Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 3784784" data-attributes="member: 1106">I think use of the GH deities was a mistake.&nbsp; They're just as fish out of water in the implied setting as almost any other deity from a specific setting, excepting perhaps Earth.&nbsp; Thor is a good candidate for a PHB god, not Boccob, because Thor exists across many D&amp;D worlds as a firm favourite already, and fits D&amp;D conventions.&nbsp; Mordenkainen's Sword is indeed more flavorful than Mage Sword, but if you keep such &quot;named for a specific setting&quot; spells in supplements, the lack of their presence in the PHB will not be missed.This all revolves around how built into the game these names are.&nbsp; The way that the phrase I quoted has been worded, they sound thoroughly wedged in there, and won't be coming out easily.&nbsp; If they're just the equivalent of &quot;sample deities&quot; examples in a sidebar which can be easily turfed, then fine and dandy, but that quote sure doesn't read like that's the plan.&nbsp; WOTC indeed has a conundrum here, as you point out (they don't want the game to be a bland read, nor provide no flavour to those with no setting), but I'm not sure about the sound of the hints we're being given about the solution.&nbsp; If they have something that pleases both the defaulters and the worldbuilders, then hats off, but this current hint points towards neither.&nbsp; As a recent thread pointed out, a large amount of D&amp;D's appeal lies in the worldbuilding.&nbsp; The implied setting should be an aid to that, not something that needs weeding before use.&nbsp; And the defaulters shouldn't be turned off by the default that's been given to them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rounser, post: 3784784, member: 1106"] I think use of the GH deities was a mistake. They're just as fish out of water in the implied setting as almost any other deity from a specific setting, excepting perhaps Earth. Thor is a good candidate for a PHB god, not Boccob, because Thor exists across many D&D worlds as a firm favourite already, and fits D&D conventions. Mordenkainen's Sword is indeed more flavorful than Mage Sword, but if you keep such "named for a specific setting" spells in supplements, the lack of their presence in the PHB will not be missed. This all revolves around how built into the game these names are. The way that the phrase I quoted has been worded, they sound thoroughly wedged in there, and won't be coming out easily. If they're just the equivalent of "sample deities" examples in a sidebar which can be easily turfed, then fine and dandy, but that quote sure doesn't read like that's the plan. WOTC indeed has a conundrum here, as you point out (they don't want the game to be a bland read, nor provide no flavour to those with no setting), but I'm not sure about the sound of the hints we're being given about the solution. If they have something that pleases both the defaulters and the worldbuilders, then hats off, but this current hint points towards neither. As a recent thread pointed out, a large amount of D&D's appeal lies in the worldbuilding. The implied setting should be an aid to that, not something that needs weeding before use. And the defaulters shouldn't be turned off by the default that's been given to them. [/QUOTE]

Verification