"Your Class is Not Your Character": Is this a real problem?

[Hussar]

Huh, well, I was going to respond to @Maxperson but, well, you folks have pretty much stolen my thunder and said everything I was going to say, only better.

Funny thing is, in 5e, you're generally not a cleric of light or a cleric of war, that's just what people on message boards call them for short hand. There's a whole section in the PHB listing all sorts of deities with their related cleric domains to help players choose to be a cleric of ((Insert Deity Here)).

Now, if you want to interpret domains as having actual existence in the game world, that's groovy, but, funnily enough, no game world actually presents them that way. What gets presented is a list of deities for the player to choose from and then domain gets chosen based on the deity. IOW, you're a cleric of Pelor or Lathander or whatever. My forge cleric wasn't a forge cleric. He was a cleric of Khossuth with the forge domain. Why did he have the forge domain? Because that's the domain that closest fit the concept I had for the character.

But in character? I would never, ever describe myself as a Forge Domain Cleric. I was Khorbach Angist, high flame of Khossuth, long may the guilty burn in the pyre.

Seems a rather shallow way to play to refer to myself as Khorbach Angist Forge Cleric. Bleahhh Snore. Come back when you've actually got an interesting character thanks.

 

[the Jester]

"From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Page 18:

"The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god and chooses a divine domain associated with that diety."

Not the player picks the domain. The Cleric chooses the domain. Domain is clearly an in-fiction thing. "

Wow, I read that completely and entirely differently than you do.

You added some emphasis there in your quote from XGtE. I'd do so differently:

"The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god and chooses a divine domain associated with that diety."

Yes, the player chooses the domain- from the list of those that the deity offers, i.e. those associated with that deity. And I really don't see how that supports the notion that domain is an in-fiction term when it comes up when discussing the mechanics of the class.

 

[Maxperson]

5e is not 3e.

You're absolutely right. Nothing in prior editions has anything to do with 5e.

 

[abirdcall]

I remember at one point in one of the DNDBeyond YouTube videos where Todd Kenrik interviews Jeremy Crawford (might have been one of the early Artificer UA videos? I’m not sure), Todd brought up how much he appreciated that the text explicitly said, “you decide how [whatever class feature they were talking about] looks,” and Jeremy commented that the design intent is that players can always describe those things however they want. He went on to say that he recognized that they were not as explicit about that as they should have been in the Player’s Handbook and a lot of descriptions that were meant as thematic examples are taken by many groups as hard rules, and so they are now making a conscious effort to provide multiple examples of possible descriptions, and to explicitly state that the player can describe things any way they want.

So, I guess what I’m saying is, the Order Domain may indeed be FAW (fluff as written), the Command Domain is absolutely permitted by FAI (fluff as intended).

This depends on the degrees that we're talking about.

Making your Firebolt look like green flame rather than standard fire is one thing. That's a very simple rule to change and I doubt people at the table would care.

Deciding that you're playing a Fighter but you're going to use the Warlock class to do so is another.

Another example would be showing up to the table with a Jedi character.

The rulebooks state what things are in the fiction. Drastically changing that because "it is my character and I can do what I want" is not acceptable to me.

I have expectations established by the rulebooks and if they're going to be changed I want to know what those changes are so I can decide if I want to play.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Yes, the player chooses the domain- from the list of those that the deity offers, i.e. those associated with that deity. And I really don't see how that supports the notion that domain is an in-fiction term when it comes up when discussing the mechanics of the class.

I actually agree with @Maxperson that its not much of a stretch to believe that the concept of a "domain" would be an in-character thing. It would be easy to refer to Ra as "The god of light and fire" and then have clerics choose which path they wish to follow.

That being said, it then is a pretty big stretch to imagine clerics discussing the following, which is the logical conclusion of "Everything in the PHB is a rule and is reflected in-game similarly as it is described in the book".

Cleric 1: I think I am going to sign up for the Fire domain. While the First Level spells it grants me are pretty much the same as if I chose Light, I kind of like the Channel Divinity power it grants a lot more. Plus someday when I have gained enough levels I really want that Fireball spell.
Cleric 2: Yea, I see your point, but I think later i'm going to multiclass into a Sorcerer and get Fireball that way. That way I can also get some metamagic...I think i'll probably choose to maximize that sucker!
Cleric 3: So, what are you guys going to pick later when we get feats?
Cleric 1: Actually....i'm one of those types of Humans that learned one already. I chose to learn Heavy Armor Specialization because they rated my Constitution at only a 10, and I feel like I need to beef myself up to go fight some goblins. I'm totally going to be focusing on my Wisdom instead of learning a new feat later, though.

 

[Maxperson]

I actually agree with @Maxperson that its not much of a stretch to believe that the concept of a "domain" would be an in-character thing. It would be easy to refer to Ra as "The god of light and fire" and then have clerics choose which path they wish to follow.

