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

[dave2008]

In 4e D&D, this is what p 42 of the DMG is for.


Why does the kobold ability represent training?

Big chunks of 4e stat blocks are not intended to represent training. They're there to drive the fiction. Eg Hobgoblins on their own are tough to defeat, but in phalanxes are near-unbreakable: that's a decision about the fiction, not a conjecture about the capabilities of Hobgoblins.

You seem the same thing on the player side too. STR paladins have Valiant Strike, ie a bonus to hit when outnumbered by foes. This isn't a prediction about or model of how the paladin fights. It's function is to make paladins valiant, by giving the player a reason to have their paladin PC hurl themselves into the fray.

It is these features, on both the player and GM side, that make 4e the most colourful, vivid version of D&D as far as combat is concerned. (It mostly uses different mean out of combat.)

Just an FYI, when he is talking about Kobolds I am pretty sure he is talking about 5e kobolds and "pact tactics"

Pack Tactics. The kobold has advantage on an attack roll against a creature if at least one of the kobold's allies is within 5 feet of the creature and the ally isn't incapacitated.

PS I agree with you about 4e and p42. 5e has the same thing(s) in the DMG, just not all on one page.

 

[Flamestrike]

Looking for some input on how you DM's justify in-game mechanics or magical effects that some npc's may have, but aren't listed in the PHB? For ex., you want your BBEG to appear in hologram/projected form before the pc's and kill one of his own minions with Power Word: Kill. His projected image then sits and has a conversation with the PC's, inviting them to join his forces.

Isn't that just Project image, with the ability to cast a spell while so projecting? Maybe it's a unique 9th level spell, or an ability he gained via a Demonic pact or whatever.

The PHB isnt the source of all things in the world. He's just -that- good, he can cast a spell while projecting.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm reminded of the fun time we had playing Curse of Strahd. Every time a monster used a weird power, the Yuan-Ti Paladin would ask if it's magical or not, since (according to Volo's), he had advantage on saves versus magic (this is before the ability was revised to only affect spells). With no clear guidance, the DM basically said no every time. This, I think, is a good example of why some explanation for monster abilities needs to in the rulebooks. Sometimes you need to know whether your abilities interact with it or not.

Of course, given how the new "spell attacks" in Monsters of the Multiverse work, the answer would probably be "they don't", making things like counterspell and player magic resistance even less valuable.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm reminded of the fun time we had playing Curse of Strahd. Every time a monster used a weird power, the Yuan-Ti Paladin would ask if it's magical or not, since (according to Volo's), he had advantage on saves versus magic (this is before the ability was revised to only affect spells). With no clear guidance, the DM basically said no every time. This, I think, is a good example of why some explanation for monster abilities needs to in the rulebooks. Sometimes you need to know whether your abilities interact with it or not.

Of course, given how the new "spell attacks" in Monsters of the Multiverse work, the answer would probably be "they don't", making things like counterspell and player magic resistance even less valuable.

The yaunti ability is part of the problem. It's drawing on structure present in 3.x where every ability was (sp) (Su) or(Ex) to denote spell like supernatural & extraordinary. The tags indicated how they interacted with a few things. Like antimagic that ability & opportunities attacks. 5e cut them for simplicity (and probably making sure they weren't used for badwrongfun aoo supported tactical combat) but didn't take long for wotc to start relying on ask your gm to make use of them for aoos the gm has nothing at all to draw upon for the answer.
Edit:holy typo!

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm reminded of the fun time we had playing Curse of Strahd. Every time a monster used a weird power, the Yuan-Ti Paladin would ask if it's magical or not, since (according to Volo's), he had advantage on saves versus magic (this is before the ability was revised to only affect spells). With no clear guidance, the DM basically said no every time. This, I think, is a good example of why some explanation for monster abilities needs to in the rulebooks. Sometimes you need to know whether your abilities interact with it or not.

