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

[Irlo]

Are we only talking about spells? I thought any ability that NPC's had and players didn't was part of the discussion. Also, I'm pretty sure that a character in the world would find the Brute ability meaningful. "So when I swing my axe, it kills things twice as fast? Yes please!"

I didn’t mean to imply that we are only talking about spells. I was remarking on the difference (as I see it) between the ability to cast a spell (an action taken by a character in the fiction of the game) and ability to roll more dice for damage (an action taken by a player).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not against the simulationist approach, though it's a lot of extra work, but even then the PCs live different kinds of lives from most other creatures, so the options they share will not be 100% the same even then.

"Why can't my barbarian do the same things as the barbarian chieftain" can be as simple as "you aren't doing anything a barbarian chieftain does".

But that at least is an in-narrative explanation. The barbarian PC could theoretically do what the chieftain does, and get the powers.

That's all I'm asking for. An explanation that isn't rooted in gamism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I find it weird enough that you let a player take over an NPC as a PC. But, sure, let's do it.

First of all, I'm not sure what you even mean by "talking and figuring out the difference between PC rules and NPC rules". WTF is that? Like, the NPC gets triple damage on a crit, and by talking about their experiences they're going to figure that out? That's crazy. The rules are an abstraction of the fiction; it's not a 1:1 correlation.

Ok, then let's assume this NPC becomes a PC. (Again, weird, but whatever.). I don't find it "insurmountable" at all that the mechanic changes. Fluff it however you want. "Yeah, it's weird, but ever since I joined you guys I just don't hit as hard. Must be Tenser's cooking."

See, that's a problem for me. I want an explanation that's not a joke.

 

[Bill Zebub]

See, that's a problem for me. I want an explanation that's not a joke.

Well, all I can say is that your ongoing disappointment with 5e is unlikely to abate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, all I can say is that your ongoing disappointment with 5e is unlikely to abate.

Very true. Which is why I go outside of WotC for my material. A lot.

 

[Incenjucar]

It really doesn't require any adversity. Players are doing different things with their lives than other characters, bam, done. If their aspiration is to be a monster rather than a PC, then that character will eventually retire out of the team as they begin the arduous training of decades that it takes instead of the usually much faster path of being an adventurer.

 

[pemerton]

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.

If only there had been a version of D&D that handled all this sort of stuff through a clear keyword system . . .

 

[Garthanos]

The orc tribal shaman uses different magic than you and probably involved unspeakable acts.... why would you think you can do what he does exactly?

 

[pemerton]

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.

The TV series Elementary is clearly a Sherlock Holmes story but is set in contemporary NYC, not Victorian London; and has a woman as Watson who is not an ex-army surgeon. The series was well reviewed and seems to have rated fine, given it ran for 7 series.

In the context of D&D, where WotC owns all the relevant copyrights and trademarks, WotC can publish whatever it likes. People will buy it, or not, as they think fit. The idea that WotC would consider itself "bound" by an approach to classes-in-fiction taken in a 1987 campaign book is not one I can take seriously.

 

[pemerton]

Well sure, for example, the NPC Gladiator in the Monster Manual, who has a special ability to deal an extra die of damage with their weapon attacks. How do they do that? How does every Gladiator do that? Why can't a Fighter get this ability? I mean, heck, being enlarged to ogre size just nets you an extra d4 damage; this guy can do 2d12 with a greataxe!

I'm 100% with @Irlo on this. Damage maths is not a part of the fiction - it's a purely mechanical device. In the fiction, the gladiator is just a tough fighter. There are also PCs who are tough fighters. There's no difference between them.