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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I was and am happy with the narrative options I have, and don't see any value in the DMG telling me I'm wrong to play that way. Provide different options? Great!

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Yes. That is the crux of the change some of us disagree with.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That is subjective all the way down.

The fact that religions dedicated to ideas exist is subjective.

Clearly the Enworld impulse to 'That's just like... your opinion, man' was on too much of a hair trigger here.

 

[TiQuinn]

Yes. That is the crux of the change some of us disagree with.

Is that really a change from 5e? Or is that something people have been clinging to since 2e or 3e?

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

Do you think every GM does that?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The fact that religions dedicated to ideas exist is subjective.

Clearly the Enworld impulse to 'That's just like... your opinion, man' was on too much of a hair trigger here.

If you make a blanket statement as if it were established fact, I feel it's ok to call you out on it.

 

[TwoSix]

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.)

As a concept, you simply say that "divine power" is a cosmological entity related to, but not originating from, the gods.

In the Forgotten Realms, for example, the fact that various divine "portfolios" are movable and capturable between deities certainly strongly implies that the power is not native to the god.

And while I know the Realms has had gods act as gatekeepers to the power in the past, the change present in the DMG would imply that there may be a retcon or change. (Or maybe not! WotC isn't a stickler for lore coherence.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is that really a change from 5e? Or is that something people have been clinging to since 2e or 3e?

I don't recall seeing anything as blatant in the 5.0 books as I've seen here. That alone makes it a different edition to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As a concept, you simply say that "divine power" is a cosmological entity related to, but not originating from, the gods.

In the Forgotten Realms, for example, the fact that various divine "portfolios" are movable and capturable between deities certainly strongly implies that the power is not native to the god.

And while I know the Realms has had gods act as gatekeepers to the power in the past, the change present in the DMG would imply that there may be a retcon or change. (Or maybe not! WotC isn't a stickler for lore coherence.)

No one is saying you can't write a narrative that adheres to 5.5 doctrine. But it shouldn't be the only acceptable way.

 

[TwoSix]

I was and am happy with the narrative options I have, and don't see any value in the DMG telling me I'm wrong to play that way. Provide different options? Great!

And I'm sure the classic "god-conduit" idea will persist as a common narrative in games for decades to come.

But as a longtime opponent of the traditional way clerics and pantheons are presented, I'm happy to take a "W" here and have my views given the imprimatur of the DMG.