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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 4383089" data-attributes="member: 13892">It would, however, mean that there would be no profession in the world dedicated to the expression of said beliefs, as the mechanic of 'classes' reflects a setting's common professions in D&D. While such beliefs may ostensibly exist in a setting, if they don't benefit from the standardized D&D mechanical representation for such things, is that existence of any consequence? I would argue that the only possible answer to this question is "no" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />[Note: Incidentally, this is what I was referring to when I said "I think that such beliefs and the representation of believers in the world is a vital component of compelling fantasy, for me. Without the classes, the representation of believers is notably lacking.]As with the human-centric bit I mention earlier, it's one thing for a product to say "X things exist this way in the world!" and another thing to support that claim. D&D has a long history of claiming X and then uitterly faling to provide mechanics for it (or, in the case of claimed demi-human obscurity, actually printing a metric ton of material to the contrary). This has, similarly, been one of my long-standing complaints with D&D setting design. Saying that belief systems or believers exist in a setting but completely failing to apportion them any kind of mechanical representation isn't much different than omitting such things from a setting entirely, in my experience (YMMV, of course).</blockquote>

Verification