Keep in mind that I don't particularly care about the specific rule we're talking about here.
Dude, we've already wasted two entire pages going in circles about this total non-issue; improving the levelled spellcasting limit rules is entirely legitimate to this thread about what rules should be improved in OneD&D, your accusing everybody of lying about their own experience of the rule is off-topic, borderline abuse and verging on harassment at this point.
Please just drop it and move on FFS, you're not changing anybody's minds, nor are you likely to do so, and it's just derailing the thread.
Here's another thought: Should One D&D just get rid of Electrum? I have never received a single piece of electrum in any game I've ever played... I've never seen someone collect electrum in any actual play video or podcast... any time I've played an adventure that gave out Electrum I just converted it to gold for the sake of my players.
I've had electrum come up once or twice, but yeah like Xalthu we just converted it to gold pieces to reduce confusion, so I wouldn't miss it if it were gone. Players make enough mistakes with platinum/gold/silver/copper and those are nice easy multiples of 10. Plus when it comes to basic currency it's easier to just assume that the denominations don't matter unless you're tracking coin weight (and even then…), as it should be easy to trade them as required.
A DM can still introduce conversion issues by awarding gems that need to be appraised and haggled for, or foreign currency if you're an a strange land waving around coins nobody wants.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Dude, we've already wasted two entire pages going in circles about this total non-issue; improving the levelled spellcasting limit rules is entirely legitimate to this thread about what rules should be improved in OneD&D, your accusing everybody of lying about their own experience of the rule is off-topic, borderline abuse and verging on harassment at this point.
Please just drop it and move on FFS, you're not changing anybody's minds, nor are you likely to do so, and it's just derailing the thread.
May I ask why you claim to know what the purpose of this thread is better than the person who made it... Particularly when the person who started this thread is the one arguing about this just as much? (In fact, the whole discussion on that specific rule would have been over two pages earlier if panta wasn't constantly moving the goalposts on why it supposedly counts as 'confusing').
And for the record, I'm not 'accusing everybody' of lying. I'm pointing out that some of the people (not specifically in this thread) who claim to be confused about certain rules are trying to cover up they were knowingly cheating and some of the people who are genuinely confused about certain rules are confused mainly because they never read the rule itself and are confused by the fact that they were told different things by different people about how the rules work and they don't know who was right.
Or, to put it more directly: For a lot of rules, the confusion (and cheating masquerading as confusion) isn't caused by how the rule is written, but by (incorrect) interpretations of the rules getting spread by word of mouth and it doesn't become 'confusing' until it turns out the RAW doesn't say what people think it does. Rewriting the rules isn't going to fix that, because the confusion doesn't come from what the rule itself actually says, but from what people say about the rule.
May I ask why you claim to know what the purpose of this thread is better than the person who made it... Particularly when the person who started this thread is the one arguing about this just as much? (In fact, the whole discussion on that specific rule would have been over two pages earlier if panta wasn't constantly moving the goalposts on why it supposedly counts as 'confusing').
It counts as confusing because real people appear to get confused about it. How exactly is that moving the goalposts?
Here's another thought: Should One D&D just get rid of Electrum? I have never received a single piece of electrum in any game I've ever played... I've never seen someone collect electrum in any actual play video or podcast... any time I've played an adventure that gave out Electrum I just converted it to gold for the sake of my players.
*shrug* It depends. Back when I started, the British 'pound/shilling/pence/whatever' nonsense was still valid. Heck, I still have a guinea piece or two stashed away in a 'safe' place (read: I can't remember where they are, and don't care enough to go looking.) I tend to use electrum as an indicator of *really* old coinage, since in the Real World, electrum fell out of use as a coin metal in around 350 BC. But then, in the campaign world I usually run, different lands use different denominations and my players seem to like the 'realism' of currencies not being fully universal so your millage may vary.
I can understand taking Electrum out of the PHB though, and putting some stuff around 'old weird coins' in the DMG. I have vague memories of other editions of the DMG having stuff around that kind of thing.
