Quote from: Jaeger on December 13, 2024, 03:58:51 PMWhich has always been a bad excuse.

I gave a potential explanation, not an excuse. No 'excuse' is required as the decision to play a non-Christian is not a fault, and does not require justification.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 13, 2024, 04:23:27 PMThe main difference I think is that my fantasy is pretty much to be myself only more competent in what the game is focused on, while theirs is to actually not be themselves for awhile.

Both are fine approaches to roleplaying.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 13, 2024, 11:52:25 AMI think many players opt to play non-Christians for similar reasons to wanting to play non-humans: In an activity focused on escapism, the exotic holds more attraction than the familiar.

That's a plausible explanation, but it doesn't track with my own experience. The (admittedly small) number of practicing Christians I've played with have been more willing rather than less to play Christian-analogue characters. I'd be more inclined to ascribe it to a general desire people have to play an outlier in whatever setting they're playing in. A lot of people would only play a Christian in a non-Christian setting, which might be why the outspoken man of God is a bit of a sci fi trope. I get that. I like playing a foreigner in whatever setting I'm in and being the fish out of water.

But also, a lot of people in the RPG scene just never grew out of the 90s edgy atheist phase.

As much as designers try to make classes and spells universal for any setting, these things are best when integrated strongly, and in fact imply a setting. A world where fireball exists means nobles must think twice before building wooden castles.

Same thing goes for a cleric. If healing is good and raising skeletons is evil, what does that say about the moral alignment of the universe? What does that say about the gods?

I haven't read the new books, but good for them if this is the approach they're taking. One of the things I liked the least in 5e was how the setting was baked into the rules a bit. I just happen to not like the Forgotten Realms.

Maybe they want to move away from the deities disign for reasons of religion being a topic most people don't want to discuss while gaming.

Or as someone else stated, they may charge so much later per deity down the raid. Money, money, money.

Quote from: Chainzjade on December 19, 2024, 07:26:10 PMMaybe they want to move away from the deities disign for reasons of religion being a topic most people don't want to discuss while gaming.

Or as someone else stated, they may charge so much later per deity down the raid. Money, money, money.

Resurrecting this thread, to say that religion isn't the only basic content that was cut from 2014, to 2024 D&D. 

Even something as basic as information about a classic player race, such as Dwarves, was removed.  3 pages in 2014, was reduced to 1 page in 2024.  Shucks, I like Dwarves.  Why minimize Dwarves?

Quote from: Man at Arms on January 26, 2025, 02:03:18 AMResurrecting this thread, to say that religion isn't the only basic content that was cut from 2014, to 2024 D&D. 

Even something as basic as information about a classic player race, such as Dwarves, was removed.  3 pages in 2014, was reduced to 1 page in 2024.  Shucks, I like Dwarves.  Why minimize Dwarves?

I still don't have any of the 2024 books, so I'd ask - is this about removing setting-specific lore? Do the other races all still have three pages each? Do they still have specific references like "Mark of Gruumsh" for orcs?

Removing setting-specific lore isn't necessarily minimizing. It can be seen as a positive for GMs who are creating their own settings -- or opportunity for more customization in setting books.

Quote from: jhkim on January 26, 2025, 02:21:33 AM

Quote from: Man at Arms on January 26, 2025, 02:03:18 AMResurrecting this thread, to say that religion isn't the only basic content that was cut from 2014, to 2024 D&D. 

Even something as basic as information about a classic player race, such as Dwarves, was removed.  3 pages in 2014, was reduced to 1 page in 2024.  Shucks, I like Dwarves.  Why minimize Dwarves?

I still don't have any of the 2024 books, so I'd ask - is this about removing setting-specific lore? Do the other races all still have three pages each? Do they still have specific references like "Mark of Gruumsh" for orcs?

Removing setting-specific lore isn't necessarily minimizing. It can be seen as a positive for GMs who are creating their own settings -- or opportunity for more customization in setting books.

There is less information on each race.  The differences between player races, are less important now.  Just a further continuation, of the changes found previously in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.  Player races are becoming more and more vanilla.

Quote from: Man at Arms on January 26, 2025, 04:35:20 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 26, 2025, 02:21:33 AM

Quote from: Man at Arms on January 26, 2025, 02:03:18 AMResurrecting this thread, to say that religion isn't the only basic content that was cut from 2014, to 2024 D&D. 

Even something as basic as information about a classic player race, such as Dwarves, was removed.  3 pages in 2014, was reduced to 1 page in 2024.  Shucks, I like Dwarves.  Why minimize Dwarves?

