D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Remathilis]

I want real D&D products that *support* DMs who homebrew campaign settings. Especially the Players Handbook that the players must consult.

For both the player and the DM, I need setting-neutral rules. The player needs to define the character, and the DM needs to define the world. The rules need to support this fun that requires alot of work.

I have given up on D&D 5e. As-is,

Players Handbook → Forgotten Realms campaign setting assumptions → polytheism

For me the current PH, thus the 5e game, is unusuable.

Even if WotC put out a pdf, with the 5e Players Handbook content but with neutral rules, that would go a long way to support homebrew campaign settings.

They dont even need to call it ‘Dungeons & Dragons’, maybe call it ‘Quintessence’ (referring to the ‘5th’ edition and to the essential rules), a product line designed to support DMs who homebrew.

Let me start by giving you exactly what you want. http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf

Because D&D IS NOT SETTING NEUTRAL. Its a stupid assumption to begin with. You can't make a version of D&D that covers all homebrews because there are infinite numbers of homebrews. Some have no races but human; or don't allow any caster classes. Some assume all dragons are monochromatic and not-necessarily evil, some don't use aberrations or have vampires unbound by fear of garlic and running water. Some include firearms, airships, and sentient golems. Some involve magic that requires demonic sacrifice, contact with sanity-blasting alien entities, or pseudo-technological inventions to work. Some are renaissance level, some are stone-age tech. You cannot make a version of the PHB that does not contradict those options because they themselves contradict each other.

Have your particular fetish catered to by WotC is not any different. You are not any more special than any of the other DMs who have overrule "This isn't in my campaign"

 

[Hussar]

Also note that the AD&D Dieties and Demigods actually did go some direction towards creating specialty priests. Different gods granted different powers, different proficiencies, and various other goodies. It's not that 2e started the ball rolling for specialty priests, but, simply took the ball that Dieties and Demigods brought to the table.

For example, a cleric of Math Mathonwy of the Celtic Mythos, could cast Magic User spells. I'm sure there are other examples.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

Let me start by giving you exactly what you want. http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf

Because D&D IS NOT SETTING NEUTRAL. Its a stupid assumption to begin with. You can't make a version of D&D that covers all homebrews because there are infinite numbers of homebrews. Some have no races but human; or don't allow any caster classes. Some assume all dragons are monochromatic and not-necessarily evil, some don't use aberrations or have vampires unbound by fear of garlic and running water. Some include firearms, airships, and sentient golems. Some involve magic that requires demonic sacrifice, contact with sanity-blasting alien entities, or pseudo-technological inventions to work. Some are renaissance level, some are stone-age tech. You cannot make a version of the PHB that does not contradict those options because they themselves contradict each other.

Have your particular fetish catered to by WotC is not any different. You are not any more special than any of the other DMs who have overrule "This isn't in my campaign"

Actually, 2nd Edition did precisely this - and specifically outlined how to manage, apply and change the rules within the given assumption to handle everything from stone age up to the 19th century. The PO material helped, but it wasn't necessary. Creative Campaigning did the heavy lifting.

 

[Yaarel]

Let me start by giving you exactly what you want. http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf

Perhaps you havent read the 5e SRD? Its rules establish polytheism many, many, times.

 

[Remathilis]

Actually, 2nd Edition did precisely this - and specifically outlined how to manage, apply and change the rules within the given assumption to handle everything from stone age up to the 19th century. The PO material helped, but it wasn't necessary. Creative Campaigning did the heavy lifting.

It was also the rules edition that said (for example) elves can't be bards and all druids are TN and fight to gain levels, both of which are pretty specific flavor hard-baked into the rules. 2e was the only version of D&D that lacked a default "example" world (though people argue endlessly that the Realms filled that role). Mostly, it was because TSR wanted you to buy one of it's dozen of campaign settings to do that. It's not the generic rule set Yaerel would want; to play Dark Sun, Charlemagne's Paladins, Dragonlance or Masque of the Red Death, you have to ignore substantial portions of the core rulebook. Which is why a "generic" PHB is a fool's errand, Yaeral's complaint about polytheism is as valid as me wanting all races but humans gone from the PHB and art since my world is based on GoT and I don't use Tolkien races.

