D&D (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

[Micah Sweet]

3e also had clerics that didn't need gods at all.

I know. Still feels weird to me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I know. Still feels weird to me.

I means there's religions dedicated to ideas in the real world, so why no D&D?

Not like D&D is very good at doing gods or representing a polytheistic world anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's amazing how easy it is to create a strong, compelling narrative when your first instinct upon hearing a new idea isn't "that's stupid."

But no one is required to create a narrative that fits that sentence from the 5.5 DMG. The fact that it can be done isn't the point.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The Watcher's Council didn't give Faith her power. Their ancient predecessors gave it to the First Slayer, from whom they designed it to pass to the next girl called. That's not how clerics work.

BUFFY! One of my all-time favorite shows.*

As we know, in later seasons the Watcher's Council was shown to be .... less benevolent than we had been led to believe.

Personally, I don't understand how a Cleric can get spells without a god? But more importantly, why would you want to play one? It's part of the job description.

(If your table plays with no deities, sure. But clerics and deities go together like sketchy motels and bed bugs.)






*Okay, the later stuff about Whedon made Angel much more difficult, but I can still appreciate Buffy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I feel the core playstyles (healer, warrior, expert, caster) should have representation where you aren't beholden to the DMs whims. The fighter and rogue already don't, and the sorcerer is the arcane equivalent of an arcane caster that the DM can't arbitrarily screw with (no spell book). The healer needs a sorcerer type class that the DM can't chain yank if the cleric's power can be cancelled by the DM. It should be as easy to access as the fighter, sorcerer or rogue.

Or, they can do what they just did and make it so that the DM can't decide if a character loses their class because they don't like how they are being role-played...

My point is that saying that in the DMG doesn't make the DM do anything, anymore than any advice anywhere is binding. That you happen to agree with that advice doesn't make it any more or less valid or binding.

 

[TwoSix]

But no one is required to create a narrative that fits that sentence from the 5.5 DMG. The fact that it can be done isn't the point.

The fact it can be done IS the point. If your first reaction isn't "This is an unfamiliar concept, I don't like it," then a whole swath of other options open up.

The cleric concept is not inherently tied to the concept of "my deity provides my power." It's a familiar concept to many, for sure, but not a required one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also, WotC sees you and is sick of your sh*t ..

What are you talking about? This post just seems like a blatant attack on those who disagree with this passage, which incidentally is a new thing to take an official stand on in the book.

Can we cut down in the schadenfreude please?

 

[TiQuinn]

You knew that when you chose the class, you could have chosen differently if you did not buy into it. Do not come running later because you repeatedly broke your covenant and now there are consequences.

You keep saying "you knew that when you chose the class", and yet the 5.5 DMG says you wouldn't know this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I means there's religions dedicated to ideas in the real world, so why no D&D?

Not like D&D is very good at doing gods or representing a polytheistic world anyway.

That is subjective all the way down.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You keep saying "you knew that when you chose the class", and yet the 5.5 DMG says you wouldn't know this.

The GM would tell you. Then you'd know. I think it is generally good idea to discuss what the role of each class is in the setting before players choose one. Same with the species.