PC:NPC symmetry

[Mr.Moron]

The symmetry is important only insofar as you do not want to tell a player, "You can never, ever play somebody able to do something like what my NPC is doing." It starts to make NPCs feel like special snowflakes, and that's annoying. If anybody is going to be a special snowflake, it should be the PCs

How far does this go exactly?

Does this extend to social standing? If the players meet the King (an NPC) must they be allowed to potentially become King?

Does this extend to type? If an NPC is say the last member of long-lost race, must the option exist for the setting to have really missed one, such that PCs of that race be generated?

Does this extend to scope of existence? If god appears in an NPC capacity of some kind, must PCs be able to ascend to godhood?

Does this extend to specific acts? If an NPC hunts the Great Yellow Bonjo-Bonjo bird to extinction and makes a point of bragging about, must their actually be some GYBBs left for the player to really finish off? Does the answer change of the NPC did this years before the PCs come to the island, or if he does it while they are there but tied up with other business?

[icefractal]

I don't think they need to be built the same way - and unless the DM has a hell of a lot of free time, they probably shouldn't.

However, I like there to be symmetry in terms of qualitative capabilities, or a specific reason why that's not the case. So for example, if we're playing D&D 3.x, and there's some guy who can take more than one turn a round:
* If it's "because he's a solo fight" ... no, not cool.
* If there's a reason, like he's a demigod, or has been accelerated by some very powerful effect, or is actually having his body telekinetically moved around by several hidden allies ... then sure, why not?
* If he's extremely skilled in some class/feat-chain/whatever that lets him do this, and that skill is possible (not necessarily easy) for the PCs to learn ... then sure, that's fine too.

[goto124]

"He's a solo fight" IS a (or even THE) reason to make him tougher. More than 1 round per turn is a bit much though, but that's another issue.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'm in favor of complete symmetry of mechanics. If NPCs can become kings, perform dark rituals of ascension, shoot an arrow thirty miles, or anything else, then a PC can potentially do the same. Homebrewed material might have prerequisites like "Must study with this really obscure tribe of elves" or "Must conduct a month-long ritual with the Talisman of Al-Akbar as a focus" or the like, but if the PCs are able to find out about the requirements (which they can do in any game with research/knowledge subsystems) and are willing to do that, then they can learn the super-move or pull off the dark ritual. Also, I never make requirements so niche that only the BBEG could plausibly pick something up, as in jedipotter's Void Gnome example, partly because that makes little sense in-setting--the PrC or spell or other plot device had to have been figured out by someone, after all--and partly because if you're going out of your way to make it impossible for the PCs to take you might as well just handwave it and I don't like doing that.

PCs and BBEGs are not special snowflakes, and should not be set apart by using a different physics engine from the rest of the world. And this lack-of-special-snowflake-ness extends to symmetry of plot as well, so the PCs don't get to override setting details simply by virtue of being PCs, as in Mr.Moron's examples--a PC could be the last member of a long-lost race, but not the last member of the same long-lost race whose last member has already been established, and they couldn't commit genocide against the already-nonexistent Yellow Bonjo-Bonjo bird but could certainly try to wipe out the Red-Tailed Pseudodragons if one looked at them funny.

I hold this view for a few reasons, the first of which is the abovementioned PCs-are-just-like-NPCs thing. PCs should be hailed as heroes due to the actions they take and should destroy the Evil Altar of Evil instead of using it because they're not morally bankrupt, not because they have "Designated Protagonist" tags above their heads and the Altar has the "Prerequisite: Can only be used by Designated Villains" tag. I find that sort of thing to be just as irritating as other forms of railroading and plot armor; if you're a good guy just because the game doesn't allow you to be a bad guy, then (A) that's sort of defeating the purpose of playing an open-ended game like an RPG and (B) that makes your "choice" to be good meaningless.

