D&D 5E DM's: How Do You Justify NPC's Having Magic/Abilities That Don't Exist in the PHB?

[Pedantic]

Its not been a design goal for 2 formal editions now to have mechanical parity across all actors (and there existed specific exceptions then as well). I frankly, hate this and find it an immediate barrier to enjoyment, but it's where we're at. A consistent rules framework makes it easier to do this as a player: if I somehow befriend a beholder, I want to know how it set up that slimy floor, so I can leverage it during our traveling band performances, and how does a beholder take levels in bard?

So, given we don't have a mechanical system to support all that, I try to make a reasonable metaphysics that I can at least narratively slot abilities in to, to give players a consistent framework. If there's at least a general series of principles underlying why some wizards can throw fireballs and some can't, and how often that can occur, that's usually enough to let players make decisions. Why and how do gods answer prayers, can I really on chemical/biological processes beyond simple machines, stuff like that.

The problem is that you don't actually have a ton of room to vary that stuff without obvious mechanical impacts starting to impinge, and then you have to start home brewing, and the cycle never ends.

 

[see]

Basically, as DM, you shouldn't be treating PCs' class features as just normal things that a person like their character would inevitably pick up by killing a certain number of orcs or whatever. Class levels are a gamist conceit that help to create the experience of fantasy heroes growing from random nobodies into mighty demigods. Every PC is blazing their own trail, and their class features should feel like organic outgrowths of what they got up to in order to attain them. The fighter gets better at swinging their sword because they did a lot of that. The wizard gets better at casting spells because they're the one doing all the spellcasting. The classes aren't vending machines that anyone can shove XP into to get features.

At least, that's how it works at my table.

I mean, sure, it can work that way at your table, but there's decades of published D&D setting material, both game and novel, that treats classes as features of the way the world works recognized by the game world's inhabitants. (See the Cyclopedia of the Realms entries for the various classes in the 1987 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, for example.) People quite naturally and validly have had their expectations shaped by that.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I justify it on the basis of prep time.

If I need an NPC who is going to last, at best, 3 rounds of combat then I don't want to spend the time and effort making or reading a PC's stab block. Just give me an attack and a couple of interesting abilities.

Building every humanoid opponent as a PC is not time-effective.

 

[gnarlygninja]

Add me to the "I don't" train. It's not even something I even think about. If a player is bothered by it, because they're either new or coming from an edition where this mattered, I'll just talk to them about it. In theory I might point out that they can do things that most people/creatures living in the world can't do so it seems reasonable to me that people would do things they can't do. But to be honest historically because of the tone or timing those players tend to employ I've been more likely to grumble something about it being a game and I don't want to show how the sausage is made.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then please become a writer. If you were a player in my game, and you did the following
1. it magic,
and you said Not Good enough
2. It is a NPC they cheat
and you said not good enough
3. I am the dm
and you said not good enough
4. You got $1k for me to write 500 words,
and you said No.
Then you would be not good enough, to play with me. This is a GAME. Not a story. And since I know authors who only write their worlds "Two Questions Deep". My first two responses are valid.

I value the story of the world and its verisimilitude more than ease of gameplay. If that makes me unwelcome at your table, so be it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Its not been a design goal for 2 formal editions now to have mechanical parity across all actors (and there existed specific exceptions then as well). I frankly, hate this and find it an immediate barrier to enjoyment, but it's where we're at. A consistent rules framework makes it easier to do this as a player: if I somehow befriend a beholder, I want to know how it set up that slimy floor, so I can leverage it during our traveling band performances, and how does a beholder take levels in bard?

So, given we don't have a mechanical system to support all that, I try to make a reasonable metaphysics that I can at least narratively slot abilities in to, to give players a consistent framework. If there's at least a general series of principles underlying why some wizards can throw fireballs and some can't, and how often that can occur, that's usually enough to let players make decisions. Why and how do gods answer prayers, can I really on chemical/biological processes beyond simple machines, stuff like that.

