I think some level of creativity can link a Domain to most gods you might pick. Maybe not all of them but having that option opens it up widely to some creative storytelling. The Pantheon Tables even list the domains as Suggested Domains. Not to mention that while you may have dedicated your life up to the point at level 2 to a specific god, your journey to level 3 may have changed things enough to devout yourself to a different god/domain than you had started with.
Perhaps you're a Cleric of Silvanus planning to dedicate yourself to the Nature Domain but in the course of your adventures saw that only the gifts imparted by the War Domain would give you the tools you need to protect the wilderness from the aggressive encroachment of civilization, so you take on less-known aspect of your god to do so.
I'm not against that. Opening character options is great. But this one is a recon on some very deep d&d lore. If they plan to recon lore this fundamental it should be done out in the open. Not a ninja edit.
A lore revision in the process of a decadal, fundamental rules overhaul is pretty much the opposite of a "ninja edit". It's as much out in the open as it gets.
Uhm, no.
Ninja edit: Changes domains from things gods control to simply names of subclasses. Then changes text to say pick any domain.
Non-ninja lore change: Circa year 1495 DR, the gods now have dominion over all domains and can grant any domain powers to their clerics.
Ninja edits are when the change is done and isn't direct about it. We have to INFERE the change based on rules changes elsewhere.
The fact that the god of life can now have war clerics is wild. And the fact they snuck in this lore change is nuts. They're not out here openly talking about the cosmology or systems of divinity changing. We just have to infere that they have because they do weird shit now all of a sudden that they didn't before.
According to the definition of a "ninja edit" you are presenting here, the vast majority of changes made in the new edition would be ninja edits because they are not accompanied by detailed explanations as to how, when, and why each change was made. Personally, I'm glad we don't have that kind of bloat bogging down the rule books.
Lots of people here, including me, obviously disagree with you that the opening up of domains across all gods is "wild", "nuts", or "weird". Plenty of great examples have been presented that pretty much any combination of deity and domain can work, if it fits the character and campaign. And you yourself acknowledged in post 26 that you actually think opening up these character options is great. So, I am not sure why you are now doubling down again on your outrage about the change?
I'm just seeing a bunch of people who seem to think domains are JUST cleric subclasses. Which is itself kinda weird. Because thats... not what domains are.
Domains are cosmic wells of primordial divine magic that gods themselves tap into. Gods only have access to a few domains each.
If a life god gained access to a war domain, it would do so by becoming warlike. The thematic, traditions, trappings, etc of a god shift and then their domains could shift.
That's why domains are the suggested domain, because a DM's interpretation of any particular god could be different than the suggested one based on his interpretation of his game world.
But a god with access to war, and life, for example, even if it differs slightly from some written source, can't then grant a cleric access to the knowledge domain. Because IT doesn't have access to the knowledge domain. It has war, and life. So that's what it can grant to its clerics. Historically this is how it has always worked. In all previous editions with domains. Even in the "current edition" (2014) it still is this same thing.
So, they've undone a core principle of cosmology in dnd lore. And it was hidden in a subtle wording change in cleric subclass selection.
That's absolutely a ninja edit. If you don't think so you either don't understand what is being discussed, or think nothing meets the definition of ninja edit.
Firstly, I've made it quite clear already that I regard nothing done in the course of a decadal, fundamental rules overhaul as a ninja edit. The entire point of such a rules overhaul is to make deep, fundamental changes. The 2024 edition contains plenty of such, all of which your definition would label as ninja edits, simply because they don't come in a bloated annotated version that labels every change with the details of the what, how, when, where, and why. If that's what you want to do - go ahead, you do you. It just doesn't seem a particularly useful approach to me.
Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "hidden in a subtle wording change".
2014 Cleric:
Divine Domain
Choose one domain related to your deity. Your choice grants you domain spells and other features when you choose it at 1st level. It also grants you additional ways to use Channel Divinity when you gain that feature at 2nd level, and additional benefits at 6th, 8th, and 17th levels.
2024 Cleric:
Level 3: Cleric Subclass
You gain a Cleric subclass of your choice. A subclass is a specialization that grants you features at certain Cleric levels. For the rest of your career, you gain each of your subclass’s features that are of your Cleric level or lower.
