Why is the Death Domain not in the PH?

[Glarnog]

Or why will it be in the DMG?

[Edge of Dreams]

Because it's considered more appropriate for villains and evil NPCs than player characters. WoTC doesn't want to encourage players to think of evil PCs as acceptable to play by default; it's better if those kind of characters are in "ask your DM" territory, especially for organized play.

[Glarnog]

Interesting, though it does feel insulting to me. Not sure having the core books assume organized play isn't assuming too much either. I have always thought, no idea if there is data to support it, that the mass majority of DnD was played in home type of games. Will there be other DMG only Domains?
Thanks

[randomodo]

Of course, there's also no reason to think of the death domain as intrinsically evil nor are gods of death intrinsically evil in fiction or even in D&D - kelemvor (or however you spell it, for example).

I'd happily have lost one piece of scary halfling art in the PH to make room for the death domain.

[Scirocco]

Not sure really... apparently Death domain access was an LTO at one of the big convention events but you needed the certificate to start one during the Tyranny of Dragons story season.

Necromancer Wizard is core but for some reason the similarly themed (though mechanically different) Death Domain Cleric isn't there.

[Gurka]

While I, too, wish the death domain was present in the PH, I understand why it's not.

It's not one of the "heroic" domains. That doesn't mean evil, but it seldom means happy and shiny either, and I think that's the image of the cleric that they mainly wanted to put forth.

Besides, plenty of classes only get two archetypes (so far). I can come up with cleric domains all day, and so can they. They had to draw the line somewhere, and unfortunately, death didn't make the cut.

Also, a necromancy school wizard is still petty far from a true necromancer. I expect we'll see that in the DMG too, but who knows.

[Mandrake]

Also, a necromancy school wizard is still petty far from a true necromancer. I expect we'll see that in the DMG too, but who knows.

This. When you look at necromancy spells in general and necromancy specialization for wizards, besides few discussable and discussed exceptions (looking at that Animate Dead), most spells are just as damaging as any other Evocation spell or obviously intended to support good or battle evil, although through necromancy. Sometimes it's almost like Defense against the dark arts, except it's not.

[Beleriphon]

I suspect it will fall under the section for creating new character options as an example for cleric domains, much like the warforged and kender are likely going to be the examples for races.

[Devils_Advocate]

The treatment of the Death domain strikes me as pretty fishy. Other "sinister" options like necromancer wizard, fiend pact warlock, and assassin are included in the Player's Handbook, and they acknowledge that Death clerics don't have to be evil. They list Death as one of the suggested domains for various deities and say that you can ask your DM about it if you want it, so it's not like they're keeping it some big villainous secret to be sprung on the PCs, and they're basically okay with players considering it. For that matter, they list the evil deities in the PHB along with the rest, and 5E's section on alignment doesn't even seem to include a note that player characters shouldn't personally be evil, and that evil alignment should be reserved for antagonists! Heck, nearly every character background comes with a suggested ideal for an evil character.

So why go out of their way to get DMs to think about whether to allow the Death domain in particular? It seems like there would have to be some sort of reason to justify the organizational inconvenience of listing one of the core options for a class in a separate book from the class itself, unlike every other class path.

Well, one possible reason is that "minionmancy", even if successfully balanced against other options in terms of power, has the potential to really slow down combat. And, while it could be a good thing to give that sort of thing to the occasional villain, in order to have big boss battles that aren't over as quickly as usual, it may not be so much fun for every fight, especially if that means one player sucking up a disproportionate amount of game time.

Basically, it's expected for the DM to sometimes control lots of creatures and to spend more time than anyone else doing stuff each round. Possibly even more time than everyone else combined! But to have a player doing that all the time is something else, something that likely many groups will even be quite opposed to. So if the Death domain particularly facilitates that sort of thing, then the problem may be a playstyle that it engenders, not that it doesn't superficially fit stereotypes of what heroic adventurers are supposed to be like.

Consider that drow, while they also come with an "Ask your DM" note, are given racial traits in the PHB, instead of merely being listed as a theoretical option but having the rules for actually playing one sequestered away elsewhere. Meanwhile, while I hear that kender will be in the DMG, they aren't even mentioned in the PHB, I believe. And those two facts look pretty odd when you put them next to each other if you look at things in terms of "villain race" and "hero race". But if you look at them in terms of which race's writeup encourages players to have their characters **** over the rest of the PCs, it makes a lot more sense!

In short, whether something is more thematically appropriate to "good guys" or "bad guys" is no measure of how potentially disruptive to the game it is, and it seems to me that just maybe some options have been relegated to the Dungeon Master's Guide due to the degree of likelihood that allowing them to players will make the game less fun for other players.

Plausible theory Y/N?

(Then again, it could just be a case of the rulebooks being bizarrely inconsistent and making a weird special case out of something that really doesn't need to be one. It seems that Dungeons & Dragons will always suffer from that sort of thing, regardless of how "streamlined" the ruleset becomes, so, really, who can say for sure?)

[MaxWilson]

Plausible theory Y/N?

Unfortunately, Death domain clerics aren't particularly good at minionmancy, whereas Necromancers kind of are, so your theory falls flat not because it isn't interesting and plausible but because it doesn't fit the observed facts.

