D&D (2024) Are Bishops "Clerics" or "Priests"

[Chaosmancer]

This does give an interesting notion to how the power hierarchy would go if you assume bishops did not have big spells.

Could a 5th level cleric just walk up to a Bishop and claim higher religious authority? (god gave me spells, I clearly speak for him more than you). I could certainly see players attempting that argument.

I think they absolutely could and it would logically follow, given the standard DnDisms. If you have active gods who actively give magical power to those blessed to enforce their will, then more magical power = more blessings/more important duties = more authority.

Now, there are a lot of ways to work with this, a lot of different world-building levers you can pull or shift, but there are two I find particularly interesting.

1) The most important positions of authority become wandering adventurer clerics. This is a shift in how we think of religious structures, but it could be the battered armor of a traveling cleric is seen as more of a badge of office than the silk robes of a church leader.

2) Since NPC abilities can trivially be different than PC abilities, PCs get the combat focused magic, and the NPC church leaders are instead blessed with powers suited for their role. Such as much more powerful and complex divination magic (allowing them to send adventurers on quests) or community wide magics that protect from various evils. Things that are more powerful, but that aren't suited for the types of combat a PC gets involved with.

 

[Yaarel]

There is a tension between institutional authority versus charismatic authority. History is abundant with examples of this kind of tension.

Essentially, the charismatic leadership keeps the sacred tradition alive and relevant. The institutional leadership keeps the sacred tradition sane and approachable to the mainstream majority.

There is an awkward alliance between the two.

It is probably safe to generalize when things wrong: the charismatics turn into heretical cults, and the institutionals turn into derisable jaded tyrants.

 

[Clint_L]

My issue with this is that it changes what level 7 means to the PCs.

Is level 7 "you are a competent warrior", or is it "you are the best swordsman in the empire"?

So when you face pirates, are they competent warriors or are they strangely better than the best swordsmen in the empire?

This has knock on effects beyond world building -- in-adventure impacts. If PCs fighters at level 7 are world-class fighters, then seeing a dozen dirty pirates the PCs can very safely assume they aren't all world-class fighters. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

In turn, this kind of information about the world means that the PCs can look at enemies, and have an idea if this is a "run away don't fight" or "curbstomp" situation, without the DM having to always telegraph it manually.

It also means that the DM is "forced" to up the stakes for higher level PCs. If level 7 PCs are "best in the empire", a fight against 15 pirates is not a suitable conflict, unless said pirates are somehow supernaturally insanely powerful. And if they are, the stakes are probably more than "we found some pirates".

A problem with D&D that many DMs complain about is how it their adventures stops working when players start getting L 5+ spells. But if the stakes of the game are consistent with the players level, when planeshift shows up it is appropriate for the game. L 7 they are world-class combatants; L 13, they can take a sunday brunch in heaven, L 17 they can reshape the world with an action.

OTOH, if at level 7 they are fighting mook pirates who are 75% as good as them, and at level 11 they are fighting mook pirates who are 75% as good as them, and and level 15 they are fighting mook pirates who are 75% as good as them... because you scale foes up to match the PCs capabilities, without scaling the narrative scale of the PCs abilities ... then suddenly entire categories of world-shaping spells start breaking the game.

I mean it can and does work! It just is an issue.

I don't follow. I scale the challenges to the level of the players, and story logic always comes first. Level 7 PCs are not the "best in the empire" - I don't really think in those terms. I think in terms of, say, an Indiana Jones adventure, where baddies are reasonable opponents for the characters to defeat, whether through fighting them or outwitting them. As long as the story we are collectively building is consistent, challenging, and fun, with room for character arcs, then things are working out.

 

[NotAYakk]

I don't follow. I scale the challenges to the level of the players, and story logic always comes first. Level 7 PCs are not the "best in the empire" - I don't really think in those terms. I think in terms of, say, an Indiana Jones adventure, where baddies are reasonable opponents for the characters to defeat, wither through fighting them or outwitting them. As long as the story we are collectively building is consistent, challenging, and fun, with room for character arcs, then things are working out.

