D&D General Is character class an in-world concept in your campaigns?

[FrogReaver]

This conversation started with you but ok

You are the one who started making personal insults toward others...

 

[Maxperson]

My only point is that arcane power is granted from other beings. Since no rule actually prevents a god from granting arcane power then it’s possible a god can grant arcane power.

You are coming at this from the wrong direction. Claiming that "Since no rule prevents it, it is allowed." is wrong, as no rule prevents a sword swing from detonating a nuclear blast, either. For something to be allowed, it has to have a rule that allows it. If the game is silent, and I disagree with you that it is silent on this, then the DM has to house rule such a thing into the game for it to be allowed.

With bards, we know that the gods do not give them their power, because 1) it's arcane, and 2) you can read the entire section on bards and not once does it say that gods give them any part of anything.

 

[Maxperson]

You repeatedly say “those with the knowledge”.

What % of the population in your game worlds does that comprise?

For my game, between 10-20%. For others it could be 100%. I've been in games where everyone in the game world is assumed to know those sorts of things, because "common knowledge."

Also what bard ability screams “bard”? And not cleric who can play a restful song while we take a rest or some such?

Bardic Inspiration, Song of Rest, Countercharm, needing to perform to use abilities or spells, Vicious Mockery and other bard specific spells.

NPCs don’t go “oh, that there was a song of rest! He must be a bard actually not the cleric of Milil I thought him to be.”

There Bardic Colleges are a real thing. Why wouldn't knowledge of what bards can do have gotten out?

 

[FrogReaver]

You are coming at this from the wrong direction. Claiming that "Since no rule prevents it, it is allowed." is wrong, as no rule prevents a sword swing from detonating a nuclear blast, either. For something to be allowed, it has to have a rule that allows it. If the game is silent, and I disagree with you that it is silent on this, then the DM has to house rule such a thing into the game for it to be allowed.

With bards, we know that the gods do not give them their power, because 1) it's arcane, and 2) you can read the entire section on bards and not once does it say that gods give them any part of anything.

We are talking magic - not a mundane non magical sword doing something a mundane non-magical sword can do

...Of course it’s entirely possible there’s a magical sword in D&D that sets off a meteor swarm - (closest thing to a nuke in D&d that I’m aware of. But this is a different issue.

In case your not following again - the point is that magic is unlimited except by specific limits listed for it - whereas the mundane is limited unless there are specific exceptions made for it.

Please recall that long ago on the WotC I’m the on that made all the ridiculous claims about walking through walls and walking up on air and everything else when someone claimed the setting wasn’t based on reality - because it pointed out their error of saying it doesnt apply because no rule says I can’t. Because of that I also know the limitation of that argument is that it doesn’t apply to magical effects in the general sense

 

[Maxperson]

We are talking magic - not a mundane non magical sword doing something a mundane non-magical sword can do

...Of course it’s entirely possible there’s a magical sword in D&D that sets off a meteor swarm - (closest thing to a nuke in D&d that I’m aware of. But this is a different issue.

It's not a different issue. It's the same issue. The only difference is scope. The issue is that you are claiming that if there is no rule against doing it, it's okay to do. That's incorrect. If there is no rule against it, you have to create a rule that allows it or it doesn't work.

In case your not following again - the point is that magic is unlimited except by specific limits listed for it - whereas the mundane is limited unless there are specific exceptions made for it.

Magic is not unlimited. It's just used as the catch-all for why stuff can happen in arguments. Why can dragons fly? Magic!!

Please recall that long ago on the WotC I’m the on that made all the ridiculous claims about walking through walls and walking up on air and everything else when someone claimed the setting wasn’t based on reality - because it pointed out their error of saying it doesnt apply because no rule says I can’t. Because of that I also know the limitation of that argument is that it doesn’t apply to magical effects in the general sense

It does apply to magic. In order for magic to do literally anything, you have to first create the rule or situation that allows it to do so. It doesn't just do things on its own.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Yes. The warlock class, which you are using as your evidence, explicitly says "not gods."

As a random aside, they do contradict themselves by presenting the same beings as both gods and warlock patrons in some books (I think one of those might even be in the PHB itself). Probably a better way to interpret that statement is that, while some gods are also warlock patrons, warlock patrons do not empower warlocks by virtue of being gods, and most of them aren’t.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Yes. The warlock class, which you are using as your evidence, explicitly says "not gods."

Only to say, a few paragraphs later, that your patron could be one of the "elder gods known only in legends" and specifically mention Tharizdun - a Greyhawk entity unmistakenly described as a god - as a possible patron. It appears that the authors wanted no objective truth on that matter, and I like it that way.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not. Gods have always been highly limited. Period. This is a fact.

Um, thing is, for 5e, exactly what they can or cannot do has not been made clear in rules. In this edition, there is no core answer to the question.

Your assertion might hold for prior editions, but that was then, this is now.

 

[cbwjm]

I think about the only thing we do know abouts godly abilities is based on Tiamat who is a lesser god that you can meet and kill. Greater gods I read somewhere are impossible to meet unless they want to meet and I think they said their avatars are the equivalent of a lesser god but I might be wrong on that.

 

[Maxperson]

Um, thing is, for 5e, exactly what they can or cannot do has not been made clear in rules. In this edition, there is no core answer to the question.

Your assertion might hold for prior editions, but that was then, this is now.

We don't know specifically what they can do, but we do know that they are still highly limited. We know that they have ranks, greater, lesser and quasi, and that the lowest rank cannot even grant spells. We know that they have portfolios that they are in charge of, which means that their power in other portfolios would be limited. And we know that they can grant divine power to their followers. That's what RAW tells us that they can grant. Divine. So given what the DMG tells us about the gods, we do know that they have limitations in 5e.