D&D 5E What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?

[Maxperson]

Lol. This is far-fetched, even for you. I never said the bold. I said that its deities falls within the range of possible flavors that PHB discusses.

You cannot play a cleric of Pelor in Forgotten Realms, so clearly Forgotten Realms has changed the cleric class. This is of the same nonsensical level, Max. Your argument is farcical and silly. It's difficult to believe that you mean it in earnest, but I do know that you like to argue for the sake of arguing. You think that this boils down to your question, but it doesn't.

The proper question is: do Eberron deities conform with the any of the expectations for that the 3e cleric that the PHB discusses? And the answer is "yes." And we may also ask: does the flavor text of 3e PHB cleric preclude Eberron style deities? And the answer is likewise "no."

As expected, you dodged the question. Then you proceeded to issue a False Equivalence. Not being able to play a cleric of Pelor doesn't in any way fail to fit with the player handbook cleric. The 3e player handbook cleric allows to follow gods or follow a ideal/philosophy. The Forgotten Realms allows you to follow gods or follow an ideal/philosophy. No part of the PHB cleric is omitted from the Realms. This is not the same as being unable to play part of the PHB cleric as Eberron fluff dictates.

So again, since you dodged the question. If I am playing in your Eberron game, can I pick a god that is benevolent and intrusive? Yes or no.

 

[Maxperson]

This isn't true because I played a cleric of Pelor in the Forgotten Realms during an AL game. I even got advantage on a check for a notable improvised prayer to Pelor in-game.

Does this have anything to do with your discussion? No, but I just wanted to remind you that anything is possible and that your dreams are within reach.

Yep. I once had a fighter in the Realms who followed Kord. He was from Greyhawk originally and got transported to the Realms. The rules even allow for gods of other settings to follow their clerics, or they did in 2e. I don't remember if 3e specifically covered that.

 

[Maxperson]

Pelor is not listed in the 3.0 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book, and therefore playing a Pelor cleric in Forgotten Realms would be a change to the cleric class as per Maxperson.

This is a Strawman of my argument. The cleric class doesn't specify specific gods that you must follow. It just uses a general "gods", so specific gods however they get to whatever campaign do not violate the PHB fluff as they are "gods."

Also the 3.0 PHB flavor text for the cleric establishes that most humans follow Pelor. If most do not follow Pelor, then the Forgotten Realms changes the cleric class because fluff are rules.

I'm not sure what part of "The DM can change the fluff" you are failing to understand? Settings change fluff. So what.

 

[Aldarc]

The 3e player handbook cleric allows to follow gods or follow a ideal/philosophy. The Forgotten Realms allows you to follow gods or follow an ideal/philosophy. No part of the PHB cleric is omitted from the Realms. This is not the same as being unable to play part of the PHB cleric as Eberron fluff dictates.

Just like in Eberron.

The PHB is effectively saying that on a farm you may encounter farm animals such as cows, sheep, and chickens. It is non-comprehensive because farms vary depending upon the needs of the proprietor. Farms come in different styles with a variety of different farm animals. Eberron is a farm that has sheep and chickens. But your argument is fundamentally saying that since Eberron does not have cows then it changes the farm "class" and is somehow less of a farm. This is what makes your argument so absurd. You are applying an incredibly narrow misreading of what the PHB is saying so that it supports your own narrow preferences.

The PHB sets the expectations for what you may encounter. Not what is mandated. Never once does the PHB say in the cleric description that you will meet your god and that you should prepare yourself for such eventualities in play. The fluff does not dictate that if you have deities that they must be intrusive. It says that clerics follow gods or ideals/philosophies, and that gods - depending on a wide variety of factors - may take different levels of fore/background prominence.

I honestly can't believe that this is the sort of nonsensical sword that any reasonable person would want to die on.

So again, since you dodged the question. If I am playing in your Eberron game, can I pick a god that is benevolent and intrusive? Yes or no.

It's not dodging the question to point out how your question is an irrelevant non sequitur that fails to actually identify the problem.

Maxperson, have you stopped hitting your wife? Yes or no. Don't dodge this question, Max. Because it is entirely relevant to this discussion of global warming.

