D&D 5E Wonder why there aren't any Elemental Domains (Earth, Air, Fire, Water)?

[Micah Sweet]

I don't mind the idea of a deity permanently taking away a cleric's divine powers for gross or consistent misconduct.

What I dislike is the idea of them dealing out piecemeal punishments by not allowing them to get some of their daily spells, etc. Most players are going to hate that, and I'm not a fan of classes being dependent on in-world fiction to use their powers. I'd prefer all character classes to be on the same basic footing.

So once a cleric or warlock gets their powers, they have them and don't need permission to use or regain them day to day.

In my lore, divine power original comes from deities, but once they invest it into mortals, those mortals are the ones directly passing it on to others. So the god probably did this hundreds or thousands of years ago, and your cleric got his investiture from a cleric who got it from another cleric, etc, stretching all the way back.

Now, if a cleric is acting completely against the wishes of the deity they profess to serve, they could potentially use their divine power to strip them of their abilities (you know, just like they could strike them down with a bolt of lightning, or send an army of angels after them), but it's more a matter of using their power to inflict this loss on the cleric, than turning off an ongoing stream of power.

With warlock patrons, it's even easier, since there is already the idea that once you get abilities from the patron those abilities are yours to keep. The general idea seems to be that you need to stay in their good graces to keep getting more abilities as you level up. I dislike that one for the exact same reason as I do with the cleric issue. I just say that investing a warlock is the same basic concept, but usually the patron does it directly. The warlock then can level up without any assistance from the patron. However, in the traditional sort of D&D warlock pact, their might be an actual agreement made, and if the warlock doesn't continue to serve the patron according to that pact they might be more likely than a deity to make their life uncomfortable. They are unlikely to be able to actually strip you of your powers at all.

See to me if you have a problem with your superpowers being dependent on the good graces of the being who gave them to you and for whom you work, maybe don't play someone like that. To me doing otherwise damages the class fantasy I want, and every time a new version of D&D moves things closer to that it becomes more of a problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think having a class concept as a servant is a pretty terrible idea for D&D generally. Priests and paladins should be about their role as church leaders and advisors and knights, focusing on their relationship and role with their community and other people and hunting down undead as supernatural van Helsings.

Being a servant can be an interesting role in a D&D game but is just asking for problems in a number of ways in general.

I prefer a more Conan perspective of adventurers as the role model for PC roles and of priests of Set learning and casting spells and leading cults but no real evidence of Set micromanaging their operations or their magic.

There you go! IMO don't play a character who got their powers directly from another being if you're worried about losing them. Play something with a different narrative.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Gods taking away a cleric's powers is kind of the same as paladins losing their powers if they shift alignment. In gameplay, it's basically the DM giving a diegetic reprimand to how a player is playing their character. It's bad for the game design, bad for the play experience, bad for the social component of the game.

So, understandably, it's something D&D has moved away from. The game doesn't want to encourage DMs to just strip class powers out of a problem player. That's not how you deal with a problem player.

It's also something that hasn't really been true since the Athar, at least - divine spellcasting doesn't rely on the gods in D&D's narrative. You can be a non-theist and still be a cleric.

Whether that's because the investiture is one-way or because the gods aren't REALLY the source of divine magic or because faith and conviction alone is enough to power the magic or some other reason....the ultimate point is that you don't need a god to be a cleric.

You need something though, and the class narrative still says that if you're a cleric of a god, that god gave you your powers. For warlock the relationship is even more clear.

 

[cbwjm]

I guess another thing I tend to lean towards now is that a priest isn't a priest of a specific deity. You're an intermediary of the Olympians or the Egyptian gods. While there were priests assigned to temples of specific gods, that seemed more of a temporal position rather than spiritual, you were looking after the temple of a god, you may have even been called a Priest of Amun, but you were still a member of the overall faith, you were just in charge of the various rituals performed in Amun's temple (something like that anyway, been ages since I really looked into Egyptian religion. Doesn't help that the best stuff is in German).

Basically this means in 2e, I don't use speciality priests for a god, but might customise them for a specific faith which might only be slightly different sphere access. In 5e, I just lump all of the domains together and you can pick any of them but you aren't specific to a god, though you might be assigned to a temple and it might not matter that you picked the life domain, you might still end up as tied to the temple of the storm god, though in reality since you're a wandering priest you would be unlikely to be tied to a temple.

 

[Voadam]

There you go! IMO don't play a character who got their powers directly from another being if you're worried about losing them. Play something with a different narrative.

