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

[TiQuinn]

I have never seen a cleric or paladin lose their powers in game. I also have never seen a player violate their religion or oath.

I go back to being sad that folks have either toxic DMs or players at the table.

Well dang, ya know, sure seems like there’s more than a few DMs who still want that nuclear option though.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I go back to every class has a role that can fit into.

Rogues who betray their guilds get kicked out.

Fighters have commanders who they must obey. Druids have circles.

Bards have colleges that do…collegiate stuff.

Point is, we’ve decided at some point that paladins and clerics have to obey certain rules that everyone else gets to ignore and for no good reason, and definitely not with an eye towards fairness.

I’m pretty sure most players want an even playing field on at least this score.

Not every class needs to follow the same formula. We tried this in 4e, it wasn't popular. Each class should be what makes sense for its concept and theme.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Fighters have commanders who they must obey.

What if I'm a farm boy who was taught by my uncle Old Ben and just know how to stab people real good without having been in any army?

 

[Demetrios1453]

I have never seen a cleric or paladin lose their powers in game. I also have never seen a player violate their religion or oath.

I go back to being sad that folks have either toxic DMs or players at the table.

I'm just shaking my head at the whole argument here. The 2024 DMG explicitly allows house rules that can change the text as written. If as a DM you do want to have the possibility of clerics losing their spells, then house rule it (and make sure any cleric players are aware of said rule). There. Done. All this arguing is essentially pointless.

But yeah, you're right, I've never seen any cleric or paladin lose their powers in any game I've played. Most DMs and players, presumably the vast majority of them, aren't going to do things to cause that issue in the first place.

 

[TiQuinn]

Not every class needs to follow the same formula. We tried this in 4e, it wasn't popular. Each class should be what makes sense for its concept and theme.

Why do we let everyone roll for stealth checks then? Why not go back to percentile tables for rogue abilities? Sorry, Mr. wizard, you’re a wizard, you can’t stealth even though you aren’t wearing armor and have a high DEX. Shoulda joined the thieves guild like me!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well dang, ya know, sure seems like there’s more than a few DMs who still want that nuclear option though.

Yes. I have never used it, and it is unlikely that I ever will. But I want it to be possible, should the situation demand it. Also, saying it is possible tells us something about the metaphysics, about the relationship of the deity and the cleric. And I find that important and worthwhile.

Like I don't think wizard's spellbook has ever been destroyed in my game. But I still want the rules and metaphysics to be that the wizard requires the book.

 

[TiQuinn]

What if I'm a farm boy who was taught by my uncle Old Ben and just know how to stab people real good without having been in any army?

0-level commoner.

 

[Vaalingrade]

0-level commoner.

What about a veteran of decades of war who turn their back on their lord and went ronin?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, and thats fine. Eberron's take on Religion/Gods, is fine for Eberron. I prefer the real Dragonlance approach.

The Realms method, which is similar, works for me too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Can you imagine us walking out of WotC HQ each with our funny D&D helmet, d20 badge, a stumpy baton in one hand and a thick rule book in the other?

I don't know if the world is ready for that.

I've found next year's Halloween costume!