only buying books to reinforce the notion that PCs and NPCs should be identical, I'd suggest that your experience with the game might end up being much richer if you move beyond that narrow concept.

[sandmote]

I do think that the actually important aspect in what names you use to describe NPCs is that they need to provide useful information to the players.

Consider the following type of magic user:

• Learns spells of a particular pool by studying particular spell components and then recording them in a physical document of some sort. Must take regularly time to re-familiarize themselves with the spells either using the physical document at regular intervals, upon which they become able to cast that spell a
  number of times within these intervals under particular set of rules. If a spell was accessible during the last interval, the magic user can re-familiarize themselves with that spell without needing the physical document.

That's the PC D&D wizard. Yes, you can remove some aspects of that description and still have the party understand the abilities of a given NPC by calling that NPC a wizard.

Contrast the following description:

• Learns spells by studying particular spell components. One they've done this, the magic user can cast any of the spells they've learned at any time. Additionally, they can attempt to cast any spell they know exists and can at least theoretically succeed at casting it by attempting the spell components and can create magical effects without actively attempting to do so or even knowing magic could do such a thing.

There are non-D&D settings/properties/systems/however you want to categorize a particular example where the term "wizard," refers specifically to someone like this. You've got something that learns spells but is otherwise so removed from the PC wizard that the party can get an inaccurate idea of what that NPC is capable of and/or the NPC's weaknesses, specifically based on you using the term "wizard."

Now, as far as I'm aware, the PC options presented in the first party 5e D&D books are presented as options that can exist in the D&D world/setting, but the books don't claim these are the only options that exist. This can include subclasses, feats, or other boons or abilities that aren't available to players, but can also include classes unavailable to players.

Yes, the "wizard" is the only class PCs can take that explicitly learns spells by studying spell components, but that observation alone is insufficient to conclude the wizard is the only class NPCs can take that learns spells by studying spell components. So the second bulleted example (which was taken from Harry Potter series, if there's anyone for whom that wasn't clear) can be considered a "wizard," but it isn't necessarily a clear description of what's happening in game to call them a "wizard" when representing them as an NPC in D&D. So I would consider it good practice to instead call sufficiently different characters "mages," "occultists," "witches," "shamans," or some other term that clarifies they operate on different principles.

I don't consider this sort of thing to be "NPCs following the same rules as PCs," so much as a case of "the thing you call an NPC needs to clearly describe which set of rules it follows."

---

If someone could quote the published first party books saying the PC classes are explicitly the only classes any creature in a D&D world could take, consider the preceding statements invalidated (or at least severely weakened, depending on the actually text). In case of pedants, by "quote" I mean repeat something from the books with a citation that lets me see the book actually says that, and I don't consider it germane whether or not you make some statement within the formatting this forum uses for quotations.

[Chronos]

Quoth PhoenixPhyre:

Why? Why is having a spellbook the prime requisite for a fantasy wizard? The ultra-vast majority of things called wizards...don't. And even D&D doesn't demand a "normal" spellbook--it could be etched onto a staff.

A D&D world contains people who intellectually study magic, record magic in books, and can learn more magic by reading other such books written by people with abilities similar to theirs. We know that D&D worlds contain such people, because it's an option for the PCs. And it must contain NPCs as well that work that way, because that's where the PCs hope to find more spells to add to their spellbook (which is a fundamental part of how the PC class works).

And in a world where such people exist, those people, at least, would need ways to talk about that category of people, people from whom they could hope to learn new spells. They would, in short, need a name for that category of people. This would be an in-universe term, not just a rulebook term, because it would be used by the people in-universe, themselves.

What would that in-universe term be? In principle, it could be anything. Maybe they're called "magi", or "professors", or "occult scholars". They don't necessarily have to be called "wizards", in-universe. But "wizard" is the obvious choice of term, because that's the term used in our universe, in the rulebooks, for people in that category.

[Dante]

For the rest. Harry Potter and Swird if Truth Wizards are 100% in the Sorcerer theme from a D&D mechanics standpoint.

If they were Sorcerer-like, Hermione wouldn't be better at magic than other students just because she loves to read.

If someone could quote the published first party books saying the PC classes are explicitly the only classes any creature in a D&D world could take, consider the preceding statements invalidated (or at least severely weakened, depending on the actually text). In case of pedants, by "quote" I mean repeat something from the books with a citation that lets me see the book actually says that, and I don't consider it germane whether or not you make some statement within the formatting this forum uses for quotations.