In AD&D and 3e I generally avoided playing priests to avoid being micromanaged on my roleplay and how I conceived of the character concept.

I think Van Helsing turning and hunting vampires/undead is a cool D&D character concept.

I think a Conan priest of Mitra or Thoth or Set or a shaman of Crom who learns and does magic are great D&D character concepts.

Those are there in the inspiration material for clerics without the whole micromanaged servant role whose powers can fail if they are not in a state of grace with their god.

You generally have to go outside of polytheistic myths or sword and sorcery stories to Judeo-Christian miracle stories to get the linking of magic powers to being on a god’s good side. And those stories have a different point and feel to them than I generally want to roleplay in a campaign.

OD&D, Basic, 4e, and 5e D&D are more on the sword and sorcery style class narrative with clerics without micromanaging gods.

1e, 2e, and 3e had more active personal relationships with supervising gods cleric models.

I think the former model works better for a D&D core class and the game as a party of adventurers.

 

[cbwjm]

Priests in Conan seem less like clerics and more like a combination of wizard, warlock, and artificer. Some seem to gain power/knowledge from demonic entities like Set others don't seem to have any patron teaching them sorcery while others have knowledge of mechanical knowhow that grants them their power. In Thoth-amon's case (and I'm not 100% on if this is the original stories or those from marvel comics or other writers) much of his power was tied up in his ring, he lost it and was much reduced in magical might.

I wouldn't use a cleric to represent them but I might use a wizard or warlock, or a wizard with the warlock spell list, though to be honest, I don't think any of the spellcasting classes properly match sorcerers in the age of Conan.

 

[Staffan]

Priests in Conan seem less like clerics and more like a combination of wizard, warlock, and artificer. Some seem to gain power/knowledge from demonic entities like Set others don't seem to have any patron teaching them sorcery while others have knowledge of mechanical knowhow that grants them their power. In Thoth-amon's case (and I'm not 100% on if this is the original stories or those from marvel comics or other writers) much of his power was tied up in his ring, he lost it and was much reduced in magical might.

I wouldn't use a cleric to represent them but I might use a wizard or warlock, or a wizard with the warlock spell list, though to be honest, I don't think any of the spellcasting classes properly match sorcerers in the age of Conan.

Yeah, pulpy priesthoods/cults tend to be more... social might be a good term for it. It's not that the fire god gives fire magic to their followers, it's that the cult of fire is where you go to learn the secret fire magic.

 

[CreamCloud0]

There you go! IMO don't play a character who got their powers directly from another being if you're worried about losing them. Play something with a different narrative.

you do realize they're still playing a cleric in that scenario though? right micah? they're not playing a different class with a different narrative they're just not placing any importance on that part of it, they're just saying 'yeah they pray to [god] every morning for their powers but if there's actually anyone on the other end of that connection isn't what's important, it's their place in the community that truly matters about the character'

edit: on reread vodam is saying that the idea a cleric, paladin, warlock or any other class being directly beholden to a larger entity is a bad idea, but what i said does follow on from what their points.

 

[SkidAce]

Gods taking away a cleric's powers is kind of the same as paladins losing their powers if they shift alignment. In gameplay, it's basically the DM giving a diegetic reprimand to how a player is playing their character. It's bad for the game design, bad for the play experience, bad for the social component of the game.

If the DM is a jerk that doesn't discuss things with their players, then yes.

Otherwise, its possible the player was looking for that dynamic of walking the line, or bringing reform to the faith, or spitting in the god's eye.

I think its a player/dm issue, not a "bad" all around mechanic.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

See to me if you have a problem with your superpowers being dependent on the good graces of the being who gave them to you and for whom you work, maybe don't play someone like that. To me doing otherwise damages the class fantasy I want, and every time a new version of D&D moves things closer to that it becomes more of a problem.

It occurs to me that there is room for a feat or variant rule here.

As a variant rule ("Cleric and Warlock Dependencies") it could be a campaign decision and have both some specific guidance on consequences, as well as some general rules on extra benefits gained under this system. Maybe add in the piety rules from the 5e DMG so devout priests get more spells and such than the standard as well as transgressors losing stuff.

As a feat ("Beholden") it could be a character level option. Unlike the campaign variant where I think it needs a little benefit to balance the drawback, a feat needs to be even stronger if it comes with a drawback. Probably the same sort of thing but maybe also more useful omens and assistance as regular things.