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?
Wow. Seriously? No. Do you play in any games where the players just pick which ones of the rules that their DM sets they follow, and which ones they ignore? Are you claiming that this one rule is somehow different from any of the other rules of the game??? If the DM says: "In this game, there won't be any elves.", do you say: "Well, the rule book allows elves, so I'm playing one anyways!"
The rules allow any god to have any domain. In 2014 and in 2024. If the DM chooses to set specific limits, then the players need to adhere to these limits, or find a different game. In 2014 and in 2024.
There is one thing for the DM to adjust the gods to his taste. That's technically RAW.
But it is another for the RAW to tell the PLAYER he can pick whatever domain he wants irregardless of what the God he serves has access to. In effect it becomes RAW for the player to pick the God's domain.
Can a DM veto that? Sure. But you're technically going into homebrew if you do.
That is a WILD departure from how this has been handled in all prior editions of the game.
There is one thing for the DM to adjust the gods to his taste. That's technically RAW.
But it is another for the RAW to tell the PLAYER he can pick whatever domain he wants irregardless of what the God he serves has access to. In effect it becomes RAW for the player to pick the God's domain.
Can a DM veto that? Sure. But you're technically going into homebrew if you do.
That is a WILD departure from how this has been handled in all prior editions of the game.
Listen to yourself. "...irregardless of what the god ... has access to." They're gods. None of the domains are so specific that a god can't access them.
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?"
There is one thing for the DM to adjust the gods to his taste. That's technically RAW.
But it is another for the RAW to tell the PLAYER he can pick whatever domain he wants...
No, it's not. For the umpteenth time: The RAW allow any god to have any domain, in 2014 and in 2024. The player picking whatever domain they want or the DM setting specific limits on those domains are both perfectly valid options for proceeding under these rules.
...irregardless of what the God he serves has access to...
Jurmondur said it quite well already, but to repeat it even more bluntly: you are talking as if these are real creatures with real traits and limitations that exist independently from DM and player choices. Which is obviously nonsense: we are talking about imaginary creatures called D&D gods that have access to a list of imaginary areas of interest called domains. Per RAW, these domains can be distributed among the gods at will.
it becomes RAW for the player to pick the God's domain.
Can a DM veto that? Sure. But you're technically going into homebrew if you do.
So? Every single limit any DM sets around the myriad options available in the RAW is technically homebrew. In the sense you're applying the term homebrew here, every single campaign is riddled with homebrew, starting from the simple act of choosing i.e. limiting the player options to a specific technological, geographical, biological, mythological, and social setting. Nothing here is a WILD departure from anything.
So? Every single limit any DM sets around the myriad options available in the RAW is technically homebrew. In the sense you're applying the term homebrew here, every single campaign is riddled with homebrew, starting from the simple act of choosing i.e. limiting the player options to a specific technological, geographical, biological, mythological, and social setting. Nothing here is a WILD departure from anything.
That's just false. Limiting content is not what homebrew is. Not even remotely. Again wildly incorrect.
The rules explicitly allow the DM to do that.
Homebrew is when you edit how the rules work or just make stuff up whole cloth that aren't included.
Just saying "No splatbooks" isn't what homebrew means.
Cool. Then by your now changed definition of homebrew, a DM limiting specific domains to specific gods isn't homebrew. Gods are setting-specific content. In 2014 and in 2024.
2014 rules told the cleric player to pick a domain associated with their god.
2024 rules tell the cleric player to just pick a domain.
2014 rules told the cleric player to pick a domain associated with their god. Any domain could be associated with any god, subject to potential limitations set by the DM.
2024 rules tell the cleric player to just pick a domain. Any domain can be associated with any god, subject to potential limitations set by the DM.
The ramifications on the cosmology are unchanged between 2014 and 2024.
Cool. Then by your now changed definition of homebrew, a DM limiting specific domains to specific gods isn't homebrew. Gods are setting-specific content. In 2014 and in 2024.
You can't have it both ways.
What are you even arguing about? Do you know?
DMs have always been able to do that.
What's different is that the player in 2024 can pick a different domain anyway. Regardless what the DM says about it. The DM would have to resort to homebrew to stop them.
Because the rules were changed in the 2024 players handbook.
2014 rules told the cleric player to pick a domain associated with their god.
2024 rules tell the cleric player to just pick a domain.
2014 rules told the cleric player to pick a domain associated with their god. Any domain could be associated with any god, subject to potential limitations set by the DM.
No the gods had domains associated with them by default.
Those could be adjusted by a dm at discretion. But they had default domains.
The setting also has lore beyond which any particular dm has sway over.
2024 rules tell the cleric player to just pick a domain. Any domain can be associated with any god, subject to potential limitations set by the DM.
The player now decided which domain their god gives them access to, not the DM.
The domain limit was removed in 2024 rules. Plain as day.
2014: domain had to be associated with your god, a process the DM was in charge of.
2024: pick any domain you want for your god to give you. (Skips the "associated with god" step that DMs managed)
The ramifications on the cosmology are unchanged between 2014 and 2024.
LOL. Yeah, I do. But it appears you don't. This is going in circles. You keep resorting to the claim that a suggestion amounts to a default rule. It just doesn't. End of story.
LOL. Yeah, I do. But it appears you don't. This is going in circles. You keep resorting to the claim that a suggestion amounts to a default rule. It just doesn't. End of story.
Default lore. And, yes, it is. The lore exists outside your particular table. Believe it or not.
LOL. Yeah, I do. But it appears you don't. This is going in circles. You keep resorting to the claim that a suggestion amounts to a default rule. It just doesn't. End of story.
