D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Yaarel]

You can still have the cleric class. They don't have to follow a god, just pick a domain and you're good to go. Instead they could be and avatar of the storm a sage or a philosophical healer, just as they could have been in past editions.

For myself, I cannot use rules as written that contradict the narrative immersion in the campaign setting.

 

[Yaarel]

Then just remove the gods from your setting. Just ignore references to them in the books. It really isn't difficult, they aren't hard coded into dnd.

If it is so easy for you to reuse inappropriate official rules. Then remove all references to polytheism. You yourself can take responsibility for inserting polytheism into your own campaign settings. And allow the rules as written to allow me peace for a nonpolytheistic setting.

You put it in.

Let me have it out.

If it is so easy for you.

It isnt easy for me.

 

[Shasarak]

It is very difficult for me to ignore the rules as written, when the flavor and mechanics and cosmology, endlessly refer to it.

That is true. I struggled mightily to get DnD off the gold standard to no avail.

 

[SkidAce]

Yeah, I tried the silver standard, and eventually gave up.

 

[Yaarel]

I sympathize. Is it possible to visualize the gold ‘pieces’ as being very, very small? When someone wanted to buy something, they literally cut off a small piece, from an armlet made of gold, and weighed it, or from whatever chunk of gold they were carrying. So an actual large gold coin, might be able to weigh several gold pieces?

 

[Shasarak]

I sympathize. Is it possible to visualize the gold ‘pieces’ as being very, very small? When someone wanted to buy something, they literally cut off a small piece, from an armlet made of gold, and weighed it, or from whatever chunk of gold they were carrying. So an actual large gold coin, might be able to weigh several gold pieces?

The history of money is fascinating and the image of being able to spend those gold pieces you looted from the ancient dungeon is hilarious.

 

[Hussar]

Yaarel (he) wants the rules to have nothing to do with gods. At the same time, DMs can use whatever campaign setting they find interesting. Some will be monotheistic, some will be polytheistic, some will be other. Some will mix it up, like Eberron.

I'm sorry, but, can you be a bit more specific here. What rules are you specifically talking about. The mechanics for Clerics don't reference polytheism or monotheism at all. While the flavor text does, the mechanics don't. You can easily represent different traditions within a monotheistic setting by using the different domains. So, a Knights Templar organization would be War Domain Clerics, while, Knights Hospitalar would use Life Domain, while some sort of Church Archivist organization would use the Knowledge Domain.

((Note, my history here is WAY shakey. Please don't get too hung up on the specific examples, it's not something I've researched, just something I've pulled out of my petoot in the five minutes I've been writing this))

I'm not sure what the issue here is.

It is very difficult for me to ignore the rules as written, when the flavor and mechanics and cosmology, endlessly refer to it.

Now, I'll agree that the flavor and certainly the cosmology is going to be an issue. I'm actually right behind you on this one. I think 5e has gone too far in hard wiring too much flavor into the game, but, frankly, that ship has sailed. People wanted the flavor and well, it sucks being on the wrong end of the stick.

But, in any edition of D&D, you'd have to eject the cosmology in order to do a monotheistic campaign. My advice would be to go the Primeval Thule or Dragonlance way. Simply pare down the cosmology to what you want to use - and don't use planar travel in your campaign or, rather, don't use it much.

For myself, I cannot use rules as written that contradict the narrative immersion in the campaign setting.

This is a lot more difficult to unpack. At some point, it might be better to simply admit that D&D is not a good fit for a particular setting. Where that point is will vary from person to person. But, again, can you be specific about the mechanics that contradict the narrative immersion in the setting? Flavor text is going to have to be rewritten in any campaign setting. That's just the nature of the beast. But, what specific mechanics are causing problems?

The Cleric class comes with too much setting-assumptions baggage.

The Class would be more useful its rules and descriptions were more open to the various kinds of settings, and various kinds of religious traditions that might happen in those settings.



Alternatively, maybe the Cleric is a campaign-specific class, like the way the Artificer class is specific to Eberron. If so, the Cleric is a specialty class for the Forgotten Realms/Planescape setting (5e seems to have merged them into the same setting). But if so, then the Cleric is no longer a core class. Make sure that Druid and Bard have optional builds that can heal equally well as the Cleric. Maybe even the Paladin can have an Oath that is a premiere healer, including all the healing spells True Resurrection at the high level, with bonuses to healing.

