Effectively, this is what 3e did. A deity grants two domains, but those not wanting to use deities can just pick two domains and go at it.
And it was the perfect solution. Dont fix what aint broke.
D&D 5E The Cleric
And it was the perfect solution. Dont fix what aint broke.
Klaus
First Post
Effectively, this is what 3e did. A deity grants two domains, but those not wanting to use deities can just pick two domains and go at it.
But now a choice of deity grants more: armor and weapon proficiencies, cantrips, other class features, all in addition to a short domain list.
What the DDN cleric is missing at the moment is a "build your faith" system. And a "spells known" feature like the wizard, to keep clerics from knowing all spells automatically.
The faiths that exist in the world, and the sources of divine power, should be a factor of the game world (and therefore be decided by the DM) and not by the player. That's my opinion, at least: players can opt in or out, but they don't have the prerogative to say their source is something else.
I wonder if this is actually the question that separates the views in this thread.
Very astute. I think you're on to something (and completely agree with your opinion as well).
Obryn
Hero
Maybe. I love it when my players add elements to the setting. It gives me hooks to use elsewhere, makes my players invested in the setting, and turns the game into more of a collaboration.
-O
Bedrockgames
Legend
I mentioned this on an other thread but I think it is a critical distinction of preference and seems quite important to people. If you like the idea of players contributing to the setting or if you want the setting to be something handled outside player agency, matters. I findbth groups tend to assume their preference s somewhat universal for many years. I have even sen this as a source of unidentified tension between players that was tough to put our finger on. It ties into divides over things like wishlists and the like. For me, I wnt setting elements like this nt to be under my control as a player, but I have played with people who take the opposite view. I a mixed group that is when it becomes importnt to find a way to compromise on it.
I think for a game like D&D, they cn go pretty far making both groups happy by use of optional rules (with both being on somewhat equal footing----sort of like how there are multiple ability score rolling methods).
Bedrockgames
Legend
I tend to agree, but i also think enough people disagree they should just split it down the middle and offer two optional approaches (decided upon by the gm and players at the beginning of the campaign). I think it would be very easy to satisfy both groups this way. For me i dont care that the rules side with my preference, just that they acknlowledge it and recognize these are two different aoproaches to play people tend to felstrongly about (honestly I think wotc tends to get into trouble when they pick sides in these kinds of debates over preference).
Klaus
First Post
Kiiiinda. When I say "build your faith", it isn't directly only at players, but also at DMs. Fighter styles, rogue schemes, backgrounds and specialties are all "pre-package, but you can build your own" choices. I think the clerical faiths should also have such a guidance.
Yes, but when I decide my fighter is going to be some kind of switch hitter, with feats for both improved ranged accuracy and cleaving with a two hander, nothing changes in the world.
But when my PC decides that he is not going to follow Pelor, the God of sun and protection, but Peloooor, the God of Sun and Magic, I'm changing the whole world. While some DM might like this, specially if they are bringing a new world to the table, some others might not like it, specially if the world is stablished. Not a lot of DM would like that I add a new god of Sun and MAgic to their Forgotten Realm campaign, who already has gods for sun and gods for magic.
Klaus
First Post
But if a DM has a homebrew where there's a god of sun and magic, he has a means of building that faith for the cleric.
