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

[TiQuinn]

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.

I'm sure you know it's not nearly the same situation. The wizard is definitely on the side of "lose your spellbook, lose your class abilities" like the Paladin. But the fighter or rogue just needs to pick up another weapon or dagger, of which there will be plenty. The Paladin loses his abilities due to a ruling that they have broken their oath, and there is no picking up another oath off the ground.

 

[TiQuinn]

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 not meaning for anyone if you're a cleric of one good and then purposely violate the faith.

Why allow classes where those kind of restrictive tenets exist for one class and not others?

The fighter could have a lord or commander whose orders they must follow. The rogue could belong to a thieves' guild and be obligated to follow their rules. Both of those concepts exist in all kinds of fiction. Why is it special to just the paladin, cleric, and as suggested by some, the warlock?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm sure you know it's not nearly the same situation. The wizard is definitely on the side of "lose your spellbook, lose your class abilities" like the Paladin. But the fighter or rogue just needs to pick up another weapon or dagger, of which there will be plenty. The Paladin loses his abilities due to a ruling that they have broken their oath, and there is no picking up another oath off the ground.

Isn't there an oathbreaker subclass? Also, plenty of daggers, but plenty of gods too.

In any case, I am by no means suggesting that in an extremely unlikely case of a divine character losing their powers in this manner, that this would be a permanent state of affairs. They could reconcile their current deity, turn to a new one, or even transition to another class. The GM and the player can work this out. I just want the themes and the fiction to be taken seriously, and if it seems they would impact the mechanics, then so be it.

 

[Parmandur]

Isn't there an oathbreaker subclass?

Nope, gone.

I mean, it can still be used from the 2014 book, but it isn't around in 2024 rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nope, gone.

I mean, it can still be used from the 2014 book, but it isn't around in 2024 rules.

Well, let's hope they redo it eventually.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, let's hope they redo it eventually.

Or let's normalize using the 2014 and 2024 rules together.

 

[TiQuinn]

Isn't there an oathbreaker subclass? Also, plenty of daggers, but plenty of gods too.

In any case, I am by no means suggesting that in an extremely unlikely case of a divine character losing their powers in this manner, that this would be a permanent state of affairs. They could reconcile their current deity, turn to a new one, or even transition to another class. The GM and the player can work this out. I just want the themes and the fiction to be taken seriously, and if it seems they would impact the mechanics, then so be it.

I'm also not suggesting that these things aren't possible, and could be fun parts of the game. I think there can be give and take, and the ability to lose certain abilities if that creates makes sense for the in-game story. However, I think that something like the loss of class abilities should then be something each class has the potential to have occur, for fairness' sake, as well as just plain balance.

If that's not attainable, then I'm perfectly fine going the other direction, and let PCs keep those abilities no matter what, in-game story be damned. The Gods can be displeased with the Cleric or Paladin, and send a dragon headed their way, if the DM wants consequences. That has weight, too. Those are consequences too. Gods putting monsters in the ways of heroes is certainly reflected in fantasy and myth. But it's also a challenge for the whole party then, and the Paladin doesn't have to limp along in the background because they've lost their ability to smite.

 

[mamba]

Setting logic is different from novel-writing, how?

In a novel the author decides what the protagonists do, setting logic is consistency in the setting mechanics. So as different as your life on Earth from a movie

 

[mamba]

Because you think about what the players have said before you write the next page or two of your novel!

as, presumably, are you. Pretty sure there is some ‘setting logic’ in your game too and the characters operate within it

 

[mamba]

not fair that some players are exposed to the risk of the GM deciding that they should lose their class features while others are not.

it’s not fair that a Wizard can cast Magic Missile while a Fighter cannot.

You choose your class, with all implications, good or bad. The choice was yours to freely make, I see no conflict there.