Of course, given how the new "spell attacks" in Monsters of the Multiverse work, the answer would probably be "they don't", making things like counterspell and player magic resistance even less valuable.

There is a difference between clear categorization of effects and individual identification/rationalization of abilities.

If...to mix editions...the Yuan-ti ability was clearly described to be effective against magic of type X, and the effects in CoS were labeled X, Y, and Z, the players would not need to know the name of an ability or have any kind of access to it.

So, yeah, WotC is making things difficult with the fuzzy line between spells and non-spell magical effects. But that's an entirely different issue of whether NPCs should get abilities that aren't explicable according to the rules in the PHB.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In 4e D&D, this is what p 42 of the DMG is for.


Why does the kobold ability represent training?

Big chunks of 4e stat blocks are not intended to represent training. They're there to drive the fiction. Eg Hobgoblins on their own are tough to defeat, but in phalanxes are near-unbreakable: that's a decision about the fiction, not a conjecture about the capabilities of Hobgoblins.

You seem the same thing on the player side too. STR paladins have Valiant Strike, ie a bonus to hit when outnumbered by foes. This isn't a prediction about or model of how the paladin fights. It's function is to make paladins valiant, by giving the player a reason to have their paladin PC hurl themselves into the fray.

It is these features, on both the player and GM side, that make 4e the most colourful, vivid version of D&D as far as combat is concerned. (It mostly uses different mean out of combat.)

That's (one of) my issues. I don't want the mechanics to drive the fiction. I want the fiction to drive the mechanics.

 

[Umbran]

Agree to disagree on that one.

Again, I agree in principle, but in this case the OP said the players were asking.

So, again - you are seeking answers to the OP's question from third parties.

The OP did not, so far as I saw, limit answers to a world in which NPCs/monsters (the distinction is narrative) and PCs all work under the same rules. So, you don't really get to impose that requirement on the answers, 'cause it isn't your question. The 5e game rules by default, have NPCs and PCs using different rules - so the common answers will be in line with those rules.

If you, personally, want answers that fit your more stringent criteria, please don't hijack the OP's thread to get them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, again - you are seeking answers to the OP's question from third parties.

The OP did not, so far as I saw, limit answers to a world in which NPCs/monsters (the distinction is narrative) and PCs all work under the same rules. So, you don't really get to impose that requirement on the answers, 'cause it isn't your question. The 5e game rules by default, have NPCs and PCs using different rules - so the common answers will be in line with those rules.

If you, personally, want answers that fit your more stringent criteria, please don't hijack the OP's thread to get them.

I assumed it was a general question of how you would answer the question, and didn't demand that the answer be couched in 5e mechanics. My own personal answer goes against 5e's design philosophy and requires homebrew, so my posts flow from that point. Are we to assume that all queries in the 5e forum must be responded to in the way WotC uses the system? I use a lot of homebrew in my games, and start from Level Up as a base, but it's still more 5e than it is any other system. I just prefer the design philosophy of pre-4e editions more.

 

[Umbran]

My own personal answer goes against 5e's design philosophy and requires homebrew, so my posts flow from that point.

Sure.

But when someone answers the OP's question and you step in with "Strong disagree...," that's setting up a problematic dynamic in which you take the space to accept or reject other people's answers. This may not be intentional, but it is the effect.

Feel free to talk about how you'd handle the OP's question yourself. Just don't reject other's answers because they don't fit your needs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure.

But when someone answers the OP's question and you step in with "Strong disagree...," that's setting up a problematic dynamic in which you take the space to accept or reject other people's answers. This may not be intentional, but it is the effect.

Feel free to talk about how you'd handle the OP's question yourself. Just don't reject other's answers because they don't fit your needs.

I will do that, but I don't really understand it. It seems to me that would lead to the thread being a series of independent conversations between the OP and those who espouse a certain variety of answer, with no cross-pollination because you can't disagree with other people's answers. Is that what we're supposed to do here? I honestly don't get it.