"Your Class is Not Your Character": Is this a real problem?

[Hussar]

Gonna stick a couple of quotes together.

No, it doesn't.

I think the entire Waterdeep situation in Faerun is silly. I don't use it.

Fair enough, but your opinion here is countered by pesky things like facts. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. Here is a clear example of druids that hang out in a major city.

Those type of Paladins are pretty lame, IMO; its just a munchkin method to get abilities without the obligation of alignment. But there's nothing to prevent the GM from whipping up and enforcing codes of conduct .

A Ranger should be someone who by preference operates in the environment of his specialty, same as a Druid.

A sorcerer is just a vanilla class, so you wouldn't expect anything from that player.

Again, just because you don't like it doesn't mean anything. You keep trying to set out your opinion as fact and your person preferences as fact. These "facts" are easily countered by actual facts, as in, things that are actually in the game. It does make the discussion rather pointless if you're actually just going to ignore any elements of the game that counter your points.

There is absolutely nothing metagame about an in-fiction domain called order meaning order, and an in-fiction domain called command meaning command.

However, the idea that there is something in fiction called a domain of any name is a completely meta-gaming construct. There is nothing in the rules which states that domains are actual things in the game world. You aren't a cleric of a domain - you are a cleric of a deity or a concept and that deity or concept grants you access to a list that is compiled under a particular heading. Those headings and those lists are entirely game constructs and have no actual existence in game fiction. They could, I suppose, but, there's nothing there that says that they should..

 

[Maxperson]

However, the idea that there is something in fiction called a domain of any name is a completely meta-gaming construct.

This is utterly false. You might as well argue that there's nothing in fiction called Fireball.

 

[Hussar]

This is utterly false. You might as well argue that there's nothing in fiction called Fireball.

You mean Meligan's Sphere of Conflagration?

But, again, no. Domain has no actual existence in the game world. It's simply a game term for extra spells on a given cleric's spell list. Which, itself, is a meta-game collection of themed effects. There is no in game existence of "cleric spells". After all, virtually no cleric spells are specific to clerics. They are repeated by other classes.

Now, you can play these as having real in game world existence, if you prefer an "Order of the Stick" fourth wall breaking style world. But, there are exactly zero rules which state that you have to.

 

[Maxperson]

You mean Meligan's Sphere of Conflagration?

But, again, no. Domain has no actual existence in the game world.

Prove your claim. Show me where it says that they don't have game world existence.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Fair enough, but your opinion here is countered by pesky things like facts. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. Here is a clear example of druids that hang out in a major city.

Not in my Sword Coast.

 

[Aldarc]

Prove your claim. Show me where it says that they don't have game world existence.

Or better yet, prove to us that domain names have an in-game world existence.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

You know, I would be more sympathetic to this fluff=mechanics if we were talking about a game with a singular, defined setting like Deadlands or Eclipse Phase.

But this is D&D. There are dozens of settings, most of which have enough differences between each other for the default fluff presented in the PHB and the splats to not be one size fits all.

But apparently my Vadalis Monarch who is of the Druid class but couldn't give a single darn about living in harmony with nature isn't valid.

 

[Charlaquin]

Prove your claim. Show me where it says that they don't have game world existence.

The burden of proof isn’t really on @Hussar here, because they’re not making a positive claim. They are challenging the positive claim that the concepts of domains exist in the game world.

My 2 cents: the game intentionally leaves it up to the DM to decide if Domains (or Bard Colleges, or Druid Circles, or whatever) are actual things in the setting or not.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Not in my Sword Coast.

I know #InMyEberron is a thing, and similar sentiments most likely exist for all the settings, but this just seems petty.

 

[Maxperson]

The burden of proof isn’t really on @Hussar here, because they’re not making a positive claim. They are challenging the positive claim that the concepts of domains exist in the game world.

My 2 cents: the game intentionally leaves it up to the DM to decide if Domains (or Bard Colleges, or Druid Circles, or whatever) are actual things in the setting or not.

The PHB uses the term domains and applies them to portfolios for deities. Nothing there implies that it's a game term, or that any of those are game terms. That also follows prior editions where they were in-fiction terms. If @Hussar is going to claim that somehow the strong implication in 5e, which follows the in-fiction state of the term domain in prior editions is somehow changed, he needs to show proof.