Secondly, NPCs can serve a lot of different roles in the story: an ogre chieftain can be an enemy fighting the PCs or a (possibly mind-controlled) ally fighting monsters with the PCs, he could be a terrifying boss-level threat for low-level characters or Minion #37 to be mowed down by high-level characters, he could pick up the +5 sword of awesome or be disarmed and have to fight with his fists. Any game that asks you to re-stat a monster when he changes sides, says to use a different stat block for the same creature every few PC levels, or breaks down when a monster uses different equipment is not a robust enough system for me. (And before anyone thinks that's just a dig at D&D 4e--which does fail on all those points--it applies to AD&D as well, where monsters don't have ability scores and trying to put a belt of storm giant strength on a salamander gives you a Divide By Cucumber error, though at least AD&D monsters only break down in corner cases and have the numerical ranges to be used on both Team Monster or Team PC fairly easily.)


To those who say that PC-NPC symmetry is a problem because it means spending too much time on generating NPCs, I say instead that that just highlights a problem with the PC generation process and the game's mechanical complexity in general. Back in AD&D people could roll up PCs in a few minutes, even mid-level wizards and other relatively complex characters, and that changed in 3e not because they introduced character symmetry but because skill point accounting is a pain, monsters have too many types, PrCs are given pointless prerequisites to prevent entering them "too soon," characters need a certain checklist of items to compete at mid-high levels (and spend their hundreds of thousands of gold pieces 1 gp and 5 gp at a time), and so forth. If one streamlines the NPC creation process by only giving them maxed-out class skills, choose simpler or randomly-generated equipment, and the like the process goes by quite quickly; if one makes houserules to fix mechanical issues (which practically every group does anyway) like removing the cross-class point costs, making Int increases retroactive, reducing PrC prerequisites to "Level: 5th" and one additional easy-to-meet thematic requirement, remove Big Six items and go by item levels rather than WBL, and stuff like that it becomes quicker and easier still.

[TheCountAlucard]

This is not the right view. PCs and NPCs are not the same. A NPC can not be a special snowflake as there is not a player behind the character with an obsessive emotional attachment.

The DM is a player, and like all players, is capable of emotional attachment.

[goto124]

I'll leave it to someone else to explain the dangers of a DM getting attached to a character.

For PC and NPC symmetry to work, the system must be catered to it, such that character creation is sufficiently streamlined, for example. How many systems actually have this?

Also, symmetry like this is for 'versimilltude', and after reading the arguments... I get the feeling it would take a very experienced player to notice the difference and to be actually somewhat upset about it. Perhaps it's my gamist attitude (non-symmetry would be required in computer games obviously), but stuff like handwaving doesn't sound bad in and of itself.

[mephnick]

My players were well versed enough in 3.5 to say "oh he casted ______, he's obviously a level X _______ with so and so abilities, around ______ HP. We'll likely need to roll ___ to pass his DC's. Here's how we should deal with this."

I absolutely hated it as a DM.

So now I just make stuff up and tell them to roll knowledge or go kick rocks.

[Vitruviansquid]

90% of DM'ing is just smoke and mirrors, anyways.

If all the PC's are blind, I don't see why the DM has to build his setting with color, if you get my drift.

[NichG]

I strongly agree with 'they must be asymmetric'. The roles of PCs versus NPCs in the game are very different. That said, NPCs, the world, and the PCs should all be mutually consistent with one another in that there should be patterns which the players can make use of.

I think a lot of what people want from symmetry, is really more about consistency. The idea is, if NPCs use the same rules as PCs, then as a player you can reason about an NPC's abilities by observing them. If you see them using Teleport, you know they're at least a certain level, maybe have access to other 5th level spells, etc, etc. When you have PC/NPC asymmetry, that 'easy' consistency goes away. Instead, the DM has to intentionally create patterns in NPCs and also has to communicate enough information to the players so that those patterns can be figured out early enough for them to see re-use.

