D&D 4E 4e Races and Classes: "Why we changed the gods"

[Intrope]

Does the 3e PHB have a deity of agriculture and/or doorways?

No--but Yondalla's *symbol* is a cornucopia, which is associated with good harvests so presumably she has some connection to agriculture. And she's pretty much the only possible choice (Obad-hai is *wilderness*, and Ehlonna *forests*--no agriculture in the usual since there!). 3e doesn't appear to have any gods with 'Doors' (unless you'd count Moradin's Engineering portfolio as including all constructed things, or make a joke about Vecna and closets )

Which is the point: the existing divinities are hardly all-encompassing.

 

[Arnwyn]

No, and that's mhacdebhandia's point, I think.
Or I'm completely misunderstanding, but yeah. I think it was this thread (they do all blend together, don't they?) where someone said to put this in the pile of "4th edition rulez, 3rd ed droolz" developer comments.

I am mischaracterizing them to protect the guilty, but I think it's a case of "we got lucky last time, are looking at what we did and replicating it, this time with science!".

Oh. Then I guess I'm completely confused about statements like this:

We didn’t move forward in 4th Edition with that pantheon because its deities weren’t designed for the improved experience of D&D we were forming.

and this:

Sure, it’s realistic in a sociological sense to have a deity of doorways or of agriculture, but it’s hard to figure out how a cleric who worships such a deity honors his god by going on adventures.

Not to mention such confusing comments as:

But, for those of us who want to play the game out of the box, FINALLY, after 30 years, we finally get some loving.

and the related:

You said it better than I could have. Thanks!

[Get Fuzzy] Mmm-hmmm. Mmm-hmmm. [/Get Fuzzy]

Maybe some people can't really get their point across. I have yet to be one to mention the quality of WotC's marketing as I didn't think it had any merit, but now it's becoming a little creepy. Better luck on the next missive, I suppose. (Perhaps it's in WotC's best interest to only talk about 4e, and make no references whatsoever to previous editions, "improvements", and any such comparisons...) Maybe somebody can much more clearly and concisely make whatever point there is to be made?

 

[Scarbonac]

Yet, for those of us who really, really don't care, this is the best news ever.

Not everyone who plays wants to get into several hundred page homebrews. Some of us just want to sit down and play. That means that we ignore a lot of the silliness around the table like why this guy is a monk in a eurocentric world, and just play the damn game.

In other words, if you want to homebrew, go ahead. Nothing, not one thing is stopping you. But, for those of us who want to play the game out of the box, FINALLY, after 30 years, we finally get some loving.

*scratches head* And you've been prevented from playing the game "out of the box" by whom, exactly, over the last 30 years?

 

[Hussar]

*scratches head* And you've been prevented from playing the game "out of the box" by whom, exactly, over the last 30 years?

Well, howzabout the fact that for the past 30 years, there's been pretty much zip in the core books regarding a playable world? The last time we had a fleshed out campaign world appear in the core books was the Expert Rulebook.

If I want to have things like nations and the like, I have to go out and either buy setting books or write it myself. Otherwise, I'm pretty much stumbling in the dark between adventures.

This way, I read the core books, see the core setting, USE the core setting as written and I'm good to go.

 

[Wormwood]

This way, I read the core books, see the core setting, USE the core setting as written and I'm good to go.

Yep. A little love for those of us who want a more complete game out of the box.

And as RPGs go, this isn't a revolutionary concept any more.