New Design: Wizards...

[F4NBOY]

And I'm going to reply, "Umm, creating a bunch of deities that probably won't ever get used was such a low priority for me that I never got around to it. Why don't you just make one up?"

And then I'm gonna say: "Nice idea DM, thanks. That's so good WOTC didn't waste PHB pages with useless fluff, since you are allowing us to make our own goods. Briliant!"

 

[Cadfan]

And then I'm gonna say: "Nice idea DM, thanks. That's so good WOTC didn't waste PHB pages with useless fluff, since you are allowing us to make our own goods. Briliant!"

While I personally agree with you, a lot of people I've played with have historically found it easier to just take a deity from the Player's Handbook.

You know how the section of the book on character classes includes roleplaying advice? Basic stuff usually like, "most dwarfs are gruff" or "rogues and paladins don't get along much." I consider the section on the pseudo official pantheon to be the same. It helps some people get into the game, and if I want a stripped down version of the rules (which is always at this point), I go to the SRD.

I would hope that my DM had more interest in his own homebrew than this.

Why write up deities and religions that won't be encountered by the PCs? That's a lot like statting out NPCs that the characters will never directly meet. Writing up a religion for a cleric is a lot like writing up a backstory for a character. I like to give the players a lot of freedom there. It hasn't hurt anything yet, and they enjoy it.

 

[F4NBOY]

You know how the section of the book on character classes includes roleplaying advice? Basic stuff usually like, "most dwarfs are gruff" or "rogues and paladins don't get along much."

Eek! I hope that kind of descriptions are gone too.
It makes DM's work harder sometimes:

Player: "But I just read here dwarves and elves don't get along!"
DM: "Forget that part, in my setting that's not true"

Paladin Player: "I'll won't travel with this rogue, I don't like their kind"
DM: "Oh lord...."

 

[Driddle]

I can't imagine what mechanic benefits the magical "traditions" will provide. But I'm guessing the roleplaying intent will be akin to the intent behind current clerical domains -- i.e. providing ready-made social structure for players to tap into (wizardly traditions, clerical churches), or not. While the PHB offers about a dozen religions and outlines their related domains, it also offers the option for a cleric to ignore those religions and pick any two domains for more personal character concepts. That particular church-like flavor has been absent from the mage's world in 3rd edition, except in supplemental prestige classes (Argent Hand, Scarlet Flame, etc.). I appreciate the effort. ... As long as the traditions aren't required. (Rule-0 notwithstanding.)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Not by the rules as written, as I pointed out above. "Just choosing any two domains" is a valid choice, it's just been overlooked since... forever.

... Unless you're playing in the FR ...

... or in most games where the pantheon is fairly set ...

 

[Just Another User]

You know how the section of the book on character classes includes roleplaying advice? Basic stuff usually like, "most dwarfs are gruff" or "rogues and paladins don't get along much." I consider the section on the pseudo official pantheon to be the same. It helps some people get into the game, and if I want a stripped down version of the rules (which is always at this point), I go to the SRD.

Wait, are you saying that there is really someone that reads and actually use those parts? I thought that they put it there because... well, to be honest I've no idea why they put it there, they are at best useless and at worse damaging, with their implied concept that things like Classes are actually concepts that exist in-game, like if a PC or NPC actually think to himself as a Rogue, or Expert or a Exotic Weaponmaster.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Wait, are you saying that there is really someone that reads and actually use those parts? I thought that they put it there because... well, to be honest I've no idea why they put it there, they are at best useless and at worse damaging, with their implied concept that things like Classes are actually concepts that exist in-game, like if a PC or NPC actually think to himself as a Rogue, or Expert or a Exotic Weaponmaster.

since when do people not idnetify themselves (or others) by career? Butcher, Baker, Doctor, Teacher, Fireman, Lawyer...

 

[Cadfan]

Yes, I think people read those sections and use them.

Mostly new players.

Having a section like that is better than telling them that dwarfs are just short people who don't trip, and expecting them to take it from there.

 

[Mercule]

... Unless you're playing in the FR ...

Not true. By RAW, a cleric does not need a deity at all. They run on ethanol... er... pure belief.

While I find the idea of a godless priest to be absurd and annoying, it is in the RAW. My laughter at any player who would actually request to play such a character is most assuredly a house rule.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Not true. By RAW, a cleric does not need a deity at all. They run on ethanol... er... pure belief.

Very true.

In the FR, in order to cast divine spells at all, you must have a patron deity.