That's a complete and obvious restructuring from how domains used work, to how specializations/subclasses now work instead, in levels, functionality, and lore concept. There is nothing subtle or hidden about it - they didn't just stealthily swap a couple of words out as you are insinuating.
Lastly, I am curious whether you are actually in favor of, or against opening up domains across all gods, because you seem to be flipflopping all over the place in this regard?
... right. Which is a change from 2014. The way-it-works changed. But we agree it works this way.
The point isn't "can you" it is a totally different point now.
It is "Oh my! They changed how the cosmology of the dnd universes work and hid that massive change in a subtle wording change for cleric subclass selection. Crazy."
See?
No, that's how it worked in 2014.
Choose one domain related to your deity...
In a pantheon, every deity has influence over different aspects of mortal life and civilization, called a deity’s domain. All the domains over which a deity has influence are called the deity’s portfolio. For example, the portfolio of the Greek god Apollo includes the domains of Knowledge, Life, and Light. As a cleric, you choose one aspect of your deity’s portfolio to emphasize, and you are granted powers related to that domain.
My post showed how the war domain is related to a life god.
A god of life definitely has influence over war: it's all about people dying.
Please note that what you just quoted disagrees with you, and instead describes exactly what I discussed.
I think some level of creativity can link a Domain to most gods you might pick. Maybe not all of them but having that option opens it up widely to some creative storytelling. The Pantheon Tables even list the domains as Suggested Domains. Not to mention that while you may have dedicated your life up to the point at level 2 to a specific god, your journey to level 3 may have changed things enough to devout yourself to a different god/domain than you had started with.
Perhaps you're a Cleric of Silvanus planning to dedicate yourself to the Nature Domain but in the course of your adventures saw that only the gifts imparted by the War Domain would give you the tools you need to protect the wilderness from the aggressive encroachment of civilization, so you take on less-known aspect of your god to do so.
I'm not against that. Opening character options is great. But this one is a recon on some very deep d&d lore. If they plan to recon lore this fundamental it should be done out in the open. Not a ninja edit.
A lore revision in the process of a decadal, fundamental rules overhaul is pretty much the opposite of a "ninja edit". It's as much out in the open as it gets.
Uhm, no.
Ninja edit: Changes domains from things gods control to simply names of subclasses. Then changes text to say pick any domain.
Non-ninja lore change: Circa year 1495 DR, the gods now have dominion over all domains and can grant any domain powers to their clerics.
Ninja edits are when the change is done and isn't direct about it. We have to INFERE the change based on rules changes elsewhere.
The fact that the god of life can now have war clerics is wild. And the fact they snuck in this lore change is nuts. They're not out here openly talking about the cosmology or systems of divinity changing. We just have to infere that they have because they do weird shit now all of a sudden that they didn't before.
According to the definition of a "ninja edit" you are presenting here, the vast majority of changes made in the new edition would be ninja edits because they are not accompanied by detailed explanations as to how, when, and why each change was made. Personally, I'm glad we don't have that kind of bloat bogging down the rule books.
Lots of people here, including me, obviously disagree with you that the opening up of domains across all gods is "wild", "nuts", or "weird". Plenty of great examples have been presented that pretty much any combination of deity and domain can work, if it fits the character and campaign. And you yourself acknowledged in post 26 that you actually think opening up these character options is great. So, I am not sure why you are now doubling down again on your outrage about the change?
I'm just seeing a bunch of people who seem to think domains are JUST cleric subclasses. Which is itself kinda weird. Because thats... not what domains are.
Domains are cosmic wells of primordial divine magic that gods themselves tap into. Gods only have access to a few domains each.
If a life god gained access to a war domain, it would do so by becoming warlike. The thematic, traditions, trappings, etc of a god shift and then their domains could shift.
That's why domains are the suggested domain, because a DM's interpretation of any particular god could be different than the suggested one based on his interpretation of his game world.
But a god with access to war, and life, for example, even if it differs slightly from some written source, can't then grant a cleric access to the knowledge domain. Because IT doesn't have access to the knowledge domain. It has war, and life. So that's what it can grant to its clerics. Historically this is how it has always worked. In all previous editions with domains. Even in the "current edition" (2014) it still is this same thing.
So, they've undone a core principle of cosmology in dnd lore. And it was hidden in a subtle wording change in cleric subclass selection.