Here's another thought: Should One D&D just get rid of Electrum? I have never received a single piece of electrum in any game I've ever played... I've never seen someone collect electrum in any actual play video or podcast... any time I've played an adventure that gave out Electrum I just converted it to gold for the sake of my players.
My table's actually found electrum to be super useful in DDB for tracking alternative currency such as credits or voucher juice in games where there's a coin standard other than gold. Until DDB allows us to track custom coinages I'd like to keep electrum, though admittedly that's a failing of the tool rather than the system.
Here's another thought: Should One D&D just get rid of Electrum? I have never received a single piece of electrum in any game I've ever played... I've never seen someone collect electrum in any actual play video or podcast... any time I've played an adventure that gave out Electrum I just converted it to gold for the sake of my players.
My table's actually found electrum to be super useful in DDB for tracking alternative currency such as credits or voucher juice in games where there's a coin standard other than gold. Until DDB allows us to track custom coinages I'd like to keep electrum, though admittedly that's a failing of the tool rather than the system.
Yeah, that sounds a lot more like "DDB needs to make a simple fix" rather than "Electrum is a good and functional type of coinage that is not confusing or annoying at all".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
There's no real need for coinage types at all, just list net value. The only real purpose of copper coins is to annoy the PCs in a game where weight is being tracked.
May I ask why you claim to know what the purpose of this thread is better than the person who made it... Particularly when the person who started this thread is the one arguing about this just as much? (In fact, the whole discussion on that specific rule would have been over two pages earlier if panta wasn't constantly moving the goalposts on why it supposedly counts as 'confusing').
It counts as confusing because real people appear to get confused about it. How exactly is that moving the goalposts?
I have to be careful how I say this so my post doesn’t get removed, but I’ve posted the rule and no one who has read it has said they where confused by it.
they need to clarify the way that domains work when a pantheon is not structured around a deity being a god of something.
I asked about it in a different thread, and the few responses have all been either “change your gods” or “that isn’t possible, how can you not have gods of something”. I was wondering how it is handled, but what has arisen is that the game has actively begun to limit the way that people can structure their deities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The domains give examples of deities at least for FR, that I remember. If you are homebrewing deities you can structure it however you want.
In the game I’m in, if a player wants to play a certain domain and the DM doesn’t have a dirty for it in his setting the player works with them to create one or choose one he does have that could fit. Personally I can see most domains being covered by most deities in some way. I don’t view them as so monolithic that we can’t make something work.
they need to clarify the way that domains work when a pantheon is not structured around a deity being a god of something.
I asked about it in a different thread, and the few responses have all been either “change your gods” or “that isn’t possible, how can you not have gods of something”. I was wondering how it is handled, but what has arisen is that the game has actively begun to limit the way that people can structure their deities.
How is this any different than monotheistic religions? Or D&D gods with multiple portfolios? The cleric is a supporter of a particular aspect of that god.
May I ask why you claim to know what the purpose of this thread is better than the person who made it... Particularly when the person who started this thread is the one arguing about this just as much? (In fact, the whole discussion on that specific rule would have been over two pages earlier if panta wasn't constantly moving the goalposts on why it supposedly counts as 'confusing').
It counts as confusing because real people appear to get confused about it. How exactly is that moving the goalposts?
I have to be careful how I say this so my post doesn’t get removed, but I’ve posted the rule and no one who has read it has said they where confused by it.
Everyone believes they understand it, it's other people that are confused. Since Group 1 & Group 2 disagree about the rule, one side is confused.
May I ask why you claim to know what the purpose of this thread is better than the person who made it... Particularly when the person who started this thread is the one arguing about this just as much? (In fact, the whole discussion on that specific rule would have been over two pages earlier if panta wasn't constantly moving the goalposts on why it supposedly counts as 'confusing').
It counts as confusing because real people appear to get confused about it. How exactly is that moving the goalposts?
I have to be careful how I say this so my post doesn’t get removed, but I’ve posted the rule and no one who has read it has said they where confused by it.
Everyone believes they understand it, it's other people that are confused. Since Group 1 & Group 2 disagree about the rule, one side is confused.
