Arbitrary thematic restrictions forcing mechanical limitations.

[AllisterH]

That might actually be a balancing factor with regard to thematic concerns.

One of the strongest PrC in 3.x for clerics was the Ruby Knight Vindicator. One of the prerequisties was that you had to worship Wee Jas, but most of the abusive builds came about BECAUSE people ignored the Wee Jas restriction and combined it with other PrC.

 

[delericho]

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.

So why should I be restricted by such arbitrary associations?

If the restriction is in place for thematic reasons, then it isn't arbitrary.

If they allowed open selection of domains, they lose any thematic element to the deities at all. If they give deities too wide a selection, then the deity loses focus, and becomes "god of a whole mess of stuff". So, ideally, they would want deities with 2-4 domains (my guess - I haven't seen the book in question).

However, if you have some 20 domains in total, deities have a maximum of four of those, and characters choose two from the four, you need a lot of deities to make every combination a viable option. (Naturally, this is also at odds with the desire to have a compact set of deities for the setting, so as not to overwhelm players.)

The only thing that stops me, is that there is no Forgotten Realms deity with both domains.

What's unfortunate in this case is that the 4e Forgotten Realms has deliberately trimmed the pantheon right back to only a core set of deities. Had the full set been retained, there would almost certainly have been a deity to fit.

What I would suggest is putting this to your DM: my character would have followed deity X (the pre-4e deity most likely to have those domains), but his portfolio has been taken over by deity Y (the closest 4e deity). As such, would it be possible to follow that aspect of deity Y, and so select these two domains?

 

[Umbran]

Honestly mate, I don't think there's any real difference between your two definitions.

The difference is simple.

Poetic license is for a specific purpose or effect, so it is reasonable, considered, and supportable - "I did it to get this particular effect". It is at the author's full discretion, but is in no way capricious or random.

 

[dystmesis]

I hate these arbitrary flavor restrictions too! Why doesn't my human ranger get +2 dex, +2 wis, and an encounter power to reroll an attack roll?!

 

[Nifft]

I hate these arbitrary flavor restrictions too! Why doesn't my human ranger get +2 dex, +2 wis, and an encounter power to reroll an attack roll?!

Because Humans would then be too delicious, and they would be hunted to extinction.

"Flavor Overwhelming", -- N

 

[keterys]

I've let a PC use stats for another race while calling themselves something else before... especially when we were converting editions or a certain race made more sense for the background they wanted but mechanics for another were better for them.

It's really not so bad. Course, sometimes I wouldn't do it.

 

[Garthanos]

Ummm open re-skinning --- (apply the same thinking to races as one does to powers).

We play the races in the game are "archetypes" independent of their fluff.... all the abilities of a human hero in 4e could be visualized as gifts gleaned by dint of reincarnation. A halfling works fairly well and fun as an incredibly lucky but very innocuous (instead of small) but otherwise quite human looking hero.

In my game your human could look and live very human and still have the "racial archetype" elf as he is mechanically an elf.

No biggy not all elfen heros have the "elf archetype" ... some are really really long lived and are re-remembering things all the time and use the "deva" archetype among other things.

------------------------
That said --- I was miffed at something recent... "Reapers Touch" became racially specific - I had already reskinned it associating it more tightly with Deva and it already fit my ideas of rune blades...http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...63-rune-soul-conjurers-blade.html#post4938527

 

[Ariosto]

Let me get this straight.
1. You want to play an avenger with strength and skill domains.
2. No such option is presented in the Forgotten Realms book.
3. Therefore it's somehow wrong for someone so to have described Faerun.

"But to be crippled by nothing more than someone's interpretation of a god is... vexing."

Look, the only one whose interpretation matters is the DM. Maybe someone else wants to play a land-octopus, a sixgun-slinging desperado or a TV reporter. Maybe the DM will allow it -- or maybe this is just not the campaign for that.

A setting described in a book has got to be something. It would not do to offer a bunch of blank pages, or to copy Eberron and call it the Forgotten Realms.

It doesn't follow that everyone is bound to use all the material, or not to change or add to it. When you are the DM, you can make it your setting.

Distinction makes variety. Homogeneity is not, I think, to be expected or widely desired in D&D.

 

[Garthanos]

D&D doesn't help me make My fantasy world

D&D intertwines thematics with the "game" part this means simultaneously you don't have to create a full skin job for it (see HERO for the other camp) and that when I want my Devas to have Rune Blade bearers ('Reaping Strike"), I have to do leg work of my own to make certain game balance issues aren't also being intertwined with what seems like flavor -- because I am taking what is now a racial feat and making it public domain (admittedly its for a race I didnt have archetypes of before). For instance does my allowing an Eladrin based archetype to take it enable some horror story combo... would replacing the teleport of Eladrin with 2 cantrips sounds fun except its tightly intertwined with a bunch of feats for the Eladrin RA and those feats are actively power makers for some builds of eladrins. Some of the racial encounter powers could be safely swapped out...I think.

It boils down to this
The game doesn't help me make my fantasy world as much as I would like it to...​

And as modular as it is that kind of improvement might be a thing for 5e​

 

[Derulbaskul]

If the restriction is in place for thematic reasons, then it isn't arbitrary. (snip)

Exactly.

Themes do impact mechanics, as they should particularly when its come to deities. A cleric of FR's Auril, the Frostmaiden, shouldn't be tossing around fireballs (or the equivalent), IMO, because it's contrary to his deity's interests.

That said, if your DM determines otherwise, no big deal.