I mean, at least for subclasses, there's DMG pg. 96 as a specific counterexample:

Villainous Class Options

You can use the rules in the Player's Handbook to create NPCs with classes and levels, the same way you create player characters. The class options below let you create two specific villainous archetypes: the evil high priest and the evil knight or antipaladin... A player can choose one of these options with your approval.

Ergo, there can be NPC-only subclasses like Death cleric and Oathbreaker. Oddly, DMG pg 287 endorses the idea of modifying classes including adding subclasses, but is silent on the topic of adding classes. So it's harder to prove that NPC-only classes are intended. But subclasses definitely.

[Corran]

People playbdrawing in a thousand and more fantasy tropes.

A "Wizard" regardless of class mechanics could be.

-Harry Potter magic via blood but then trained
-Chaos manipulators from the World of Recluce, opposite of Order Mages.
-Half Elf renegades combining Elven sorcery and human psionics
-Someone who understands reality.can be warped but not without subtlety because reality can fight back.
-Those born with the Gift who wield Additive and Subtractive magics.

I agree with this. And it's cool if the game gives you access to many different options too*.
The problem is if you end up playing, say, a Harry Potter in a game where there are only Gandalfs, while that's not an intentional choice on your part.

*There's something to be said about too many options being bloat but that's a different conversation.

[JackPhoenix]

Except we're arguing that the word doesn't uniformly refer to a specific set of rules or a spellbook. So no, it doesn't disprove the point.

The two game examples have plenty of abilities that are magic or supernatural but not spells
For the rest. Harry Potter and Swird if Truth Wizards are 100% in the Sorcerer theme from a D&D mechanics standpoint. Except they also use a bunch of magic that themes divine as well.

Chaos Wizards are also genetic based and again cross lines between arcane and divine.

Again, could keep going but don't need to.

Also, since this was the specific point I Doce into, None of these non D&D Wizards have spellbooks.

None of those non-D&D wizards are relevant to what D&D wizards are. Harry Potter is not "Sorcerer theme from a D&D mechanics standpoint", because he's got nothing to do with D&D. He does not "use a bunch of magic that themes divine". Neither does Gandalf, Richard Rahl or Balthasar Gelt. D&D is not Harry Potter, Sword of Truth, Lord of the Rings or Warhammer... it's D&D, and it does not try to be any of those things.

[Pex]

NPCs don't have to be created using the same rules as PCs, but they do (should) have to follow the same rules of play. They don't get to have more than one Reaction per round. They don't get to Concentrate on more than one spell at a time. They don't get to do magic in an anti-magic field. They don't get to have more than one Bonus Action on their turn. When they make an attack roll and the final result of whatever dice manipulations is a Natural 1, they miss.

They don't get to break the rules.

[Corran]

NPCs don't have to be created using the same rules as PCs, but they do (should) have to follow the same rules of play. They don't get to have more than one Reaction per round. They don't get to Concentrate on more than one spell at a time. They don't get to do magic in an anti-magic field. They don't get to have more than one Bonus Action on their turn. When they make an attack roll and the final result of whatever dice manipulations is a Natural 1, they miss.

They don't get to break the rules.

Having NPCs break the rules (/expectations) is not all bad. It can be a way to make an NPC distinct. Is it the only way? Definitely not. Is it an elegant way? Debatable. But it is something you can do, as long as you want to do so. If you dont want to do so, and the game does that for you anyway, then you need to go searching for bushes and excuses. As a DM I'd rather spend my creative efforts for other things.

[RSP]

5e does not assume that NPCs follow the same rules as PCs, except for convenience.

NPCs follow the same spell casting rules as PCs. From the Basic Rules:

“Magic permeates the worlds of D&D and most often appears in the form of a spell.
This chapter provides the rules for casting spells. Different character classes have distinctive ways of learning and preparing their spells, and monsters use spells in unique ways. Regardless of its source, a spell follows the rules here.”

Bold mine for emphasis.

It is true, though, that NPCs do not follow the same character creation rules as PCs, and monster stat blocks can have Specific beats General in terms of how their abilities work.

[stoutstien]

I always follow the general rule that of the world or encounter I present isn't engaging enough that the players are preoccupied by nuance and crunch of my NPCs rather than the feel and fluff I already failed and should adjust accordingly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

NPCs don't have to be created using the same rules as PCs, but they do (should) have to follow the same rules of play. They don't get to have more than one Reaction per round. They don't get to Concentrate on more than one spell at a time. They don't get to do magic in an anti-magic field. They don't get to have more than one Bonus Action on their turn. When they make an attack roll and the final result of whatever dice manipulations is a Natural 1, they miss.