And it depends on how it was posted. Was it just the rule and asked if anyone is confused? Were they asked to describe how it works, in their own words? I’m sure someone could say it’s not confusing but when asked give a description, they give a description that is not correct, like posters on this thread and many others have done.
they need to clarify the way that domains work when a pantheon is not structured around a deity being a god of something.
I asked about it in a different thread, and the few responses have all been either “change your gods” or “that isn’t possible, how can you not have gods of something”. I was wondering how it is handled, but what has arisen is that the game has actively begun to limit the way that people can structure their deities.
Why? If you are using HB gods then it is up to you to determine how they fit with the different domains. You can do this any number of ways, e.g. let's take an extreme example of a HB campaign where we all play as Kuo Toa, and our tribe believe in the divinity of the great Mobimobopotopol - a figure head griffon from a ship that was blasted off and ended up tangled in a pirate flag. So it is a monotheistic diety that has an eagle's face, lion's paws, and wears a black cloak.
War domain - they believe the claws and beak of Mobimobopotopol are weapons of a warrior and they are called to train to be as fierce as Mobimobopotopol themselves.
Life domain - they believe the Mobimobopotopol was given new life after the ship it came from was destroyed, and they are called to learn to heal and restore others so that all can have a second chance at life like Mobimobopotopol
Nature - they believe the eagle and lion are symbols of the diversity of nature above the surface and they are called on to protect the nature below the wave just as Mobimobopotopol was a guardian of the nature above it.
Tempest - they believe Mobimobopotopol was created in the a storm that struck a ship, and are called to be agents of that storm.
May I ask why you claim to know what the purpose of this thread is better than the person who made it... Particularly when the person who started this thread is the one arguing about this just as much? (In fact, the whole discussion on that specific rule would have been over two pages earlier if panta wasn't constantly moving the goalposts on why it supposedly counts as 'confusing').
It counts as confusing because real people appear to get confused about it. How exactly is that moving the goalposts?
I have to be careful how I say this so my post doesn’t get removed, but I’ve posted the rule and no one who has read it has said they where confused by it.
In this very thread people read that rule differently when posted. They may not say they are confused but there is confusion on the rule if people are reading it differently.
they need to clarify the way that domains work when a pantheon is not structured around a deity being a god of something.
I asked about it in a different thread, and the few responses have all been either “change your gods” or “that isn’t possible, how can you not have gods of something”. I was wondering how it is handled, but what has arisen is that the game has actively begun to limit the way that people can structure their deities.
There are a couple answers to that and yes I said something similar in another thread that the rules should explain the concepts of where the powers come from it was for paladins as just saying its a oath leads to weird ideas of how magic works in a setting, like can anyone just will themselves into magic power etc. And then it should explain how it can be changed for your settings that what is written is just a default, while yeah the can be changed is a basic rule, reemphasizing it in areas helps people. In your case there are two core ways id handle it, 1 I'd just disallow some domains and say those domains do not fit in my setting. I have disallowed dwarves, elves, halflings, humans, all the expanded species various classes, feats, subclasses or equivalents for earlier editions across the years of playing. Settings can cut things and they don't need to change for the whims of a player. The other easy way is to say any domain not explicitly under a god is a general domain and under any god of an appropriate alignment.
they need to clarify the way that domains work when a pantheon is not structured around a deity being a god of something.
I asked about it in a different thread, and the few responses have all been either “change your gods” or “that isn’t possible, how can you not have gods of something”. I was wondering how it is handled, but what has arisen is that the game has actively begun to limit the way that people can structure their deities.
There are a couple answers to that and yes I said something similar in another thread that the rules should explain the concepts of where the powers come from it was for paladins as just saying its a oath leads to weird ideas of how magic works in a setting, like can anyone just will themselves into magic power etc. And then it should explain how it can be changed for your settings that what is written is just a default, while yeah the can be changed is a basic rule, reemphasizing it in areas helps people. In your case there are two core ways id handle it, 1 I'd just disallow some domains and say those domains do not fit in my setting. I have disallowed dwarves, elves, halflings, humans, all the expanded species various classes, feats, subclasses or equivalents for earlier editions across the years of playing. Settings can cut things and they don't need to change for the whims of a player. The other easy way is to say any domain not explicitly under a god is a general domain and under any god of an appropriate alignment.