I still don't have any of the 2024 books, so I'd ask - is this about removing setting-specific lore? Do the other races all still have three pages each? Do they still have specific references like "Mark of Gruumsh" for orcs?

Removing setting-specific lore isn't necessarily minimizing. It can be seen as a positive for GMs who are creating their own settings -- or opportunity for more customization in setting books.

There is less information on each race.  The differences between player races, are less important now.  Just a further continuation, of the changes found previously in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.  Player races are becoming more and more vanilla.

Reducing species (nee race) to the same level of importance as Background with the two together becoming "origin" is their intention. While this is new(ish) for D&D, it's becoming fairly common in other more modern games.

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 26, 2025, 10:41:07 AMReducing species (nee race) to the same level of importance as Background with the two together becoming "origin" is their intention. While this is new(ish) for D&D, it's becoming fairly common in other more modern games.

"Common" does not equal "good."  It represents part of the shift away from zero-to-hero RPGs (with emergent story) and towards PC fantasy superheroes whose "backstories" are more important than their adventures.

And before some moron asks, "But how does reducing the influence of race make backstories more important?  Seems like it would do the opposite."  Race, random ability scores, backgrounds, hard class niches, etc. all act to define characters in ways that are not always conducive to player choice.  Rolling an 11 for Int really limits your character's chances of being a powerful mage (in older editions).  Playing a dwarf came with cultural and ability score constraints.  Sure, some DMs bent those for players on occasion, but playing a dwarf with 11 Int generally precluded the player from playing a 6'5" tree-loving, claustrophobic, master wizard.  You played an elf or druid if you wanted something like that.  (And for the folks that say, "That sounds cool for a dwarf to be those things,"  that's because most of the people posting here are experienced enough to play against type and still be successful.  Not so much a newbie...).  But now, if I want my dwarf to be a hermaphroditic, purple-haired, 6'5", magical snowflake ("who's kind of random.. LOL!"), there's nothing in the race to stand in my way.  We can all be anything!  (Which is the great lie that schools and media are telling all of our children... but that's another topic.)

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 26, 2025, 11:01:09 AMthe shift away from zero-to-hero RPGs

Good riddance to that. It gets repetitive. Look at Traveller for an early example of chucking that defective pattern.

On a practical level, I don't know if listing pantheons in the PHB is really necessary or even worthwhile any more.  It was one thing when studying mythology meant going to the library and multiple books.  Now, anyone can find out anything they want to know just by pulling their phone out and Goggling it.  There doesn't need to be a description of any real world pantheon or even popular fictional pantheon in the book.  People can just go watch a Youtube video about it.

As someone who has the 2024 Books, I can give concrete information on this stuff rather than heresay.

With 2024 Clerics, you're given a connection to the Divine Realms and magic that can't be taken away. Yes you can be the classic God worshipping Cleric who was given their divine magic through pledging yourself to that God....but now that it's given it can't be taken away. Or it could be a full pantheon empowered you. Or it could be your soul was simply aligned towards Divine magic.

The point is, they left it open, Most likely so each DM can customize how Clerics work metaphysically in their own campaigns.

As for the races being reduced in content, it's because they pulled out all the Forgotten Realms stuff from 2014. You're given a basic gist of the species in terms of broad strokes of culture and physical traits. Than given the game mechanics of any species abilities, low light or dark vision, and size.

As for Backgrounds, which make up the other part of Origin, they're all humble in nature and don't suppose you've already conquered every thing in front of you. It's open so you can min max if you want (Playing a Wizard so you pick one of the backgrounds that gives you a bonus to Intelligence) or can make for some more interesting RP picks (Playing a Wizard so you pick the Street Urchin or Soldier background to show your Wizard has a more colorful past than having been a scholor from the get go. Origins also give you a Feat so that's something to take into account)

But yes... The 5.5 edition does away with Racial Modifiers for better or worse, so locking in your Elf Wizard for the Bonus Intelligence is no longer a thing. Races are slightly less stereotyped and iconic in the exchange for allowing broader character concepts like a gruff stupid soldier Elf, or a Brilliant Orc Wizard.

Quote from: Man at Arms on November 27, 2024, 01:20:04 PMI'm curious why they left them out?

What was their logic?

Just curious, I suppose.

WoTC demands from you to bow to the alters of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness.

No other gods are permitted.

(I say this with PARTIAL irony)