D&D General If faith in yourself is enough to get power, do we need Wizards and Warlocks etc?

[Micah Sweet]

How about we don't prescribe the ways a person can solve or approach a problem. That's the big issue I take with your claims and approach to the discussion. You seem to suggest that your way is the only correct way or only way that makes "sense."

Not everyone is versed in mechanics and can design something new whole cloth, nor would they want to invest the time or energy if they could. Repurposing existing mechanics and envisioning them expressed in new ways is equally parsimonious and an acceptable way to play the game.

You're welcome to play how you want. However, I view that style as incoherent and would not use it personally, and I would prefer coherence in the game rules.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

You're welcome to play how you want. However, I view that style as incoherent and would not use it personally, and I would prefer coherence in the game rules.

You do realize how you sound, right? I can't be the only one that hears it. In the same breath you say play how I want (thanks for the permission, btw) and that my way is "incoherent" as if I am not a reasonable person playing in a reasonable way. You get that that is incredibly offensive, don't you?

 

[Deadstop]

Fictional does not mean, "Do whatever you want, nothing needs to make sense as long as you're following the mechanics".

Sure, that's a terrible idea even for books with magic systems in them.

But people in this thread seem to be operating on different levels of "make sense."

I don't understand how the cleric class mechanical chassis only "makes sense" as an agent of the gods. Heck, the 5e SF hack Esper Genesis built its engineer class on the cleric chassis. I don't always like such direct translations, much as I didn't care as much for the 3e products that were more "D&D lightly painted with another genre" rather than really fitting the new setting, but they do not break the laws of logic.

Nor do I understand, to address a different poster's complaint about incoherence, how the world suddenly stops being coherent if things inspired by Iron Man or the Death Star* show up in a D&D campaign. If you would never do it or find it cringe, that's one thing, but concepts like "coherence" and "making sense" should probably have a more objective foundation than just "I don't like it."

* Or, in a particularly gonzo/multiversal game, Tony Stark and the DS-1 themselves. I've read the very famous storyline in which Iron Man and Dr. Doom get cast back to Arthurian times, and D&D has had visiting space vessels since "Temple of the Frog." I can understand a "coherence" complaint there as to theme and mood, if you want a particular flavor to your game, but such things can obviously fit in someone's D&D game.

 

[Stormonu]

A warlock deal is like a super shortcut, you don't have to work for it, you don't have to believe in yourself, you can just take the easy shortcut. Also a wizard studying thousands of hours instead of believing in themselves sounds to me like a workaholic trying to distract themselves that they should see a therapist.

The question reminds a bit of the Eberron religion "Blood of Vol" whose follower think that all powers comes from yourself and other religions are just delusional in terms of where their powers origin from.

Also the Athar and Sign of One from Planescape would likely fall in that bucket.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You do realize how you sound, right? I can't be the only one that hears it. In the same breath you say play how I want (thanks for the permission, btw) and that my way is "incoherent" as if I am not a reasonable person playing in a reasonable way. You get that that is incredibly offensive, don't you?

5e is an incoherent but very popular game, WotC 5e especially so. Nothing offensive about calling that out, unless you see it as a negative.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, that's a terrible idea even for books with magic systems in them.

But people in this thread seem to be operating on different levels of "make sense."

I don't understand how the cleric class mechanical chassis only "makes sense" as an agent of the gods. Heck, the 5e SF hack Esper Genesis built its engineer class on the cleric chassis. I don't always like such direct translations, much as I didn't care as much for the 3e products that were more "D&D lightly painted with another genre" rather than really fitting the new setting, but they do not break the laws of logic.

Nor do I understand, to address a different poster's complaint about incoherence, how the world suddenly stops being coherent if things inspired by Iron Man or the Death Star* show up in a D&D campaign. If you would never do it or find it cringe, that's one thing, but concepts like "coherence" and "making sense" should probably have a more objective foundation than just "I don't like it."

* Or, in a particularly gonzo/multiversal game, Tony Stark and the DS-1 themselves. I've read the very famous storyline in which Iron Man and Dr. Doom get cast back to Arthurian times, and D&D has had visiting space vessels since "Temple of the Frog." I can understand a "coherence" complaint there as to theme and mood, if you want a particular flavor to your game, but such things can obviously fit in someone's D&D game.

I love that story, but it's no more incoherent than anything else in the MU. It makes sense in the setting, since both time travel and King Arthur exist there.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

5e is an incoherent but very popular game, WotC 5e especially so. Nothing offensive about calling that out, unless you see it as a negative.

It is offensive when you state an opinion as if it is a self-evident fact, thus insinuating that those who disagree are wrong or misinformed. You provide no evidence for your position anyways, aside from "I don't like it, don't make sense."

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is offensive when you state an opinion as if it is a self-evident fact, thus insinuating that those who disagree are wrong or misinformed. You provide no evidence for your position anyways, aside from "I don't like it, don't make sense."

All of this is our opinions. Never said otherwise, and I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I said I don't like re-skinning, and that class narratives and fiction relating to then should inform the mechanics, and that to do otherwise is incoherent, in my opinion

That work for you?

 

[DarkCrisis]

I’m kind of surprised no one has brought up Fallen-From-Grace. Then again Planescape is special in how it handles gods and divine magic, I guess

 

[mamba]

I'm not saying the universe doesn't have rules. I'm not saying D&D doesn't have rules. But there are no rules when it comes to my imagination and how each of us implement the game at our tables.

sure, I don’t see why a cleric that by the rules cannot be powered by an idea but needs to have a god is limiting your imagination. See rule 0.

It would make for a more coherent game however.

Or rather, there are two very explicit rules in D&D that is most sacred.

Rule 0: The Game Master may change, modify, ignore, or add to the rules as he or she sees fit to ensure the game is fun and runs smoothly.

Rule of Cool: If it is cool, neat, epic, interesting, whatever, then the rules can be bent or broken to allow it.

no complaints, but I am not breaking things willy-nilly, and we might have a very different idea of what is cool