Oaths and Vows are binding magic (the binding is done by magic itself) in my setting, which is how it works for the paladins in my setting (who are closer to the crusader knight archetype).
Technically, none of the domains fit the setting, because the domains are drawn from the core idea of the gods being a pantheon of gods of something. I did get some decent responses finally, lol. I mean, also technically All the classes don’t, but this wasn’t about my penchant for rewriting systems, this was about getting the system to work for the strange new format.
my situation is trickier, as well, since my alignments are way more complex and do not include evil, good, chaos, and order, lol. But even ignoring that, there is no general god, or more precisely they are all general gods, and their alignments in the broader sense would all be true neutral. Maybe mostly neutral good with some neutral evil and one chaotic evil that does some good stuff.
the point for this thread, though, is that they don’t allow for creativity of DMs who are trying to structure a new way for gods to exist — and yet the game as a whole used to do that. The domains system as the subclasses creates an intensely powerful motivation for most to just “go with the flow” and not make something that is different, thus homogenizing the game further instead of encouraging distinct creations.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
they need to clarify the way that domains work when a pantheon is not structured around a deity being a god of something.
I asked about it in a different thread, and the few responses have all been either “change your gods” or “that isn’t possible, how can you not have gods of something”. I was wondering how it is handled, but what has arisen is that the game has actively begun to limit the way that people can structure their deities.
There are a couple answers to that and yes I said something similar in another thread that the rules should explain the concepts of where the powers come from it was for paladins as just saying its a oath leads to weird ideas of how magic works in a setting, like can anyone just will themselves into magic power etc. And then it should explain how it can be changed for your settings that what is written is just a default, while yeah the can be changed is a basic rule, reemphasizing it in areas helps people. In your case there are two core ways id handle it, 1 I'd just disallow some domains and say those domains do not fit in my setting. I have disallowed dwarves, elves, halflings, humans, all the expanded species various classes, feats, subclasses or equivalents for earlier editions across the years of playing. Settings can cut things and they don't need to change for the whims of a player. The other easy way is to say any domain not explicitly under a god is a general domain and under any god of an appropriate alignment.
Oaths and Vows are binding magic (the binding is done by magic itself) in my setting, which is how it works for the paladins in my setting (who are closer to the crusader knight archetype).
Technically, none of the domains fit the setting, because the domains are drawn from the core idea of the gods being a pantheon of gods of something. I did get some decent responses finally, lol. I mean, also technically All the classes don’t, but this wasn’t about my penchant for rewriting systems, this was about getting the system to work for the strange new format.
my situation is trickier, as well, since my alignments are way more complex and do not include evil, good, chaos, and order, lol. But even ignoring that, there is no general god, or more precisely they are all general gods, and their alignments in the broader sense would all be true neutral. Maybe mostly neutral good with some neutral evil and one chaotic evil that does some good stuff.
the point for this thread, though, is that they don’t allow for creativity of DMs who are trying to structure a new way for gods to exist — and yet the game as a whole used to do that. The domains system as the subclasses creates an intensely powerful motivation for most to just “go with the flow” and not make something that is different, thus homogenizing the game further instead of encouraging distinct creations.
Sometimes none of the sub classes work so it will require a bunch more work, but yeah it would be nice if the pieces were easier to build with for vary different settings. I'm lazy so I'd just rename domains something like spiritual focus in your example. Treat it more like how a wizard specializes in concept. I'm glad you got some more help where you were asking.
they need to clarify the way that domains work when a pantheon is not structured around a deity being a god of something.
I asked about it in a different thread, and the few responses have all been either “change your gods” or “that isn’t possible, how can you not have gods of something”. I was wondering how it is handled, but what has arisen is that the game has actively begun to limit the way that people can structure their deities.