They don't get to break the rules.

Actually, there are several who can take more than one reaction. The marilith for instance.

They do "break the rules", all the time. The assassin npc can TWF (getting dex to damage without a feature) and take a cunning action (bonus action) in the same turn, because multi attack doesn't actually use the same rules as TWF.

The op is full of a list of the ways they break the rules, and that's only the beginning.

The marut doesn't miss on a 1--it doesn't even roll an attack (despite making melee attacks). It just automatically hits.

Edit: another way of thinking about it is to combine two very basic rules:

1. Specific beats general. There is no general rule that cannot be overridden by a specific rule. Features, traits, and other abilities are specific rules. In many ways, stat blocks are specific rules (containing other rules). If a stat block conflicts with a general rule, the stat block wins (being more specific).
2. Explicit permission is given for DMs (and thus content creators generally) to apply whatever features or traits (including ones they made up entirely) to monsters. Thus, monsters can override any general rule. Without breaking any rule, anymore than a PC using Extra Attack breaks a rule (the rule is that the Attack action involves making one attack, not several).

Any general rule not overridden is still in effect, but a monster stat block has primacy over any general rule when it conflicts. And can contain anything it wants to. It can even override the general rules for monsters (which, like anything in the MM or DMG, are more like suggestions).

[strangebloke]

I still think that all the wizardlikes in MotM having a free subtle spell is more oversight than intent. Making an oversight like that doesn't say nothing, but I'll want some solid evidence if you want to convince me the intent was for characters to wreak destruction while sitting and inconspicuously sipping their tea.

My thesis isn't that its intended. My thesis is, intended or otherwise its a badly written statblock.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure, there's no need for your NPCs to function exactly how the players do but the way they function shouldn't be a direct violation of the rules that govern the players.

This.

DND is just a grab-bag of a load of random fantasy tropes. People play the game because those tropes are cozy and familiar. Don't dump the tropes. Play with them, subvert them, but do not ignore them.

Not quite correct. D&D is the fusion of wargaming, Science Fiction and Fantasy fandom, pulps of varying kinds, adventure stories, and some fantasy tropes. (If you have not read Jon Peterson's The Elusive Shift I recommend it). The Sci Fi/Fantasy overlap has a long tradition in D&D which goes back to Arneson's games before the game ever got published, the Clone spell, psionic powers (mind flayer, introduced in 1975) and of course the infamous Barrier Peaks module, and the Blackmoor supplement (original game) Temple of the Frog module/adventure.
Sci Fi had its paw prints all over D&D from the beginning, and before the beginning.

In short: Because it allows people to understand the game we are all playing together. {snip} Yes, "wizard" could mean anything. But it shouldn't.

But it's a Magic User, at heart.

If they're aware that "studious/learned mage" is what people tend to mean by "wizard", it's fine.

No, it's not. Wizard / MU is someone who went out and found magic and secret lore by going on dangerous quests with henchmen and adventuring companions. The ivory tower 'wizard' has no place in D&D.

D&D is an RPG of negotiable affections, happy to service whatever trope/game style you want, and only slavishly devoted to taking your money for a good time.

True enough, but the Sci Fi fan element was there before the first edition was published.

The whole point of a wizard NPC is that its an NPC who got their powers the same way as the player character.

Yes. Same with Volo's warlocks. How they got there is the same.

A D&D world contains people who intellectually study magic, record magic in books, and can learn more magic by reading other such books written by people with abilities similar to theirs.

Those aren't adventurers, though. Adventurers go and and do things and find things, to include magic and magical things. That's the core conceit.

They don't get to break the rules.

This.

NPCs follow the same spell casting rules as PCs. From the Basic Rules:

“Magic permeates the worlds of D&D and most often appears in the form of a spell.
This chapter provides the rules for casting spells. Different character classes have distinctive ways of learning and preparing their spells, and monsters use spells in unique ways. Regardless of its source, a spell follows the rules here.”

Bold mine for emphasis.

Also this.

[Selion]

IMHO it's a Yes and a No.

While i generally agree with DMs freedom in designing encounters, they should be aware that pushing too much the asymmetry could cause troubles.

A common example is the shadar kay in monster manual, he has a spiked chain which has abilities player characters cannot obtain, it's disappointing being unable to play a fighting style available to a humanoid enemy, and to be honest i don't see the reason why.

