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

[Hussar]

Different worlds, different stories. Cool campaign settings other people make don't impact cool campaign setting I make.

I do wonder why this matters to you at all if you don't care about D&D lore.

You're are repeatedly complaining that WotC is not providing you with enough material. I'm telling you that such material would not would actively be a detriment to WotC which is why they will not do it. You then replied by complaining that they aren't being transparent enough. You are then told that they have been telling you this and doing this for over a decade.

Now, it's, well, you don't need the lore, so, why do you care?

I care because of the unrelenting negativity, endless complaining that pervades every single conversation about the game from people who DON'T EVEN PLAY IT. I had to put up with this for years during 4e. Now it's 5e's turn.

You asked the question and got the answer. WotC will not do this for you. WotC hasn't done this for you in over a decade. They have been very clear and transparent that they will not do this and expect you, the DM to do this as part of running your own campaign.

What more do you want?

 

[Hussar]

Well that's certainly a take.

For the sake of argument: if I make a world with no arcane magic, then there simply won't be any wizard PCs or NPCs in that world. So the diegetic relevance of classes to worldbuilding is at least demonstrably nonzero.

Really?

You've got it backwards. Your world building precludes certain classes. Not that certain classes shape your world building. The fact that there are no wizards in that setting in no way shapes that setting because, well, there's no wizards to shape it.

And, note, you didn't remove classes, you removed an entire section of magic, which then removes classes. Removing that magic would also remove a good chunk of the Monster Manual as well considering the number of monsters that have innate arcane spells - no demons for example because demons can teleport. No angels either, for the same reason.

Your example doesn't actually fit your argument.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're are repeatedly complaining that WotC is not providing you with enough material. I'm telling you that such material would not would actively be a detriment to WotC which is why they will not do it. You then replied by complaining that they aren't being transparent enough. You are then told that they have been telling you this and doing this for over a decade.

Now, it's, well, you don't need the lore, so, why do you care?

I care because of the unrelenting negativity, endless complaining that pervades every single conversation about the game from people who DON'T EVEN PLAY IT. I had to put up with this for years during 4e. Now it's 5e's turn.

You asked the question and got the answer. WotC will not do this for you. WotC hasn't done this for you in over a decade. They have been very clear and transparent that they will not do this and expect you, the DM to do this as part of running your own campaign.

What more do you want?

The problem is, I'm actually pretty happy with the 5e rules (or at least a version of them). I just don't really care for most of the other parts of 5e, and prefer the lore from 1e and 2e, (and 3e more or less), and wish they kept up with it.

But fair enough.

 

[Pedantic]

Why? Why can't magic be magical?

I've never understood this impulse, in actually any context, TTRPG or straight up fiction as a whole, but it keeps coming up in these discussions. Magic is whatever system of rules you can use to supersede default physics; why would anyone with that ability not strive to systematize it? I cannot conceive of having a world with magic and not doing science to it. This keeps coming up in these discussions, the urge to make something "mysterious" that I wonder if we're not expressing deeper aesthetic preferences or orientations to epistemology or some other, deeper orientation than just "what is magic?" I'm worried I'm suffering from some failure of empathy that's necessary for me to grasp why that is compelling to so many people.

Magic is the thing that lets you use different rules normal to do something more easily or more effectively than you otherwise could, or achieve something that was otherwise impossible. What's interesting is what that lets you do, or what it says about the world at large. If it's costly but still effective enough to be worth it, then you get an interesting society, if it's easier or more common than doing something manually, no one does the thing manually and a different new world emerges, and if it's something only a single player can do, then that player will be enacting all kinds of unexpected plans to get stuff done, and have some interesting ethical choices to make about what they owe the world.

If the story is "you can't know how it's done" instead of "here's what can be done", then I don't know how to play a person who isn't in open rebellion and working to fix that, or a lost soul in a world that doesn't and can't make sense, which are very specific themes and not broadly applicable to heroic fantasy.

