Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thundershield" data-source="post: 3784774" data-attributes="member: 55219">Yeah, does seem like the way the Greyhawk deities &quot;polluted&quot; all 3rd Edition settings have affected how people respond to &quot;core&quot; material. And I can see how it was annoying how all DMs got confused with Forgotten Realms having both Mielikki and Ehlonna, Bane and Hextor, all kinds of deities overlapping and never mentioned in the Forgotten Realms material.. NOT.No, just like the Greyhawk deities were sample deities, to give players a feel of how a deity is statted for &quot;Cleric purposes&quot;, the traditions given in the article on Wizards' website are examples (or actually just a sneak peek) of how one aspect of the 4th Edition Wizard might work. They've already explained they won't have a &quot;core setting&quot; in 4th Edition, so everything in the core books will be samples of how things can be done.By combining hitherto-unassociated elements such as Acid and Cold they're saying &quot;players can combine any elements they like&quot;, and at the same time they have the Serpent Eye to show that &quot;you can also simply pick a classic theme, like charms and beguilement&quot;. Even the names are just examples of how you could name your traditions.And when it's hinted they might publish new traditions and implements in future supplements and source material, I think it means they'll create custom material for Wizards in various settings to have it fit the individual settings, just like they do with deities.Addendum: And let's not go into the &quot;keep stuff 100% generic&quot; talk. If new players see that deities in D&amp;D games are apparently named &quot;Generic Chaotic Neutral Deity #2&quot;, it'll give them a wholly skewed view of the game, or nothing in the way of inspirational material.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thundershield, post: 3784774, member: 55219"] Yeah, does seem like the way the Greyhawk deities "polluted" all 3rd Edition settings have affected how people respond to "core" material. And I can see how it was annoying how all DMs got confused with Forgotten Realms having both Mielikki and Ehlonna, Bane and Hextor, all kinds of deities overlapping and never mentioned in the Forgotten Realms material.. NOT. No, just like the Greyhawk deities were sample deities, to give players a feel of how a deity is statted for "Cleric purposes", the traditions given in the article on Wizards' website are examples (or actually just a sneak peek) of how one aspect of the 4th Edition Wizard might work. They've already explained they won't have a "core setting" in 4th Edition, so everything in the core books will be samples of how things can be done. By combining hitherto-unassociated elements such as Acid and Cold they're saying "players can combine any elements they like", and at the same time they have the Serpent Eye to show that "you can also simply pick a classic theme, like charms and beguilement". Even the names are just examples of how you could name your traditions. And when it's hinted they might publish new traditions and implements in future supplements and source material, I think it means they'll create custom material for Wizards in various settings to have it fit the individual settings, just like they do with deities. [B]Addendum:[/B] And let's not go into the "keep stuff 100% generic" talk. If new players see that deities in D&D games are apparently named "Generic Chaotic Neutral Deity #2", it'll give them a wholly skewed view of the game, or nothing in the way of inspirational material. [/QUOTE]

Verification