General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I've been investigating avengers a lot lately and have even gone to a charop board to see what's out there for it. One thing that has, up until now, merely been an annoyance that I could ignore, is now becoming a thorn in my side.
I speak of domains and deity worship.
Deities are nothing but flavour-text. At the end of the day, they shouldn't dictate mechanical rules. There is no mechanical reason why I should be limited to one set of domains or feats just because of an arbitrary decision to include X and not Y for Z deity.
It is not a balance issue. The particular domains I want are allowed for an Eberron deity (Strength and Skill, Dol Dorn), so mechanically and balance-wise, there's no reason to prevent me from taking both. The only thing that stops me, is that there is no Forgotten Realms deity with both domains.
Technically, the Skill power domain feat is far better for my avenger than the Strength domain feat, but my character concept simply doesn't fit a god of knowledge or love. So why should I be restricted by such arbitrary associations?
If there was some mechanical balance reason that these two domains couldn't be taken together, then I wouldn't mind. But to be crippled by nothing more than someone's interpretation of a god is... vexing. I had thought that these types of rules were gone from 4e. Previous editions were rife with rules as justifications for thematic restrictions that had nothing to do with balance. Why are we going backwards with this edition?
But seriously, all thematic restrictions are arbitrary. It's called 'poetic licence'.
I agree that the existence of a deity allowing both domains in a different official setting indicates that there are no balance issues with the choice of domains you want for your character but I don't think you could say it's poor design - the flavour of a setting comes from its restrictions.
If you really want the domains just talk to your DM. I'm sure he (or she) won't have a problem allowing you to file the serial numbers off and use the domain power with different descriptive fluff.
There's a section in Divine Power about worshipping non-standard aspects of a deity and hence, gaining access to non-standard domains. While it doesn't guarantee that your DM will allow you to gain access to the specific domain you want, it does establish the precedent.
You think thats bad, try feats with arbitrary non-thematic mechanical restrictions. Like racial class feats that have no actual thematic association with their race. For example, only humans can take reckless curse, which grants +1 to hit cursed enemies and grants them +1 to hit you. Why? Humans are no more "reckless" than several other races, including Tieflings and Dragonborn. So why are they the only ones who can take the feat?
My feelings would tend to be exactly the opposite of yours. To the extent that this would bother me at all, my focus would tend to be, "Arbitrary mechanical restrictions forcing thematic restrictions." That is to say that, if the mechanics are not balanced around the different available themes, then it tends to force players to adjust their role play to accomodate the mechanics rather than playing what they want. For example, in 3rd edition, domains like Trickery, Travel, Luck and Knowledge were so obviously better than Healing and Good, that it tended to discourage playing a cleric of certain themes and encourage playing one of another.
But on one level this doesn't bother me at all, because I'm inclined to think that it is the limitations that make the game interesting. There are certain thematic restrictions that I'm happy to find existing because its really how things are grouped in opposition to other things that helps turn the game from simply a tactical wargame into something else. And even in a tactical wargame, much of the fun comes from choosing a theme and perforce giving up being strong in some other aspect of the game. I think your weaknesses are just as important and more interesting than your strengths.
In the case of not finding a diety with both skill and strength, that tends to suggest that in that campaign world skill is viewed as somehow opposed to strength. In such a world, strength means 'brute force' and having large amounts of strength in some fashion tends to reduce the likelihood that you have alot of skill. Skill and strength are competing tendancies, and the dieties representing the two virtues are probably rivals arguing over which is the superior virtue. Good points could be made on both sides.
In my particular case though, the problem you describe would never come up. Since the '80's, my campaign world has been distinguished by having 'one thousand gods' - so many that I've never bothered to try to enumerate them all and for that matter wouldn't want to do so. One of several advantages of a effectively limitless pantheon is it makes it easy for me to say 'Yes.' Regardless of what you wanted to worship, it would probably exist and I'd be quite willing to make a custom diety for you on the spot. In your case though of wanting both skill and strength, a diety from the canon immediately suggests itself - Smiling Good-humored Loejma, Elweta's Spouse, The Hearty Thunderer, the Laughing God, the Blissful Sleeper, the diety of sports, leisure, rest, and recreation.