Can Indy defeat 50 soldiers?

Depending on assumptions, 50 typical soldiers could be a reasonable strait up fight, an environmental hazard, a guaranteed tpk, or somethibg that requires careful tactics and planning to deal with.

If the players are picking how they interact with the world, and you place 50 soldiers somewhere, them knowing what threat a soldier is matters.

If the DM picks how the confrontation goes then this doesn't apply (ie, PCs charge, DM vreaks the soldiers down into bite sized chunks for PCs to fight). Or, the DM can just refuse to place anything that isn't a small group tactical encounter in opposition to PCs. (So the PCs know the 50 soldiers are beatable strait-up).

Or, the DM informs the players "these 50 soldiers cannot be fought directly". Next week a similar group of 50 soldiers is fair game and intended to be fought directly.

I am not saying there isn't a solution to this; they can even be fun solutions! But they aren't "DM describes world, PC decides what to do about it", which I sometimes really like to happen.

 

[Clint_L]

This is only true if your table doesnt like applying logic to fantasy worlds. Please stop assuming we have to play by your standards, or that your view is objective. This isnt a disagree on how to narratively handle classes, but instead your core gatekeeping perspective.

When did I assume that anyone has to play by my standards? You seem to be reading a lot into my post. By all means, you should play by the standards that work for your table. Obviously.

As far as applying logic to fantasy worlds: I think you can apply story logic, but trying to use real world logic to the mechanics of how a D&D world functions is always going to be severely limited because D&D allows for such vastly different parameters. This is a game that presupposes vast numbers of spells, magic items, sentient species, actively involved deities, ridiculous amounts of wealth. If those things were real, the result would not look remotely like a Renaissance Faire but with magic on the side.

How would the Middle Ages have looked if there was ONE other distinct sentient species, let alone hundreds? Would cities have looked anything similar in a world where many of those creatures can fly or burrow, or outright teleport? What does the hydrological cycle look like in this world full of magic, or the food web, etc.?

 

[Stalker0]

I don't follow. I scale the challenges to the level of the players, and story logic always comes first. Level 7 PCs are not the "best in the empire" - I don't really think in those terms. I think in terms of, say, an Indiana Jones adventure, where baddies are reasonable opponents for the characters to defeat, wither through fighting them or outwitting them. As long as the story we are collectively building is consistent, challenging, and fun, with room for character arcs, then things are working out.

There are DMs though that really want to build a world that is internally consistent. And so the question of "does it makes sense that this part of the world would have 6 encounters worth of things that can reasonably challenge a level 7 group" is a question that many DMs like to ask.

I've used that argument for people who have said "the DM always has another dragon". That only is true if the DM doesn't care about world consistency. Big dragons take up a LOT of space, and our apex predators. If there is another dragon round the corner....the world gets a bit less believable. Some DMs don't care that much, their goal is the adventure and the campaign. For other DMs having this kind of internally consistent world is a big draw for them (or their players) and so creates some additional limits on the encounters they can use.

Now 5e does offer a way out here, as bounded accuracy more than ever before allows the "hoard" to be a threat. So sure you might only have 1 dragon around, but you can always throw hoards of disposable low level bad guys at people and stay internal consistent. The main issue there is just run time, running lots of enemies can get pretty tedious. The mob rules can help with this but only to a point.

 

[Clint_L]

Can Indy defeat 50 soldiers?

Depending on assumptions, 50 typical soldiers could be a reasonable strait up fight, an environmental hazard, a guaranteed tpk, or somethibg that requires careful tactics and planning to deal with.

If the players are picking how they interact with the world, and you place 50 soldiers somewhere, them knowing what threat a soldier is matters.

If the DM picks how the confrontation goes then this doesn't apply (ie, PCs charge, DM vreaks the soldiers down into bite sized chunks for PCs to fight). Or, the DM can just refuse to place anything that isn't a small group tactical encounter in opposition to PCs. (So the PCs know the 50 soldiers are beatable strait-up).