The problem is that you don't actually have a ton of room to vary that stuff without obvious mechanical impacts starting to impinge, and then you have to start home brewing, and the cycle never ends.

I homebrew all the time. Worldbuilding and making homebrew are the most fun part of the hobby to me.

 

[Thommy H-H]

I mean, sure, it can work that way at your table, but there's decades of published D&D setting material, both game and novel, that treats classes as features of the way the world works recognized by the game world's inhabitants. (See the Cyclopedia of the Realms entries for the various classes in the 1987 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, for example.) People quite naturally and validly have had their expectations shaped by that.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure it is that valid to have your expectations - preferences, sure, but not expectations - set by a product released by a different company, in a different century, when I (for example) was 2 years old.

Like, fine, okay: feel free to do things that way. Your table, your setting. But I don't think it's a realistic expectation that the current culture of D&D should adhere to a 35-year-old paradigm. You might as well query how modern DMs explain the existence of warlocks, since some setting book from four editions ago doesn't mention they exist. The game is not a simulation of the setting's reality, and I think most people are happy with that conceit, particularly in the face of changing editions. 4th Edition's insistence on making legacy settings adhere to the assumptions baked into its rules was...not popular.

 

[James Gasik]

This is something that really bothered me when I played 4e. You'd often come across creatures that could perform a maneuver that players could not replicate. If it was due to a supernatural or racial ability, that was fine; maybe you needed a specific power source to replicate it, or it hinged on some unique ability a species of monster possessed.

But sometimes, it was "just this thing that this monster does". Early in 4e, you could trust that all Kobolds were Shifty, or that all Halflings could force you to reroll an attack. But as the edition progressed, you started to see things like the Bugbear Strangler, who could garrote an enemy and then use them as a living shield while they choked out their victim.

And you stop and go "wait, why can only Bugbears do that?". Surely anyone with powerful upper body strength should be able to garrote someone?

As it happens, this was eventually answered in Dragon 373 and Heroes of Shadow, as the Executioner Assassin could learn to do this (and a series of four Multiclass Feats were created so that other classes could do so as well), but it still was a little hard to believe that this required such specialized training when every Bugbear Strangler could do it.

I'm not saying that NPC's should follow the same rules as PC's; don't get me wrong, it's nice when they do, but I remember the headache of building d20-era enemies. Some level of "it has X numbers and Y abilities because it needs to" is perfectly fine.

But it comes down to how you see the game, and how much you care about worldbuilding and immersion. A one-off bad guy with a unique supernatural power? Sure, I can buy that. A subrace of Doppleganger that has reactive camouflage like the Predator or Major Kusanagi? Sure, I can buy that too.

A Kobold who gets advantage attacking something one of his buddies is standing next to? Seems dubious (especially now that PC Kobolds have lost this ability!). Surely anyone could train to work together as a team?

Or how about why all Goblins can Hide as a bonus action. What lets them do this, and not just any small-sized, nimble race known for their sneakiness?

I think it just makes the game better when there are answers to these questions that are more involved than "that's just how the game is".

 

[Hussar]

Snip
. And since I know authors who only write their worlds "Two Questions Deep". My first two responses are valid.

Two questions deep? I’ve never heard this phrase before but I think I understand what you mean. Could you expand on this please?

 

[Hussar]

I mean, sure, it can work that way at your table, but there's decades of published D&D setting material, both game and novel, that treats classes as features of the way the world works recognized by the game world's inhabitants. (See the Cyclopedia of the Realms entries for the various classes in the 1987 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, for example.) People quite naturally and validly have had their expectations shaped by that.

But there’s also a mountain of evidence that outside of 3e, npcs we’re not constrained by the pc class rules.

You had separate stat blocks for different “men” for example.

The idea that everyone uses the same mechanics was a 3e schtick that wasn’t used before or after.