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

[Incenjucar]

The specific mechanics of 4E being described are the equivalent of having specific subclasses that have various prerequisites like class, race, class features, or stats.

 

[James Gasik]

"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.

That's like saying that no one can tell that a Red Dragon Sorcerer's fireball hurts more, so no one can know that their Elemental Affinity exists as an ability.

 

[James Gasik]

If character A does an extra 2d8 weapon damage on a hit, and the other character has Extra Attack, do you think that automatically correlates with a difference in the characters’ fictions?

For me, I don’t really assume a character with Extra Attack is actually making 2 attacks every 6 seconds. It’s just a game abstraction to prioritizes some ability and spell choices over others to provide a more compelling game layer experience.

The Gladiator also has Multiattack, by the way...

 

[Incenjucar]

A DM can always choose to go the 3E path and just start using classes and templates against base monster stats. It's just a LOT more work.

 

[Pedantic]

I'm not particularly interested in PCs being particularly exceptional actors in the world. Or, if they are, then I generally want them to belong to a class of exceptional people that is larger than my 4 players, and I need to figure out what impact that has on the broader setting. What is exceptional about them, how do other people using PC progression affect the world, and so on. If they're quite rare, then adventurers are probably a national resource and a lot of effort is going to be put into cultivating them.

Wizards, for example, are conceptually constrained if it's not a broadly available skillset. You can't really do magical academies, but you could focus on a more archaeological tradition of digging up ancient scrolls, or perhaps a lone scientist doing practical experiments to learn new spells. That kind of exploration about what any given mechanic means to the broader setting is you know, half of what I'm here for.

What we're really arguing about is the direction of the arrow in the fiction<->mechanics relationship. I'd prefer a game that derives its fiction from its mechanics entirely, and feels the need to make a mechanical change if the fiction isn't as expected because of them. I point towards early Eberron material for this a lot, particularly the discussion about the impact of magecraft, a spell that provided a bonus to skill checks, and served as the basis for the industrial revolution in the setting by speeding up crafting times significantly under the 3.5 crafting rules.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

It doesn't happen often but I can count at least ten instances over the years where it has; and this doesn't include players playing their characters' henches.

One example: many real-world years ago Lanefan-the-character married another adventurer, a party-member NPC at the time. I think the DM expected us to retire soon after, but we kept adventuring and she was soon given over to me to play side-along with him.

Another: a party-member NPC in one of my games so caught the imagination of one player that she flat-out asked me if she could take it over as her PC. I said sure, why not; as it meant one less NPC for me to worry about.

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?

In the fiction, explaining moves and abilities in non-mechanical terms that one has that the other doesn't, just like warriors probably would when sitting around over a beer or two at the mercenaries' guildhouse. As in:

NPC Fighter: "I've got this move I can bust out every so often where I can strike at every foe I can reach, kind of all at once."
PC Fighter: "Huh. Interesting. I've never heard of that one, but I did get trained once in how to swap my wielded weapon with another without missing a beat in melee. It's come in real handy a few times."
NPC Fighter: "You can do that? Show me how!"

Behind the scenes mechanics, all hypothetical: obviously the NPC is describing a version of whirlwind attack, which in this hypothetical isn't available to PCs. At the same time, the PC is telling her about an ability he has that allows him to sheathe one weapon and draw another as a free action; something NPCs don't get.

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.

If it's not a 1-1 correlation, or very close, there's something wrong.

In the fiction this might look like: "You talk about how every now and then you get in a real solid shot at the foe. That happens for all of us, of course - lucky strikes and all that - but when it happens for me I always seem to amaze people with just how hard I hit. There's nothing amazing about it, though, just a lot of practice in making sure that when I do get that one good opening I can really make it count."

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."

And that is precisely what I don't want; nor do I want it to happen the other way, when a PC retires and becomes an NPC (which happens all the time in a long campaign due to slow but steady player turnover).

 

[Lanefan]

I was imagining more of a demon-summoning ritual or somesuch, rather than just some kind of standard spell.

Ah. I thought you meant ritual-as-spell in the 5e sense.

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 - in my view, in order to do this the NPC has to follow the same rules and guidelines as a PC, meaning it has to be of a spellcasting class in order to do this. Which class? That's an open question. But if it's a wizard then it works like a PC wizard, if it's a Cleric then it works like a PC Cleric, and if it's some brand new class that I've just dreamed up then its existence has just set a precedent that says I have to include that class in my game henceforth in case a player wants to play one.

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.

That would be extremely unsatisfying, in that by that wording the DM's telling me not to even bother looking for the answer - which of course means I'm going to try even harder to get one, as I've just been given a challenge.

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

Quit adventuring? Hell, no. I'll try to talk the party into helping me with this!

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.

More seriously, I'm not saying the PCs are necessarily going to try and figure everything out. What I am saying is that the DM has to have it figured out behind the scenes in case the PCs do follow up on it. Further, the DM has to be consistent. If that spell is arcane then it's written down somewhere, even if that somewhere is in theory hella inaccessible, and the PCs have to be allowed to go looking for it if they so desire.

 

[Incenjucar]

Subclasses are inherently limited in access already. Is that something that is commonly considered a problem in 5E?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Which would be fine if those mechanics were consistent.

In the 4e adventures I've converted and run, there's always at least one or two monsters or foes using cool magic items that aren't then listed as part of their treasure; the intent being (as far as I can determine) that the PCs don't get to use these same items they just got beaten up by even if one or more of the PCs is an exact match for the foe just defeated (e.g. a PC Hobgoblin Fighter vs an NPC Hobgoblin Fighter-equivalent).

Where's the consistency in that? Or the logic, both in-setting and meta?

 

[Lanefan]

If character A does an extra 2d8 weapon damage on a hit, and the other character has Extra Attack, do you think that automatically correlates with a difference in the characters’ fictions?

For me, I don’t really assume a character with Extra Attack is actually making 2 attacks every 6 seconds.

Oh, I do. If attacking at double-rate isn't what's intended with that ability, then name the ability something else that tells us how it does look in the fiction.

It’s just a game abstraction to prioritizes some ability and spell choices over others to provide a more compelling game layer experience.

If the abstraction can't be explained in the fiction then IMO it's far more likely going to ruin the player experience than enhance it.