Conversely i could see giving a boss fight legendary actions/resistances or peculiar abilities, but they should have a narrative explaining in game (EG: this foe is a legendary warrior who has deployed a unique fighting style)

By the way, what i think the game lacks regarding NPC enemies is a conversion between character levels and CR, which causes a lot of unbalancing issues, in particular regarding shapeshifting spells and wild shape, which could have been ruled in a more smooth way if there existed such conversion.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also this.

As with all general rules, that has an implied "unless there's a specific rule that says otherwise" clause attached. And must, because specific always beats general if there's a conflict. General cannot override specific--no rule is exempt from being overridden by a more specific one. There are spells that allow you to target things that are behind full cover (teleport, message). There are monsters who have features that let them override the general (and specific!) rules for spells, allowing them to cast them
a) as a legendary action
b) without expending spell slots
c) without components
etc.

No rule stands isolated and immune. And since a) every monster stat block (and feature within those stat blocks) is a specific rule and b) there are no limits on what can be a monster feature, no general rule can constrain the set of possible monsters. Which violates no rules--it merely overrides them differently than how PCs override those same rules. Because PCs don't follow the general rules either--every single class feature overrides a rule somewhere. Else anyone could do it. Spells are overrides to the general rules. And are overridden in turn by other spells.

In essence, D&D rules are not binding contracts between anyone. They're
a) a shared language
b) tools to construct a shared experience and to resolve common situations
c) a set of defaults if you (the table as a whole) don't want to do something different

They're a UI framework. Nothing more, nothing less. And like any framework, they're intended to be extended, overridden, and outright ignored where they're not wanted. The rules exist to help the game, the game does not exist to operationalize the rules.

IMHO it's a Yes and a No.

While i generally agree with DMs freedom in designing encounters, they should be aware that pushing too much the asymmetry could cause troubles.

A common example is the shadar kay in monster manual, he has a spiked chain which has abilities player characters cannot obtain, it's disappointing being unable to play a fighting style available to a humanoid enemy, and to be honest i don't see the reason why.

Maybe being a freaky, nearly-immortal shadow elf lets you spend a few centuries mastering something that's silly and pointless? The set of "fighting styles available to humanoid enemies" is huge. Only a tiny fraction are suitable for
a) adventuring
b) heroes
c) in the framework of a game.

By the way, what i think the game lacks regarding NPC enemies is a conversion between character levels and CR, which causes a lot of unbalancing issues, in particular regarding shapeshifting spells and wild shape, which could have been ruled in a more smooth way if there existed such conversion.

That's never going to happen as long as CR and level mean the same things. Take, for instance, the CR 12 Archmage. He's a level 18 wizard (or at least casts like one, and wizards don't exactly have other class features to muddy the comparison). The level 17 (equivalent) Warlock of the Fiend is CR...7. The (judging from the stat block) level 15-equivalent Champion (1d10 + level second wind = 20 ==> level = 15, which matches up with 3 attacks and Indomitable x2) is CR 9.

Instead, what I expect (and would like to see) for polymorph, shapechange, wildshape, and the summoning spells is going to one of
a) a fixed set of possibilities. Instead of "any beast", it's X, Y, or Z.
b) a "generic" stat block like the Summon X line
c) some hybrid of the two (probably for wild shape) where you get a selection from a set of "build-a-bear" (pun intended) stat blocks with choices that scale based on your level but aren't real monster stat blocks. So you can be the (names entirely made up by someone bad at naming things) "Tank Beast" stat block, selecting the "Armored Hide" option (making something like a giant turtle).

Because nothing else will bring those anything like into balance with the rest of the system.

[Demostheknees]

This has come up in both of the threads, and I am genuinely confused...why, with all of the options for PCs present in all of the books, do folks get disappointed that an NPC is doing something they can't do/can't learn how to do?

For one, if you are playing a character, presumably you have already made your class/sub-class choices when coming up against an enemy and changing that up is generally an incredibly rare occurrence (at least in the games I've played/run). So you are seeing something that at best you'll be able to get with your next character, which seems strange to get hung up on when you are already playing one. It feels like window shopping for the next cool thing rather than exploring what you can do with what you have, which for me is a much more fun experience.

I have also never felt promised that all things I see in game are available for my character to have. My first instinct when I see an enemy use an exotic weapon or use some strange ability isn't "how can I have that for my character?" its "How can I beat that with the cool stuff I've got in my toolbox?".

If I really, really like what that enemy/NPC did, and want to change my character in the middle of its progression, is this not exactly what homebrew was made for? Every time this has happened its always been a conversation with the DM/Player that involves some amount of house ruling at the very least. If it was something the character could do/learn, they would already know that (or have that information very available).