 

[Mecheon]

For the sake of argument: if I make a world with no arcane magic, then there simply won't be any wizard PCs or NPCs in that world. So the diegetic relevance of classes to worldbuilding is at least demonstrably nonzero.

I'd argue its the opposite as 'No arcane magic' affects more than just wizards. You've taken out a heap of bard subclasses, an absolute ton of sorcerer ones, and a whole heaping pile of monsters. But likewise, what if I said "Hey, what if its not arcane magic, but some other source, and we're using the wizard chassis to represent it?". Classes are a set of mechanics to represent an archetype, and those rules can be twisted to display it in different forms.

Classes aren't necessarily constructs that are 100% "This Is Specifically A X", they can represent other things and go for that wider idea. A sun soul monk can easily be someone using an anti-undead martial art. A swarmkeeper ranger can be the power of a revenant who's controlling various corpse insects that make up his body. Beast Totem barbarian can be turning into a werecreature, or morbing out

Mind, my worldbuilding remains 'Oh hey, here's a neat thing or idea I found. You want to learn how to do it? Cool, if you want to retire the character so they can spend years in that area learning it you can handle it off-screen, but otherwise its not really going to be something you can pick up on this particular moment of your life". But, mind, my main worlds are either 'an absolute kitchen sink with everything from Myst references to aliens' or 'Kaijuworld (ft monster collection/fighting)' so. Not a common world

 

[Blue]

Looking for some input on how you DM's justify in-game mechanics or magical effects that some npc's may have, but aren't listed in the PHB?

Classes don't exist in world.

They are meta artifacts, balanced for players.

Take a look in the MM and the Druid. 4th level casting and no wildshape. Look at any and all of the NPCs in any of the monster books.

Classes not existing in-world is absolutely maintained by the official source.

Since PCs can do things that not all others of their "in-world" type can do, the same is true the other way.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why? Why can't magic be magical?

Wizards as a class and the players that love them.

If they wizard or other PC caster can't do it, it doesn't count.

This philosophy is why D&D is famously bad at emulating fantasy genres that aren't 'D&D'.

 

[Garthanos]

Its a requirement for me. Other people can do their own thing.

Exactly. Just like we in the real world can use consistent rules of physics etc. to achieve our own ends.

Every culture in the real world has distinct visions of how magic works and every philosopher seeks his own way I do not like the idea of one being exactly perfect instead of self limited. Breaking ones preconceived notions and bias to walk another's way is not a sit down and memorize this incantation in x hours thing.

Magic has to have some sort of underlying consistency in how it works -

Not the way I envision it.... in particular I envision many different undocumented approaches to magic and many different cultural takes on it, and many individual talents which interact with it (that orc shaman maybe the only orc who ever gained that ability after participating in human sacrifice hundreds of times). Just open ended trivial copying of magics seems cheap.

 

[Garthanos]

Classes don't exist in world.

Are you sure they arent hovering over characters heads in glowing red letters?

They are meta artifacts, balanced for players.

Take a look in the MM and the Druid. 4th level casting and no wildshape. Look at any and all of the NPCs in any of the monster books.

Classes not existing in-world is absolutely maintained by the official source.

Since PCs can do things that not all others of their "in-world" type can do, the same is true the other way.

Somebody seems to demand this change... they "require" it because if the game isn't that way it is nonsensical inconsistency and they want it elaborated why every single time. With many paragraphs if possible to not miss anything because you know imagination isn't good enough.

Flexibility is verboten

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, it baffles me that people want magic to be consistent. It's magic. It's the opposite of consistent. If you want physics, that's why we have SF. Magic isn't physics, sufficiently advanced or not. Magic works on Narrativium - it's capable of doing whatever you want it to do whenever you want it to do it.

Why does the shocking grasp spell work in water the same as on land? Magic. I can literally create a Wall of Fire spell under water and it works exactly the same as on land. Does fireball set objects on fire? That's up to you Mr. DM. That's your choice. Why? Because it's magic and it's completely inconsistent. Heck, fireball might set thing ablaze and fill up volumes and then a little while later, behave totally differently.

Why? Because it's magic.