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

[Micah Sweet]

Neither does anyone else.

Exactly! Actual superpowers have to come from somewhere.

 

[mamba]

The problem is, there are DMs who do.

yep, just pointing out that there are more reasons to argue for this than to hit players over the head with it

 

[Emerikol]

The problem is, there are DMs who do. A lot of those old "fiction" rules were wielded as clubs by DMs who were less skilled or benevolent. Paladin was the poster-child of "lets see how long I keep my character class THIS time" style of play, but clerics, druids, monks, even rangers were often targeted in the spirit of "role-playing challenges". Personally, I'd rather that chamber be unloaded by default and the notion added back in session 0 than to assume the chamber is loaded by default and lose my spells because the God of fire was upset I saved a child from a burning orphanage...

This is true but on the other side here are those who wanted to be Paladins purely for the mechanical effects and had no interest in following a code of any sort. So it cuts both ways.

edit: fixed typos

 

[Vaalingrade]

Exactly! Actual superpowers have to come from somewhere.

Radioactive spiders.

 

[Emerikol]

I think even when the rules stated a Cleric could not have a god and just a philosophy didn't eliminate them losing their powers. If they failed to adhere to their philosophy, then they might lose their powers.

All the nuances of religions must be session 0 discussions or even session -1. The DM is going to have certain Gods and/or philosophies in his world and those are going to be the only ways a cleric can get power. A player can't just make up something and join the game.

It might be a really interesting campaign idea to have various orders of cleric/paladins based solely on philosophies. Sounds interesting. But the DM has to be into that idea and create a world premised on that idea.

The rules should reflect that truth. The PHB should say, "The cleric gets his power from some holy source. It could be a God or something like the force in Star Wars. The player should check with their DM and see what is available in their campaign." They might want to model some non-god approaches in at least one of their campaign settings.

 

[pukunui]

Fair enough, I get you. My issue here is that they've gone from leaving these kinds of setting questions open to be determined by the DM and the group, to providing a default that differs from previous defaults and clearly favors the players, and don't even have the decency to do so in a new edition.

But does it really differ from the 2014 default? I'm not sure it does. I think they're just being more explicit about it.

I also get the sense that they're trying to make the core rules as generic as possible so that the setting books can do the heavy lifting in terms of fluff and setting logic. Obviously we'll have to wait for next year's FR books to see if that assumption is correct, but that's what I'm thinking. (That could be why the species in the 2024 PHB have so little fluff, for instance.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Radioactive spiders.

A great example, but not a cleric.

 

[Yaarel]

Generally, how does 2024 approach "cosmology", "planes", and the "multiverse"? How much is customizable, for example?

By the way, I was able to read the answer to this question while the info was in the Free Rules in DnDBeyond.

To paraphrase, the DMs Guide says, the following is the "default", but do whatever you want in any way you want with regard to the cosmology. 2024 lacks the heavy-handed "should do this", that 2014 has.

Where the description of each of the planes is evocative and interesting (even the Elemental Planes are now kinda interesting!), a DM can easily see by example, which planes are interesting to the DM. Then the DM can decide on whatever multiverse makes the most sense for a particular setting.

Also, if I understand correctly, the discussion about "gods" has relocated from the Cosmology section to the Toolbox section − which is perfect. For DMs who want to play around with fantasy gods, then the descriptions are a kind of "toolbox", that a DM can tinker with. Meanwhile, the gods dont bake into the cosmology, so DMs who want to explore a different kind of worldview can more easily do that in 2024. Note the Greyhawk setting does have fantasy gods, and the DM can use or modify this in any way the DM sees fit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But does it really differ from the 2014 default? I'm not sure it does. I think they're just being more explicit about it.

I also get the sense that they're trying to make the core rules as generic as possible so that the setting books can do the heavy lifting in terms of fluff and setting logic. Obviously we'll have to wait for next year's FR books to see if that assumption is correct, but that's what I'm thinking. (That could be why the species in the 2024 PHB have so little fluff, for instance.)

Being more explicit restricts options, unless you explicitly open them up. New players only see the new stuff.

 

[mamba]

Neither does anyone else.

on Earth, sure, in D&D I can at least understand how a god would be able to grant power, I am far less convinced an idea could