DDN needs more gods!

Gods are just additional content. As with classes and magic items and monsters, bring in new ones in supplements when useful and relevant.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I....I really have no idea what you're saying as an argument/retort.

As best as I can suss out, so, because you don't have the time to do any of those things...D&D is responsible for providing them to you?

I would wager the guess that if you don't have "access to 'old stuff' [no, not insulting at all] or DDI [which it seems those who are not old would have the time for], or time to make it" then, it sounds to me like you have no time to play D&D. Clear your calendar...and have a good time when you have the time.
I don't understand your point here.

The OP is asking for more gods statted up as viable opponents for the PCs. If the game is intended to run into epic levels, I think that's a reasonable request.
 

Honestly, I'd like to see little or no deity statistics in the core rules. Perhaps one or two as an example for how to do it, but there's no way I'm running enough campaigns to need multiple sets of deity stats.

That's something perfect for a new Deities and Demigods supplement. Put it in with enough of a page count to do the deity treatment the right way (including guidelines and systems for making your homebrew's deities and rules for advancing player characters to full godhood) instead of just treating them as capstone monsters.

It'd be awesome if such a product contained a treatment of fantasy religion with a bit more depth than in previous products, but that's a whole other can of worms.

If nothing else, maybe there could be a "Deities and Demigods" column in Dragon to present the deities individually, including character options such as channel divinity and paragon path options.
 


I don't understand your point here.

The OP is asking for more gods statted up as viable opponents for the PCs. If the game is intended to run into epic levels, I think that's a reasonable request.

His quote is important, as the "sentence" he quoted wasn't a complete thought.
 

Remove ads

Top