That's absolutely a ninja edit. If you don't think so you either don't understand what is being discussed, or think nothing meets the definition of ninja edit.
Firstly, I've made it quite clear already that I regard nothing done in the course of a decadal, fundamental rules overhaul as a ninja edit. The entire point of such a rules overhaul is to make deep, fundamental changes. The 2024 edition contains plenty of such, all of which your definition would label as ninja edits, simply because they don't come in a bloated annotated version that labels every change with the details of the what, how, when, where, and why. If that's what you want to do - go ahead, you do you. It just doesn't seem a particularly useful approach to me.
I'm not sure how you're not getting it. They changed deep lore. Lore. About the gods and the structure of the cosmos.
And they did it by changing a class mechanic for subclass selection. And it isn't immediately obvious they even did it.
If you'll note, lots of people weren't sure when I originally asked if it was A. Plan ahead or B. Pick Whatever.
The fact they changed to it Pick Whatever no limits. Wasn't super obvious until I went back and combed through it carefully. No one here even brought it up. Because it was subtle.
So yes. That, is a ninja edit. Changing something mechanical in one place that had DEEP and PROFOUND lore consequences elsewhere? Ninja edit.
It just is.
And most changes aren't that. Some are. Yes. Rarely do they rise to this degree of fundamental cosmologically profound. But most changes aren't even lore impacting at all.
Also, fun fact: Many times when they are lore impacting. At least, in previous editions... they did account for the changes having lore reasons for those changes. Especially when it rose to this level of cosmologically important shifts.
Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "hidden in a subtle wording change".
2014 Cleric:
Divine Domain
Choose one domain related to your deity. Your choice grants you domain spells and other features when you choose it at 1st level. It also grants you additional ways to use Channel Divinity when you gain that feature at 2nd level, and additional benefits at 6th, 8th, and 17th levels.
2024 Cleric:
Level 3: Cleric Subclass
You gain a Cleric subclass of your choice. A subclass is a specialization that grants you features at certain Cleric levels. For the rest of your career, you gain each of your subclass’s features that are of your Cleric level or lower.
That's a complete and obvious restructuring from how domains used work, to how specializations/subclasses now work instead, in levels, functionality, and lore concept. There is nothing subtle or hidden about it - they didn't just stealthily swap a couple of words out as you are insinuating.
Removing a phrase that had a requirement is subtle. No one here spotted it. Again. I only spitted it after going back and very carefully comparing the two. You didn't. No one else did. I caught it.
So I get to call it subtle if I want. As the one who eventually noticed.
If you had caught it first you could rave about how easily spottable it was all you like. But you didn't. So.
Lastly, I am curious whether you are actually in favor of, or against opening up domains across all gods, because you seem to be flipflopping all over the place in this regard?
I haven't flip flopped at all. I'm in favor of opening all class options and eliminating lore-linked restrictions as a general rule. Want a cleric to kick butt and worship a life god? Hells yeah.
The game is meant to be a framework that works in a multitude of universes and even with homebrew worlds. Opening options like that is good game design.
I'm ALSO a fan of lore not being retconned with ninja edits. Both things are true. Simultaneously.
A better design would have been to remove the subclasses from being associated with domains. So you can be a warrior-subclass cleric not a war domain subclass cleric. Keep all the abilities or whatever the same. Great. But remove the domain-link.
Now you can cleanly fit this warrior-priest character concept into any world. It doesn't only have to be someone who worships a god that has the war domain.
But that's not what they did. They stripped the need for your god to have the domain that you pick, instead. This has profound cosmology implications. Whoops.
I'm not sure how you're not getting it. They changed deep lore. Lore. About the gods and the structure of the cosmos.
LOL - I'm not sure how you're not getting it: The entire point of a fundamental rules overhaul is to make deep, fundamental changes. Like changing deep lore. Lore.
Look, we can disagree on that point all day long. As I said before: you do you. Insinuating that I am a moron because I disagree with you is childish, hostile, and unnecessary.
Removing a phrase that had a requirement is subtle. No one here spotted it.
Nonsense. HarmAssassin spotted it right away - see post #5. Jurmondur spotted it right away - see post #7. AnzioFaro spotted it right away - see posts #8 and #12.
