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

[Maxperson]

The gladiator is a good example of different ways to look at abilities. Rolling an extra die of damage is not meaningful to a character in the world — not something to be learned. It’s just a different way to calculate damage. There are methods that PCs can learn that allow them to do more damage.

It seems to me fundamentally different than the ability to cast a certain spell.

If I have a PC that is captured and spends months training for gladiatorial combat, learning how to fight like they do, and fighting in gladiatorial matches, don't you think he could and would learn brute and be able to do extra damage? Perhaps as a bonus feat or something.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Except one does extra damage for no good reason.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If he burned the source then he's not going to be able to memorize it again in the morning; and it seems an awful waste to go through all that effort just for a one-time use at some random moment when some adventurers happen by.

I was imagining more of a demon-summoning ritual or somesuch, rather than just some kind of standard spell. Though still, even there, maybe they used some kind of ritual to give it to themself as an innate power. Again, something that took a lot of time and effort. You seem to want them to very specifically be a wizard. I think most people's point is: Sure, if the spellcaster is a wizard, make them act like a wizard. But an NPC has no reason to be a PC-class. I they're NOT a wizard, they can use magic in another way.

That's just it - if you're internally consistent with how arcane magic works, the knowledge doesn't die with him. It might die if you blow up his spellbook and-or his field notes and his was the only copy of said ritual, but that's different.

Sure. I mean, it's always better when there's a story behind what's going on. Still, that story often won't come up in the game, so it's perfectly reasonable for any given DM to not bother coming up with it ahead of time, in particular if it's unlikely that any PC will ever find out, even if the player thinks to ask (which they often won't). Again, I agree that a story is better. Sometimes there's so many possible stories, that this one doesn't matter much.

Player, "How did they do that!?"
DM, "In a way that you're never going to find out."

It might not be satisfying (to some players), but it's often going to be true.

I mean, do you want to quit adventuring to follow in some jerk's (often forbidden) knowledge journey? To what end?

Sometimes it's just TOO MUCH WORK to figure some things out. Forbidden and Rare magical secrets seem like that sort of thing to me.

 

[pemerton]

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

In 4e, as I posted, the fiction does drive the mechanics. The fiction is that Hobgoblins are near-undefeatable in phalanxes. So there are mechanics that give effect to this. The fiction is that paladins are valiant. So there are mechanics that give effect to this.

Of all versions of D&D, I think 4e is the one that is based most purposefully on a conception of what the fiction should look like, and then building mechanics to help ensure that that fiction is part of gameplay.

 

[pemerton]

Except one does extra damage for no good reason.

"Extra damage" isn't a thing in the fiction. Hit points aren't a thing in the fiction. There is just fighting. Both can fight. Both can kill an opponent dead right quick.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

If it was just damage math they would just have put in 2d12 in the stat block instead of giving the gladiator a learnable ability called Brute and having that ability grant extra damage. It's similar to Battle Masters gaining superiority dice which do extra damage as an ability.

 

[TwoSix]

Does she stay exactly as she was, thus forever working differently in her mechanics than any other PC Fighter? (and if yes, then in the interests of fairness I then have to allow every Fighter access to those same mechanics, as I've just set a precedent) Or does she snap-change to mirror the mechanics and abilities of PCs, without any training or in-game reason or rationale behind it? Remember, in the fiction the PCs already know what she can and can't do; that's probably why they recruited her!

Personally, I think a lot of the NPCs in 5e work better for players than the actual 5e character creation rules.

I don’t really have PC building rules, I have guidelines. If a player wants to be able to do something a NPC does, they probably can as long as they’re willing to sacrifice time and effort to achieve it diegetically. I don’t really understand what’s particularly difficult about giving PCs new powers that aren’t in the rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In 4e, as I posted, the fiction does drive the mechanics. The fiction is that Hobgoblins are near-undefeatable in phalanxes. So there are mechanics that give effect to this. The fiction is that paladins are valiant. So there are mechanics that give effect to this.

Of all versions of D&D, I think 4e is the one that is based most purposefully on a conception of what the fiction should look like, and then building mechanics to help ensure that that fiction is part of gameplay.

It sure seemed like the opposite to me, what with the encouragement to just reskin the mechanics if it didn't fit with the situation. There were far too many arguments along the lines of, "how are those fish being knocked prone?" For me to enjoy the game.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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

I think the usual point of answering "Because PCs are PCs and NPCs are NPCs" is not because the answerer can't come up with an in-story reason. It's because that the story-based reasons are effectively INFINITE. We'd have to know exactly what story is being told to even bother to start coming up with a story reason, otherwise we're just spitballing generic reasons (which might not sound all that good, and wind up being argued with because of some minutia that doesn't work out of context).

The ultimate reason IS "because PCs are PCs and NPCs/Monsters are NPCs/Monsters." BUT every single actual instance of that has its own story. Its own UNIQUE story.

Any story that DM (and their table) wants it to be.

 

[pemerton]

If it was just damage math they would just have put in 2d12 in the stat block instead of giving the gladiator a learnable ability called Brute and having that ability grant extra damage. It's similar to Battle Masters gaining superiority dice which do extra damage as an ability.

Who said the ability is learnable?