D&D General Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes and Halflings of Color

[Yaarel]

Sure, but D&D has almost never followed that logic at all.

D&D has pretty consistently ignored all that, beyond the odd spell component, and instead has treated the vast bulk of magic as essentially scientific - straightforward replicable processes, where if you do X, then Y will happen. So I don't feel like that's a major concern in D&D.

Heh.

Unlike the painfully oppressive, heavy-handed, excruciating explicit, coercion imposed on the magic of the Cleric class, WotC sure loves its feel-free-to-decide-for-yourself unknown blackbox for the magic of the Wizard class.



In any case, in a setting that defines how magic works more explicitly, such as utilizing technology, it becomes more important to make sure it can still "feel" like magic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Unlike the painfully oppressive, heavy-handed, excruciating explicit, coercion imposed on the magic of the Cleric class

What is it you think you're referring to here? Because I have no idea, so I'm having extreme difficulty believing it's anything "explicit" or even clear. Rather it sounds like you've massively read-into some phrase in some 1E (or similar) book and decided, for example, that Clerics lose their powers immediately if they disobey their god (i.e. the DM) or something.

Regardless it's still not remotely in-tune with the laws of magic that you were referring to.

In any case, in a setting that defines how magic works more explicitly, such as utilizing technology, it becomes more important to make sure it can still "feel" like magic.

It's as though you're trying to bolt the stable door on horse that's been living in exile in South America for several decades on that one.

D&D has largely eschewed magical-feeling magic, pretty consistently, for the entire time it's existed, pushing it to the margins of the game. There's the odd outbreak of it (often when witches or hags are involved), but the rules and hard setting details always mess with that, and have to be elaborately worked around, like a man trying to move carefully around the lip at the edge of a pit.

 

[Yaarel]

What is it you think you're referring to here? Because I have no idea, so I'm having extreme difficulty believing it's anything "explicit" or even clear. Rather it sounds like you've massively read-into some phrase in some 1E (or similar) book and decided, for example, that Clerics lose their powers immediately if they disobey their god (i.e. the DM) or something.

I am referring to how the Players Handbook explicitly imposes the gods to explain the Cleric magic. To a degree that kills many other viable Cleric character concepts.

 

[Yaarel]

D&D has largely eschewed magical-feeling magic, pretty consistently, for the entire time it's existed, pushing it to the margins of the game. There's the odd outbreak of it (often when witches or hags are involved), but the rules and hard setting details always mess with that, and have to be elaborately worked around, like a man trying to move carefully around the lip at the edge of a pit.

And we are not talking about D&D core.

We are talking about a specific setting that does explicitly define magic, precisely, to the point of technological references such as employing viral DNA.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am referring to how the Players Handbook explicitly imposes the gods to explain the Cleric magic. To a degree that kills many other viable Cleric character concepts.

That doesn't fit what you were saying, if you mean the 5E PHB.

I mean, I suggest you re-read the 5E PHB, because you said:

Unlike the painfully oppressive, heavy-handed, excruciating explicit, coercion imposed on the magic of the Cleric class

Because that just doesn't match the PHB text: Player's Handbook

Literally all it says is:

A) Clerics are granted power by "the gods", which are themselves not defined.

B) Not everyone who wants it gets it.

C) There is no "one" way to become a Cleric - it could be elaborately learned, intuitive, granted in a vision or w/e.

I would say the class (and attendant spell list) itself does far more to limit what a Cleric can be, conceptually, than the description of their magic, as per "Healers and Warriors" and "Divine Agents" on that page.

"The gods" could be literally anything. I don't see any "coercion imposed" in the whole block of text on Clerics, and it's hard to figure out what's "excruciatingly explicit", because it's all pretty vague, actually. Your description would match pretty well with, say, the 2nd Edition Complete Priest's Handbook, and with the attitudes of a lot of DMs in the '80s and early '90s, but the 5E PHB? Not seeing it.

 

[Oofta]

That doesn't fit what you were saying, if you mean the 5E PHB.

I mean, I suggest you re-read the 5E PHB, because you said:

Because that just doesn't match the PHB text: Player's Handbook

Literally all it says is:

A) Clerics are granted power by "the gods", which are themselves not defined.

