Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MNblockhead" data-source="post: 9379345" data-attributes="member: 6796661">Kinda. There are a relatively small number of cults that get most of the attention and The Empire gets the lions share of the setting support. But there is mention of many different religions, gods, powers, etc. Only a few of them get mechanical writes up, but even those that do are quite a few if you collect all of them from across all their books. And if you look at a few of them you can see it is a very simple template that the DM and player can use to make their own. I think the main different is that Warhammer mechanics are designed to support the setting, whereas D&D 5e design is meant to support many different settings. Different setting books in D&D may add new mechanics to support the flavor of that setting, but these don't belong in the core book. A better example than the strictures, penances, and sin point mechanics in Warhammer are the Status mechanics. Status is very important in Warhammer and has mechanical and roleplaying weight. It wouldn't make sense to put something like this into core D&D because how a society is structured and its cultural norms are going very greatly from setting to setting in D&D. As for the social/political complexity of D&D's celestial, infernal, abysmal, fey, etc. plans and powers, I think that varies greatly from setting to setting and table to table. In my experience, most tables are not building as complex a web as you portray, though, again, that doesn't mean some tables don't.  But you are correct in that Warhammer works best when played in its default setting (IMHO). D&D needs to support far more settings, including homebrewed settings, so they are not going to get as mechanically crunchy in terms of how relationships between warlocks and their patrons and clerics/paladins and their gods work.</blockquote>

Verification