New UA one D&D play test document Dec 1st.

[Yaarel]

It is helpful to avoid referring to "gods", when making an effort to describe human religions inclusively.

 

[tetrasodium]

To me the flavor matters, in some ways more than the mechanics. I value mechanics and flavor equally.

I need the flavor of the Cleric class description to welcome nontheistic religious traditions as well as theistic ones. This also relates to reallife inclusivity. Not all players come from theistic cultures, nor are especially interested in theism.

The Cleric class works better when more inclusive. This likewise helps the class be more versatile for different kinds of D&D settings.

Setting including cosmology belongs in the DMs Guide. Not the Cleric class.

This is where I disagree with you. the 5e cleric has a super thick layer of FR baseline shellacking that makes it difficult to introduce players to settings like eberron & darksun where the baselines with deities are extremely different. Real life faith shouldn't be imposing on a game, it's about 30some years late for the satanic panic.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

It is helpful to avoid referring to "gods", when making an effort to describe human religions inclusively.

Depends on what is being talked about. To blanketly ban talking about gods when talking about religion is just as dismissive the other way.

Anyway when it comes to the release of the new core books. The default Cosmology and Settings, along with their gods should be talked about, as D&D is not an outright generic system, it has it's own lore, and culture about it.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

This is where I disagree with you. the 5e cleric has a super thick layer of FR baseline shellacking that makes it difficult to introduce players to settings like eberron & darksun where the baselines with deities are extremely different. Real life faith shouldn't be imposing on a game, it's about 30some years late for the satanic panic.

Changes from the baseline need merely be mentioned with setting books. Eberron is not too different from the base, minus their being no proof of the existence of the gods and anyone can become a cleric of anything so long as they have sufficient faith in the idea.

 

[Yaarel]

To blanketly ban talking about gods when talking about religion is just as dismissive the other way.

The Cleric class description needs to focus on the sacred community.

The DMs Guide and the Setting Guides need to focus on what kind religions exist in the region, world, or cosmology.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

The Cleric class description needs to focus on the sacred community.

The DMs Guide and the Setting Guides need to focus on what kind religions exist in the region, world, or cosmology.

I don't agree and lets leave it at that.

 

[tetrasodium]

Changes from the baseline need merely be mentioned with setting books. Eberron is not too different from the base, minus their being no proof of the existence of the gods and anyone can become a cleric of anything so long as they have sufficient faith in the idea.

That sounds good in theory, but a gm is lucky if they can get a player to read even a single page of text, expecting a gm to convince players they need to read a setting book is almost trolling the gm.

Eberron deliberately has conflicting accounts on the gods & no good proof either way, the PHB is entirely certain & certain of specifics & presents lots of proof. Darksun deliberately does not have gods, they may never have existed be in hiding or even be dead, that's an important part of the setting. "shared multiverse" shouldn't mean "this is how FR & similar settings do it"

 

[Minigiant]

Outside or Turn and Destroy Undead, the cleric is any real mechanical ties to gods or religion as a construct.

The cleric class is tied to Divinity. Whatever Divinity on that universe is.

 

[Lojaan]

So we can talk about religion but not gods, or we can talk about gods but not religion, because either or both may or may not be inclusive.

Well! Sounds about right.

If it made sense you wouldn't need faith now would you?

 

[overgeeked]

Here's to hoping they take the cleric back to its Hammer Horror roots.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am really hoping changes to the Cleric will not be substantial. (Plus, how many subclasses will we get? If it's just one (light/life, I'd guess) it will be hard to get a clear sense of what the class holds.

I’m hoping since we’re only getting the one class, they’ll give us multiple subclasses. They did say they plan to playtest 4 subclasses per class.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's to hoping they take the cleric back to its Hammer Horror roots.

That’d be pretty dope, now that you mention it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I’m hoping since we’re only getting the one class, they’ll give us multiple subclasses. They did say they plan to playtest 4 subclasses per class.

I hope that they do give us all 4 subclasses, but the pattern from the Expert Classes UA would suggest that we're just getting the default/main one tomorrow.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

We are also supposed to get more than just the Cleric.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I hope that they do give us all 4 subclasses, but the pattern from the Expert Classes UA would suggest that we're just getting the default/main one tomorrow.

Mmm. Maybe. I wonder if "Domain" and "Subclass" will remain the same thing or if they'll come up with a new thing for subclass (perhaps moving it to Level 3 and keeping domain choice at level one).

Just spitballin'.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

We are also supposed to get more than just the Cleric.

More than the Cleric in playtest material but probably just the Cleric when it comes to classes. (Druid and Paladin were mentioned as "coming later".)

 

[Charlaquin]

We are also supposed to get more than just the Cleric.

Cleric, and revised Dragonborn and Ardlings are confirmed. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some rules glossary tweaks as we have in the last two packets, and maybe some new and/or revised feats. But it definitely sounded like cleric is going to be the only class in this packet, and that it’s going to be smaller than the last two were.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

We are also supposed to get more than just the Cleric.

Yep. The updated Ardling, Dragonborn, and something "secret" that we know of so far.

Edit: @Charlaquin ninja'd me.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Cleric, and revised Dragonborn and Ardlings are confirmed. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some rules glossary tweaks as we have in the last two packets, and maybe some new and/or revised feats. But it definitely sounded like cleric is going to be the only class in this packet, and that it’s going to be smaller than the last two were.

I think he said that we'd get a new definition for D20 Tests (one that he expects to get better feedback, for whatever reason).

 

[Charlaquin]

Mmm. Maybe. I wonder if "Domain" and "Subclass" will remain the same thing or if they'll come up with a new thing for subclass (perhaps moving it to Level 3 and keeping domain choice at level one).

Just spitballin'.

I hope so! I think for cleric and wizard both, it makes a lot of sense for Domain and school specialization to be separate choices from subclass. Especially if they stick with subclasses coming at 3rd level across the board.