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

[mamba]

Sure, but the ship has sailed. It left port a very long time ago, and really never is coming back.

yeah, that is likely true, doesn't mean I have to like it though

 

[mamba]

See that's the problem. You say it doesn't work for you, but that's not what the premise of the thread is

well, then I guess I misunderstood. In that case the answer is: we obviously do not need wizards or warlocks, they can all just believe in themselves too, but that in itself is no reason to throw them out either. No class is needed, including regular clerics or delusional clerics, they all are only needed as much as we insist on keeping that archetype around. Didn't realize that needed a discussion

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

yeah, that is likely true, doesn't mean I have to like it though

I think you've made your position in the subject abundantly clear. Do you have anything more to say on the subject other than you don't like/understand the concept?

 

[Scribe]

I mean I would probably 'solve' this by making a God of Narcissist's and Megalomaniacs. One who may not (indeed how could they!) have conscious worshippers, but who is empowered by their 'self faith' all the same. He lives in the Far Realm, and is quite mad.

 

[mamba]

I think you've made your position in the subject abundantly clear. Do you have anything more to say on the subject other than you don't like/understand the concept?

I'll let you know when something relevant comes up

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I think you've made your position in the subject abundantly clear. Do you have anything more to say on the subject other than you don't like/understand the concept?

This! This is what is bothering me about the discussion. It's feels like its devolved from a discussion on the merits of different play styles and how to incorporate non-traditional explanations for a character's capacities, and has shifted into "Your idea is bad" or "My idea is good."

I can get behind talking about WHY something might be or seem inconsistent or "incoherent." I can see talking about where people's preferences may come from or what makes them uncomfortable about a particular approach. But when the reason just ends up being "because it is" isn't a good faith discussion, nor is it interesting.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean I would probably 'solve' this by making a God of Narcissist's and Megalomaniacs. One who may not (indeed how could they!) have conscious worshippers, but who is empowered by their 'self faith' all the same. He lives in the Far Realm, and is quite mad.

A God of Narcissist's and Megalomaniacs works as they would be so enthralled by themselves that they would not notice their divine essence being stolen passively. But the amount of narcissism a cleric would have to tap into that god accidentally and inadvertently would be so high that there just are not enough of them for the god to notice nor care.

 

[Scribe]

A God of Narcissist's and Megalomaniacs works as they would be so enthralled by themselves that they would not notice their divine essence being stolen passively. But the amount of narcissism a cleric would have to tap into that god accidentally and inadvertently would be so high that there just are not enough of them for the god to notice nor care.

Meh?

There is no reason the bar would have to be impossibly high. We are again discussing the hypothetical where a Cleric of Megalomania is so into themselves, that they begin tot manifest power.

By definition, they have 'draw his gaze' at that point.

I am reminded of Braveheart. "In order to find his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God." wasn't that the line?

 

[Reynard]

This thread is a perfect example of why classes are, on balance, a bad idea.yes, there is value to providing a chassis to new and/or casual players,but ultimately people are going to want to risking andvreflavor if they play for more than 6 months or whatever.

Just use a framework device and let people build the fantasy they want to play. Games have been doing it since a year after D&D appeared. It's not hard.

 

[mamba]

This! This is what is bothering me about the discussion. It's feels like its devolved from a discussion on the merits of different play styles and how to incorporate non-traditional explanations for a character's capacities, and has shifted into "Your idea is bad" or "My idea is good."

meh, I see no value in the discussion you seem to be interested in. Of course you can explain anything with anything, it just needs to work for you. So knock yourself out with wizards powered by self-confidence instead of studying. 400 pound fat slob martials that eat all day and so strongly believe they are in top form and insanely agile, able to kill dragons with one swing of a hammer that they physically should not even be able to lift, that they then proceed to do exactly that.

I can get behind talking about WHY something might be or seem inconsistent or "incoherent." I can see talking about where people's preferences may come from or what makes them uncomfortable about a particular approach. But when the reason just ends up being "because it is" isn't a good faith discussion, nor is it interesting.

It was explained several times what is incoherent about this. If you just want to ignore that, this is going nowhere.

If this is about explaining other classes in the same incoherent fashion, then I fail to see the point of even having a discussion. Of course you can explain anything that way if the incoherence does not bother you, I see no value in this however, so I guess you got your wish and I am out.