Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6520715" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I think it certainly is variable how tables can handle it. However, at least IME, allowing a player to assert the truth of the Raven Queen's intercession by default would be pushing it. Although, I don't think any table I've been at would balk at the Cleric making the claim as a reflection of the character's faith. I agree, so if the DM picks it up and run's with it making it a storyline...then that's fine. However, the cleric's declaration is only relevant, interesting, or even distinguishable as true if such a diversion happens. (You run the risk of some discontinuity/nonsense when the faithless rogue is later hit by a Baleful Polymorph and experiences the same results, but...)...I mean, hopefully the players don't go around asserting divine intervention for every single successful save and the end of every effect's duration. The game could quickly degenerate into a geometrically expanding divine obligations and  tangled debts to various deities. Forcing the DM into downplaying what it actually means, and thus rendering the declaration of faith less interesting or complicating. Plus, what if there's multiple clerics of different deities?The in-fiction source of a PCs powers are, of course, all but irrelevant. I mean, we've had priests of philosophical ideals since what?...early to mid 2e? I've generally run priests' powers in the way that you describe since about that time. Otherwise, you've got to jump in as DM and pretend to be (a) god and start selectively granting miracles, taking away spellcasting, and the like.</blockquote>

Verification