Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2024, 09:06:34 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 30, 2024, 02:41:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PMIn the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

It makes more sense to me to either have no named deities (like 1E and 2E), or to have at least a paragraph on each (like in 3E - though ideally more).

I have to disagree with that first sentence. I think you're coming at it from the perspective of the (for lack of a better term) "advanced roleplayer". To my mind, a D&D PHB should be made chiefly for the newcomer and/or casual player, and with at least an eye to the younger (read: "teenaged") player. As a youth, I played a lot of games with people who didn't care enough to own the book or investigate the lore, but were happy to sit down and play with those of us that did. It's worth stressing that without those people, I would not have had a group to play with. When someone like that decides to play Cleric just because it sounds fun, a god's name, alignment and portfolio are all they need.

You imply that it's important that players conform and be given the name of an "official" god from a table. But I know from experience that beginners can play just fine without that single-line entry.

I remember playing as a youth back in the 1980s. There was no mention of gods in the Player's Handbook or Basic Set. I didn't feel the lack in the slightest. I don't look back and feel that my old D&D days were flawed by the lack of a name-only god. Sometimes we'd come up with a background for characters including what religion they were, but other times we just didn't bother with that sort of detail.

A cleric's god can be just a name on a chart with no description, but it could also just be unspecified. In most real-world polytheistic religions, a cleric usually wasn't dedicated to a single god. They were a holy person who respected all the gods.

Now, provide evidence that your experience is/was typical and representative of all beginning D&D players.  The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."  I'm kind of tired of your contrarian responses to every generality based on nothing but your own personal experiences (assuming they are even true).  Your particular alleged experiences don't invalidate a general statement (the only thing it might contradict is an absolute statement... which is not what was stated).

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PM

Quote from: Man at Arms on November 28, 2024, 01:00:08 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 28, 2024, 12:37:36 PMI agree, but at the same time it's still an odd decision. It would have cost them nothing to just reprint the table from the 5e PHB.

Maybe they just forgot, or maybe they're planning to sell deities for $0.36 each on D&D Beyond.

Yeah, I wonder if it was intentional?  Or perhaps it's just part of a philosophy change, of sorts.  "The player characters, need only to believe in themselves."

In the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

It makes more sense to me to either have no named deities (like 1E and 2E), or to have at least a paragraph on each (like in 3E - though ideally more).

Interestingly BX D&D is another that makes no mentions of gods at all other than a single line for the cleric noting they are dedicated to a single god or goddess.

Quote from: Omega on November 30, 2024, 11:14:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PM

Quote from: Man at Arms on November 28, 2024, 01:00:08 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 28, 2024, 12:37:36 PMI agree, but at the same time it's still an odd decision. It would have cost them nothing to just reprint the table from the 5e PHB.

Maybe they just forgot, or maybe they're planning to sell deities for $0.36 each on D&D Beyond.

Yeah, I wonder if it was intentional?  Or perhaps it's just part of a philosophy change, of sorts.  "The player characters, need only to believe in themselves."

In the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

It makes more sense to me to either have no named deities (like 1E and 2E), or to have at least a paragraph on each (like in 3E - though ideally more).

Interestingly BX D&D is another that makes no mentions of gods at all other than a single line for the cleric noting they are dedicated to a single god or goddess.

Sir, this is a fact free discussion. Unless this relates to how you feel about WOTC, it's irrelevant.

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2024, 09:06:34 PMYou imply that it's important that players conform and be given the name of an "official" god from a table. But I know from experience that beginners can play just fine without that single-line entry.

Except I didn't imply that. All I said is that it's handy to be able to say "Here, pick a god off this list".

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2024, 09:06:34 PMA cleric's god can be just a name on a chart with no description

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PMIn the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

I think you're arguing with your own statement, here. How can just a name be fine, but a name and some extra information is pointless?

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2024, 09:06:34 PMbut it could also just be unspecified. In most real-world polytheistic religions, a cleric usually wasn't dedicated to a single god. They were a holy person who respected all the gods.

Sure. That's a natural fit for many games. It's the default in some versions of D&D. It isn't the apparent intent with contemporary official D&D and I very much doubt it's how many people play the game.

Of course I don't have the 2024 text in front of me, so I could be wrong. It'd be interesting, to say the least, if they have altered it to state that Clerics no longer have to choose a patron deity. Maybe someone who has bought it can quote the relevant passage.

All of this is still irrelevant, though, because I didn't argue that the game becomes non-functional without a list of gods in the PHB. I just argued that its a convenient feature and nothing is gained by removing it.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on November 30, 2024, 09:58:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2024, 09:06:34 PMYou imply that it's important that players conform and be given the name of an "official" god from a table. But I know from experience that beginners can play just fine without that single-line entry.