[silveralen]

It does strike me as really weird that fiend/old one pact warlocks are core, if the intention was towards good/heroic types. Sure, those don't have to be evil, but neither do death domain clerics. Arguably it is easier to picture a neutral death cleric than it is a neutral fiend pact warlock.

[Oscredwin]

Warlocks have a much easier time acting against their patron than Cleric's do, thematically.

[silveralen]

Warlocks have a much easier time acting against their patron than Cleric's do, thematically.

That's going to vary. In a world where gods have almost no direct interaction with the world (eberron) warlocks would have a far harder time, while in a setting like the forgotten realms it might be true, though again it really depends on how the DM runs it. I certainly don't think it is a universally applicable rule.

In addition to that, at least a handful of death gods aren't directly evil, while all fiends are evil.

[MaxWilson]

That's going to vary. In a world where gods have almost no direct interaction with the world (eberron) warlocks would have a far harder time, while in a setting like the forgotten realms it might be true, though again it really depends on how the DM runs it. I certainly don't think it is a universally applicable rule.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I have this idea for a Warlock/Bard (who lies to everyone and pretends to be a pure bard) who was offered a power by Asmodeus and said, "Okay." Asmodeus didn't ask for anything in return, but the warlock has this sneaking suspicion that Asmodeus may someday ask for something unpleasant in order to keep this power... and the Warlock also has the unpleasant feeling that he will probably cooperate with Asmodeus when that time comes, in order to keep his power. He is pretty spineless though so he just tries not to think about it, and when it does happen he will probably deny to himself that it ever happened.

This will be probably be my next character.

[Sartharina]

It's especially annoying since Kelemvor is the God of Death in the game's flagship setting, and distinctly Non-Evil.

[Inevitability]

It's especially annoying since Kelemvor is the God of Death in the game's flagship setting, and distinctly Non-Evil.

It's more annoying that out of the 10+ death gods in the PHB, only four are not Evil, and only one of those is Good. Really WOTC, please stop with this 'dead is bad' line of thought.

[Calmar]

I think, fantasy fiction is currently in some state of transition. There is a moving away from always-evil grim reaper gods of death (or stuff like chainmail-bikinis or boob-plates), but those concepts are not yet fully abandoned.

[Sartharina]

... but I don't want fantasy to move away from boob plate! I like women adventurers that actually look like women! (Chainmail bikinis can go, though. It is not the equivalent to a guy in a loincloth - the equivalent to a man in a loincloth is a woman in a loincloth, dammit.)

Frankly, I don't mind that there are so many Evil gods of death - Death is evil when it's actively caused and sought out.

[charcoalninja]

Because it was more important for Wizards to get a subclass for every school and something had to be cut somewhere?

[silveralen]

Because it was more important for Wizards to get a subclass for every school and something had to be cut somewhere?

I mean.... Death domain would literally be a page. Maybe they could've just cut the trinket item table down to half it's size instead, considering gods with the death domain are listed in the PHB?

If it got cut for space that wasn't a brilliant choice imo. Nor does it make sense to single it out as en evil choice compared to other options. It's just... really odd.

[MukkTB]

Its not a particularly powerful class option. If it was you could explain it as hiding good NPC only classes that can take on a whole party more easily in the DMG.

[Inevitability]

If they had to cut something out, why not one of those full-page pictures? Sure, it'd be a pity to not have it, but they'd probably reuse it for some future sourcebook.

[HylianKnight]

Because they're trying to set the precedent now that not all subclasses need to be ones that are widely used by players. To that end, they choose two of the best subclasses to represent this in the DMG. The Oathbreaker Paladin is an example of 'this applies to niche conditions that may come up in the course of your personal campaign.' It shows that you can make effective subclasses that represent a change of the status quo, as opposed to yet another base option.

Meanwhile the Death Domain shows that not all subclasses need to have the same purpose of being broadly applicable to all players. On the whole, the vast majority of Death Clerics that see play will be NPC stat blocks, bad guys that the DM can use in his campaign.

It's just a way of opening the door for DMs to use and make subclasses specific to the needs and goals of their campaigns.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

IMO there's enough difference between 'honored dead' clerics and 'evil dead' clerics that you could probably do a different subclass for each anyway.

[MukkTB]

Wait. You're saying there isn't a particular reason for this, they're just doing it to arbitrarily hand the DM more power over players?

I'm pretty sick of this philosophy of handing as much power to the DM as possible. A good table can work with any variation of DM/Player disparity. A bad table will struggle regardless. Making play work is a matter of people coming to agreement to hang out and try to cooperate. If competition is the order of the day, a competitive board game is better, or go play pvp mode on some computer rpg. I'm not even joking. A computer is a completely fair arbitrator for PVP. A DM is never going to be able to be the same. So I have a very hard time seeing how maximizing DM power and minimizing player power will make the game better. The natural state of things as far as I'm concerned is that the DM has power over the entire world, backstory, NPCs. He can further homebrew anything he wants to. 'Its a skeleton that's twice as powerful as a normal skeleton.' He can kill the player anytime he wants ala 'rocks fall everyone dies' or by just piling on too many monsters. It's not unreasonable for the player to have power over who his character is as long as he follows the rules.