There are a couple answers to that and yes I said something similar in another thread that the rules should explain the concepts of where the powers come from it was for paladins as just saying its a oath leads to weird ideas of how magic works in a setting, like can anyone just will themselves into magic power etc. And then it should explain how it can be changed for your settings that what is written is just a default, while yeah the can be changed is a basic rule, reemphasizing it in areas helps people. In your case there are two core ways id handle it, 1 I'd just disallow some domains and say those domains do not fit in my setting. I have disallowed dwarves, elves, halflings, humans, all the expanded species various classes, feats, subclasses or equivalents for earlier editions across the years of playing. Settings can cut things and they don't need to change for the whims of a player. The other easy way is to say any domain not explicitly under a god is a general domain and under any god of an appropriate alignment.
Oaths and Vows are binding magic (the binding is done by magic itself) in my setting, which is how it works for the paladins in my setting (who are closer to the crusader knight archetype).
Technically, none of the domains fit the setting, because the domains are drawn from the core idea of the gods being a pantheon of gods of something. I did get some decent responses finally, lol. I mean, also technically All the classes don’t, but this wasn’t about my penchant for rewriting systems, this was about getting the system to work for the strange new format.
my situation is trickier, as well, since my alignments are way more complex and do not include evil, good, chaos, and order, lol. But even ignoring that, there is no general god, or more precisely they are all general gods, and their alignments in the broader sense would all be true neutral. Maybe mostly neutral good with some neutral evil and one chaotic evil that does some good stuff.
the point for this thread, though, is that they don’t allow for creativity of DMs who are trying to structure a new way for gods to exist — and yet the game as a whole used to do that. The domains system as the subclasses creates an intensely powerful motivation for most to just “go with the flow” and not make something that is different, thus homogenizing the game further instead of encouraging distinct creations.
The old system had both clerics and paladins drawing power from divinity and had tons of alignment contraints on classes (e.g. paladins had to be LG) so I don't really know what you are talking about? One D&D is even looser than 5e with all references to alignment scrubbed off from races, classes, etc... You can't expect WotC to make content for you personal HB setting and world. If you HB a world where none of the classes make sense that's your choice and up to you to figure out the problems for that. Flavour is free, so the designers even say that they support people completely ignoring the flavour text accompanying the mechanics if they want to reflavour classes, subclasses, races, item, etc... as something completely different.
I've got a cleric in my Spelljammer campaign that has nothing to do with the gods at all, instead they are playing as a sentient swarm of nanobots (reflavoured Plasmoid) and their spells are them sending some of those nanobots off to do something, and their channel divinity is an EM pulse generated by their nanobots that affects certain types of creatures.
they need to clarify the way that domains work when a pantheon is not structured around a deity being a god of something.
I asked about it in a different thread, and the few responses have all been either “change your gods” or “that isn’t possible, how can you not have gods of something”. I was wondering how it is handled, but what has arisen is that the game has actively begun to limit the way that people can structure their deities.
There are a couple answers to that and yes I said something similar in another thread that the rules should explain the concepts of where the powers come from it was for paladins as just saying its a oath leads to weird ideas of how magic works in a setting, like can anyone just will themselves into magic power etc. And then it should explain how it can be changed for your settings that what is written is just a default, while yeah the can be changed is a basic rule, reemphasizing it in areas helps people. In your case there are two core ways id handle it, 1 I'd just disallow some domains and say those domains do not fit in my setting. I have disallowed dwarves, elves, halflings, humans, all the expanded species various classes, feats, subclasses or equivalents for earlier editions across the years of playing. Settings can cut things and they don't need to change for the whims of a player. The other easy way is to say any domain not explicitly under a god is a general domain and under any god of an appropriate alignment.
Oaths and Vows are binding magic (the binding is done by magic itself) in my setting, which is how it works for the paladins in my setting (who are closer to the crusader knight archetype).