I remember playing as a youth back in the 1980s. There was no mention of gods in the Player's Handbook or Basic Set. I didn't feel the lack in the slightest. I don't look back and feel that my old D&D days were flawed by the lack of a name-only god. Sometimes we'd come up with a background for characters including what religion they were, but other times we just didn't bother with that sort of detail.

A cleric's god can be just a name on a chart with no description, but it could also just be unspecified. In most real-world polytheistic religions, a cleric usually wasn't dedicated to a single god. They were a holy person who respected all the gods.

Now, provide evidence that your experience is/was typical and representative of all beginning D&D players.  The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."  I'm kind of tired of your contrarian responses to every generality based on nothing but your own personal experiences (assuming they are even true).  Your particular alleged experiences don't invalidate a general statement (the only thing it might contradict is an absolute statement... which is not what was stated).

I don't have data on this, but then, neither do you or ForgottenF. If you've got objective evidence, then post it. Otherwise, it's just your anecdotal experience compared to mine.

It is an objective fact that none of 1E, Basic Set, or 2E listed the names of any gods. I don't think that meant those games were anti-religion. They thought of god names as being like any other detail of the game world - a matter for the DM.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 30, 2024, 11:19:47 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2024, 09:06:34 PMA cleric's god can be just a name on a chart with no description

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PMIn the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

I think you're arguing with your own statement, here. How can just a name be fine, but a name and some extra information is pointless?

If you like having god name tables in the PHB, then I have no problem with that as a matter of personal taste. In the same way, some people like Forgotten Realms as a base, some people like Greyhawk, some people like Mystara, etc.

But it's not an objective failure of the PHB to not put in everything that anyone likes. Putting in more of everything doesn't make the PHB better. No matter what, they're not going to include some things that some people want.

I'm just saying I didn't care for it. To me, if a god is just going to be a name, that's something easily made up, the same as any other background detail.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 30, 2024, 11:19:47 PMAll of this is still irrelevant, though, because I didn't argue that the game becomes non-functional without a list of gods in the PHB. I just argued that its a convenient feature and nothing is gained by removing it.

Yeah, that's my view. I think Moldvay or Mentzer Basic could have benefitted from some default world lore re who Clerics worship, although it's less of an issue in what by modern standards are Starter Sets.

Quote from: jhkim on December 01, 2024, 02:17:41 AMI don't have data on this, but then, neither do you or ForgottenF. If you've got objective evidence, then post it. Otherwise, it's just your anecdotal experience compared to mine.

No.  Someone doesn't need objective data to say, "It would be helpful to have a few deities named to spark players' imaginations.  I've had players that liked this."  You do need objective data to say, "(b)eginners can play just fine without (it)."  See the second statement is an absolute, negating the possibility of the opposite, and making the claim about everyone.  Forgotten F's statement was about his players in the past.  He doesn't state "all beginners" or anything like that, just that some of his past players would have been helped by the inclusion.  You are guilty of what you accused him of inferring, making a general statement that precludes the opposite.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 30, 2024, 11:19:47 PMSure. That's a natural fit for many games. It's the default in some versions of D&D. It isn't the apparent intent with contemporary official D&D and I very much doubt it's how many people play the game.

Of course I don't have the 2024 text in front of me, so I could be wrong. It'd be interesting, to say the least, if they have altered it to state that Clerics no longer have to choose a patron deity. Maybe someone who has bought it can quote the relevant passage.

From the first Paragraphs of the Cleric entry in the 2024 PHB

"Clerics draw their power from the realms of the gods and harness it to work miracles. Blessed by a deity, a pantheon, or another immortal entity, a Cleric can reach out to the divine magic of the Outer Planes--Where gods dwell-- and channel it to bolster people and battle foes.

Because their power is a divine gift, Clerics typically associate themselves with temples dedicated to the deity or other immortal force that unlocked their magic. Harnessing divine magic doesn't rely on specific training, yet Clerics might learn prayers and rites that help them draw on power from the outer planes.

Not every member of a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their devotion through prayer and rituals, not through magic. Many mortals claim to speak for the gods, but few can marshal the power of those gods the way a Cleric can."

end quote.

Edit: Each Domain entry further goes into detail about what kinds of Gods and Orders would have purview of that domain and what they might be God of.

It doesn't bother me, for them to not list any pantheons in the 2024 PHB.  However it did surprise me a bit, that they chose not to do so.  It had been a part of the PHB for 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, and 5.0 editions.  It was part of the typical information, WOTC had chosen to include.

