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?
The same way you did it for gods with multiple domains in previous editions: you acquire a single domain associated with the god, which represents the aspects of the god you particularly focus on. For a monotheistic religion, you just assign all domains to that god.
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?
I don't know if we will see and DMG UA before release, but that would be a good place for what you are looking for. Not sure how much advice WotC will want to give, but it did seem that they are looking to improve the DMG as a tool for the DM.
I don't feel like the domains push DM's in a certain direction for creating a pantheon. Sure, a lot of fantasy settings use a pantheon of gods, but it's not a requirement. And even with just one god, each domain can just be one aspect of that deity. And you could even strip away the theme of that domain and just use the bare mechanics.
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?
I don't know if we will see and DMG UA before release, but that would be a good place for what you are looking for. Not sure how much advice WotC will want to give, but it did seem that they are looking to improve the DMG as a tool for the DM.
I don't feel like the domains push DM's in a certain direction for creating a pantheon. Sure, a lot of fantasy settings use a pantheon of gods, but it's not a requirement. And even with just one god, each domain can just be one aspect of that deity. And you could even strip away the theme of that domain and just use the bare mechanics.
This would fall more on the description oof lore for each god that can fuel any domain or something like that. Also if i remeber correctly the new Cleric lore in 1 DnD state that their divine power come from a divine plane it does not specify a god perse, i think that will provide the flexibility that u seek.
This would fall more on the description oof lore for each god that can fuel any domain or something like that. Also if i remeber correctly the new Cleric lore in 1 DnD state that their divine power come from a divine plane it does not specify a god perse, i think that will provide the flexibility that u seek.
I quote the cleric section of the 1dnd:
You know, thanks for pointing that out! I completely glossed over that bit, because I had already set up the source of things for my clerics -- and that turns out to indeed be what I did in a real sense. That I have not one of the same planes as the mainstream DND is a separate issue (I only have 7, each has 4 dimensions, one if which is the Mortal Realm, or afterlife, and there is a whole cycle there, and I will try not to talk about how Hell, the feywild equivalent, heaven, limbo, and pandemonium are just all a peculiar version of the feywild).
I had to create seven new domains, though, that have no relation of comparative to the existing ones as a result. Magic still comes from the same place (which is completely different) but how they focus that magic and use it is what causes the planar reflection (all magic is the same, but people are drawn to different expressions of it).
Which is why my previous comment here was about how they needed to lay out the rules of magic in detail.
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.
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?
I already gave an example of how with the Kuo toa example. The mechanics of the game don't require gods at all, nor heavens or hells. Domain is just a word to describe subclasses, it holds no more weight than that. You can have a Trickery Cleric that draws their power from the spirit of a great magician whom they idolize. A tempest cleric who believes they are the chosen one because they survived getting struck by lightning and their power comes purely from the strength of that belief (like a paladin). A Light cleric who is an anarchist activist who believes the systems of the world are so corrupt the only solution is to burn it all down. A war cleric who has learned how to guide people to find their inner strength and will to survive and keep fighting, who uses mediation, and divine inspiration to word their magic. A peace cleric who is an uber-hippie who seeks to use raw magic to create a bond between people that violence is unthinkable. A nature cleric who is just a really, really good herbalist such that it seems like their cures are magic.
The domain structure is no more restrictive than any other subclasses, less so IMO than some like Sorcerer Bloodlines (gunna be pretty hard to explain a Draconic Sorcerer if there are no dragons in your world).
Interaction of Anti-Magic Shell on summons/conjured minions. This should be clarified.
I think for concentration spells it's clear isn't it? Since the spell is ongoing it's definitely suppressed.
The cases that do seem to confuse people though are undead and find familiar; undead get an exception in sage advice because spells like animate dead are instantaneous (so once the corpse is undead, it remains animated on its own indefinitely, there's no ongoing spell) but people confuse that exception with find familiar since that functions similarly, however the familiar should definitely count as a summoned magical creature.
Really the sage advice just confused people more because it didn't clarify why undead don't count as summoned magical creatures; is it because the magic transformed a corpse into an undead? If so then that definitely needs to be clarified, as I suspect the intention is that a familiar should disappear inside the field, but that language is super unclear.
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.
Interaction of Anti-Magic Shell on summons/conjured minions. This should be clarified.
I think for concentration spells it's clear isn't it? Since the spell is ongoing it's definitely suppressed.
The cases that do seem to confuse people though are undead and find familiar; undead get an exception in sage advice because spells like animate dead are instantaneous (so once the corpse is undead, it remains animated on its own indefinitely, there's no ongoing spell) but people confuse that exception with find familiar since that functions similarly, however the familiar should definitely count as a summoned magical creature.
Really the sage advice just confused people more because it didn't clarify why undead don't count as summoned magical creatures; is it because the magic transformed a corpse into an undead? If so then that definitely needs to be clarified, as I suspect the intention is that a familiar should disappear inside the field, but that language is super unclear.