Default lore. And, yes, it is. The lore exists outside your particular table. Believe it or not.
Hilarious. Yes, the suggestion exists outside my particular table. That doesn't magically turn it into anything more than a suggestion. Believe it or not.
LOL. Yeah, I do. But it appears you don't. This is going in circles. You keep resorting to the claim that a suggestion amounts to a default rule. It just doesn't. End of story.
Default lore. And, yes, it is. The lore exists outside your particular table. Believe it or not.
Hilarious. Yes, the suggestion exists outside my particular table. That doesn't magically turn it into anything more than a suggestion. Believe it or not.
I think what everyone else has been trying to point out is that LORE does not mean RULES. Just because the lore says one thing does not mean that the game rules must follow suit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wow. Seriously? No. Do you play in any games where the players just pick which ones of the rules that their DM sets they follow, and which ones they ignore? Are you claiming that this one rule is somehow different from any of the other rules of the game??? If the DM says: "In this game, there won't be any elves.", do you say: "Well, the rule book allows elves, so I'm playing one anyways!"
The rules allow any god to have any domain. In 2014 and in 2024. If the DM chooses to set specific limits, then the players need to adhere to these limits, or find a different game. In 2014 and in 2024.
I'm not sure how you're ignoring the distinction.
There is one thing for the DM to adjust the gods to his taste. That's technically RAW.
But it is another for the RAW to tell the PLAYER he can pick whatever domain he wants irregardless of what the God he serves has access to. In effect it becomes RAW for the player to pick the God's domain.
Can a DM veto that? Sure. But you're technically going into homebrew if you do.
That is a WILD departure from how this has been handled in all prior editions of the game.
I'm probably laughing.
Listen to yourself. "...irregardless of what the god ... has access to." They're gods. None of the domains are so specific that a god can't access them.
Homebrew spell: dominance
Extended signature
No, it's not. For the umpteenth time: The RAW allow any god to have any domain, in 2014 and in 2024. The player picking whatever domain they want or the DM setting specific limits on those domains are both perfectly valid options for proceeding under these rules.
Jurmondur said it quite well already, but to repeat it even more bluntly: you are talking as if these are real creatures with real traits and limitations that exist independently from DM and player choices. Which is obviously nonsense: we are talking about imaginary creatures called D&D gods that have access to a list of imaginary areas of interest called domains. Per RAW, these domains can be distributed among the gods at will.
So? Every single limit any DM sets around the myriad options available in the RAW is technically homebrew. In the sense you're applying the term homebrew here, every single campaign is riddled with homebrew, starting from the simple act of choosing i.e. limiting the player options to a specific technological, geographical, biological, mythological, and social setting. Nothing here is a WILD departure from anything.
Gods have established lore whether you care to acknowledge that or not. Idk how to help you, that's just true.
I'm probably laughing.
That's just false. Limiting content is not what homebrew is. Not even remotely. Again wildly incorrect.
The rules explicitly allow the DM to do that.
Homebrew is when you edit how the rules work or just make stuff up whole cloth that aren't included.
Just saying "No splatbooks" isn't what homebrew means.
I'm probably laughing.
For the umpteenth time:
2014 rules told the cleric player to pick a domain associated with their god.
2024 rules tell the cleric player to just pick a domain.
You're welcome to ignore that change but you're not going to convince me that it wasn't changed.
They slipped this change in there and the ramifications it has on the cosmology is nuts.
I'm probably laughing.
They have no established lore that limits their access to specific domains, whether you care to acknowledge that or not.
Cool. Then by your now changed definition of homebrew, a DM limiting specific domains to specific gods isn't homebrew. Gods are setting-specific content. In 2014 and in 2024.
You can't have it both ways.
2014 rules told the cleric player to pick a domain associated with their god. Any domain could be associated with any god, subject to potential limitations set by the DM.
2024 rules tell the cleric player to just pick a domain. Any domain can be associated with any god, subject to potential limitations set by the DM.
The ramifications on the cosmology are unchanged between 2014 and 2024.
What are you even arguing about? Do you know?
DMs have always been able to do that.
What's different is that the player in 2024 can pick a different domain anyway. Regardless what the DM says about it. The DM would have to resort to homebrew to stop them.
Because the rules were changed in the 2024 players handbook.
I'm probably laughing.
No the gods had domains associated with them by default.
Those could be adjusted by a dm at discretion. But they had default domains.
The setting also has lore beyond which any particular dm has sway over.
The player now decided which domain their god gives them access to, not the DM.
The domain limit was removed in 2024 rules. Plain as day.
2014: domain had to be associated with your god, a process the DM was in charge of.
2024: pick any domain you want for your god to give you. (Skips the "associated with god" step that DMs managed)
Naw.
I'm probably laughing.
LOL. Yeah, I do. But it appears you don't. This is going in circles. You keep resorting to the claim that a suggestion amounts to a default rule. It just doesn't. End of story.
Don't you realize what nonsense you are writing here?
Default lore. And, yes, it is. The lore exists outside your particular table. Believe it or not.
I'm probably laughing.
I have come to the conclusion you don't understand, yes.
I'm probably laughing.
Hilarious. Yes, the suggestion exists outside my particular table. That doesn't magically turn it into anything more than a suggestion. Believe it or not.
🤣
The lore exists outside your table. The lore.
I'm probably laughing.
I think what everyone else has been trying to point out is that LORE does not mean RULES. Just because the lore says one thing does not mean that the game rules must follow suit.