Technically, none of the domains fit the setting, because the domains are drawn from the core idea of the gods being a pantheon of gods of something. I did get some decent responses finally, lol. I mean, also technically All the classes don’t, but this wasn’t about my penchant for rewriting systems, this was about getting the system to work for the strange new format.
my situation is trickier, as well, since my alignments are way more complex and do not include evil, good, chaos, and order, lol. But even ignoring that, there is no general god, or more precisely they are all general gods, and their alignments in the broader sense would all be true neutral. Maybe mostly neutral good with some neutral evil and one chaotic evil that does some good stuff.
the point for this thread, though, is that they don’t allow for creativity of DMs who are trying to structure a new way for gods to exist — and yet the game as a whole used to do that. The domains system as the subclasses creates an intensely powerful motivation for most to just “go with the flow” and not make something that is different, thus homogenizing the game further instead of encouraging distinct creations.
The old system had both clerics and paladins drawing power from divinity and had tons of alignment contraints on classes (e.g. paladins had to be LG) so I don't really know what you are talking about? One D&D is even looser than 5e with all references to alignment scrubbed off from races, classes, etc... You can't expect WotC to make content for you personal HB setting and world. If you HB a world where none of the classes make sense that's your choice and up to you to figure out the problems for that. Flavour is free, so the designers even say that they support people completely ignoring the flavour text accompanying the mechanics if they want to reflavour classes, subclasses, races, item, etc... as something completely different.
I've got a cleric in my Spelljammer campaign that has nothing to do with the gods at all, instead they are playing as a sentient swarm of nanobots (reflavoured Plasmoid) and their spells are them sending some of those nanobots off to do something, and their channel divinity is an EM pulse generated by their nanobots that affects certain types of creatures.
Nah, not my personal,stuff. I can do that (and the thousand pages I am nearly finished with that incorporates the SRD supports that, lol). No, I mean that if a DM creates a world where the existing deities don’t work like “god of x”, then the system pushes them towards such, and it should be clarified how it doesn’t and what to do when it doesn’t.
this is deeper than flavor — if a game does have clerics, and they are clerics that serve a deity, and that deity does not have a domain structure or fit one, then the cleric doesn’t get a domain, and since those are the subclasses of the cleric, it breaks the set up.
they could explain how to do a “general domain” or present a different approach, but unless they do, the weight of classes and subclass in terms of rules and features and abilities is going to work against anyone who doesn’t want to do a “standard fantasy pantheon”.
If there is one god, total, and they do not have a dualistic opposite (so no Devil), how do you assign domains so that players still can use the written stuff and DMs don’t have to conform?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Dude, we've already wasted two entire pages going in circles about this total non-issue; improving the levelled spellcasting limit rules is entirely legitimate to this thread about what rules should be improved in OneD&D, your accusing everybody of lying about their own experience of the rule is off-topic, borderline abuse and verging on harassment at this point.
Please just drop it and move on FFS, you're not changing anybody's minds, nor are you likely to do so, and it's just derailing the thread.
I've had electrum come up once or twice, but yeah like Xalthu we just converted it to gold pieces to reduce confusion, so I wouldn't miss it if it were gone. Players make enough mistakes with platinum/gold/silver/copper and those are nice easy multiples of 10. Plus when it comes to basic currency it's easier to just assume that the denominations don't matter unless you're tracking coin weight (and even then…), as it should be easy to trade them as required.
A DM can still introduce conversion issues by awarding gems that need to be appraised and haggled for, or foreign currency if you're an a strange land waving around coins nobody wants.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
May I ask why you claim to know what the purpose of this thread is better than the person who made it... Particularly when the person who started this thread is the one arguing about this just as much? (In fact, the whole discussion on that specific rule would have been over two pages earlier if panta wasn't constantly moving the goalposts on why it supposedly counts as 'confusing').
And for the record, I'm not 'accusing everybody' of lying. I'm pointing out that some of the people (not specifically in this thread) who claim to be confused about certain rules are trying to cover up they were knowingly cheating and some of the people who are genuinely confused about certain rules are confused mainly because they never read the rule itself and are confused by the fact that they were told different things by different people about how the rules work and they don't know who was right.