It's pretty easy to put that consistency back into the game even for an asymmetric system. For example, lets say that for gameplay reasons you want some NPC to have a 10x hitpoint multiplier and three actions a round (they're supposed to be a boss fight for the party, and for various reasons you don't want to just dump a bunch of minions onto the field). Okay, that's fine, but if you make them look like any other human and really be indistinguishable, then there's no pattern for the players to latch onto.

On the other hand, create some sort of force in the setting that possesses a character and makes them super-buff for a short period of time 'at great cost' (they can do it three times and then it kills them, lets say), and which has certain cues that can be used to detect it and now it feels like there's a pattern. Everyone who has glowing veins of energy twitching beneath their skin is 'one of those guys' and is going to potentially have a massive hitpoint pool and will move scarily fast. Maybe the PCs can never be 'one of those guys' (the force is opposed to them and would just possess them/kill them if given a chance, or its just a really bad deal for PC because of the side-effects), but there's a rationale of some sort behind why the random guy suddenly has tons of hitpoints and actions, and that rationale gets re-used so it can be used as a basis for the players to reason.

So instead of 'everything uses the same mechanics', Things like "orange energies indicate the most dangerous/plotty faction" or "when it has falling stars in its eyes then get ready for existential failure" or "when something twists and shapes the terrain around it, look out for infectious diseases of the soul", etc become the recurring patterns that players can use to make sense of the DM's world.

[mephnick]

Yeah, it's easy enough to be like "This thing is glowing black like that other thing you fought. It's probably powered by the Old God as well, get prepped for Lair Actions, bro."

Then the players know that normally they wouldn't be allowed to fight like this guy, and there's a reason for it, but I guess they could conceivably RP their way into it if they pay attention..

[Segev]

Because only one person had it, and the PCs just killed him, of course.

Tell me, do you give your players breath weapons, or ban dragons as monsters?

I would be willing to allow players to have breath weapons, if they devoted appropriate character-building resources to it. In fact, dragons tend to be over-costed for their ECL, so I'd have little problem with a PC having a breath weapon from being one.

This is not the right view. PCs and NPCs are not the same. A NPC can not be a special snowflake as there is not a player behind the character with an obsessive emotional attachment.

Somebody else already put this well, but I'll reitterate: the DM's special snowflake NPC is still a special snowflake belonging to a player. The player who has the most power to break or change the rules on a whim to make sure their special snowflake is special "enough."

And it's a bit pointless to say ''oh hypothetically'' a PC could do anything a NPC can do.....when it's true, but not exactly possible. It's like having a Void Gnome class, that has lots of requirements that a PC would never do. Well, you just ''randomly'' set that up as an NPC only class. The same way you can make an NPC class that has a single good ability, but a bunch of worthless ones....no PC would want to waste the time taking that.

If you say "must be an NPC," you're making it literally impossible. "It's my toy and you can't have it." If you say, instead, "these are the requirements; you can try to meet them, but it's unlikely the circumstances that made it worth it to this NPC will make it worth it to your PCs."

That becomes either a choice for the players, or a role-playing challenge if they choose to try to find a way to make it work for them.

There are a lot of things a DM might want to have in the game, like say dragon riders, but not as something the PC's can do. The DM just does not want the troubles of a 1st level PC having an adult gold dragon.

And just because you see a level 20 wizard casting Wish doesn't mean your first level PC fighter should be able to do so. But you SHOULD be able to make a character who, by 20th level, be able to cast Wish.

Eh, call me a bad DM, but I don't really like it. I love using possessed or corrupted NPCs, and guess what, you don't eat those abilities because they'll eat your brain, hypothetical player character. Of course, the villains employing this don't usually act all that sane in the first place, so there you go.

Sure, you can get them. You just stop being viable as a PC. I tend not to like this, either, as I feel it's a cop-out, but it's better than the "because special rules apply only to NPCs" version of asymmetry. At least the reasoning is symmetric: all characters corrupted by this power go mad and are controlled by the GM. Sure, your PC can gain it...but he becomes controlled by the GM in the process. (I prefer more in-depth systems for dealing with corruption, but that's a whole nother thread.)