So I get to call it subtle if I want. As the one who eventually noticed.
If you had caught it first you could rave about how easily spottable it was all you like. But you didn't. So.
LOL - your language is seriously slipping into childish petulance. You have no idea when I spotted it - full disclosure: I have known about it for about 4 months because at that time I built a 2024 Cleric that I am now playing in a new campaign. Your clue to my awareness would be my first post on this thread, where I make it clear that I don't regard this as a subtle ninja edit at all.
A better design would have been to remove the subclasses from being associated with domains. So you can be a warrior-subclass cleric not a war domain subclass cleric. Keep all the abilities or whatever the same. Great. But remove the domain-link.
Now you can cleanly fit this warrior-priest character concept into any world. It doesn't only have to be someone who worships a god that has the war domain.
But that's not what they did. They stripped the need for your god to have the domain that you pick, instead.
So what would be the point of domains in your proposed design?
This has profound cosmology implications. Whoops.
It has exactly the implications that your DM wants it to have. Cosmology is worldbuilding stuff. I can't think of a single reason a DM would now say: "oh no, this lore change completely breaks my world - oh well, let's scrap this campaign, since I am clearly bound by the suggested cosmology in this new rule book..."
Domains are cosmic wells of primordial divine magic that gods themselves tap into. Gods only have access to a few domains each.
Where did you get that? It certainly isn't written anywhere in the 2014 rules that I can see, and while it's an interesting cosmological interpretation of the 2014 rules, it's by no means the only one, and certainly not the most intuitive one. Here is a, in my opinion, much more intuitive and straightforward interpretation, paraphrased from Forgotten Realms Wiki:
Domains are specific areas of interest for deities, particularly to do with the magic and spells granted to their faithful. A deity can have as many or as few domains as it pleases.
... right. Which is a change from 2014. The way-it-works changed. But we agree it works this way.
The point isn't "can you" it is a totally different point now.
It is "Oh my! They changed how the cosmology of the dnd universes work and hid that massive change in a subtle wording change for cleric subclass selection. Crazy."
See?
No, that's how it worked in 2014.
Choose one domain related to your deity...
In a pantheon, every deity has influence over different aspects of mortal life and civilization, called a deity’s domain. All the domains over which a deity has influence are called the deity’s portfolio. For example, the portfolio of the Greek god Apollo includes the domains of Knowledge, Life, and Light. As a cleric, you choose one aspect of your deity’s portfolio to emphasize, and you are granted powers related to that domain.
My post showed how the war domain is related to a life god.
A god of life definitely has influence over war: it's all about people dying.
Please note that what you just quoted disagrees with you, and instead describes exactly what I discussed.
Please note that I was doing your work for you, you're welcome. Please also note that I refuted it in the same post to save us all time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
I have divine magic, in service to my god. Loyalty granted me divine power, recognition from upon high.
Yet which god do I serve? Not a soul knows. Not I nor you nor the gods themselves.
How can this be?
You could be Planetouched.
Clerics don't need to be in service to a god to draw power from The Outer Planes.
Clerics draw power from the realms of the gods and harness it to work miracles. Blessed by a deity, a pantheon, or another immortal entity, a Cleric can reach out to the divine magic of the Outer Planes—where gods dwell—and channel it to bolster people and battle foes.
Because their power is a divine gift, Clerics typically associate themselves with temples dedicated to the deity or other immortal force that unlocked their magic. Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on specific training, yet Clerics might learn prayers and rites that help them draw on power from the Outer Planes.
That way, the deity or deities that grant you power are doing so in an effort to make a believer out of you. And if they are angling for your belief & devotion, I doubt they'll be overly particular about which domain you choose. Maybe you're being courted by the God of War, but you only cast Life Domain healing spells. Maybe there's a God of Ignorance, and you choose Knowledge Domain. Maybe there's a God of Calm, Clear Weather, but you choose Tempest Domain.
Anyway. It can be anything you want. For any reason you want. If you want it to be some obscure, obtuse kind of narrative logic problem... then it can be that, too.
Domains are cosmic wells of primordial divine magic that gods themselves tap into. Gods only have access to a few domains each.
