Neverwinter CG contains four new Warpriest (diety-based) domains

[frogged]

The Neverwinter Campaign Guide FAQ was updated to include the usual small preview. It reveals that the book will contain four new deity-based domains for Warpriests. It also shows an at-will power for the Corellon domain.

 

[Spatula]

The Corellon... domain? I wonder why they didn't call it the fey or elf domain instead of being so deity-specific. Certain it's a perfect fit for elven warpriests, who will have the bow proficiency to make the most use of the at-will (and, I am guessing, the encounter & daily prayers as well).

 

[Matt James]

I like it. Sounds like more Realmslore that is specific to the setting.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I like it we needed a ranged weapon attack for elvin clerics

 

[Klaus]

I like it we needed a ranged weapon attack for elvin clerics

We already have one: Silvery Arrow.

But I think deity-specific domains are a good idea. Corellon (for instance) is the deity of art, arcane magic, fey and elven warfare. By creating a deity-based domain, you can mix-n-match his spheres of influence throughout all 30 levels.

 

[Ferghis]

But I think deity-specific domains are a good idea. Corellon (for instance) is the deity of art, arcane magic, fey and elven warfare. By creating a deity-based domain, you can mix-n-match his spheres of influence throughout all 30 levels.

I think it would be a better idea to make the powers domain or race related, so a character that fits the stereotype can still take advantage of the new options without having to house-rule them.

This isn't a big deal: I realize it's not too much work to house-rule these kinds of things, but I wouldn't praise the choice of making these powers deity-specific as being good design.

 

[fba827]

it's a campaign setting specific product. i think making things deity specific is good and flavorful.

now if it was for the 'generic' setting that DMs are encouraged to build out and fiddle with as needed, i would be bothered by being deity specific and instead would prefer domain oriented.

 

[DracoSuave]

it's a campaign setting specific product. i think making things deity specific is good and flavorful.

Especially given many of those dieties are setting agnostic.

now if it was for the 'generic' setting that DMs are encouraged to build out and fiddle with as needed, i would be bothered by being deity specific and instead would prefer domain oriented.

Fluff is fluff. Most of the dieties are the same anyways, or have analogs that match pretty much one on one.

 

[Estlor]

Personally, when you have a class built around the idea of having different class features keyed off of domains and have far more domains without options available to that class, I'd think it was a better design idea to, I don't know, finish designing all of those domains before you go making brand new ones up.

Just saying.

(Player: Sweet, I want to make a warpriest of Erathis that focuses on her aspect of a patron of civilization! DM: Sorry, sun, storm, earth, or death only. Here, the church of Pelor would like you to read this pamphlet about what the Bible really teaches...)

 

[DracoSuave]

Personally, when you have a class built around the idea of having different class features keyed off of domains and have far more domains without options available to that class, I'd think it was a better design idea to, I don't know, finish designing all of those domains before you go making brand new ones up.

Just saying.

(Player: Sweet, I want to make a warpriest of Erathis that focuses on her aspect of a patron of civilization! DM: Sorry, sun, storm, earth, or death only. Here, the church of Pelor would like you to read this pamphlet about what the Bible really teaches...)

So... if they include one for a FR diety of civilization that somehow doesn't work for you?