D&D General Are NPCs like PCs?

[Maxperson]

As a player, I don’t think that is a reasonable expectation of the DM. A ruling is a one time event that may or may not affect future rulings.

Yeah. Some rulings come up and alter the way things are done, and those become rules. Others come up because of a fairly unique combination of events, and those are rulings that don't alter the rule.

 

[Maxperson]

"No. They're NPCs. They're built different for various reasons we're not going to litigate but which include the fact that you just requested a feature that hurts you just to prove a point. Everyone else is getting real tired of these antics. Please leave the table."

Or else people just want things to make sense and this sort of Schrodinger's Drow nonsense where they simultaneously have and don't have poison blood grates on them.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

While the venenous drow case is possible, in my experience it was more magical abilities that were contentious, because of one of (common) way to play a wizard as (a) obsessed with magical knowledge (b) pre-modern scientist of the arcane. Combine those and expect any supernatural effect to be dissected, if only for the character to publish a paper about it in the Faerunian Journal of Necromancy.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Or else people just want things to make sense and this sort of Schrodinger's Drow nonsense where they simultaneously have and don't have poison blood grates on them.

It instantly makes sense if you accept you're playing a game where the rules aren't physics and sometimes NPCs can do things the PCs can't because it's better for the game.

 

[Maxperson]

It instantly makes sense if you accept you're playing a game where the rules aren't physics and sometimes NPCs can do things the PCs can't because it's better for the game.

It doesn't make the game better, though. And even if it did, it still wouldn't make sense. It would just be nonsense that is more fun for your personal table.

If you have 1 singular drow who had some sort of magical accident, explained in fiction that grants the magical poison blood, that's one thing. If it's just "NPC drow" that have the ability, it's nonsense. My PC drow was an NPC right up until he became a PC at whatever age I started him at, so he should have that blood, too. It doesn't go away just because he became a PC.

 

[Krachek]

Nonsense is easy to solve. Allow PC to use poison from Drow or others poison users.
There is no rules against that!
Just a little extra job to balance CR for next combats.

 

[Maxperson]

Nonsense is easy to solve. Allow PC to use poison from Drow or others poison users.
There is no rules against that!
Just a little extra job to balance CR for next combats.

That works, too.

 

[Krachek]

Another way is to state that Drow poison effect is a Lolth gift for a true follower.

 

[Maxperson]

Another way is to state that Drow poison effect is a Lolth gift for a true follower.

How? It needs a reasonable in fiction explanation. And since there are several drow gods, do only those who worship Lolth get the poison? A lot of NPC drow wouldn't have poison if you limit it to Lolth like that.

 

[Krachek]

How? It needs a reasonable in fiction explanation. And since there are several drow gods, do only those who worship Lolth get the poison? A lot of NPC drow wouldn't have poison if you limit it to Lolth like that.

The Drows described in the MM are likely Lolth followers. it look like a good fiction explanation.
If a DM use drow in another context, poison usage should be replaced or explain differently.
Drow are free from evil now, they should be free from poison too!