Where did you get that? It certainly isn't written anywhere in the 2014 rules that I can see, and while it's an interesting cosmological interpretation of the 2014 rules, it's by no means the only one, and certainly not the most intuitive one. Here is a, in my opinion, much more intuitive and straightforward interpretation, paraphrased from Forgotten Realms Wiki:
Domains are specific areas of interest for deities, particularly to do with the magic and spells granted to their faithful. A deity can have as many or as few domains as it pleases.
Exactly. Domains are the specific areas of interest for dieties. Particularly to do with the magic and spells granted to their faithful.
AKA a god with the War domain grants the magic and spells of the War domain to their faithful. Not some other magic and spells from a domain they don't have.
... right. Which is a change from 2014. The way-it-works changed. But we agree it works this way.
The point isn't "can you" it is a totally different point now.
It is "Oh my! They changed how the cosmology of the dnd universes work and hid that massive change in a subtle wording change for cleric subclass selection. Crazy."
See?
No, that's how it worked in 2014.
Choose one domain related to your deity...
In a pantheon, every deity has influence over different aspects of mortal life and civilization, called a deity’s domain. All the domains over which a deity has influence are called the deity’s portfolio. For example, the portfolio of the Greek god Apollo includes the domains of Knowledge, Life, and Light. As a cleric, you choose one aspect of your deity’s portfolio to emphasize, and you are granted powers related to that domain.
My post showed how the war domain is related to a life god.
A god of life definitely has influence over war: it's all about people dying.
Please note that what you just quoted disagrees with you, and instead describes exactly what I discussed.
Please note that I was doing your work for you, you're welcome. Please also note that I refuted it in the same post to save us all time.
What "work" of mine are you doing?
Alls I'm saying is the quote here point for point reiterates everything I'm saying.
Can a DM change the gods? Change their portfolio? Give them domains they don't have by default?
Yes of course. DMs change stuff like that all the time. But the story you and your DM tell at your table isn't "the lore of the game itself" it is your version of that lore.
The game's lore was changed. On a fundamental level. And whether or not your table adopts that change is irrelevant to the fact the change happened.
1. The quote that agrees with me, yes, you quoted it.
2. There are. You can find them in the books, it tells you what their domains are. Can a DM change this? Yes. They always could. But, now... apparently, so can a player.
1. The quote that agrees with me, yes, you quoted it.
2. There are. You can find them in the books, it tells you what their domains are. Can a DM change this? Yes. They always could. But, now... apparently, so can a player.
We are beginning to go in circles. I explained how the quote doesn't really agree with you in that very post. Additionally, others have already pointed out that the domains in the books are only suggestions. Even ignoring that, you are not required to choose one of the listed gods.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
Domains are cosmic wells of primordial divine magic that gods themselves tap into. Gods only have access to a few domains each.
Where did you get that? It certainly isn't written anywhere in the 2014 rules that I can see, and while it's an interesting cosmological interpretation of the 2014 rules, it's by no means the only one, and certainly not the most intuitive one. Here is a, in my opinion, much more intuitive and straightforward interpretation, paraphrased from Forgotten Realms Wiki:
Domains are specific areas of interest for deities, particularly to do with the magic and spells granted to their faithful. A deity can have as many or as few domains as it pleases.
Exactly. Domains are the specific areas of interest for dieties. Particularly to do with the magic and spells granted to their faithful.
AKA a god with the War domain grants the magic and spells of the War domain to their faithful. Not some other magic and spells from a domain they don't have.
"A deity can have as many or as few domains as it pleases". Meaning: a deity can have any and all domains.
2. There are. You can find them in the books, it tells you what their domains are.
That's just wrong. To enforce what Jurmondur and several others have pointed out repeatedly, the domains listed in the 2014 books are not default rules that a DM needs to override via house rules. They are clearly labeled as suggestions, meaning they can be used as a strict list, as a resource for ideas, ignored completely, etc. at will.
I.e.: The assignment of specific domains to specific gods isn't deep fundamental lore of the game itself. Neither in the 2014 rules, nor in the 2024 rules.
Domains are cosmic wells of primordial divine magic that gods themselves tap into. Gods only have access to a few domains each.
Where did you get that? It certainly isn't written anywhere in the 2014 rules that I can see, and while it's an interesting cosmological interpretation of the 2014 rules, it's by no means the only one, and certainly not the most intuitive one. Here is a, in my opinion, much more intuitive and straightforward interpretation, paraphrased from Forgotten Realms Wiki:
Domains are specific areas of interest for deities, particularly to do with the magic and spells granted to their faithful. A deity can have as many or as few domains as it pleases.
