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

[see]

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.

If a publisher doesn't want to deal with audience expectations that are naturally and inevitably formed by previously-published material, the way to do that is to not use the same "brand" as the previously-published material. It is the audience expectations that make a "brand" valuable; choosing to tap into that value means choosing to deal with those expectations.

I mean, the Sherlock Holmes canon was written much longer ago, mostly when literally no one currently alive was born, by no being or entity currently producing such stories. And yet that age is irrelevant. Anyone releasing a new "Sherlock Holmes" story today, in whatever medium, does not merely have to deal with the expectations created by those stories, but by doing a "Sherlock Holmes" story in the first place, chose to invoke and deal with those expectations.

That doesn't mean a new story has to strictly adhere to the audience expectations; playing off or against them is a perfectly valid artistic choice. But the audience expectations exist, and, ultimately, those expectations are the only reason to do a "Sherlock Holmes" story at all. The creator owes a half-step more consideration for audience cries of "that didn't meet my expectations" than in a work dealing with original characters in an original setting, because the creator is the one who chose to validate the bringing of the expectations to the work by making it a "Sherlock Holmes" story.

 

[Rabulias]

... spend the time and effort making or reading a PC's stab block.

Appropriate typo.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Fun idea but there's nothing in the PHB to allow this specifically. How does one justify the fact that this individual has access to magic that isn't available to the PC's and what might you say to the party wizard who says they want to learn to do that?

Many thanks in advance for any thoughts!

NPCs don't have to play by the same rules PCs do. They have different lives, different timetables, different experiences.

It's exactly the same justification I give for my pro-homebrew stance with PC abilities. If the player wants something they aren't currently getting, I eagerly welcome them to talk to me about it. Developing, tweaking, improving--these things are all pretty easy to do in every system I've played (even 4e, the one people love to say can't be house-ruled/homebrewed), and they help make your character yours, not just any old <race> <class>.

I genuinely don't understand why you would ever need more of an explanation than "they learned differently, and draw power differently, so their abilities are different."

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Disagreement without reasons explaining why or spotlighting of potentially relevant details doesn't foster "conversation" though. It also does not provide enough detail for someone else to draw their own conclusions on the disagreement or add their own. If I for example disagree with you there's not enough in your post to say more than "I disagree" without personally assuming & constructing your reasoning.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Disagreement without reasons explaining why or spotlighting of potentially relevant details doesn't foster "conversation" though. It also does not provide enough detail for someone else to draw their own conclusions on the disagreement or add their own. If I for example disagree with you there's not enough in your post to say more than "I disagree" without personally assuming & constructing your reasoning.

But I did explain my position in this case, in multiple posts. That's why I'm confused.

 

[Reynard]

I always find this question fascinatingly strange. Like, what would ever lead one to believe that PC capabilities were some sort of hard limit on what NPCs could do? Especially in 5E, the edition where there's a giant list of NPCs with abilities PCs don't have access to.

On the specific issue of spells that an NPC uses and whether a PC should be allowed to learn said spell: this is a problem based on D&D weird need to suck all the wonder out of spell magic, when it doesn't do that for anything else. I mean every new monster and NPC has strange skills or magical abilities and no one cares, but call it a "spell" and suddenly it is a crime to deny it to PCs. Baffling.

 

[Irlo]

I mean every new monster and NPC has strange skills or magical abilities and no one cares, but call it a "spell" and suddenly it is a crime to deny it to PCs. Baffling.

To be fair, no one is calling this a crime (unless I missed something). They’re asking for in-fiction explanations of the restrictions or in-fiction means for the PC to acquire the spell.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Fine, except if the PCs just saw someone use this previously-unknown ritual then that someone has a spellbook somewhere and that ritual's gonna be in it.

Maybe. Or maybe the guy took ten years cobbling it from various sources, and practiced every day for a year to get it down, then burned the source. You can potentially discover it for yourself it you want to go through that process, but you'll not be adventuring. Besides, most of the time, you'll want to kill that guy, and let the knowledge die with him.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

To be fair, no one is calling this a crime (unless I missed something). They’re asking for in-fiction explanations of the restrictions or in-fiction means for the PC to acquire the spell.

The requirement for in fiction explanations should be their burden to bear. The rest of us who do not have such a need should not be burdened by that restriction.

 

[Andvari]

Nobody panics when monsters use “special abilities.” Even if the ability is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the PCs that, like, a basilisk will petrify them, or a dragon will fly overhead and breathe an inferno of deadly flames, nobody panics, because they’re all “special abilities.” But when I say an NPC casts one little spell not listed in the Player’s Handbook, well then everyone loses their minds!