New Design: Wizards...

[Wulf Ratbane]

I can see how someone could read the preview article and make the reasonable speculation that the traditions we mention are analogous to spell schools or domains. While that's a decent guess, and it fits the available data, it's not a correct guess.

Zing! The designers win another round!

No more information is forthcoming, and the underlying complaint goes unaddressed, but at least we know we guessed wrong!

 

[F4NBOY]

Zing! The designers win another round!

No more information is forthcoming, and the underlying complaint goes unaddressed, but at least we know we guessed wrong!

At least that's better than: "You got it!"
Considering the present issue.

 

[Mercule]

Oof. I strongly disagree. It goes back to my discussion about evocative RPG writing. I think D&D is far stronger for having a default setting, and providing examples from said setting. A list of deities is one of the major elements of that to be found in the PHB, and I'd be very sorry to see it go. Especially when it is, indeed, clearly called out as optional.

Agreed, except that I'd prefer "implied" setting.

I'm not entirely certain how I'd want to see the domains/gods thing presented, though. I generally ignored the 3E list, but it probably wasn't bad. Something about it makes me think it's too specific.

As I've typed up this message, though, I think my preferrence would simply be for them to make up some deities from whole cloth. Including "Hand and Eye of Vecna" certainly improved 1E. I think the inclusion of pre-existing deities for 3E, though, invited some misinterpretation/reinterpretation (not sure of best word) which caused some friction from older Greyhawk players -- even the extremely casual ones like myself.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

Zing! The designers win another round!

No more information is forthcoming, and the underlying complaint goes unaddressed, but at least we know we guessed wrong!

Considering that they're still nailing down the particulars (esp. with playtesting starting now) I'm not surprised they didn't give a hard answer.

Is it just 4E that makes you this angry Wulf?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Is it just 4E that makes you this angry Wulf?

Heh... No, actually I love it.

I am "over eager."

 

[Andor]

I think one can argue either way. On the one hand, a list of deities can be seen as straightjacketing. On the other hand, it can give a player a good starting point with which he can build a character.

Howndawg

Meh. I honestly doubt that anybody so dim that they would be straightjacketed by a default pantheon could be creative enough to come up with their own deity.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

Heh... No, actually I love it.

I am "over eager."

That's some passion man...bless your heart.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sorry, but I am of the old school that magic items, even the most minor ones, should be special, have a history, and do something that makes them a useful tool more than just a bonus to a die roll.

They're not mutually exclusive. Every wizard in Harry Potter has a wand, but every wand is definitely special.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

A list of deities is one of the major elements of that to be found in the PHB, and I'd be very sorry to see it go.

Myself, I'd be happy to see it gone from the PHB#, but I would be upset to see it gone from Core. IMO, a sample pantheon belongs in the DMG# along with a sample cosmology of planes, but not in the PHB#.

 

[Andor]

Myself, I'd be happy to see it gone from the PHB#, but I would be upset to see it gone from Core. IMO, a sample pantheon belongs in the DMG# along with a sample cosmology of planes, but not in the PHB#.

So... You want to wait for the DMG to come out to play a cleric? :\