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

[TwoSix]

I think we actually see this pretty similarly. I absolutely do not see this as some sort of tool for the GM to bully the player playing their character "correctly." If we at the session zero roughly establish what the particular religion entails, I trust any player I would play with to begin with, to then take that into account in how they play their character. Like I said, the only real situation where I could see the power loss coning into play, is the player effectively intentionally choosing it by having their character to knowingly commit actions that would make them an apostate, and thus intentionally choosing subclass or even class change. Like if a wizard chose to burn their spellbook or something like that.

If the DM engages with character rebuilding to mechanize a cleric's change in faith or perspective, then I don't think anyone has a problem.

The problem is if the player has to play a cleric with no more spell slots.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Is the Staff of the Woodlands or Staff of Birdcalls specifically mention it can be used as a Spellcasting Focus for your Druid spells?

 

[Emerikol]

Petulant DMs who want to ignore the rules and setting and just do whatever they want to characters are toxic bullies and have ruined far more games and the D&D experience for far more people than single players ever have.

To the degree they exist they ruin games very quickly. They are easily spotted and avoided. Toxic players on the other hand are often a nagging chronic pain in the DMs side but he soldiers on anyway. That is why we have so much trouble getting DMs. No one wants to put up with all the player b.s. My solution is absolute authority, massive session 0 prep, and the willingness to just cut the cancer out immediately. The players I do have and keep are those who love my game. And there are a lot of those to the degree I can't please them all, all the time. I have to limit who can play. So I see no reason whatsoever to cater to entitled whining players who think the entire universe revolves around them.

The core problem is that if the rules tell you you should or can do something then people acting in good faith will do that. Having the "you lose your powers" rules in the game rather than leaving them in the dustbin of history where they belong is the game teaching DMs who are acting in good faith to be bad DMs.

And that is your opinion. I think having a class based on religion is interesting but if you take the religious elements out then you really shouldn't bother. So yeah, if cleric is going to be a fake religious class then I'd just as well dispose of it. Fortunately I am not behold or bound by anything a rules writing company does and haven't been for years.

And I don't believe I misinterpret a DM who creates the world to force players to do what they want.

If you mean the DM design religious faiths and expectations for the faith and was above board in presenting those ideas to the group as it relates to their setting, it is a marvelous thing.

If you mean a DM who just randomly pops something on the group then that is not. In fact it is bad. The game can't work around bad DMs. It should do a better DMG and teach players how to handle these things in an effective way.

I hope I'm not stepping too far outside the bounds of the board by bringing up real world religion when I comment that in the sacramental Roman Catholic Church, certain sacraments including Holy Orders are permanent. Once you have been consecrated as a priest you will be a priest to your dying day, no matter what else you do. You might be removed from the Catholic Church or sent to jail - but the sacrament is still permanent.

Three of the sacraments may not be repeated: Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders: their effect is permanent. This teaching has been expressed by the images of, in the West, an indelible character or mark and of, in the East, a seal (CCC 698). However, if there is doubt about the validity of the administration of one or more of these sacraments, a conditional form of conferral may be used, such as: "If you are not already baptized, I baptize you …"​

Sacraments of the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Although the Roman Catholic model is far from the only model (and indeed not the one I grew up in) I find that the idea that the clerical or paladinly investment can and will be readily removed despite this not being the case in one of the real world's most significant regions to be an offence against verisimilitude as well as one against both storytelling and roleplaying.

And this does not mean that there are no consequences. Especially if the individual is part of an organised religion. The servants of the God may take offence and the God may through their servants - none of which means that the power is just withdrawn.

But as a rule, priests are not regularly working miracles (e.g. casting spells). We don't have a detect evil spell in real life. I never argued that there aren't any number of fantasy "models" a DM could run with for his campaign. Maybe the DM should detail some of those. I think though the cleric and paladin classes have a long tradition where they have allegiance to a deity and receive power as a result.

 

[TiQuinn]

There is a gigantic difference between what you wrote "Obviously the simplest is just do away with the concept altogether" and what has been said by Crawford as well as printed in the new dmg where it explicitly says that the PC can't lose their powers, the post of mine that you quoted is talking about how that difference actively shields poor player behavior and undercuts the gm if they ever feel the need to speak up with warning or do something about said behavior

You keep on bringing up Crawford, and I think that's your axe to grind. Not mine. I have other issues with Crawford, but they have no relevance here.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the DM engages with character rebuilding to mechanize a cleric's change in faith or perspective, then I don't think anyone has a problem.

The problem is if the player has to play a cleric with no more spell slots.

I don’t think anyone here has suggested that the player would play a depowered cleric for the rest of the campaign. The situation is temporary in one way or another.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But it could, right? I mean, we could have an "off switch" that involves a loss of self-resolve, or honour, or something similar. This is a fairly well known trope in fantasy/adventure/action-oriented fiction.

It's not as if these class fantasies have been handed down on stone tablets, after all.

Those would be different fantasies and, in my view, a different kind of game (more like the sort you prefer I expect). I prefer the rules in the D&D-style games I play not to trade on things like self-resolve. In 5e, for example, I'm not a huge fan of inspiration (although my bigger issues there are the circumstances under which it is spent.

 

[TwoSix]

This makes perfect sense and is also in line with the new DMG.
My only gripe is that it fails to put a clear line between clerics and warlocks.

5e is not the edition to go looking for cosmological clarity in.

 

[Emerikol]

Obviously, I disagree. And as I've stated, this stripping of abilities is selective to a few classes, when it could easily be applied to all of them if that give and take is that important to verisimilitude.

That is the point though. Those classes belong to the Deities faction. They are ambassadors and representatives of the Deity. Of course they are "chastized" by the Deity when they do wrong. I don't see anything but the most extreme bad actions leading to a permanent loss of ability. But there are a lot of intervening actions that can happen. First the cleric is likely warned when on the brink of committing the act. As DM, I tell them they are having qualms per their faith doing X or Y.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that advice for new players, that implies that there is nothing useful to be said about reconciling ideas and approaches and hence that the only recourse is to part ways, is bad advice.

There are well-known player-GM flashpoints in D&D play, that have been discussed and debated for decades now. Alignment, and fidelity to the divinities, are two of these.

The book proactively trying to structure things, and channel participants, down pathways that are likely to avoid rather than ignite these issues seems sensible to me.

My preference tends towards confronting potential issues (especially if there's potential for trouble) rather than avoiding them.

 

[Emerikol]

Those would be different fantasies and, in my view, a different kind of game (more like the sort you prefer I expect). I prefer the rules in the D&D-style games I play not to trade on things like self-resolve. In 5e, for example, I'm not a huge fan of inspiration (although my bigger issues there are the circumstances under which it is spent.

I agree. I would never use any plot coupon style power in any game I play. If the game has plot coupons, I don't play it or I hack it.