D&D 5E (2014) Why FR Is "Hated"

[Yaarel]

The rules that the players read, contradicts to many times in too many ways, what the DM says.

I cannot enjoy a game that way.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules that the players read, contradicts to many times in too many ways, what the DM says.

I cannot enjoy a game that way.

I have house ruled the hell out of every edition that I've played. When I am changing something for a new campaign, I sit down before the game starts and I tell the players, "X changed and is now Y." They're bright enough to understand that any "contradiction" no longer exists in my game and they ignore. Every edition even points out to the DM that not only can they make these changes, but that DMs are encouraged to do so in order to make the game better for the group.

If you can't enjoy the game because of rules that are simple to change, that's a personal issue, not a rules issue. I'm not saying that it isn't a genuine issue for you, but there's no point in complaining about the rules since they aren't the problem.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I see your point, but also, this is not entirely wrong for a monotheistic deity either.

I'm not familiar with a lot of Christian stories, but I do love mythology and I know some, and it isn't entirely unheard of that someone in those tales who was "blessed by god" after doing something to displease god lost that ability. First example I can think of is from the Old Testament when Samson had his hair cut and then lost his strength.

So, the level of severity of this depends on how much you want to remove. Do you want to remove the ability to channel divine power entirely? The ability to channel it directly? Simply change is to say "directly from god" instead of "your deity"? The spot where you would like to make the cut off is a good indicator of how hard it is to remove or ignore.


There are a lot of spells that leave open the possibility for multiple deities in a setting. However, if you establish that your setting has only a single god your players should respect that instead of reading commune and asking "hey this spell says 'gods' does that mean I can talk to someone else?"

Because frankly, I think that player is disrespecting your setting since you have established that there is only a single divine source in your setting and therefore the answer is clearly no. However, Commune does also allow angels and demons to be contacted, which is a legitimate usage even in a monotheisitc campaign I would imagine.



I think a lot of people are trying to show you different ways to make it work. For me, ignoring minor inconsistencies like having only one deity but the rules text referencing multiple, that is an easy thing to do. Ignoring the Trickery Domain or the Nature Domain as options because they don't fit the world. That is harder if a player asks to use those, I struggle to simply say no instead of trying to bend things to make it work, but if no one asks to use them, they don't exist. We have different levels of things we are comfortable working with, finding your level beyond "rewrite everything" is what people are trying to accomplish I think. Because, rewriting everything is a pain like you've mentioned so we're looking for avenues to reduce that into something manageable.

 

[pemerton]

collective storytelling encourages the players to explain the significance of events in personal ways. Interpretive faith also works best for campaign settings that seek the verisimilitude of reallife cultures, where there are typically a diversity of religious traditions.

This is especially the bit of your post that I gave XP to. As I've been saying, this is an aspect of RPGing that I care quite a bit about, and your posts on monotheism have given me a new angle into thinking about it as part of an approach to the play of the game.

 

[Mirtek]

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.

but it has no tie at all to either being monotheistic or polytheistic. The mechanic iworks exactly the same in both Cases. There's not a single class mechanic,item or spell that has to be changed even the tiniest bit between having multiple deities or a single deity.

It might not work for a specific kind of monotheistic deity, but it won't work for that kind of polytheistic deities either.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

Note, I disagree with you on the point that the flavor is baked into specifically FR flavor. It really isn't. Kobolds as a slave race to dragons, for my favorite example, isn't a thing in FR and never was. This is something entirely new that they've bolted into the game. So, while I do agree that WotC added in too much specific flavor, I'm not convinced that it's specifically FR flavor. After all, none of the PHB races are specific to FR. There are no Avariel, for example. And dragonborn aren't a FR race at all.

But, on the specific point quoted, let's look at the exact text shall we?

At 2nd level, you gain the ability to channel divine energy directly from your deity...

Also note, on page 57 under Creating a Cleric:

Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign

There is no mention of polytheism at all actually. Granted, all the examples are polytheistic, but, that's always been the case where examples are given. How is polytheism hard wired into the class in this example? Do you have any other examples?

Note, anyone playing D&D is going to assume polytheism anyway. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with fantasy genre fiction is going to assume that. It's something of an outlier to see monotheistic fantasy fiction. I can think of a couple, but, by and large, fantasy settings have gods, plural. Never minding all the real world myth and legend that serves as groundwork for fantasy fiction.

I'm not seeing how polytheism is hard wired into any given edition. Sure, you're going to have to rework the cosmology, but, that's standard practice in any edition when homebrewing. I mean, you had the Abyss and Hells and Outer Planes right there in both the 1e PHB and Monster Manual. And, considering virtually none of the 5e spells are original to the edition but are rather simply updates of existing D&D spells, I'm again somewhat at a loss to see how this is more of a problem now.

 

[Yaarel]

To be fair ...

‘Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign.’

The very word ‘deities’ (plural) is polytheism.

There isnt a hint in the Players Handbook that it could mean anything except polytheism.

The only thing that players read is, polytheism, polytheism, polytheism.

The 5e Players Handbook is all-in on polytheism.

 

[cbwjm]

To be fair ...

‘Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign.’

The very word ‘deities’ (plural) is polytheism.

There isnt a hint in the Players Handbook that it could mean anything except polytheism.

The only thing that players read is, polytheism, polytheism, polytheism.

The 5e Players Handbook is all-in on polytheism.

Players: Hey DM, which deities are in the campaign.
DM: There is only the one God in this setting.

 

[Yaarel]

Players: Does the Great Wheel still exist? Does the Astral Plane still exist? How does the Astral Projection spell work? Do Drow still worship Lolth? How do Angels and Eladrin work? Is an Aasimar race possible? Commune spell? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The 5e Players Handbook hardwires into an extremely specific cosmological setting. It hardwires into the 5e version of Forgotten Realms.

A DM can design a campaign setting that creates space for much of this, happily removes some of this, and rewrites certain flavors.

A problem is, the players are reading something else.

 

[cbwjm]

Players: Does the Great Wheel still exist? Does the Astral Plane still exist? How does the Astral Projection spell work? Do Drow still worship Lolth? How do Angels and Eladrin work? Is an Aasimar race possible? Commune spell? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The 5e Players Handbook hardwires into an extremely specific cosmological setting. It hardwires into the 5e version of Forgotten Realms.

A DM can design a campaign setting that creates space for much of this, happily removes some of this, and rewrites certain flavors.

A problem is, the players are reading something else.

That's why you tell the players how your setting is set up, it's your homebrew, don't expect your players to suddenly know about it if you don't take the time to tell them about it. Instead tell them that "The astral plane is known as purgatory. There is the prime, heaven, and hell, there are no other planes of existence."

If you want to create a setting but don't want to take the time to explain then don't complain when players ask questions for clarification.