That being said, it then is a pretty big stretch to imagine clerics discussing the following, which is the logical conclusion of "Everything in the PHB is a rule and is reflected in-game similarly as it is described in the book".

Cleric 1: I think I am going to sign up for the Fire domain. While the First Level spells it grants me are pretty much the same as if I chose Light, I kind of like the Channel Divinity power it grants a lot more. Plus someday when I have gained enough levels I really want that Fireball spell.
Cleric 2: Yea, I see your point, but I think later i'm going to multiclass into a Sorcerer and get Fireball that way. That way I can also get some metamagic...I think i'll probably choose to maximize that sucker!
Cleric 3: So, what are you guys going to pick later when we get feats?
Cleric 1: Actually....i'm one of those types of Humans that learned one already. I chose to learn Heavy Armor Specialization because they rated my Constitution at only a 10, and I feel like I need to beef myself up to go fight some goblins. I'm totally going to be focusing on my Wisdom instead of learning a new feat later, though.

No, but this conversation might happen.

Cleric 1: Ra is the god of light and fire and those are his domains. Ever since I was a child I have loved to watch things burn. My devotion to him is such that he has granted me access to his domain over fire.
Cleric 2: Ra lit the way for me when I was lost. He guided to me to his temple and I studied the ways of the light. That is the domain which he has granted to me.

 

[jmartkdr2]

This depends on the degrees that we're talking about.

Making your Firebolt look like green flame rather than standard fire is one thing. That's a very simple rule to change and I doubt people at the table would care.

There are a few people who seem to be arguing that this is not the case.

Deciding that you're playing a Fighter but you're going to use the Warlock class to do so is another.

Depends on what you mean by fighter - in fiction, that's anyone who uses a weapon - which many warlocks do.

Another example would be showing up to the table with a Jedi character.

In most games, yes, although a Kensei is pretty close.

The rulebooks state what things are in the fiction. Drastically changing that because "it is my character and I can do what I want" is not acceptable to me.

I have expectations established by the rulebooks and if they're going to be changed I want to know what those changes are so I can decide if I want to play.

That is entirely fair.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I'm not the thread OP, but this Reddit thread is gonna make the heads of some people here explode lol:
Amazing how wide a gulf there is between the player base.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Err... Whittling down the party’s resources with multiple short combats per adventuring day is how the game is designed to work. The DM certainly has the ability to run fewer combats per adventuring day, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume the former as the baseline when evaluating how strong a class (or multiclass combo) is.

I know that has been said time and time again, however in my experience that is rarely true. Outside of my personal experience, I have not seen it to be the normal standard any of the multitude of streamed games or people I have asked playing under other GMs. More to the point that no way nullifies what I said about GMs being able to adapt play style just as players adapted.

You say that like monks, rogues and Battlemasters become overpowered in games with several encounters per adventuring day, but that’s not the case at all. They, like all 5e classes, are balanced around the assumption of several encounters per adventuring day, and are actually underpowered in games with only one or two big encounters per day.

I have actually had GMs complain about all these classes being over powered at one time or another for the reasons I said. Like wise I have had players complain they are under powered in 1 encounter a day games. Despite your claims of "balanced for multiple encounters a day", When all the full casters are out of spell slots and other non-casters out of expendables like shape change or rage it has come up. Again, intent maybe that they are "balanced for multiple-encounters per day" but in practice it very much depend on the GMs play style. There is a limit of sustainment and I have seen GMs push players to run entire dungeons on without a long rest breaking down each room in minutes. When that happens these classes absolutely dwarf the others in power. It makes since that players will pick one or the other in reaction to the GMs style.

 

[Hussar]

No, but this conversation might happen.

Cleric 1: Ra is the god of light and fire and those are his domains. Ever since I was a child I have loved to watch things burn. My devotion to him is such that he has granted me access to his domain over fire.
Cleric 2: Ra lit the way for me when I was lost. He guided to me to his temple and I studied the ways of the light. That is the domain which he has granted to me.

Would it not be closer to - Ra is the king of the gods. I worship Him as ruler of the gods. His wisdom shines through me and lights the way of Maat.

IOW, worshippers of Ra (or Re depending on spelling) would have zero concept of "domains" since the teachings of the faith would most likely never refer to them. You don't pick and choose your faith - you worship that deity, even if your character's spells and special abilities might favor one or another facet of that deity.

Meh, you could do it your way @Maxperson, but, it's certainly not required. There are multiple alternatives available, which, because those alternatives are available, puts paid to your notion that mechanics MUST be represented by the character in the game world.

Note, we don't even have to disagree with your idea that mechanics CAN be represented. All we have to show is that they are not required in order to prove you wrong. The fact that you can incorporate the mechanics into the game world is irrelevant. The fact that you don't have to is all that matters.