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

[Maxperson]

Who said the ability is learnable?

Either it's learnable, or it's inherent to gladiators. If it's the latter, then any PC who becomes a gladiator automatically gets it. I guess all my fighter types are going to spend at least one fight as a gladiator!

 

[Incenjucar]

Either it's learnable, or it's inherent to gladiators. If it's the latter, then any PC who becomes a gladiator automatically gets it. I guess all my fighter types are going to spend at least one fight as a gladiator!

Presumably "gladiator" is a bit more involved than "walked into an arena and started a fight".

 

[Maxperson]

Presumably "gladiator" is a bit more involved than "walked into an arena and started a fight".

Probably, but my first description was a lot more involved and then I got that response.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I agree it's not commonly held. But the person arguing with me about 4e ( @Micah Sweet) is also asserting that "extra attack", "extra damage" and the like are all parts of the fiction. Which strongly implies that hit points are all parts of the fiction.

That creates a fiction so absurd I can't take it seriously. Hence why I follow Gygax's approach to attacks, hp and saving throws in his DMG. Which takes me back to 4e, which is the best-realised version of those ideas in my view: having a prior conception of what the fiction is meant to look like, and then configuring the mechanics so as to produce it.

The truth is, the fiction and the mechanics bounce back-and-forth, each informing the other, but neither being directly, perfectly, attached to each other. To try to force them to match perfectly both causes unending problems, and (IMO) puts unnecessary limits on the creativity of your fiction.

Some people find some editions an easier match to their preferred style of juggling that act. Usually because one ruleset just makes more "sense" to them than another. They don't, (IMO) in actuality, really make any more (or less) sense than each other, they just each work for some people better than others.

I find it much easier myself (and 4e was very good for this) to let the game be the game and the story be the story, and only loosely worry about how well they line up. Again, I mean SURE - they inform each other - but I can call "monster swings weapon dealing x damage to character wearing y amour and defending with shield/dodge" ANYTHING that I can imagine that works within those parameters.

And I can imagine A LOT.

 

[Incenjucar]

Probably, but my first description was a lot more involved and then I got that response.

A gladiator also has speed 30 regardless of race, very specific stats and skills, no listed proficiencies... so any PC who is a gladiator surely shares those traits. :3

 

[pemerton]

Either it's learnable, or it's inherent to gladiators.

What is the basis for this disjunction?

A PC in my 4e game has the ability to see the future and recall memories from all his past lives. In the fiction, this isn't learnable - it's a result of being a Deva Sage of Ages. Nor is it inherent to being a Deva or a wizard or an invoker. It's something this character can do because of all he's been through. Mechanically, it is expressed via various elements of PC build including feats and Epic Destiny.

 

[jasper]

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.

You were not looking for a conversation, you kept saying Not Good Enough. If you said you wanted more homebrew details, you should have asked.
I could string along like this.
Npc does somthing off book. The Wizards say the weave.
You, Not Good Enough.
Wizards. Please go talk to Sister Sarah but she needs two mules before she answer you.
One quest later.
Sister Sarah. < The gawd of magic wills it.
You, Not Good Enough.
Sister Sarah talk to Ramon He will give you a more detailed answer for a Fistful of Dollars.
And i could stack quests for your PC as you get deeper into the lore of my world. And putting you off for a few sessions while I write a detail lore.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Generally, I'm the DM, so I would come up with the answer if needed. If it mattered to my character, I would ask the DM and hope that they came up with something. It doesn't have to be prepared ahead of time. I just don't want an answer founded in gamism, as I mentioned above.

I get you, but I think that generally where you see people answer with "gamist" answers, is because they often find that the bolded parts don't come up (for them), so they don't bother to do the story-work.

If an NPC casts a spell or ritual that is unknown to the PCs, it is VERY LIKELY because they have 1) an unusual nature; 2) did some serious research; 3) had it granted by some unique source; 4) on and on, all of which are "rare" and "unusual".

Wouldn't the answer, by the very nature of the story being told, almost always be, "something you'll never find out"? I mean, if the information was readily available (like say, could be found within the timeframe of a PC's downtime), wouldn't it be available to them? If it is not, then by its nature, it most often will be something they can't learn.

Like "two years of practice; AFTER you know where to find the information how; AND have sacrificed an elf child; under the light of a specific comet;" (or whatever - I mean, my point is that this would be so very campaign specific, if bothered with at all, that I can't even really make a good example of it).

Point is, the answer would nearly always be "Magical Secrets". IE Stop adventuring and pursue it (and only it) as a career if you really care how they did it. Then MAYBE you'll figure it out.

"Or we could just play THIS adventure instead."

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don’t really understand what’s particularly difficult about giving PCs new powers that aren’t in the rules.

I agree with this, and with the position that sometimes NPCs can do things PCs can’t.

 

[Maxperson]

What is the basis for this disjunction?

A PC in my 4e game has the ability to see the future and recall memories from all his past lives. In the fiction, this isn't learnable - it's a result of being a Deva Sage of Ages. Nor is it inherent to being a Deva or a wizard or an invoker. It's something this character can do because of all he's been through. Mechanically, it is expressed via various elements of PC build including feats and Epic Destiny.

I'm not familiar with 4e, so take this with, well not a grain, but a whole salt shaker of salt. That sounds like a great home brew for those mechanics. You're very creative. In 3e and 5e the mechanics are learnable and/or inherent to devas, wizards and invokers.