So I was curious, why they dropped the pantheons in the 2024 PHB?

I'm surprised they'd go back to their omission, as in the days of Basic D&D and AD&D.

I don't need them.  I don't necessarily want them.  But I am curious.....

If they left out the dieties from the PHB because they plan to put it with the settings, then the 2024 DMG should have listed several prominent non-human dieties like Moradin, Gruumsh, and Corellon "Ladyboy" Larethian. Normally they are left off of Greyhawk lists because they appear in "general" lists, but if those lists no longer appear, then they should probably be indicated in setting-specific lists for settings that include them.

Quote from: jhkim on December 01, 2024, 02:17:41 AMIt is an objective fact that none of 1E, Basic Set, or 2E listed the names of any gods.,,,.

Dieties & Demigods (1E and 2E) had a few gods.

At the end of the day, the way the Cleric is presented in the 2024 rulebook as I quoted, and the way the Subclass Domains are talked about in terms of what kind of Gods might oversee them?

It's really not a big deal the PHB doesn't have any sample Gods. The Cleric entry states the Cleric is not necessarily a Priest, and their powers can come from a God, Pantheon or other Immortal entity. It's gonna come down to which of the 4 subclass Domains are most interesting to the Player before they even think about what being their Cleric may serve, and they'll ask their DM what beings in the setting link up with that Domain.

Quote from: Ruprecht on December 01, 2024, 09:42:30 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 01, 2024, 02:17:41 AMIt is an objective fact that none of 1E, Basic Set, or 2E listed the names of any gods.,,,.

Dieties & Demigods (1E and 2E) had a few gods.

Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes for D&D, Deities and Demi-Gods for AD&D. And Gygax literally said D&DG was one of the "four main books", the others being the PHB, MM, and DMG. So of course Mr. Kim is full of shit, once again. Not including Greyhawk deities in the PHB doesn't mean AD&D didn't list gods, that was the purview of the gods book...

Quote from: Orphan81 on December 01, 2024, 03:49:04 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 30, 2024, 11:19:47 PMSure. That's a natural fit for many games. It's the default in some versions of D&D. It isn't the apparent intent with contemporary official D&D and I very much doubt it's how many people play the game.

Of course I don't have the 2024 text in front of me, so I could be wrong. It'd be interesting, to say the least, if they have altered it to state that Clerics no longer have to choose a patron deity. Maybe someone who has bought it can quote the relevant passage.

From the first Paragraphs of the Cleric entry in the 2024 PHB

"Clerics draw their power from the realms of the gods and harness it to work miracles. Blessed by a deity, a pantheon, or another immortal entity, a Cleric can reach out to the divine magic of the Outer Planes--Where gods dwell-- and channel it to bolster people and battle foes.

Because their power is a divine gift, Clerics typically associate themselves with temples dedicated to the deity or other immortal force that unlocked their magic. Harnessing divine magic doesn't rely on specific training, yet Clerics might learn prayers and rites that help them draw on power from the outer planes.

Not every member of a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their devotion through prayer and rituals, not through magic. Many mortals claim to speak for the gods, but few can marshal the power of those gods the way a Cleric can."

end quote.

Edit: Each Domain entry further goes into detail about what kinds of Gods and Orders would have purview of that domain and what they might be God of.

Emphasis mine. That is interesting; Comparing with the text from the 5e book, the clause which jumped out to me was:

QuoteAs you create a cleric, the most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you want your character to embody, Appendix B includes lists of many of the gods of the multiverse, Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign.

However, the more comparable passage is probably:

QuoteClerics are intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of the gods. As varied as the gods they serve, clerics strive to embody the handiwork of their deities.

By comparison, the new text is quite possibly representative of a softening of the traditional stance that a Cleric has a single patron deity. We'd have to see what comes out of future books. I wouldn't necessarily hate that. Opening up the number of ways you can interpret a given class makes some sense, given D&D's ambition to be a universal fantasy game. 

I still think the likely reason for not putting gods in the PHB is the more mundane one that they just got moved to the DMG.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 02, 2024, 12:21:32 AMBy comparison, the new text is quite possibly representative of a softening of the traditional stance that a Cleric has a single patron deity. We'd have to see what comes out of future books. I wouldn't necessarily hate that. Opening up the number of ways you can interpret a given class makes some sense, given D&D's ambition to be a universal fantasy game.

They've already done this in previous worlds--Eberron allows clerics of a pantheon (instead of a single diety) and also divine philosophies/concepts that are not antropomorphic dieties (e.g., the Silver Flame and the Blood of Vol). Clerics of Athas tend to draw power from (IIRC) elemental forces.