Neither is going to happen. Neither should happen.

 

[Remathilis]

Perhaps you havent read the 5e SRD? Its rules establish polytheism many, many, times.

Open a copy in a text editor.
Change the wording to remove what you don't like.
Save.
Print.
Give to players.

Ding. Next.

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps you havent read the 5e SRD? Its rules establish polytheism many, many, times.

I know this has been asked before, but, I really would like to see more specifics of what you mean.

Since we're talking about a homebrew campaign, wouldn't you simply specify that clerics are all X Domain clerics? ((Or, possibly, X or Y domains if you wanted a bit of variety) and paladins are all paladins of that specific diety, with, maybe, Oath of Ancients paladins off the table?

What rules do you see as being hard wired in that force a polytheistic setting? Additionally, what rules do you see that don't exist in earlier editions? I guess my basic question, [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION], is, if you could homebrew a monotheistic setting in another edition, why would you not simply apply the same changes to 5e?

 

[Hussar]

Actually, 2nd Edition did precisely this - and specifically outlined how to manage, apply and change the rules within the given assumption to handle everything from stone age up to the 19th century. The PO material helped, but it wasn't necessary. Creative Campaigning did the heavy lifting.

Note, your point doesn't actually counter [MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]athilis' point. Rem specified CORE, not supplements in his post. You are countering that you can do this with supplements. Fair enough. But, his basic point still remains. You have to rewrite core in order to apply the rules to that specific setting framework. The core DMG/PHB/MM won't do it for you. And, in fact, will certainly run very much against the idea of a monotheistic D&D since you have Priests of a Specific Mythoi built right into the game.

OTOH, those really were cool books.

 

[pemerton]

You could have two clerics in one party, serving a god the other serving a goddess.

If the GM permits it. Or not, if the GM doesn't.
And again providing the option of god or goddess is an indicator towards polytheism given influence of mythology otherwise the rulebook would just say god or deity.

This is from page 51 of Moldvay Basic:

6. Fulfilling a Quest: This is a scenario in which a king (or other NPC) provides a reason for adventuring. A variation of this is a special mission for "the gods". Quite often this scenario also involves the recovery of a sacred object or powerful magic item.

I'm not saying that the book rules out polytheism. But these scenario-types are suggestions to the GM. They don't mandate that the gameworld must be polytheistic.

Nothing in the rulebook makes it remotely difficult to run a monotheistic world without changing a thing about the rules. Contrast 5e or 3E, which requires mucking about with domains.

No one is debating practicality of implentation except you.

Well, given that it's the whole of my argument, that's a pity.

These classic rulebooks make it easier to run a world of essentially mediaeval templars, warrior bishops, etc than they do to run a world of Greek, Norse, Egyptian etc priests. That's relevant, in my view, to the extent to which they do or don't imply polytheism.

 

[pemerton]

Also note that the AD&D Dieties and Demigods actually did go some direction towards creating specialty priests. Different gods granted different powers, different proficiencies, and various other goodies.

Re-read your copy of DDG - what you've posted here is a significant exaggeration.

There aren't any proficiencies in D&D, other than weapon proficiencies, and DDG doesn't talk about weapon proficiencies for clerics at all, I don't think. (If there are examples I've forgotten about, remind me - but I think the idea of variant weapon proficiencies made its appearance in Dragon, in the GH pantheon articles.)

Likewise for the different powers - I think you're confusing your memories of those Dragon articles with DDG, which - in comparison - has almost nothing to say about clerical capabilities. (I think Sumerian clerics have to shave their heads, and that the training costs for Egyptian clerics are equal to their XP requirements - but this sort of stuff, found in the intro information about each pantheon, doesn't extend to proficiencies or other abilities.)