This is a Strawman of my argument. The cleric class doesn't specify specific gods that you must follow. It just uses a general "gods", so specific gods however they get to whatever campaign do not violate the PHB fluff as they are "gods."

So you can grasp this, but you can't actually grasp the 3.0 PHB cleric text that you quoted? Are you even arguing in good faith any more?

 

[pemerton]

Why would I have to poll anyone? The rules say they do. It says that every reasonably well known god has clerics. It goes to say that some, not many, not most, not all, but only some, can be clerics of things like an ideal. That makes the vast majority of 3e clerics, clerics of a god per RAW. It's in the Religion section on page 30.

That every god has clerics doesn't entail that every cleric has a god.

As far as your reasoning about the "vast majority", what is the size of the overall set, and what is the size of the Eberron set? In fact these are all potentially unlimited in size, given that we're talking not just about clerics actually played but clerics conceivably played, so they don't have a meaningful ratio at all.

If it matches the 3e fluff as written, then I can play any or all of the 3e PHB clerics in Eberron and have my god up close and personal.

The 3E "fluff" is about 3E clerics in general. Eberron clerics are only a subset of 3E clerics. So there's no reason to expect them to exhibit various properties with the same frequency as those properties are distributed over 3E clerics as a whole.

So even on your own terms, your arguments are silly.

EDIT: I see that [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has made a similar point upthread.

 

[pemerton]

Every monster is intended to be encountered. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the books to be encountered.

This is like saying every weapon is intended to be used, and so having a party without a Bohemian earspoon is a houserule.

 

[pemerton]

Here is Moldvay Basic on clerics (p B9):

Clerics are humans who have dedicated themselves to the service of a god or goddess. . . . [C]lerics do not receive any spells until they reach 2nd level (and have proven their devotion to their god or goddess). . . . Clerics are forbidden by their religous codes from using edged weapons . . .​

No connection is made between religion and alignment. The discussion of alignments on p B11 doesn't mention gods or religion at all. Alignments are described as "basic ways of life [that] guide the acts of both player characters and monsters" and as "giv[ing] guidlines for characters to live by".

 

[Bigsta]

To be honest, if someone behaved like that at one of my games, I'd fire them as a player.

And that is perfectly fine, but in my case, the DM was a new member of the weekly RPG group I established a decade ago, that is hosted in my home, where my wife and I provide dinner.

I made it perfectly clear to the DM that a sleeping in armor rule would not agree with me a month before Xanathar's even released. Despite my perfectly reasonable request that no such rule be introduced half way through the campaign, he insisted on doing so anyways when the book released.

At the end of the day, my vote simply counted for more. I was well within my rights to tell the DM that the campaign was over and his DMing services were no longer sought at my table. Rather than go nuclear, I simply ignored what I considered to be a terrible ruling and problem resolved itself.


Eventually the campaign completed and we started a new game in which the former DM is now a player in the new campaign. Everyone enjoyed the prior campaign in the end and we are all happy with how the new campaign is progressing.

 

[Bigsta]

So you'd fire a DM over not allowing a mechanical advantage that realism says you should never have had in the first place?

Sigh...

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yeeeeessssss

Longer answer: I play DnD to have fun and I want my fun maximized. If a DM proposes a new rule, I expect it to increase fun. A rule that decreases fun is a pointless waist of time.


Just about every optional rule introduced in Xanathar's, especially sleeping in armor, is a pointless waste of time that decreases the overall fun of 5e. If a DM tells me that in their campaign they are going to be using optional rules from Xanathar's, I know that there is a strong likelihood that game will be less fun than a campaign in which the DM is not using rules from Xanathar's (other than the player options).


If I am aware that such rules will be used at the start of the campaign, I will likely either not join their game or I will not invite them to DM at my table. If they are DMing at my table and half way through the campaign they decide to add rules to the game that make it less fun, and ignore me when I tell them I do not wish to play with such pointless rules, then I am under no obligation to invite them back to my table to continue their campaign.

 

[TwoSix]

. . . [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]. Sigh That one's gonna take a while.

I made an effort to stay ahead of him, but I lost a few hundred laugh points during the crash two years ago and I realized it wasn't worth worrying about it.

I've already been the king, I'm happy to cede my second place spot to you if you can catch that paladin-hating psycho.