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

[Clint_L]

Story comes first. If it's a good story beat, no justification needed. A god did it, or whatever. If it's not making the game unfair (like arbitrarily changing the rules in combat) then players don't care.

 

[Oofta]

Honestly, I would love it as a player if I was up against a fearsome spellcaster that we knew the name of (we'll say Greg here), and the DM had a chance to say something like "The lich raises his bony fist, and you feel your vitality start to drain into the air as he casts Greg's Blood Tornado."

Hmm ... so in tomorrow's session when the BBEG cast's Greg's Blood Tornado, I can blame you, right? Awesome!

 

[Umbran]

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?

I wave my hands and say, "It's magic!"

There is more in the Great Wheel and on Oerth than is imagined in your PHB, Horatio.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wave my hands and say, "It's magic!"

There is more in the Great Wheel and on Oerth than is imagined in your PHB, Horatio.

Do you mean that they just know something the PCs don't but could potentially learn, or does it just not matter in your game at all?

 

[Umbran]

Do you mean that they just know something the PCs don't but could potentially learn, or does it just not matter in your game at all?

Only a small amount of magic is about knowledge that can be learned.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

In the early days of 5e, I would create NPCs using rules for PCs from the PHB. After a while, I realized this was quite time consuming and not as fun (for me) as I had initially thought. Nor was it even as necessary as I thought. Out of a desire to achieve a bit more efficiency with my prep time (one might read this as laziness, sure), I stopped using the class paradigm for NPCs altogether and instead invested that time in creating better scenarios. I haven't looked back. Now, sometimes my NPCs have strange abilities or spells not available to the PCs. Keeps things interesting for our table anyway.

TL;DR: NPCs/monsters don't have to follow the same rules as PCs

 

[Oofta]

There's all sorts of magic that is either not important to an adventurer spellcaster or has simply been created by someone else. There's a whole section on creating new spells in the DMG Chapter 9.

The only qualification I would make is to avoid spells that could make it feel like you're "cheating". Try to avoid spells that let the BBEG just wave their hands and win the day or escape so that the scenario goes their way for example. It's one thing to have unusual abilities or effects, it's another to just have an "I win" button.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Only a small amount of magic is about knowledge that can be learned.

I agree in principle. So if the NPC wizard casts a spell that cannot be learned by PCs, where did it come from?

 

[Micah Sweet]

In the early days of 5e, I would create NPCs using rules for PCs from the PHB. After a while, I realized this was quite time consuming and not as fun (for me) as I had initially thought. Nor was it even as necessary as I thought. Out of a desire to achieve a bit more efficiency with my prep time (one might read this as laziness, sure), I stopped using the class paradigm for NPCs altogether and instead invested that time in creating better scenarios. I haven't looked back. Now, sometimes my NPCs have strange abilities or spells not available to the PCs. Keeps things interesting for our table anyway.

TL;DR: NPCs/monsters don't have to follow the same rules as PCs

They don't have to be created using the same rules as PCs (I like the pre-MMotM statblocks just fine), but I do believe an NPC designed to emulate a person should have abilities that are potentially duplicatable and can be learned by the right PC. To do otherwise puts gamism first to a degree I don't care for, and ruins immersion for me.

 

[jasper]

Non Players CHEAT.
Non Players Cheat Successfully.