I also prefer it when there forbidden and unknown lore or knowledge. Sometimes the PCs get to it first. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes that's a part of the challenge. And sometimes its hard to use to the effect they want.

Just because it's forbidden doesn't mean the PCs shouldn't be able to try to use it. At least as able as an NPC would be. It being hard to make effective? That's fine.

How far does this go exactly?

Does this extend to social standing? If the players meet the King (an NPC) must they be allowed to potentially become King?

Not quite relevant, but yes, there should be at least as much possibility of them becoming king as there is for any other character of their race/class/social status, and there should rarely be restrictions that prevent characters being created with the capability.

There are caveats; I think I'll get to them by the end of this post.

Does this extend to type? If an NPC is say the last member of long-lost race, must the option exist for the setting to have really missed one, such that PCs of that race be generated?

Probably not. But it definitely skirts the line. There can be valid reasons for forbidding it, but if being "the last of this one race" is a part of a package deal of "so they get all of these powers and ablities that no PC ever can have," it starts to smack of things with which I take issue.

Does this extend to scope of existence? If god appears in an NPC capacity of some kind, must PCs be able to ascend to godhood?

And here we really get to the caveats: If you're running a game with certain restrictions, it is okay that there be things within those restrictions that cannot do "anything" that anybody in the game does. However, the more of these "nope, you can't do that, because you're not cool enough" NPCs show up, the more it hits on the problem with asymmetry.

And, if it's possible in-setting to ascend to become a god, PCs should have the ability to try as much as anybody else.

There are obviously gradiations to all of this; the slippery-slope argument against PC-type restrictions is "slave pit rules." I've seen DMs restrict character creation to very narrow levels of power and proceed to dump NPCs on the party that vastly out-classed them. I find that no better than (and often worse) a DM who makes everything the party comes across 10 levels higher in D&D.

Does this extend to specific acts? If an NPC hunts the Great Yellow Bonjo-Bonjo bird to extinction and makes a point of bragging about, must their actually be some GYBBs left for the player to really finish off? Does the answer change of the NPC did this years before the PCs come to the island, or if he does it while they are there but tied up with other business?

No, but the ability to hunt rare and/or dangerous game to extinction should remain a feasibility.


The key point is that there shouldn't be end results that are beyond the reach of PCs but which NPCs can achieve, as a general rule. Barring level restrictions and character-building resource limitations, there shouldn't be things that players CANNOT do, outside of specialized games with defined limits due to the nature of the game.

e.g. "You're playing recruits in the Demi-Human Adventurer's Society, so you need to play one of the PHB races that isn't half-orc," is fine. But turning around and making the cool things all require orc blood...that's not so much.

[jedipotter]

The DM is a player, and like all players, is capable of emotional attachment.

DM is not a Player. Dungeon Master and Player are Different words. And they have different roles.

Somebody else already put this well, but I'll reitterate: the DM's special snowflake NPC is still a special snowflake belonging to a player. The player who has the most power to break or change the rules on a whim to make sure their special snowflake is special "enough."

A DM has between 1-100 Characters per game, a player has one(maybe two or three if they play mounts, pets, or whatever). So with only one character, the player treats them special. It's the only character they have. And, a player has to follow the DM's rulings. And the DM controls the game world. A DM can have a spacial character, but it's not the same when the DM can make any call they wish and control the game world.

Take player Sally. She has character Zora, the only thing she can control is her character. Zora gets into a fight and dies. Sally can not do anything about that. Take DM Eric. He has 50 NPCs or so that he runs, and he really likes Zippo the Evil Gnome. Then zippo gets killed in a fight. No problem, as the DM is all powerful, he can just say ''Zippo's brother Harpo was hidding nearby, and brings his brother back to life''.