Thanks. I had forgotten the exact interaction issue, just that it involved Anti-Magic Shell and summons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The same way you did it for gods with multiple domains in previous editions: you acquire a single domain associated with the god, which represents the aspects of the god you particularly focus on. For a monotheistic religion, you just assign all domains to that god.
I don't know if we will see and DMG UA before release, but that would be a good place for what you are looking for. Not sure how much advice WotC will want to give, but it did seem that they are looking to improve the DMG as a tool for the DM.
I don't feel like the domains push DM's in a certain direction for creating a pantheon. Sure, a lot of fantasy settings use a pantheon of gods, but it's not a requirement. And even with just one god, each domain can just be one aspect of that deity. And you could even strip away the theme of that domain and just use the bare mechanics.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
This would fall more on the description oof lore for each god that can fuel any domain or something like that. Also if i remeber correctly the new Cleric lore in 1 DnD state that their divine power come from a divine plane it does not specify a god perse, i think that will provide the flexibility that u seek.
I quote the cleric section of the 1dnd:
©2022 Wizards of the Coast LLC 3
CLERIC
Class Group: Priest
Primary Ability: Wisdom
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
that energy to bolster people and to battle foes.
Because their power is a divine gift, Clerics
typically associate themselves with temples or
shrines dedicated to whatever deity or other
immortal force unlocked their magical ability.
Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or
training, yet a Cleric might learn formulaic
prayers and ancient rites that help them focus
their minds and spirits on drawing power from
the Outer Planes. Even a Cleric who declines to
worship their divine benefactor might perform
their benefactor’s rites if doing so helps the
Cleric feel connected to the immortal realms.
Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or
shrine is a Cleric. Some priests are called to a
simple life of temple service, carrying out their
devotion through prayer and rituals, not through
magic. Some of the most influential high priests
are incapable of harnessing divine magic, and a
few of them feel threatened when a Cleric
appears. Many can pray, and some mortals claim
to speak for the gods. But few can marshal the
power of those gods the way a Cleric can.
You know, thanks for pointing that out! I completely glossed over that bit, because I had already set up the source of things for my clerics -- and that turns out to indeed be what I did in a real sense. That I have not one of the same planes as the mainstream DND is a separate issue (I only have 7, each has 4 dimensions, one if which is the Mortal Realm, or afterlife, and there is a whole cycle there, and I will try not to talk about how Hell, the feywild equivalent, heaven, limbo, and pandemonium are just all a peculiar version of the feywild).
I had to create seven new domains, though, that have no relation of comparative to the existing ones as a result. Magic still comes from the same place (which is completely different) but how they focus that magic and use it is what causes the planar reflection (all magic is the same, but people are drawn to different expressions of it).
Which is why my previous comment here was about how they needed to lay out the rules of magic in detail.
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
I already gave an example of how with the Kuo toa example. The mechanics of the game don't require gods at all, nor heavens or hells. Domain is just a word to describe subclasses, it holds no more weight than that. You can have a Trickery Cleric that draws their power from the spirit of a great magician whom they idolize. A tempest cleric who believes they are the chosen one because they survived getting struck by lightning and their power comes purely from the strength of that belief (like a paladin). A Light cleric who is an anarchist activist who believes the systems of the world are so corrupt the only solution is to burn it all down. A war cleric who has learned how to guide people to find their inner strength and will to survive and keep fighting, who uses mediation, and divine inspiration to word their magic. A peace cleric who is an uber-hippie who seeks to use raw magic to create a bond between people that violence is unthinkable. A nature cleric who is just a really, really good herbalist such that it seems like their cures are magic.
The domain structure is no more restrictive than any other subclasses, less so IMO than some like Sorcerer Bloodlines (gunna be pretty hard to explain a Draconic Sorcerer if there are no dragons in your world).
Interaction of Anti-Magic Shell on summons/conjured minions. This should be clarified.
What the heck is an Echo (E. Knight core issue) exactly and how does it interact with physical objects or surfaces outside of combat?
I think for concentration spells it's clear isn't it? Since the spell is ongoing it's definitely suppressed.
The cases that do seem to confuse people though are undead and find familiar; undead get an exception in sage advice because spells like animate dead are instantaneous (so once the corpse is undead, it remains animated on its own indefinitely, there's no ongoing spell) but people confuse that exception with find familiar since that functions similarly, however the familiar should definitely count as a summoned magical creature.
Really the sage advice just confused people more because it didn't clarify why undead don't count as summoned magical creatures; is it because the magic transformed a corpse into an undead? If so then that definitely needs to be clarified, as I suspect the intention is that a familiar should disappear inside the field, but that language is super unclear.
Critical Role content is probably beyond the scope of OneD&D to fix?
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.
Thanks. I had forgotten the exact interaction issue, just that it involved Anti-Magic Shell and summons.