Really? Now, let's back up a second. The Cleric, as written in D&D, is a purely D&D construct. It really has no genre equivalent. And it never really did. It's not so much that clerics are setting specific, but, rather, D&D specific.

Now, that being said, I look at how clerics are detailed in Primeval Thule. Granted PT is a polytheistic setting, but, it ejects much of the standard D&D cleric. Clerics in PT are not granted spells by their respective deity. They learn spell casting from other clerics and are effectively just another kind of wizard with better organizational skills. Churches are more cabalistic cults focused on specific individuals and there are no behavior ties between your cleric and his or her deity. If you want to worship a good deity and still be an evil bastard, you most certainly can. And vice versa.

So, I'm not really seeing the issue here. It's been done and it's been done in 5e. I would think that a monotheistic setting would be a heck of a lot easier to design than a polytheistic one. You only have to detail one deity after all.

 

[Yaarel]

Now, I'll agree that the flavor and certainly the cosmology is going to be an issue. I'm actually right behind you on this one. I think 5e has gone too far in hard wiring too much flavor into the game, but, frankly, that ship has sailed. People wanted the flavor and well, it sucks being on the wrong end of the stick.

Yeah. The damage is done. In my eyes, 5e at its core is now hardwired into Forgotten Realms assumptions. There seems little possibility to unmix it again. It would require a new kind of Players Handbook for each setting. Or, an extensive SRD that was setting neutral with a light touch and without cosmological presuppositions. The only way a setting can truly diverge from the 5e Players Handbook, is to split away from the ‘D&D’ brandname, sort of like the way Modern does.

Regarding rules. Your post seems to suggest that mechanics and flavor were isolated from each other. That was true to some degree in 4e. But in 5e the *narrative* descriptions of rules are just as binding as the dice calculations are. Often the narrative is more important than the dice. Often flavor and mechanics are so entangled, it is difficult to separate. For example, with regard to the Cleric class, the *mechanics* of the Channel Divinity feature says, ‘you gain the ability to channel divine power directly from your deity’, your polytheistic deity. This flavor has mechanical implications, such as if your deity is unavailable, displeased, or whatever. 5e especially blends narrative and mechanics. Consider how many spells are deeply rooted within the cosmological assumptions.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah. The damage is done. In my eyes, 5e at its core is now hardwired into Forgotten Realms assumptions. There seems little possibility to unmix it again. It would require a new kind of Players Handbook for each setting. Or, an extensive SRD that was setting neutral with a light touch and without cosmological presuppositions. The only way a setting can truly diverge from the 5e Players Handbook, is to split away from the ‘D&D’ brandname, sort of like the way Modern does.

I see nothing about gods hardwired into 5e. It's all softwired to the point where it takes seconds to remove or change.

Regarding rules. Your post seems to suggest that mechanics and flavor were isolated from each other. That was true to some degree in 4e. But in 5e the *narrative* descriptions of rules are just as binding as the dice calculations are. Often the narrative is more important than the dice. Often flavor and mechanics are so entangled, it is difficult to separate. For example, with regard to the Cleric class, the *mechanics* of the Channel Divinity feature says, ‘you gain the ability to channel divine power directly from your deity’, your polytheistic deity. This flavor has mechanical implications, such as if your deity is unavailable, displeased, or whatever. 5e especially blends narrative and mechanics. Consider how many spells are deeply rooted within the cosmological assumptions.

This is exactly my point. It took me two seconds to change getting the channel divinity power to instead channel personal faith in whatever belief you have. Boom! No gods required at all, or you can have one god, or many.

 

[cbwjm]

Who cares if it says that, ignore it. Instead of channelling the divine power of your deity (which could be the one deity of the setting, if desired) you are instead channelling the power of your domain. I created a spirit domain where the cleric is instead a shaman. He isn't channelling the power of a god, he's channelling the power of ancestral, animal, and land spirits. It is such an easy thing to ignore or change. The assumptions of polytheism is hard wired into settings not the rules.