If you say "must be an NPC," you're making it literally impossible. "It's my toy and you can't have it." If you say, instead, "these are the requirements; you can try to meet them, but it's unlikely the circumstances that made it worth it to this NPC will make it worth it to your PCs."

I guess it sounds better to have a list of hard requirements, then to just say ''no'', but your still ''just saying no''.

For a good example, giving a NPC a spell like ability to cast a spell at will does not matter much. Even with that ability, the NPC will only be alive a couple minutes. But you can't give the game ability to the PC's without unbalancing the game.

The good, game breaking stuff must be NPC Only.

[icefractal]

"He's a solo fight" IS a (or even THE) reason to make him tougher. More than 1 round per turn is a bit much though, but that's another issue.

The ultimate reason, but to my mind, there's a difference between:
A) He's a solo fight -> So he has multiple turns and X other abilities.
B) He's a solo fight -> So he's bound several powerful demons to himself -> So he has multiple turns and X other abilities.

The end result might mechanically be the same, but acknowledging that this is an atypical ability, and having a reason why it's possible (and which might suggest ways to counter it, or try to replicate it), makes a lot of difference.

[Telok]

For me it absolutely depends on the game system. In Shadowrun I am absolutely not going to stat up NPCs the way you build PCs. In Call of Cthulhu and Traveller the characters are simple enough that it isn't a problem. In Paranoia I do what is the most humorous. A dark, violent, humor with puns, double entendre, and heat-seeking chainsaw rockets.

Make the NPCs to fit the story and the system. If you need faceless mooks to be squashed in combat then you can skimp on the details. If the PC's love interest gets afflicted with lycanthropy then I'd better have all the stuff I need to make that work in the system I'm running because I'm not stopping the game for twenty minutes to stat the NPC out but I absolutely need for that NPC to still adhere to the rules without a lot of hand waving and guesswork.

[kyoryu]

It's pretty unimportant to me.

In terms of system interaction, it *can* be useful, but there's typically a long-term view with PCs that doesn't exist with most NPCs (doubly so in a more hack-n-slash campaign, where most NPCs will die after their encounter, never to be seen again). I mean, the impact of loss of Humanity on an NPC vampire is basically nil.

In terms of making "valid builds", it's not important at all to me. When making GURPS NPCs, for instance, I'd never worry about point totals.

[goto124]

"but yes, there should be at least as much possibility of them becoming king as there is for any other character of their race/class/social status"

So, the DM has to take another 3 months to come up with a nobilty/royality system that didn't exist at first? To figure out how the finer point of diplomancy and running a country?

There is a limit to which a DM can flesh out the world.

[nedz]

Verisimilitude, in a my setting, requires this symmetry — or at least it's appearance. Player's should be free to play a level 1 commoner if they wish — it just ain't very common.

In other settings Verisimilitude may mean something else.

I don't think that there are any hard answers here because it depends upon what you are trying to do with your game.

For instance: if you were running a super-heroes type game, then such symmetry would break Verisimilitude since everyone would be a super-hero. Now this is an extreme example but it makes the point.

[Honest Tiefling]

"but yes, there should be at least as much possibility of them becoming king as there is for any other character of their race/class/social status"

So, the DM has to take another 3 months to come up with a nobilty/royality system that didn't exist at first? To figure out how the finer point of diplomancy and running a country?

There is a limit to which a DM can flesh out the world.

I would think the scope of such a task would stall long enough for the DM to figure out something. Most games don't have ways to instantly summon an army, after all.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

It can be nice to have the option, but it's hardly necessary.

I've run a lot of Dungeon World lately, and since the GM and players interact entirely differently with the rules, my NPCs don't have most of the stats that PCs do. Rather, I note if they have any special capabilities, how much HP they have, and how much armor they have. That's primarily because of how the game operates, of course.

