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

[Maxperson]

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.

It's not that PCs are the only examples of wizards, fighters, etc. It's that the vast majority of other wizards get better by sitting in those guilds and practicing. And the fighters by sparring with one another and practicing, with maybe the occasional bandit hunt. It's slower going and they tend to end up lower in level at the end of the day, but they aren't out there fighting hordes of monsters that are threatening all the cities.

The PCs are the ones encountering extraordinary numbers of monsters, because that's what makes a fun game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

it's not good enough for me. Your example is ever-increasing levels of authority saying the same thing, "that's just how it is". "That's just how it is" is not an acceptable answer for me. If it works for you, great, but I'm not required to agree. It's not what I would do.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yep. The game default is for multiple attacks to be happening in 6 seconds. 5e doesn't abstract itself to the level @TwoSix is abstracting it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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."

The answer only matters if someone asks. The OP assumed someone asked, so I presume that it does matter. For me, if the table decides that it matters, the answer can't be, "That's just the way it is".

And yes, the actual answer will vary wildly depending on the situation. But my point is that I believe there is an in-universe answer to any question of that sort., even if it's not practical.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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?

Either those aren't actual magic items and they're holding a standard focus through which they use their power, or they're using a species-specific item that works because it's in the hands of a hag/demonpreist/etc.

This is an extension of something that already happened rarely in D&D, just expanded.

Also, 4e monsters generally didn't have a specific equipment list as the DM was supposed to be assigning treasure bundles to encounters with explicit direction from the DMG to try and make them make sense for the encounter. As per tradition with D&D, the adventures ignore all DMG advice.

 

[Lanefan]

Either those aren't actual magic items and they're holding a standard focus through which they use their power,

If they were written up as such, I'd be on board. Note the "if" there.

or they're using a species-specific item that works because it's in the hands of a hag/demonpreist/etc.

That's different, and again I'm on board. That said, if it's a species-specific item to a species that the party happens to have one or more of in its ranks, then in theory the item should be usable by that/those PC/s, hm?

This is an extension of something that already happened rarely in D&D, just expanded.

Also, 4e monsters generally didn't have a specific equipment list as the DM was supposed to be assigning treasure bundles to encounters with explicit direction from the DMG to try and make them make sense for the encounter. As per tradition with D&D, the adventures ignore all DMG advice.

I never got behind the "treasure parcel" idea - far too contrived and pre-packaged-seeming for my randomness-loving self. Same reason I wasn't a fan of wealth-by-level in 3e.

 

[Garthanos]

Either those aren't actual magic items and they're holding a standard focus through which they use their power, or they're using a species-specific item that works because it's in the hands of a hag/demonpreist/etc.

Thing is there are just thousands of potential reasons... enumerating every single one... I mean why? isnt that what imaginations are for... the race may only be one small fraction of the required ingredients it might be the participation in a given religion or binding a particular demon by eating human brains, people asking for it to be predefined seem like they arent wanting to actually use the thing D&D is supposed to encourage.

 

[Garthanos]

If they were written up as such, I'd be on board. Note the "if" there.

Most items used to create magic effects can be assumed as such. Most player powers are not created by the items (there are some but there are a lot more that are not).

Your "if" seems to be you wanting everything explicit... like if you dont say heroes use the restroom then they must not.... because you want it to be silly. I call that agenda driven assumptions.

 

[TwoSix]

Yep. The game default is for multiple attacks to be happening in 6 seconds. 5e doesn't abstract itself to the level @TwoSix is abstracting it.

It does when I run it; and as I've explained in other threads, there's no such thing as "default" 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

It does when I run it; and as I've explained in other threads, there's no such thing as "default" 5e.

The default is what the game defaults to if it's not changed. It's the core rule. In this case the default is very clearly multiple attacks in a round. Not one attack that might do some variable amount of damage based on multiple d20 rolls. The latter is an abstraction that you are home brewing in that is not present by default.