Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fuindordm" data-source="post: 3908692" data-attributes="member: 5435">I don't think it's inappropriate to have a small amount of setting information in the PH, especially if it comes with guidelines for how to modify it.For example, in the 3e PH there was a list of gods, complete with holy symbols and favored weapons. Was this inappropriate? No, because it was clear that if the DM wants to make god X then they just need to pick some appropriate domains and a favored weapon and they're good to go.The PH had almost no feats for clerics, which was too bad. But if they did have a few of those nice feats powered by turning attempts, it would have made sense to name &quot;Shield of Pelor&quot; (grant energy resist to you and allies for X rounds) or &quot;St. Cuthbert's Doom&quot; (free sunder attempt on opponent's weapon that strikes you).&nbsp; At worst, having to change the name for your homebrew is slightly irksome. At best, it gives the DM another guideline on how to make their homebrew's religion more interesting to players; perhaps they'll come up with their own feats.Well, this is the same thing. Now wizards have a &quot;religion&quot; of their own: a few examples in the PH of mystical orders that they might belong to. Each will probably have a handful of unique spells and feats that players can take if they want to show their devotion. The fact that they are given names that link them implicitly to the setting shown in the PH does not bother me.&nbsp; This is a guideline to the creative DM, not a straitjacket.And finally, I always have more fun reading a rulebook with some fluff and setting information than a rulebook without. Since I doubt they will allow their writers to be as playful with language as Gygax was, some setting information is needed to keep the reader's imagination fired up. This will be particularly true for newcomers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fuindordm, post: 3908692, member: 5435"] I don't think it's inappropriate to have a small amount of setting information in the PH, especially if it comes with guidelines for how to modify it. For example, in the 3e PH there was a list of gods, complete with holy symbols and favored weapons. Was this inappropriate? No, because it was clear that if the DM wants to make god X then they just need to pick some appropriate domains and a favored weapon and they're good to go. The PH had almost no feats for clerics, which was too bad. But if they did have a few of those nice feats powered by turning attempts, it would have made sense to name "Shield of Pelor" (grant energy resist to you and allies for X rounds) or "St. Cuthbert's Doom" (free sunder attempt on opponent's weapon that strikes you). At worst, having to change the name for your homebrew is slightly irksome. At best, it gives the DM another guideline on how to make their homebrew's religion more interesting to players; perhaps they'll come up with their own feats. Well, this is the same thing. Now wizards have a "religion" of their own: a few examples in the PH of mystical orders that they might belong to. Each will probably have a handful of unique spells and feats that players can take if they want to show their devotion. The fact that they are given names that link them implicitly to the setting shown in the PH does not bother me. This is a guideline to the creative DM, not a straitjacket. And finally, I always have more fun reading a rulebook with some fluff and setting information than a rulebook without. Since I doubt they will allow their writers to be as playful with language as Gygax was, some setting information is needed to keep the reader's imagination fired up. This will be particularly true for newcomers. [/QUOTE]

Verification