D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Maxperson]

No. Portfolios = Multiple domains gathered together. That's the definition you keep posting. This is like claiming that a gaggle of geese = a single goose.

One or multiple, you're still wrong. Portfolio=domain.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One or multiple, you're still wrong. Portfolio=domain.

Since that isn't how plurals work, no, it wouldn't. Just like a Forest =/= a tree. You have stated multiple times that a portfolio is all of the domains associated with the detiy. That means that it is a plurality. Your claims right now is literally one = many, and that is wrong.

 

[pemerton]

You totally can do this. I don't know why you think you can't.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the cleric is somehow limited to only the domains directly stated to be held by the god. This isn't exactly true. Sure, I'd say that you'd have a hard time justifying being a cleric of light for Shar, who despises all light, but for many gods justifying any number of domains is trivially easy.

If you, as a player, would try to even think of doing such mad illogical things at my table. You would quickly see what a spell less and powerless cleric would feel like.

So nope, no can't do. Arguing that it can be is utter madness for me... and for the vast majority of the players and DMs out there.

In my own games I am a big fan of clerics taking whatever domain they feel is appropriate for their character and not being limited to the narrow suggestions of the PH list. I feel it is trivially easy to fit most domains narratively to various priest traditions or to associate most domains with various gods.

The PH does say the cleric must pick from the domains of their god.

Then in the appendix it gives a list of suggested domains for various gods.

In the DMG page 10 it says:

"As far as the game's rules are concerned, it doesn't matter if your world has hundreds of deities or a church devoted to a single god. In rules terms, clerics choose domains, not deities, so your world can associate domains with deities in any way you choose."

those are optional ways that the DM could set up his world if he wants to. When the DM opts into something that goes against a rule, the new ruling/homebrew supersedes it.

This goes directly to the point I made upthread.

Changing the crit chance for attacks, or changing the amount of damage healed by a Cure spell, or building a new subclass - those are houserules.

But deciding that a PC can buy a mug is not a houserule, even though mugs aren't on the equipment list (except obliquely, as vessels that ale can be purchased in). That's just establishing the setting - which is a thing that players of RPGs have to do.

Likewise deciding which gods are available for worship by PCs, and how they are correlated with domains. That's all part of establishing the setting, and is something that RPG players have been doing for over 40 years now! For someone to decide that a cleric of Hades can have the Knowledge domain (because he communes with the spirits of the dead) even though that is not listed in a chart published by WotC, isn't a houserule. It's just playing the game!

 

[Helldritch]

So, if I as a player wanted to play a cleric who worshipped a goddess of hearth and home, and wanted to use the Forge domain to represent being a stalwart defender who used fire... you'd remove all powers and abilities because it is completely illogical?

Funny how earlier in this thread it was that I was limiting myself by not connecting domains and sects. And now if I want to actually have a sect for a religion that isn't the standard I'm going to get shut down instantly.

Strange how you take a good example of modifying a domain for a god, where first you took bad examples to prove me wrong...
This example would work. Not the others. That is the problem with you. You take weird examples to prove the unprovable and the perfect working examples to debunk the good example you took to say I am wrong. I really fail to see your logic. In this perticuliar example, I would allow it. Few questions would be asked, for sure. But we could built on this one. But not every examples works. The general idea works quite fine and then, there are examples that will not work. I know this and you know this too. My thesis works perfectly fine. Especialy if you confine yourself to domains logical and already assigned to the gods in the PHB.

 

[Maxperson]

Since that isn't how plurals work, no, it wouldn't. Just like a Forest =/= a tree. You have stated multiple times that a portfolio is all of the domains associated with the detiy. That means that it is a plurality. Your claims right now is literally one = many, and that is wrong.

:sigh: You do know that I didn't say "a" domain, right? You don't get to add the "a" in your example and then pretend it's the same as mine.

 

[Maxperson]

This goes directly to the point I made upthread.

Changing the crit chance for attacks, or changing the amount of damage healed by a Cure spell, or building a new subclass - those are houserules.

But deciding that a PC can buy a mug is not a houserule, even though mugs aren't on the equipment list (except obliquely, as vessels that ale can be purchased in). That's just establishing the setting - which is a thing that players of RPGs have to do.

Likewise deciding which gods are available for worship by PCs, and how they are correlated with domains. That's all part of establishing the setting, and is something that RPG players have been doing for over 40 years now! For someone to decide that a cleric of Hades can have the Knowledge domain (because he communes with the spirits of the dead) even though that is not listed in a chart published by WotC, isn't a houserule. It's just playing the game!

There's a reason I used the term homebrew and not houserule.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Strange how you take a good example of modifying a domain for a god, where first you took bad examples to prove me wrong...
This example would work. Not the others. That is the problem with you. You take weird examples to prove the unprovable and the perfect working examples to debunk the good example you took to say I am wrong. I really fail to see your logic. In this perticuliar example, I would allow it. Few questions would be asked, for sure. But we could built on this one. But not every examples works. The general idea works quite fine and then, there are examples that will not work. I know this and you know this too. My thesis works perfectly fine. Especialy if you confine yourself to domains logical and already assigned to the gods in the PHB.

This was literally one of the examples in my previous list. So, you called this nonsensical and ridiculous just last post. So, perhaps instead of just making a blanket statement and declaring all of my ideas bad, you could pull out some that you don't like and explain why you think they are worthy of severe and immediate punishment instead of a discussion about which aspects you don't like? Because to me, all of my ideas were logical. That was sort of the point of them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

:sigh: You do know that I didn't say "a" domain, right? You don't get to add the "a" in your example and then pretend it's the same as mine.

Domain is singular. You said Portfolio = Domain. You didn't say Portfolio = Domains. Which would be the plural. I don't need to add "a" for the singular version of a word to be singular.

And all you are proving is that portfolios are the aggregate of domains. Which doesn't define domains. Which are still cleric subclasses.

 

[Maxperson]

Domain is singular. You said Portfolio = Domain. You didn't say Portfolio = Domains. Which would be the plural. I don't need to add "a" for the singular version of a word to be singular.

It's just a turn of phrase dude. Stop picking at nits as if it somehow makes a difference. Domain or domains, it still makes you wrong.

 

[Fenris-77]

Fenris-77 peeks in on the thread. Does a little reading. Slowly closes the door and backs away.