Primal said:
What I'm trying to say that because different beings operate by different rules it's probably going to feel a lot more intimidating for new DMs to find their own style and balance with these rules than in 3E. For you and me slapping a penalty or improvising a rule may come naturally -- it doesn't for everyone, and I even know some experienced DMs who absolutely hate it.
Unfortunately having a laundry list of rules doesn't help there either. It simply causes more hesitation because now the unexperienced DM feels like if he doesn't have a rule for everything he can't adjudicate anything outside of those rules. Besides the add bonuses/penalties rule is part of the rules as written now and it covers an immense amount of ground, without being restrictive.
The mechanics exist for a reason, especially in a highly *gamist* and rules-heavy system like D&D. Therefore it's a valid concern that you should be able to describe in game mechanics pretty much any phenomenon, ability or spell that exists within the setting. Otherwise, what's the point in having the rules in the first place? You could just as well be doing free-form storytelling.
Describe what and when? I don't stop a game in the middle of it to have a dissertation about the mechanics of why a particular monster, that the characters might or might never have met before, has a specific power and whether they can train to have the same power. For all intents, the players are not monsters so the simple answer is no, and the more detailed answer was succinctly put by somebody up thread (you want to train for 20 years, good I'll see your character in 4-5 campaigns) That gamist mentality is the reason 3e tried to have a rule for every case, and it was not very good at it.
So you would laugh at the player and yet you'd at the same time happily create beings that have abilities which exist outside the game mechanics?
I might laugh at a player that somehow demands all the answers that his character obviously does not have. They want to find answers about a creatures powers, they can attempt to find them in game, not outside.
Hmmm... besides, you sound a bit too elitist with your last comment -- it's not just about adjudicating, because your rulings should be, in some shape or form, be based on the rules. If you constantly throw people with magical unique abilities that the PCs could/should never learn, how can you adjudicate fairly?
Maybe cause I attempt to temper my rulings within the spirit of the rules, but I don't feel like I need to wear a rules straight jacket to accomplish that. In addition those rules usually permit monsters to do certain things that PC's simply can't do. So what is there to adjudicate unfairly?
I can explain the "magical unique abilities" in multiple ways that prevent the players from having them. For example if the players in my group battled a creature with a supernatural ability, let's say a gaze attack that kills instantly on a failed save, should I let them have it simply because if I don't they are somehow less privileged than the creature? The simple answer is no, and I don't feel in anyway obligated to have a 30 minute or more rules argument on the validity of that ruling with the player asking to have the same power. If that would be considered elitist then I'll wear the shoe proudly.