D&D General If faith in yourself is enough to get power, do we need Wizards and Warlocks etc?

[Voadam]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up, but I just assumed WotC had added in the "believe in a source instead of a specific god" because some tables don't want to deal with the religious subject at the table and it was an "out" for these groups. I know that getting into aspects of worship and religions is something several of my gamers would like to avoid and that has been why I've allowed the Power from Forces for characters instead of the "Pick a god and stick with it" method.

I assumed when WotC had that type of language in 3e clerics it was to continue with the TSR 2e non-deity full spellcasting priest of forces and philosophy line that had been going for about a decade since Complete Book of Priests.

Narratively the forces and philosophy clerics fit in with my memories of Fred Saberhagen's Sword novels where they had things like the Red and Blue temples which were big power organizations separate from the gods.

 

[mamba]

I am struggling to understand this position. So because the designers did not want to marry class mechanics to the stories that could be told using the mechanics, this is "wrong" and should not have been included in the book/rules?

if it makes the game incoherent, yes, or find a coherent solution.

You can still tell whatever stories you want, you might just have to homebrew / handwave in different places

 

[Hawk Diesel]

if it makes the game incoherent, yes, or find a coherent solution.

You can still tell whatever stories you want, you might just have to homebrew / handwave in different places

Just because you find something incoherent does not make it inherently so. I think it is perfectly coherent, since we are talking about things that exist only in make-believe and not based in any objective reality.

 

[mamba]

Just because you find something incoherent does not make it inherently so. I think it is perfectly coherent, since we are talking about things that exist only in make-believe and not based in any objective reality.

if that is your criteria, then everything is, so no, I disagree with that notion entirely. Of course you can allow Ironman and Death Stars into your D&D game, since it is all just make-believe anyway

 

[Hawk Diesel]

if that is your criteria, then everything is, so no, I disagree with that notion entirely, but of course you can allow Ironman and Death Stars into your D&D game, since it is all just make-believe anyway

I'm genuinely starting to wonder if you are arguing in good faith or just trolling. Despite my best efforts, quantum physics seems incoherent to me. But that doesn't mean that it is incoherent and not one of the best tools we have to understand the universe on the smallest scales. What it may suggest is that my understanding is lacking or deficient in some way, which I think is the more likely explanation for why I don't get quantum physics. Those that find it incoherent may want to look inward as well as at the confusing material.

And yes, I've actually included both the Predator and Xenomporphs in past D&D games I've run. Without understanding the context for their introduction, I guess that would make my table and the way I play "incoherent."

 

[mamba]

I'm genuinely starting to wonder if you are arguing in good faith or just trolling. Despite my best efforts, quantum physics seems incoherent to me.

fine, it is incoherent to me too, but the world I live in is pretty coherent to me, even if at some level things are less so, potentially

But that doesn't mean that it is incoherent and not one of the best tools we have to understand the universe on the smallest scales.

yes, but just because something may be incoherent to us at that level (and with our current understanding) does not mean that the world or universe at large has zero rules it follows and anything can happen randomly at any time

If you are ok with something I find nonsensical and incoherent, fine, not my problem. I would prefer the rules to be coherent to me however, and they just aren’t. Why have classes at all then, if anything goes, if you just believe hard enough…

 

[Vaalingrade]

D&D tried to make xenomorphs no less then 4 times in 3e alone.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I feel we need Wizards and Warlocks...

The sorcerer though, that can go. It's a wasted class slot.

 

[Minigiant]

I always by PCs and former PCs can break rules and subvert concepts. NPCs cannot.

PCs don't have be stereotypes but NPCs will struggle not to.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

yes, but just because something may be incoherent to us at that level (and with our current understanding) does not mean that the world or universe at large has zero rules it follows and anything can happen randomly at any time

I'm not saying the universe doesn't have rules. I'm not saying D&D doesn't have rules. But there are no rules when it comes to my imagination and how each of us implement the game at our tables. Or rather, there are two very explicit rules in D&D that is most sacred.

Rule 0: The Game Master may change, modify, ignore, or add to the rules as he or she sees fit to ensure the game is fun and runs smoothly.

Rule of Cool: If it is cool, neat, epic, interesting, whatever, then the rules can be bent or broken to allow it.