Or, to put it more directly: For a lot of rules, the confusion (and cheating masquerading as confusion) isn't caused by how the rule is written, but by (incorrect) interpretations of the rules getting spread by word of mouth and it doesn't become 'confusing' until it turns out the RAW doesn't say what people think it does. Rewriting the rules isn't going to fix that, because the confusion doesn't come from what the rule itself actually says, but from what people say about the rule.
It counts as confusing because real people appear to get confused about it. How exactly is that moving the goalposts?
*shrug* It depends. Back when I started, the British 'pound/shilling/pence/whatever' nonsense was still valid. Heck, I still have a guinea piece or two stashed away in a 'safe' place (read: I can't remember where they are, and don't care enough to go looking.) I tend to use electrum as an indicator of *really* old coinage, since in the Real World, electrum fell out of use as a coin metal in around 350 BC. But then, in the campaign world I usually run, different lands use different denominations and my players seem to like the 'realism' of currencies not being fully universal so your millage may vary.
I can understand taking Electrum out of the PHB though, and putting some stuff around 'old weird coins' in the DMG. I have vague memories of other editions of the DMG having stuff around that kind of thing.
My table's actually found electrum to be super useful in DDB for tracking alternative currency such as credits or voucher juice in games where there's a coin standard other than gold. Until DDB allows us to track custom coinages I'd like to keep electrum, though admittedly that's a failing of the tool rather than the system.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah, that sounds a lot more like "DDB needs to make a simple fix" rather than "Electrum is a good and functional type of coinage that is not confusing or annoying at all".
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.There's no real need for coinage types at all, just list net value. The only real purpose of copper coins is to annoy the PCs in a game where weight is being tracked.
I have to be careful how I say this so my post doesn’t get removed, but I’ve posted the rule and no one who has read it has said they where confused by it.
So, just ran into a new problem, lol.
they need to clarify the way that domains work when a pantheon is not structured around a deity being a god of something.
I asked about it in a different thread, and the few responses have all been either “change your gods” or “that isn’t possible, how can you not have gods of something”. I was wondering how it is handled, but what has arisen is that the game has actively begun to limit the way that people can structure their deities.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The domains give examples of deities at least for FR, that I remember. If you are homebrewing deities you can structure it however you want.
In the game I’m in, if a player wants to play a certain domain and the DM doesn’t have a dirty for it in his setting the player works with them to create one or choose one he does have that could fit. Personally I can see most domains being covered by most deities in some way. I don’t view them as so monolithic that we can’t make something work.
Unless I am misunderstanding your post
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
How is this any different than monotheistic religions? Or D&D gods with multiple portfolios? The cleric is a supporter of a particular aspect of that god.
Everyone believes they understand it, it's other people that are confused. Since Group 1 & Group 2 disagree about the rule, one side is confused.
And it depends on how it was posted. Was it just the rule and asked if anyone is confused? Were they asked to describe how it works, in their own words? I’m sure someone could say it’s not confusing but when asked give a description, they give a description that is not correct, like posters on this thread and many others have done.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Why? If you are using HB gods then it is up to you to determine how they fit with the different domains. You can do this any number of ways, e.g. let's take an extreme example of a HB campaign where we all play as Kuo Toa, and our tribe believe in the divinity of the great Mobimobopotopol - a figure head griffon from a ship that was blasted off and ended up tangled in a pirate flag. So it is a monotheistic diety that has an eagle's face, lion's paws, and wears a black cloak.
War domain - they believe the claws and beak of Mobimobopotopol are weapons of a warrior and they are called to train to be as fierce as Mobimobopotopol themselves.
Life domain - they believe the Mobimobopotopol was given new life after the ship it came from was destroyed, and they are called to learn to heal and restore others so that all can have a second chance at life like Mobimobopotopol
Nature - they believe the eagle and lion are symbols of the diversity of nature above the surface and they are called on to protect the nature below the wave just as Mobimobopotopol was a guardian of the nature above it.