4th Edition's use of monster statblocks was handy, because it meant you didn't have to spend time in character creation for all of your NPCs.

I like to play Burning Wheel, and there--you use standard character creation as you need to. It generally creates more interesting and deeper characters, but it's simple enough to start by assigning a few stats to characters based on general guidelines. I've done that, and then gone back and given a full character burn to NPCs who became more important.

Ultimately, it's a game, and games have particular ways of doing things. They're not always egalitarian.

[AirApparent]

Coming from 3.5, one of my biggest gripes about 4 was the complete disconnect between what a player can do and what NPC's could do.
There was not one ability in the monster manual that could have been done by a PC. They were all unique to not only to NPC's, but also many times unique to that particular monster.

It may be my bias as a player, but I feel that PC's and NPC's exist in the same world and therefore should work within the same ruleset. Granted there may be some special cases (the way 5 handles solo monsters comes to mind, and I don't mind that too much), but if the goblin war-shaman gets an ability that lets him make necrotic ooze bubble up from the ground, a player should be able to make a goblin war-shaman that can do the same thing. That kind of thing didn't seem to happen in 4e.

I will admit the reduction of NPC stats to what's required is perfectly fine though. If the aforementioned war-shaman only exists in one battle, we don't need to hear about his ability to help his allies heal in downtime or his crafting abilities, for example.

[TheCountAlucard]

DM is not a Player.

Insist all you like, but that won't change facts.

Dungeon Master and Player are Different words.

So are "quarterback" and "linebacker." Both are football players.

And they have different roles.

Yet they're still playing the same game; the quarterback's just calling the plays, as it were. He's still a player.

Let's not put on airs, shall we?

[Milo v3]

I prefer symmetry in most cases because it helps the world make more sense, if an NPC in the setting can do x as long as they meet y prerequisites, then a PC who meets y prerequisites in the setting should be able to do x.

The only exemption I can think of is monsters, I didn't exactly like how Legend stats up all monsters through the players Class system.

[Knaight]

Coming from 3.5, one of my biggest gripes about 4 was the complete disconnect between what a player can do and what NPC's could do.
There was not one ability in the monster manual that could have been done by a PC. They were all unique to not only to NPC's, but also many times unique to that particular monster.

It may be my bias as a player, but I feel that PC's and NPC's exist in the same world and therefore should work within the same ruleset. Granted there may be some special cases (the way 5 handles solo monsters comes to mind, and I don't mind that too much), but if the goblin war-shaman gets an ability that lets him make necrotic ooze bubble up from the ground, a player should be able to make a goblin war-shaman that can do the same thing. That kind of thing didn't seem to happen in 4e.

The absolute end result isn't the only thing there though. A game in which every ability was PC accessible, but the way the NPCs were built different wouldn't be symmetrical. Then you get into unique things. For instance, I GMed a game where a recurring antagonist was essentially an undead composite spirit of a handful of very notable people. They had some unique abilities that weren't PC accessible. Some of the PCs in this same game had little magical talents or similar that were unique. NPCs couldn't access those, including NPCs that are just generally more powerful than them. At no point was this ever an issue.

[jedipotter]

Insist all you like, but that won't change facts.

Five people gather to play D&D, four players and one DM. Seems like a simple fact. You would not have ''five players'' for a D&D game and no DM. The rules even make it clear that players and DM's are different. That is a lot of facts.

So are "quarterback" and "linebacker." Both are football players.
Yet they're still playing the same game; the quarterback's just calling the plays, as it were. He's still a player.

Ok, how about the coach? Is the coach a player? Though the football example is pointless.

I prefer symmetry in most cases because it helps the world make more sense, if an NPC in the setting can do x as long as they meet y prerequisites, then a PC who meets y prerequisites in the setting should be able to do x.

It just feels so false to me. One way is to say ''this is for NPCs only'' and the players just accept that. The second way is where the players complain they should be able to do anything, and the DM just caves in and says ok.

