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

[Micah Sweet]

They're also not NPCs in the sense that they are races that are playable as PCs. So that's not really a particularly useful direction to take this discussion. They're not a human necromancer with magical powers that aren't attainable by a PC.

I don't need an NPC's powers to be attainable by PCs in general. But I can certainly see the argument that anything a normal human (or elf, dwarf, halfling, etc) achieves as an NPC as far as amassing weird powers should be something a PC could do if they followed the same path. But, with the way things are in 5e, they aren't and are that way for purely game mechanistic reasons to provide a particular level of challenge and that frustrates some members of the D&D community. I get it. I don't need it. But I'm also not going to put it down. It's just a different preference. There's no real point in arguing against it other than to recognize that this is the way 5e is because they're emphasizing the game aspect of the role playing game with it. And in doing so, it does narrow some of the role playing paths that a PC could take because they can't say "I want to do be able to do what HE does" and achieve it.
Everything comes with tradeoffs.

Exactly. In my case, its not a trade-off I'm willing to make, and I'll honebrew as needed to fix it for me.

 

[Lanefan]

From my perspective, the whole reason to implement "magic as quest" is precisely so the players can research what the opposition is doing, in-game, and then try to stop it.

The type of play I don't want to enable is where the players dig through the PHB looking for a loophole in a spell that will invalidate the current fiction.

Agreed; and my solution is to - as far as I can, anyway - close those loopholes before they arise.

 

[Lanefan]

"PC" playable is a 3e invention. It didn't exist in 1e and didn't exist in 2e officially until pretty later on with things like the Complete Humanoid.

Well, yes it did to a point, in the various differences between, say, "Elf" as written up in the PH and "Elf" as written up in the MM.

And, even then, it was never presented as an expectation. An orc didn't gain character levels - he suddenly became treated as an ogre when he became chief. Now, I don't think that the intent was that an orc physically transformed into an ogre, despite using an ogre's stats upon becoming chief. It was purely a game mechanics method to differentiate a rank and file orc from an orc chieftain.

I houseruled that into oblivion about three days after I started DMing. Many creatures can gain levels as their abilities and willingness will allow, but - just like with the kindred species - not all do. So, that Orc chieftain becomes a 4th-level Fighter instead of just using the stats of a 4-HD monster.

How did that dragon cast spells though? After all, dragons had a percentage chance of having spells. Did they have actual MU levels? But, then, why didn't they need spell components? Beyond that, in 3e and later (if not earlier) any innate casting didn't need spell components, even if the monster was treated as a Level X caster. Why can't I learn to cast spells like a Ki-Rin and never need any spell components for my spells? It's never explained.

I've always had arcane-casting Dragons use spellbooks just like normal MUs, and components where it makes sense. As for things like Ki-Rin, here's where 3e's codification of ability types really helps: some creatures just have supernatural abilities they're born with.

This whole thing about a "strict proviso" is entirely fabricated. It never existed in the game. I don't disagree that people play this way. Fine and dandy. But, pretending that it's required? That's not even remotely true.

I'm saying it should be required, and that the lack of such a requirement puts a moon-size hole in anyone's setting design/consistency.

Edit: typos, as usual...

 

[DarkCrisis]

Going over this thread, some of you make D&D far more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Going over this thread, some of you make D&D far more complicated than it needs to be.

But just as complicated as we want it to be.

 

[pemerton]

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

Why? Why can't magic be magical?

 

[pemerton]

When a Hobgoblin [skirmisher?] is hitting the PCs with a staff that delivers a whack of electrical damage every now and then (this is straight out of H-1), that electric shock ain't coming from the Hobgoblin. He's not a caster.

I'm pretty sure you're referring to the Hobgoblin warcaster. That character is a caster of spells focused on war, as per the label.

 

[Hussar]

Who's pretending? As you say, its how some people play.

Sorry? Where did I say pretending? I just read my post twice and I don't see the word pretending anywhere. But, it's early and I haven't had coffee yet.

My point is that there is absolutely no upside for WotC in this. If they come forward with any sort of explanation, it will never be good enough and will simply spark off endless comments that they are lacking in creativity and why can't they be more like Insert Favorite RPG Company Here Additionally, anything that they do say will become engraved on stone tablets, never, ever to be changed for all time, lest the hordes of canon police descend like locusts. Doesn't matter how trivial or minor, no lore must ever be changed or revised, regardless of how good or bad the lore is.

I cannot blame any RPG company for punting on this. There is just no way to win here. Far better to leave it up to individual tables and just wash their hands of it entirely.

 

[Hussar]

Not really, no. Deciding what classes exist in the setting is a pretty fundamental part of creating a campaign.

Very much not the way I play. I'm constantly looking at new books and whatnot to add, change or otherwise modify a campaign. Heck, I'll do it in the middle of adventures, never minding in the middle of a campaign. Since my Candlekeep game started, I've added about three different monster books, material from probably half a dozen different setting guides that I didn't even know existed before I started the campaign as well as any number of new goodies, races, classes, and anything else that catches my eye.

I literally have zero idea what classes exist in a setting when the campaign starts because classes are not a thing in the game world. They have zero to do with world building as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why? Why can't magic be magical?

Because this is D&D, and magic mostly doesn't work that way. 4th ed in particular doesn't work that way mechanically in my experience. I mention that because I know you're a 4e enthusiast, and my experience there is that magic was almost exactly the opposite of  magical.