D&D (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

[Micah Sweet]

Why rename Madness to Mental Stress? Madness sounds cooler and is more in line with playing a fantasy game.

For the same reason the Scarlet Brotherhood was renamed.

 

[pemerton]

Oh, I know what they mean. I simply disagree. Some class concepts run that risk IMO.

Do you have a reason for your assertion that there is no unfairness?

I mean, both the player of the fighter and the player of the paladin have picked valid "playing pieces" for the game, and are participating in the same sort of way. The rules that govern the resolution of the actions they declare are more-or-less the same. How is it fair that one player has an additional bit of risk to manage?

Fighters and rogues don't derive their abilities from an outside entity.

This is a statement about the fiction. It doesn't tell us anything about what is fair in respect of game play.

 

[abirdcall]

Okay, if class features can be taken away from a class like the Paladin or the Warlock, then every class should equally have the same possibility of having class features taken away.

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of fairness, and not take away class features.

This is part of the social contract for me.

Previous to 2024 the druid was a prime example. If the player decided their druid was going to wear metal armour that is a breach of the contract the same as breaking any other rule.

For a cleric I expect them to fill the narrative identity of the class. If they want to change gods that is fine, we can come up with something. If they just decide to discard the idea of being a cleric then that is a break of the social contract.

I had a new player once who decided she wanted to play a cleric but didn't want to have anything to do with the narrative identity. I said no and she left the game. Which was fine for all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's exactly it. I can buy into the idea that abilities can come and go in a game, but I can't do it if that's not a chance for the player next to me simply because they decided to be a fighter or a rogue and I opted to be a paladin.

Fighter could lose their armour, rogue their dagger, wizard their spellbook.

In any case, I certainly don't want the old school paladin trapping, where the GM creates situations where the paladin is likely to break their oath. But if a cleric openly and knowingly went against their god in a big way, then yeah, I would make them lose their powers. Granted, the only realistic scenario I could imagine this happening in my game, would be the player intentionally setting up a class or subclass change. But I like the fiction of there being a constant metaphysical connection between the cleric and their deity, it being an act of channelling the power of the god rather than the cleric wielding the power on their own right. To me that is what sets divine magic apart from the arcane, and I like to have that distinction.

 

[Belen]

That's exactly it. I can buy into the idea that abilities can come and go in a game, but I can't do it if that's not a chance for the player next to me simply because they decided to be a fighter or a rogue and I opted to be a paladin.

It doesn't matter. If you are a cleric and start going against the wishes of your god, then there have to be consequences. It is the same if a Paladin violates their oath.

This is a player choice but they then have to live with the consequences. They can either atone or seek a new patron.

As a DM, I am not just going to nerf their character but the game has no meaning for anyone if you're a cleric of one god and then purposely violate the faith.

 

[Belen]

Do you have a reason for your assertion that there is no unfairness?

I mean, both the player of the fighter and the player of the paladin have picked valid "playing pieces" for the game, and are participating in the same sort of way. The rules that govern the resolution of the actions they declare are more-or-less the same. How is it fair that one player has an additional bit of risk to manage?

This is a statement about the fiction. It doesn't tell us anything about what is fair in respect of game play.

We are not playing a board game. We are playing a roleplaying game and one dimension of that game is world consequences for your actions in game.

If a fighter is an agent of the king and that fighter starts violating the laws of the kingdom, then that fighter will be hunted down.

If a cleric of Pelor starts casting curses and causing disease, then Pelor is going to remove their powers of lay down an epic smite.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do you have a reason for your assertion that there is no unfairness?

I mean, both the player of the fighter and the player of the paladin have picked valid "playing pieces" for the game, and are participating in the same sort of way. The rules that govern the resolution of the actions they declare are more-or-less the same. How is it fair that one player has an additional bit of risk to manage?

This is a statement about the fiction. It doesn't tell us anything about what is fair in respect of game play.

You are arguing from a perspective that is not really relevant to my point. From a game perspective I am aware it is unfair, to the PCs. @TiQuinn understands this. Setting logic is more important to me. As I've said, I favor setting over PC (although importantly not setting over player). It is fair to the player in that everyone decides for themselves what class to play. It is unfair to the PC in that some classes run a risk others don't, because of setting logic. Just like if a player decided to play a species that was subject to intolerance in parts of the setting. Fair to the player (it was their choice), unfair to the PC.

I'm ok with all of that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why rename Madness to Mental Stress? Madness sounds cooler and is more in line with playing a fantasy game.

Because it stigmatises mental illness.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fighter could lose their armour, rogue their dagger, wizard their spellbook.

In any case, I certainly don't want the old school paladin trapping, where the GM creates situations where the paladin is likely to break their oath. But if a cleric openly and knowingly went against their god in big way, then yeah, I would make them lose their powers. Granted, the only realistic scenario I could imagine this happening in my game, would be the player intentionally setting up a class or subclass change. But I like the fiction of there being a constant metaphysical connection between the cleric and their deity, it being an act of channelling the power of the god rather than the cleric wielding the power on their own right. To me that is what sets divine magic apart from the arcane, and I like to have that distinction.

This is all I'm talking about.

 

[Belen]

You are arguing from a perspective that is not really relevant to my point. From a game perspective I am aware it is unfair, to the PCs. @TiQuinn understands this. Setting logic is more important to me. As I've said, I favor setting over PC (although importantly not setting over player). It is fair to the player in that everyone decides for themselves what class to play. It is unfair to the PC in that some classes run a risk others don't, because of setting logic. Just like if a player decided to play a species that was subject to intolerance in parts of the setting. Fair to the player (it was their choice), unfair to the PC.

I'm ok with all of that.

Well said.