Exactly. Domains are the specific areas of interest for dieties. Particularly to do with the magic and spells granted to their faithful.
AKA a god with the War domain grants the magic and spells of the War domain to their faithful. Not some other magic and spells from a domain they don't have.
"A deity can have as many or as few domains as it pleases". Meaning: a deity can have any and all domains.
Can. But... don't. And it has never been up to the player which domains the gods have.
According to whom? That's written nowhere. As has been demonstrated prodigiously in this thread, that's just your favorite interpretation of the rules, and has nothing to do with RAW.
According to whom? That's written nowhere. As has been demonstrated prodigiously in this thread, that's just your favorite interpretation of the rules, and has nothing to do with RAW.
If you ignore all the rules about the gods and their listed domains.
Just read the book. It lists their domains.
Also, we're talking about lore. Why are you shifting goalposts to RAW? Rules=/=Lore. They can have efects on each other. But I'm not arguing about the rules per se. My concern has been the lore.
And what's crazy is that this is the first edition where what domains a god has or doesn't have is somehow in the hands of a player, not the dm. That's the implication of this change.
A player can overrule the DM now on which domains a god has. That's nuts.
According to whom? That's written nowhere. As has been demonstrated prodigiously in this thread, that's just your favorite interpretation of the rules, and has nothing to do with RAW.
If you ignore all the rules about the gods and their listed domains.
Just read the book. It lists their domains.
Also, we're talking about lore. Why are you shifting goalposts to RAW? Rules=/=Lore. They can have efects on each other. But I'm not arguing about the rules per se. My concern has been the lore.
And what's crazy is that this is the first edition where what domains a god has or doesn't have is somehow in the hands of a player, not the dm. That's the implication of this change.
I don't know what the fundamental difference between DnD rules and lore is in your mind - and it seems like you don't really either since you wrote this: "we're talking about lore" straight after this: "if you ignore all the rules about the gods..."
But in the end, that difference is immaterial. You're running in circles. See post #56. The domain assignments listed in the rule books are suggestions and thus neither prescribed rules nor immutable lore.
A player can overrule the DM now on which domains a god has. That's nuts.
LOL, what??? You play in games where players can overrule the DM?? I agree: that's nuts.
According to whom? That's written nowhere. As has been demonstrated prodigiously in this thread, that's just your favorite interpretation of the rules, and has nothing to do with RAW.
If you ignore all the rules about the gods and their listed domains.
Just read the book. It lists their domains.
Also, we're talking about lore. Why are you shifting goalposts to RAW? Rules=/=Lore. They can have efects on each other. But I'm not arguing about the rules per se. My concern has been the lore.
And what's crazy is that this is the first edition where what domains a god has or doesn't have is somehow in the hands of a player, not the dm. That's the implication of this change.
I don't know what the fundamental difference between DnD rules and lore is in your mind - and it seems like you don't really either since you wrote this: "we're talking about lore" straight after this: "if you ignore all the rules about the gods..."
But in the end, that difference is immaterial. You're running in circles. See post #56. The domain assignments listed in the rule books are suggestions and thus neither prescribed rules nor immutable lore.
A player can overrule the DM now on which domains a god has. That's nuts.
LOL, what??? You play in games where players can overrule the DM?? I agree: that's nuts.
That's been the whole issue this entire time and you're finally realizing what my issue is. Welcome to the convo.
Yeah. The DM has historically been in charge of what domains a god has, if they want to deviate from the book recommendations.
Now? In 2024 cleric rules?
The player gets to pick whatever domain they want their god to give them regardless if that god even has it.
This has been the issue I've been talking about the whole time.
You. You have been arguing that it isn't a problem because gods can have all domains. Aka taking the side that of course the player can pick any domain and overrule their dm. Is your position different now?
Firstly, I've made it quite clear already that I regard nothing done in the course of a decadal, fundamental rules overhaul as a ninja edit. The entire point of such a rules overhaul is to make deep, fundamental changes. The 2024 edition contains plenty of such, all of which your definition would label as ninja edits, simply because they don't come in a bloated annotated version that labels every change with the details of the what, how, when, where, and why. If that's what you want to do - go ahead, you do you. It just doesn't seem a particularly useful approach to me.
Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "hidden in a subtle wording change".
2014 Cleric:
2024 Cleric:
That's a complete and obvious restructuring from how domains used work, to how specializations/subclasses now work instead, in levels, functionality, and lore concept. There is nothing subtle or hidden about it - they didn't just stealthily swap a couple of words out as you are insinuating.
Lastly, I am curious whether you are actually in favor of, or against opening up domains across all gods, because you seem to be flipflopping all over the place in this regard?
Please note that what you just quoted disagrees with you, and instead describes exactly what I discussed.
I'm probably laughing.
I'm not sure how you're not getting it. They changed deep lore. Lore. About the gods and the structure of the cosmos.
And they did it by changing a class mechanic for subclass selection. And it isn't immediately obvious they even did it.
If you'll note, lots of people weren't sure when I originally asked if it was A. Plan ahead or B. Pick Whatever.
The fact they changed to it Pick Whatever no limits. Wasn't super obvious until I went back and combed through it carefully. No one here even brought it up. Because it was subtle.
So yes. That, is a ninja edit. Changing something mechanical in one place that had DEEP and PROFOUND lore consequences elsewhere? Ninja edit.
It just is.
And most changes aren't that. Some are. Yes. Rarely do they rise to this degree of fundamental cosmologically profound. But most changes aren't even lore impacting at all.
Also, fun fact: Many times when they are lore impacting. At least, in previous editions... they did account for the changes having lore reasons for those changes. Especially when it rose to this level of cosmologically important shifts.
Removing a phrase that had a requirement is subtle. No one here spotted it. Again. I only spitted it after going back and very carefully comparing the two. You didn't. No one else did. I caught it.
So I get to call it subtle if I want. As the one who eventually noticed.
If you had caught it first you could rave about how easily spottable it was all you like. But you didn't. So.
I haven't flip flopped at all. I'm in favor of opening all class options and eliminating lore-linked restrictions as a general rule. Want a cleric to kick butt and worship a life god? Hells yeah.
The game is meant to be a framework that works in a multitude of universes and even with homebrew worlds. Opening options like that is good game design.
I'm ALSO a fan of lore not being retconned with ninja edits. Both things are true. Simultaneously.
A better design would have been to remove the subclasses from being associated with domains. So you can be a warrior-subclass cleric not a war domain subclass cleric. Keep all the abilities or whatever the same. Great. But remove the domain-link.
Now you can cleanly fit this warrior-priest character concept into any world. It doesn't only have to be someone who worships a god that has the war domain.
But that's not what they did. They stripped the need for your god to have the domain that you pick, instead. This has profound cosmology implications. Whoops.
I'm probably laughing.
LOL - I'm not sure how you're not getting it: The entire point of a fundamental rules overhaul is to make deep, fundamental changes. Like changing deep lore. Lore.
Look, we can disagree on that point all day long. As I said before: you do you. Insinuating that I am a moron because I disagree with you is childish, hostile, and unnecessary.
Nonsense. HarmAssassin spotted it right away - see post #5. Jurmondur spotted it right away - see post #7. AnzioFaro spotted it right away - see posts #8 and #12.
LOL - your language is seriously slipping into childish petulance. You have no idea when I spotted it - full disclosure: I have known about it for about 4 months because at that time I built a 2024 Cleric that I am now playing in a new campaign. Your clue to my awareness would be my first post on this thread, where I make it clear that I don't regard this as a subtle ninja edit at all.
So what would be the point of domains in your proposed design?
It has exactly the implications that your DM wants it to have. Cosmology is worldbuilding stuff. I can't think of a single reason a DM would now say: "oh no, this lore change completely breaks my world - oh well, let's scrap this campaign, since I am clearly bound by the suggested cosmology in this new rule book..."
Where did you get that? It certainly isn't written anywhere in the 2014 rules that I can see, and while it's an interesting cosmological interpretation of the 2014 rules, it's by no means the only one, and certainly not the most intuitive one. Here is a, in my opinion, much more intuitive and straightforward interpretation, paraphrased from Forgotten Realms Wiki:
Domains are specific areas of interest for deities, particularly to do with the magic and spells granted to their faithful. A deity can have as many or as few domains as it pleases.