Or, the DM informs the players "these 50 soldiers cannot be fought directly". Next week a similar group of 50 soldiers is fair game and intended to be fought directly.

I am not saying there isn't a solution to this; they can even be fun solutions! But they aren't "DM describes world, PC decides what to do about it", which I sometimes really like to happen.

No, our games are literally "I describe the world (sometimes the players contribute), players decide what to do about it." The players assume that the story, including challenges, will make narrative sense; if they saw 50 soldiers and ran straight at them, this would probably not be smart.

This has never been a problem. I've been playing for more than 40 years and player choice is my priority; I run very sandbox-style campaigns. I honestly am not following your objection.

Edit: I don't really care about levels - I don't think of the characters in terms of their levels in anything but a very broad sense, as in: beginner adventurers, experienced adventurers, epic adventurers. Only in the latter category would they be particularly notable in the world. To me levels are mostly about the characters getting new spells and abilities to play with, not their status in the world.

 

[Shardstone]

When did I assume that anyone has to play by my standards? You seem to be reading a lot into my post. By all means, you should play by the standards that work for your table. Obviously.

As far as applying logic to fantasy worlds: I think you can apply story logic, but trying to use real world logic to the mechanics of how a D&D world functions is always going to be severely limited because D&D allows for such vastly different parameters. This is a game that presupposes vast numbers of spells, magic items, sentient species, actively involved deities, ridiculous amounts of wealth. If those things were real, the result would not look remotely like a Renaissance Faire but with magic on the side.

How would the Middle Ages have looked if there was ONE other distinct sentient species, let alone hundreds? Would cities have looked anything similar in a world where many of those creatures can fly or burrow, or outright teleport? What does the hydrological cycle look like in this world full of magic, or the food web, etc.?

All those questions you ask at the end are precisely the kinds of questions me and my tables like to answer and build stories around.

 

[Azzy]

On a note. The leaders of a religion, if DnD is to make logical sense, MUST be rather high level clerics or paladins (I've settled around level 9). Yes, in our world it makes sense that the leader of a global religion might be just an administrator, but we are dealing with a world where the gods are real, the demons are real, and your global religion is also likely keeping a few apocalypses in their bottles. No god with any sense is going to have the leader who knows where the god's secret weapon vault is located be a level 2 paper-pusher who is just beyond helpless if even a mid-tier threat can reach them. They are going to be blessed with so much magic, that even if they have no combat skills, they can still blast apart mid-tier threats.

My homebrew is far more like Eberron than, say, the Forgotten Realms. There are no gods walking the earth and even their existence is unknowable.

 

[tetrasodium]

There are DMs though that really want to build a world that is internally consistent. And so the question of "does it makes sense that this part of the world would have 6 encounters worth of things that can reasonably challenge a level 7 group" is a question that many DMs like to ask.

I've used that argument for people who have said "the DM always has another dragon". That only is true if the DM doesn't care about world consistency. Big dragons take up a LOT of space, and our apex predators. If there is another dragon round the corner....the world gets a bit less believable. Some DMs don't care that much, their goal is the adventure and the campaign. For other DMs having this kind of internally consistent world is a big draw for them (or their players) and so creates some additional limits on the encounters they can use.

Now 5e does offer a way out here, as bounded accuracy more than ever before allows the "hoard" to be a threat. So sure you might only have 1 dragon around, but you can always throw hoards of disposable low level bad guys at people and stay internal consistent. The main issue there is just run time, running lots of enemies can get pretty tedious. The mob rules can help with this but only to a point.

It almost never makes sense that any part of the world has 6-8 encounters of things to reasonably challenge any group not engaged in slaughtering a village or similar. The game should never have assumed & mapped PCs to such an expectation simply because that doesn't fit in an average session or a reasonable adventure design, every 5e adventure from wotc demonstrates the unreasonableness there.