B) Not everyone who wants it gets it.

C) There is no "one" way to become a Cleric - it could be elaborately learned, intuitive, granted in a vision or w/e.

I would say the class (and attendant spell list) itself does far more to limit what a Cleric can be, conceptually, than the description of their magic, as per "Healers and Warriors" and "Divine Agents" on that page.

"The gods" could be literally anything. I don't see any "coercion imposed" in the whole block of text on Clerics, and it's hard to figure out what's "excruciatingly explicit", because it's all pretty vague, actually. Your description would match pretty well with, say, the 2nd Edition Complete Priest's Handbook, and with the attitudes of a lot of DMs in the '80s and early '90s, but the 5E PHB? Not seeing it.

What role the gods play is entirely up to the DM and campaign setting. I don't require clerics to worship a single deity (although they pretty much always have). In some regions of my world, worship is more ancestor or spirit worship. There's a clan of dwarves that reveres the base elements, not deities.

Nothing is locked in unless you want it to be.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That link doesn't work for me (it didn't the last time you posted it). Could you give me a summary?

Weird. Do you have Twitter?

 

[Yaarel]

That doesn't fit what you were saying, if you mean the 5E PHB.

I mean, I suggest you re-read the 5E PHB, because you said:

Because that just doesn't match the PHB text: Player's Handbook

Literally all it says is:

A) Clerics are granted power by "the gods", which are themselves not defined.

B) Not everyone who wants it gets it.

C) There is no "one" way to become a Cleric - it could be elaborately learned, intuitive, granted in a vision or w/e.

I would say the class (and attendant spell list) itself does far more to limit what a Cleric can be, conceptually, than the description of their magic, as per "Healers and Warriors" and "Divine Agents" on that page.

"The gods" could be literally anything. I don't see any "coercion imposed" in the whole block of text on Clerics, and it's hard to figure out what's "excruciatingly explicit", because it's all pretty vague, actually. Your description would match pretty well with, say, the 2nd Edition Complete Priest's Handbook, and with the attitudes of a lot of DMs in the '80s and early '90s, but the 5E PHB? Not seeing it.

I have pretty good idea of what the word "god" means.

For many Cleric concepts, it is the wrong word.



If the Players Handbook said "cosmic force", that would fix the problem.

For some concepts, that cosmic force might be a god. For other concepts it is something else.

That "cosmic force" would also make the Players Handbook work easier for various kinds of D&D settings that differ from Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk.

Most importantly, that "cosmic force" lets the PLAYER decide what that is, and lets the PLAYER decide what the character concept is that the PLAYER wants to play.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For many Cleric concepts, it is the wrong word.

But like, which ones? I can see plenty where it's like, not quite perfect, but even then it depends how you regard powerful spirits, or the world-spirit or whatever.

I don't think it's an accident that they didn't define what a god is. I do think the text should have explicitly pulled in powerful spirits and so on, personally, because if read with the most narrow possible interpretation it actually invalidates a number of earlier D&D settings (including ones mentioned in 5E) such as Dark Sun. But I doubt that was intended and I think it takes a bit of intentional effort to read it so narrowly.

 

[Yaarel]

But like, which ones? I can see plenty where it's like, not quite perfect, but even then it depends how you regard powerful spirits, or the world-spirit or whatever.

Animistic shamans lack gods. Darksun alchemists lack gods. A character concept that believes in the power of love, lacks gods.

I don't think it's an accident that they didn't define what a god is. I do think the text should have explicitly pulled in powerful spirits and so on, personally, because if read with the most narrow possible interpretation it actually invalidates a number of earlier D&D settings (including ones mentioned in 5E) such as Dark Sun. But I doubt that was intended and I think it takes a bit of intentional effort to read it so narrowly.

The Players Handbook explicitly gives examples of gods, like reallife polytheistic Zeus.

There is no hint of any other meaning.

The word "gods" is wrong. And unhelpful. And heavyhanded to the point of oppressive toward reallife players who are uncomfortable around that term, for various reasons.