Please note that I was doing your work for you, you're welcome. Please also note that I refuted it in the same post to save us all time.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
You could be Planetouched.
Clerics don't need to be in service to a god to draw power from The Outer Planes.
Play an Atheist Cleric.
That way, the deity or deities that grant you power are doing so in an effort to make a believer out of you. And if they are angling for your belief & devotion, I doubt they'll be overly particular about which domain you choose. Maybe you're being courted by the God of War, but you only cast Life Domain healing spells. Maybe there's a God of Ignorance, and you choose Knowledge Domain. Maybe there's a God of Calm, Clear Weather, but you choose Tempest Domain.
Anyway. It can be anything you want. For any reason you want. If you want it to be some obscure, obtuse kind of narrative logic problem... then it can be that, too.
Exactly. Domains are the specific areas of interest for dieties. Particularly to do with the magic and spells granted to their faithful.
AKA a god with the War domain grants the magic and spells of the War domain to their faithful. Not some other magic and spells from a domain they don't have.
I'm probably laughing.
What "work" of mine are you doing?
Alls I'm saying is the quote here point for point reiterates everything I'm saying.
Can a DM change the gods? Change their portfolio? Give them domains they don't have by default?
Yes of course. DMs change stuff like that all the time. But the story you and your DM tell at your table isn't "the lore of the game itself" it is your version of that lore.
The game's lore was changed. On a fundamental level. And whether or not your table adopts that change is irrelevant to the fact the change happened.
I'm probably laughing.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
1. The quote that agrees with me, yes, you quoted it.
2. There are. You can find them in the books, it tells you what their domains are. Can a DM change this? Yes. They always could. But, now... apparently, so can a player.
I'm probably laughing.
We are beginning to go in circles. I explained how the quote doesn't really agree with you in that very post. Additionally, others have already pointed out that the domains in the books are only suggestions. Even ignoring that, you are not required to choose one of the listed gods.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
"A deity can have as many or as few domains as it pleases". Meaning: a deity can have any and all domains.
That's just wrong. To enforce what Jurmondur and several others have pointed out repeatedly, the domains listed in the 2014 books are not default rules that a DM needs to override via house rules. They are clearly labeled as suggestions, meaning they can be used as a strict list, as a resource for ideas, ignored completely, etc. at will.
I.e.: The assignment of specific domains to specific gods isn't deep fundamental lore of the game itself. Neither in the 2014 rules, nor in the 2024 rules.
Can. But... don't. And it has never been up to the player which domains the gods have.
That's very new to 2024.
I'm probably laughing.
According to whom? That's written nowhere. As has been demonstrated prodigiously in this thread, that's just your favorite interpretation of the rules, and has nothing to do with RAW.
If you ignore all the rules about the gods and their listed domains.
Just read the book. It lists their domains.
Also, we're talking about lore. Why are you shifting goalposts to RAW? Rules=/=Lore. They can have efects on each other. But I'm not arguing about the rules per se. My concern has been the lore.
And what's crazy is that this is the first edition where what domains a god has or doesn't have is somehow in the hands of a player, not the dm. That's the implication of this change.
A player can overrule the DM now on which domains a god has. That's nuts.
I'm probably laughing.
I don't know what the fundamental difference between DnD rules and lore is in your mind - and it seems like you don't really either since you wrote this: "we're talking about lore" straight after this: "if you ignore all the rules about the gods..."
But in the end, that difference is immaterial. You're running in circles. See post #56. The domain assignments listed in the rule books are suggestions and thus neither prescribed rules nor immutable lore.
LOL, what??? You play in games where players can overrule the DM?? I agree: that's nuts.
That's been the whole issue this entire time and you're finally realizing what my issue is. Welcome to the convo.
Yeah. The DM has historically been in charge of what domains a god has, if they want to deviate from the book recommendations.
Now? In 2024 cleric rules?
The player gets to pick whatever domain they want their god to give them regardless if that god even has it.
This has been the issue I've been talking about the whole time.
You. You have been arguing that it isn't a problem because gods can have all domains. Aka taking the side that of course the player can pick any domain and overrule their dm. Is your position different now?
I'm probably laughing.