The Forgotten Realms dieties are IME crap. Not only do they seemed designed to basically be 'the god of fighters', the 'god of thieves', the 'god of rangers', the 'god of wizards', and even a 'god of clerics', but even within those narrow roles despite all the detail that's been lavished on them over the years it's hard to imagine why anyone would want to worship them.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
I don't see any real problem. There is some non-arbitrary limit being made here - namely, that they don't want domain access to be completly open for everyone to pick and choose precisely what they want. Just as it might seem a shame certain racial feats are limited to one race, or weapon feats limited to one weapon - by imposing limits on options, they are able to present more options without simply allowing players to only pick the options that are absolutely the best.
In terms of deities, the breakdown of where those limitations fall is more arbitrary, due to settings - but the same can be true of other elements. ("Why should it be a problem for my FR character to take a Dragonmark, since those are available in Eberron?) And the answer is - it may not be, and that is a perfectly reasonable area for a DM to step in and allow it as they see fit. That doesn't mean the limitations should be thrown out as a whole - just that cases where they should be are better off dealt with through DM approval more than anything else.
A thematic restriction is not arbitrary, except insofar as the themes are arbitrary. If you feel a Skill domain is more appropriate to a Strength avenger, then perhaps you feel the themes are not expressed very well, which is also not the same as arbitrary.
I don't mind having mechanical limitations for thematic reasons myself. In my world for example Elves, Eladrin and the Drow simply can't take any divine classes. It simply doesn't make sense for them.
I frown on ones that don't seem to enforce either balance or theme though. Ikinda think that things such as "Reckless curse" and "domains" is to make sure that characters are different from each other. So that two divine classes might not both worship tempest, and that there's a larger difference between two warlock classes. How efficient this is is another topic though.
"Arbitrary" has two possibly applicable definitions.
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported
Poetic license fits the first, but not the second. I mention this because I have seen people talk past each other on this point.
Honestly mate, I don't think there's any real difference between your two definitions.
We can analyse anything and break it down to the point where it no longer resembles anything else, but this means it will also no longer resemble reality, which defeats the purpose of the analysis in the first place.
It's commonplace that one man's decision is arbitrary as per your first definition, yet is seen by someone else as fitting the second definition.
We live in a society which worships 'reason' and 'logic' as though we don't apply our own interpretations to everything we see and hear. So in the case of creativity, especially, the only logic or reason that needs to apply to the creator's arbitrary thematic restriction is how much he likes it.
What this means is that whether the reader applies the first or the second definition of 'arbitrary' boils down to how much he likes it.
But seriously, all thematic restrictions are arbitrary. It's called 'poetic licence'.
.... the flavour of a setting comes from its restrictions.
Bingo! Most settings like Eberron also provide arbitrary bonuses in the form of neat powers or abilities that aren't in other settings and could even be construed as unbalanced, but that is the "flavor" it provides. Start complaining about the restrictions then you are just taking the good parts and leaving the parts you don't like. Why even bother playing in a D&D game at that point, just make up a game where you do whatever you want with no restrictions, never miss the bad guys and NPCs always do what you want.
That seems boring to me though....
__________________ Whatever you read in my post, I actually do like 4e
All my questions are for 4e unless otherwise stated.
"A true slacker needs no excuse to slack" - Evan G.
If one is not going to implement the thematic and story elements of the game into the mechanics, then why have different mechanics? This kind of thinking drives people to Champions and the Hero System, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
__________________ Dark God of Facetiousness and Vaguely Lobsterlike Things
If you really want the domains just talk to your DM. I'm sure he (or she) won't have a problem allowing you to file the serial numbers off and use the domain power with different descriptive fluff.
Unless he values the consistency and flavor of his campaign and doesn't feel it will fit. Which is perfectly reasonable. Sometimes, mechanical restrictions for reasons of flavor are perfectly fine.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
