D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook Reveal #1: "Everything You Need To Know!"

Each day this week, Wizards of the Coast will be releasing a new live-streamed preview video based on the upcoming Player's Handbook. The first is entitled Everything You Need To Know and you can watch it live below (or, if you missed it, you should be able to watch it from the start afterwards). The video focuses on weapon mastery and character origins.


There will be new videos on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday this week, focusing on the Fighter, the Paladin, and the Barbarian, with (presumably) more in the coming weeks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well, to be honest, I was thinking more the AD&D version, so, it does depend on what edition you happen to be playing. But, the point is still valid either way. Your LG paladin loses all the Paladin abilities whereas the cleric never suffers any consequences.
That did depend a bit on edition and supplement.

I believe 1e stated all spells over 2nd or 3rd level were granted by a servant of the God, so they could withhold higher level spells from a priest who was out of line. Later 2e supplements went to the more classic "if your alignment shifts outside the allowed list for your deity, you lose all spells and granted powers". 3e walked that back, though I recall if you and your deity broke up, you lost your domains until you found a new deity (that might have been a house rule, it was a long time ago).

Of course, druids had it really bad with being absolutely Neutral, needing mistletoe harvested under a new moon or your spells weren't as effective, fighting other druids to gain name level and higher, oh and if you used non prescribed weapons or armor, you lost all you class features until you atone.

In fact, a lot of classes had weird restrictions, like rangers being Good, never owning more than they can carry (until name level) and never hiring henchmen or other helpers. Monks remained lawful and also fought to gain levels, as did assassins though the alignment was evil and "fight" isn't the word used to advance your career. Barbarians who started using magic items could become regular fighters, and thieves who became Lawful Good could no longer advance as thieves.

In fact, in 1e (and by extension in some cases, 2e) almost every class had some alignment or behavior based taboo that could kill your advancement or abilities in the class. The only exceptions were fighters and magic-users, though the latter often had to fear all manner of terrible things happening to their spellbook, lest their accumulated magic disappear to fire, flood, theft or book mites.

And believe me when I say there were DMs who knew and used every one of these tactics on their players...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FWIW, my own personal preference for a Warlock class would be more like John Constantine or the Goetic Mage in Invisible Sun. The Goetic Mage does not a make a pact with a single power; instead, they specialize in ritually summoning a variety of otherworldly entities (e.g., fiends, angels, spirits, eldritch horrors, etc.), with whom they bargain/bribe/trick/persuade/coerce for magical favors. So that would be the Warlock's specialty. They are the best at ritual summons, mostly out of combat, and bargaining with otherworldly entities. But it's active. It's something that you are doing all the time with your character. It's not offscreen. It's an onscreen process that the player engages in.

IME, the Goetic Mage does not run into the Ghostrider or Paladin problem.
I would also add that IMHO this would also help make the Warlock more distinct from the Cleric. Often we hear the question on these forums, "What's the meaningful difference between a Cleric and Warlock if they both have an otherworldly patron?" So the answer for a more Goetic-style Warlock would be that the Warlock doesn't have a single patron. They don't even have a "patron." Their specialty lies with summoning and dealing with a variety of extraplanar lesser powers.

Such a move would also mean that Warlock subclasses would amount to more than "What flavor is your patron?" It would probably move to a greater emphasis on the Pact Boon, though I suppose subclasses could also involving being better with certain otherworldly entities than others.
 

that is all fine and well for RP reasons.

But paladins should not be overall more powerful than fighters(as much as D&D can be balanced at least) just because they have some code of conduct to follow.
Why not? Balance? IMO it's certainly not verisimilitude, because gaining more power in exchange for following a code of conduct makes sense to me.
 

While you're at it, make sure druids and rangers appease the gods and spirits of nature, monks uphold their discipline and barbarians hold the fury always in their hearts or else they lose their abilities or no longer can advance in that class.
Yeah. Sounds good.

Oh wait, was this sarcasm?
 



That did depend a bit on edition and supplement.

I believe 1e stated all spells over 2nd or 3rd level were granted by a servant of the God, so they could withhold higher level spells from a priest who was out of line. Later 2e supplements went to the more classic "if your alignment shifts outside the allowed list for your deity, you lose all spells and granted powers". 3e walked that back, though I recall if you and your deity broke up, you lost your domains until you found a new deity (that might have been a house rule, it was a long time ago).

Of course, druids had it really bad with being absolutely Neutral, needing mistletoe harvested under a new moon or your spells weren't as effective, fighting other druids to gain name level and higher, oh and if you used non prescribed weapons or armor, you lost all you class features until you atone.

In fact, a lot of classes had weird restrictions, like rangers being Good, never owning more than they can carry (until name level) and never hiring henchmen or other helpers. Monks remained lawful and also fought to gain levels, as did assassins though the alignment was evil and "fight" isn't the word used to advance your career. Barbarians who started using magic items could become regular fighters, and thieves who became Lawful Good could no longer advance as thieves.

In fact, in 1e (and by extension in some cases, 2e) almost every class had some alignment or behavior based taboo that could kill your advancement or abilities in the class. The only exceptions were fighters and magic-users, though the latter often had to fear all manner of terrible things happening to their spellbook, lest their accumulated magic disappear to fire, flood, theft or book mites.

And believe me when I say there were DMs who knew and used every one of these tactics on their players...
Yup, loved all of that. Really made the setting feel more real and not just a backdrop to the PCs.
 

I saw some of the artwork--a multi-generational orc family, and dwarves working a forge while being served cookies. This is a very different game than it was! "Oh brave new world..."
1718893939374.png
 

Attachments

  • 1718893970945.png
    1718893970945.png
    2.7 MB · Views: 135



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top