The third way is the false way: make some requirement. So, this sort of makes the player happy, as they could, in theory meet the requirement. And it's not saying ''no'' to the players. But in reality, the requirement can just be crafted so the players won't want to play the cost, will have a hard time doing it or otherwise stop them from wanting to do it. It is exactly like ''just saying No'', but it's false.

[Milo v3]

It just feels so false to me. One way is to say ''this is for NPCs only'' and the players just accept that. The second way is where the players complain they should be able to do anything, and the DM just caves in and says ok.

The third way is the false way: make some requirement. So, this sort of makes the player happy, as they could, in theory meet the requirement. And it's not saying ''no'' to the players. But in reality, the requirement can just be crafted so the players won't want to play the cost, will have a hard time doing it or otherwise stop them from wanting to do it. It is exactly like ''just saying No'', but it's false.

Third isn't the false way... It is a way. because the players can pay that cost, and then get the ability.

Also, how do you explain "NPC only" in the setting?

[Vertharrad]

What's good for the goose...jedi is good for the gander. Goose(GM) meet Gander(Player).

[Flickerdart]

If one streamlines the NPC creation process by only giving them maxed-out class skills, choose simpler or randomly-generated equipment, and the like the process goes by quite quickly

This is what I do with my bad guys, among other things - they use the same building blocks but different mortar than the PCs. So an NPC won't have access to an ability the PCs can't get, but he might have fudged entry a little bit and gotten into a PrC without the requisite number of hit dice or skill ranks (which I usually just abstract into being good at 2 out of 5 skill groups).

For me, it's not a problem if an enemy with Ability X can only be encountered at a high level due to Ability X being gained at level 8 of a particular PrC. If enemies had the same capabilities at every level, and only their numbers went up, it would be hideously boring for both me and the players.

[jedipotter]

Third isn't the false way... It is a way. because the players can pay that cost, and then get the ability.

Also, how do you explain "NPC only" in the setting?

It's false as the DM can always change things or just out right make them anyway they want. For example a DM can make a Prestige Class with a powerful ability, and set the requirements at ''must be of this race'', ''must follow this code'' and have a high feat tax. All of that turns away the players.

You don't need to explain the ''NPC only'' in the setting.....you only need explain it in the game.

What's good for the goose...jedi is good for the gander. Goose(GM) meet Gander(Player).

Only from the side that says ''everyone must, theoretically, be allowed to do everything.''

Really, it's no different then using this little bit from the Rules: Custom Stuff:

DM has NPC wizard make the ''Fireflame spell''. They are the only wizard in the world with that spell. Oh, sure ''in theory'' the PC's could kill the wizard and steal his spellbook, but other then that....the PC's can never know about or use that spell.

So how is that any different? It's not...

[Vertharrad]

Only from the side that says ''everyone must, theoretically, be allowed to do everything.''

Irrelevant. Your ignoring what you don't want o acknowledge.

Really, it's no different then using this little bit from the Rules: Custom Stuff:

DM has NPC wizard make the ''Fireflame spell''. They are the only wizard in the world with that spell. Oh, sure ''in theory'' the PC's could kill the wizard and steal his spellbook, but other then that....the PC's can never know about or use that spell.

So how is that any different? It's not...

...And the PC's can do the same thing said NPC wizard did, make a spell by way of research and effort...which proves my point exactly. The NPC's can find ways to get said spell and we have the same thing being done by PC's and NPC's.

[Knaight]

...And the PC's can do the same thing said NPC wizard did, make a spell by way of research and effort...which proves my point exactly. The NPC's can find ways to get said spell and we have the same thing being done by PC's and NPC's.

Sometimes the PCs have access to what the NPCs do, sometimes they don't. If the campaign is set up so the PCs are something like resistance fighters, they probably aren't going to have the various "call in the big guns" options. They probably won't even have much in the way of big guns. That's really not a problem.