Tempest - they believe Mobimobopotopol was created in the a storm that struck a ship, and are called to be agents of that storm.
etc.. etc...
In this very thread people read that rule differently when posted. They may not say they are confused but there is confusion on the rule if people are reading it differently.
There are a couple answers to that and yes I said something similar in another thread that the rules should explain the concepts of where the powers come from it was for paladins as just saying its a oath leads to weird ideas of how magic works in a setting, like can anyone just will themselves into magic power etc. And then it should explain how it can be changed for your settings that what is written is just a default, while yeah the can be changed is a basic rule, reemphasizing it in areas helps people. In your case there are two core ways id handle it, 1 I'd just disallow some domains and say those domains do not fit in my setting. I have disallowed dwarves, elves, halflings, humans, all the expanded species various classes, feats, subclasses or equivalents for earlier editions across the years of playing. Settings can cut things and they don't need to change for the whims of a player. The other easy way is to say any domain not explicitly under a god is a general domain and under any god of an appropriate alignment.
Oaths and Vows are binding magic (the binding is done by magic itself) in my setting, which is how it works for the paladins in my setting (who are closer to the crusader knight archetype).
Technically, none of the domains fit the setting, because the domains are drawn from the core idea of the gods being a pantheon of gods of something. I did get some decent responses finally, lol. I mean, also technically All the classes don’t, but this wasn’t about my penchant for rewriting systems, this was about getting the system to work for the strange new format.
my situation is trickier, as well, since my alignments are way more complex and do not include evil, good, chaos, and order, lol. But even ignoring that, there is no general god, or more precisely they are all general gods, and their alignments in the broader sense would all be true neutral. Maybe mostly neutral good with some neutral evil and one chaotic evil that does some good stuff.
the point for this thread, though, is that they don’t allow for creativity of DMs who are trying to structure a new way for gods to exist — and yet the game as a whole used to do that. The domains system as the subclasses creates an intensely powerful motivation for most to just “go with the flow” and not make something that is different, thus homogenizing the game further instead of encouraging distinct creations.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Sometimes none of the sub classes work so it will require a bunch more work, but yeah it would be nice if the pieces were easier to build with for vary different settings. I'm lazy so I'd just rename domains something like spiritual focus in your example. Treat it more like how a wizard specializes in concept. I'm glad you got some more help where you were asking.
The old system had both clerics and paladins drawing power from divinity and had tons of alignment contraints on classes (e.g. paladins had to be LG) so I don't really know what you are talking about? One D&D is even looser than 5e with all references to alignment scrubbed off from races, classes, etc... You can't expect WotC to make content for you personal HB setting and world. If you HB a world where none of the classes make sense that's your choice and up to you to figure out the problems for that. Flavour is free, so the designers even say that they support people completely ignoring the flavour text accompanying the mechanics if they want to reflavour classes, subclasses, races, item, etc... as something completely different.
I've got a cleric in my Spelljammer campaign that has nothing to do with the gods at all, instead they are playing as a sentient swarm of nanobots (reflavoured Plasmoid) and their spells are them sending some of those nanobots off to do something, and their channel divinity is an EM pulse generated by their nanobots that affects certain types of creatures.
Nah, not my personal,stuff. I can do that (and the thousand pages I am nearly finished with that incorporates the SRD supports that, lol). No, I mean that if a DM creates a world where the existing deities don’t work like “god of x”, then the system pushes them towards such, and it should be clarified how it doesn’t and what to do when it doesn’t.
this is deeper than flavor — if a game does have clerics, and they are clerics that serve a deity, and that deity does not have a domain structure or fit one, then the cleric doesn’t get a domain, and since those are the subclasses of the cleric, it breaks the set up.
they could explain how to do a “general domain” or present a different approach, but unless they do, the weight of classes and subclass in terms of rules and features and abilities is going to work against anyone who doesn’t want to do a “standard fantasy pantheon”.
If there is one god, total, and they do not have a dualistic opposite (so no Devil), how do you assign domains so that players still can use the written stuff and DMs don’t have to conform?
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds