D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[pawsplay]

"Who's right" is far less important than the fact that the ambiguity caused a dispute in the first place.

Or you could say the ambiguity caused a question, a potentially interesting one.

Really rigid and specific effects don't always avoid arguments, either; you ever talk about what happens when you open a Bag of Holding in a lake in 5e?

 

[Lanefan]

I've been playing D&D for a long while, and I've often seen NPC writeups that do things regular PC's can't. I understand that you feel that this shouldn't be the case, but it's never really been all that important historically. For example:
View attachment 398117
View attachment 398118
View attachment 398119
View attachment 398120

Drizz't, at the time, had one huge advantage: his species was then still classed as "monster" - i.e. Drow weren't PC-playable - and thus didn't have to match up with what a PC of the species could do.

That said, I've always despised that character for a variety of reasons and this doesn't help his case.

 

[Lanefan]

Should? But, never, ever, in the history of the game, has it been true. NPC's, right from the very earliest days of D&D, have never fallen in within the bounds of what is possible for a PC.

And, I'm assuming by NPC here you mean humanoids of some form. Just want to be clear.

By "NPC" here I mean any creature in the setting of a PC-playable species that is not currently being played by a player. Contrast this with a "Monster", which is any creature-undead-construct in the setting that cannot be played as a PC.

That is not one of the joys of playing. That is one of the hells of playing which has caused no end of arguments and problems at the table where the mismatch between what the DM thinks is possible with the spell and what the player thinks is possible. Illusionists are the perfect example here. Most tables won't even consider using them because it's too much of a gamble. Every single time you try to do something, you wind up playing Mother May I with the DM. It's endlessly frustrating and leads to all sorts of play break down.

First off, I don't mecessarily see "mother may I" as a bad thing.

Second, while our lot have historically loved to argue about just about anything under the sun illusions have generated remarkably few of those arguments. That said, as both player and DM I'm in favour of allowing illusions to do far more than 5e lets them, so maybe that helps.

I FAR prefer spells to be clearly written and do specific things. Note, this is my preference So, I'm going to see any nerf to spells to limit "creativity" as a good thing. Specifying what a Command spell can do is fantastic. Specifying summoning spells so they work as an area damage spell is fantastic. My preferred D&D would strip out about 9/10ths of the spells in the game.

Stripping out a whole bunch of spells is a different issue IMO than what the remaining spells would be allowed to do. I'm not sure I'd lose 90% of them but there's certainly room to prune maybe 25%, particularly on the Cleric side.

But the uses and applications of spells and their effects shouldn't be so tightly proscribed as to squash any hope of caster players getting creative with them.

Now, I realize that's a fight I lost long ago, but, I'm very much going to approve of any revision which pins down spells into doing EXACTLY what the spell is supposed to do.

And that's fair too. Clarity of rules and rulings is important. The problem is, achieving that clarity while leaving room for improvisation sometimes takes a lot of word count, about which both readers and editors complain.

And they should include the obvious what-if rulings. Magic Missile as written can only target a creature, for example, but what happens if you shoot one at a wall or an illusion or just straight up into the air? Does it have a visible effect, for example, and if so can shooting one into the air act as a signal, or distress flare? (for me, that would be a perfectly acceptable use of the spell!)

 

[Hussar]

Drizz't, at the time, had one huge advantage: his species was then still classed as "monster" - i.e. Drow weren't PC-playable - and thus didn't have to match up with what a PC of the species could do.

That said, I've always despised that character for a variety of reasons and this doesn't help his case.

That’s not true.

The unearthed arcana came out before the first Drizzt novel.

 

[Hussar]

Note the npc vs monster thing is heavily edition dependent.

 

[James Gasik]

Drizz't, at the time, had one huge advantage: his species was then still classed as "monster" - i.e. Drow weren't PC-playable - and thus didn't have to match up with what a PC of the species could do.

That said, I've always despised that character for a variety of reasons and this doesn't help his case.

It's funny you say that, as his stat block in Hall of Heroes states:

I use this particular character as an example, and he's one of several- I'm not saying I like Drizzt as a character (he was ok in Crystal Shard, but quickly became D&D's version of the Chuck Norris meme, lol). For example, in the first Gord the Rogue book, it's explained that Gord's training gave him a +1 to hit and damage with a sword (I want to say a long sword, but it's been awhile). That's not a big deal, but at the time it was outside the rules (it wasn't until 2e's Al Qadim that a Thief Kit that granted Weapon Specialization was published). There was no way, outside of asking the DM, to gain this feature.

If you wanted your Thief to be better at fighting, your options were: go up levels or dual-class into a Fighter (if possible). Or get a magic weapon or something, lol.

The reason for all of this, is, of course, that a given NPC is the hero of their own story, which only occasionally intersects with the PC's. Just as a PC could, in the course of adventuring, gain unique traits and abilities, so can NPC's- even if these things aren't in the rulebooks.

This is doubly true if the NPC is featured in a book or story, or even a special adventure. In the Conan adventure, Conan is a Fighter and a Thief and isn't treated as a dual-classed character. It's just who he is.

Miltiades is an undead warrior revived by a God to accompany some adventurers. Shal Bal managed to use a single Wish to gain something like 9 points of Strength. Shield of Innocence is an Orog Paladin of Torm. Elminster is a Chosen of Mystra and wields a spellfire-like ability granted to him by the Goddess. Dragonbait is a lizardman Paladin (later clarified to be a unique race that didn't become a playable option until 2e's Complete Book of Humanoids).

The DM isn't bound to the same rules as players when creating characters to fill their campaign settings. They can be as mundane or fantastic as the DM allows.

 

[Lanefan]

It's funny you say that, as his stat block in Hall of Heroes states:

View attachment 398203

My mistake, then. I haven't looked at UA in ages (except for some magic item write-ups) and forgot Drow were in there.

I use this particular character as an example, and he's one of several- I'm not saying I like Drizzt as a character (he was ok in Crystal Shard, but quickly became D&D's version of the Chuck Norris meme, lol). For example, in the first Gord the Rogue book, it's explained that Gord's training gave him a +1 to hit and damage with a sword (I want to say a long sword, but it's been awhile). That's not a big deal, but at the time it was outside the rules (it wasn't until 2e's Al Qadim that a Thief Kit that granted Weapon Specialization was published). There was no way, outside of asking the DM, to gain this feature.


If you wanted your Thief to be better at fighting, your options were: go up levels or dual-class into a Fighter (if possible). Or get a magic weapon or something, lol.

The reason for all of this, is, of course, that a given NPC is the hero of their own story, which only occasionally intersects with the PC's. Just as a PC could, in the course of adventuring, gain unique traits and abilities, so can NPC's- even if these things aren't in the rulebooks.

This is doubly true if the NPC is featured in a book or story, or even a special adventure. In the Conan adventure, Conan is a Fighter and a Thief and isn't treated as a dual-classed character. It's just who he is.

Miltiades is an undead warrior revived by a God to accompany some adventurers. Shal Bal managed to use a single Wish to gain something like 9 points of Strength. Shield of Innocence is an Orog Paladin of Torm. Elminster is a Chosen of Mystra and wields a spellfire-like ability granted to him by the Goddess. Dragonbait is a lizardman Paladin (later clarified to be a unique race that didn't become a playable option until 2e's Complete Book of Humanoids).

The DM isn't bound to the same rules as players when creating characters to fill their campaign settings. They can be as mundane or fantastic as the DM allows.

And as far as it goes, all of that is fine.

BUT - if-when that NPC with the unusual ability encounters any PC then IMO there has to be an in-fiction explanation* for where that unusual ability came from. In other words, when a player asks "How can [my otherwise very similar PC] get that ability?" or even "How did that NPC become able to do that?" there has to be an answer available that's more coherent than "Just because".

Now that answer could be anything - blessed by a deity as a mission reward, trained by special trainers in the Althasian Mountains, lucky result of a wild-magic effect, it's a self-developed ability that the NPC can now train others in (i.e. you're introducing a new feat to the game on the fly), and so on - but the answer has to be there...just the same as when the reverse happens and an NPC asks a PC how it can do what it does. Most if not all of the time a character knows how it came by its abilities.

Absent those sort of unique events, I posit the DM is bound by the same limits are are players when designing playable-species NPCs. No, the DM doesn't have to go through every step of roll-up and can instead just assign stats etc. to suit what she has in mind, but she does have to make sure that the NPC she ends up with falls within the bounds of what a player could roll up. (non-roll systems such as point-buy or array completely wreck this as they don't allow players access to the full bell curve of what an individual's stats might be)

* - as in, the explanation has to exist in case the players dig in to asking about it; nothing says the players have to be told what it is right up-front.

 

[James Gasik]

My mistake, then. I haven't looked at UA in ages (except for some magic item write-ups) and forgot Drow were in there.

And as far as it goes, all of that is fine.

BUT - if-when that NPC with the unusual ability encounters any PC then IMO there has to be an in-fiction explanation* for where that unusual ability came from. In other words, when a player asks "How can [my otherwise very similar PC] get that ability?" or even "How did that NPC become able to do that?" there has to be an answer available that's more coherent than "Just because".

Now that answer could be anything - blessed by a deity as a mission reward, trained by special trainers in the Althasian Mountains, lucky result of a wild-magic effect, it's a self-developed ability that the NPC can now train others in (i.e. you're introducing a new feat to the game on the fly), and so on - but the answer has to be there...just the same as when the reverse happens and an NPC asks a PC how it can do what it does. Most if not all of the time a character knows how it came by its abilities.

Absent those sort of unique events, I posit the DM is bound by the same limits are are players when designing playable-species NPCs. No, the DM doesn't have to go through every step of roll-up and can instead just assign stats etc. to suit what she has in mind, but she does have to make sure that the NPC she ends up with falls within the bounds of what a player could roll up. (non-roll systems such as point-buy or array completely wreck this as they don't allow players access to the full bell curve of what an individual's stats might be)

* - as in, the explanation has to exist in case the players dig in to asking about it; nothing says the players have to be told what it is right up-front.

I can appreciate your stance, but I'm pretty sure both game designers and DM's will continue to make whatever sorts of NPC's they feel are interesting and not really worry too much about whether or not players can access similar unique feats. After all, they've been doing it for decades, why stop now?

 

[Hussar]

Absent those sort of unique events, I posit the DM is bound by the same limits are are players when designing playable-species NPCs.

You can posit that all you like but it’s never been true in any version of DnD.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can appreciate your stance, but I'm pretty sure both game designers and DM's will continue to make whatever sorts of NPC's they feel are interesting and not really worry too much about whether or not players can access similar unique feats. After all, they've been doing it for decades, why stop now?

Depends on the game. Some designers make setting logic more of a priority than others.