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

[Emerikol]

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

Yes and doing so as early as possible. Session 0 if possible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In light of your first post, what does "acceptable" in your second post mean?

Acceptable from the perspective of the official rules new players use as their only source of information.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, Gygax's DMG has very clear rules about how clerical spells are granted. It doesn't leave it open to be determined by the group.

I also don't know what you mean by "favours the players". How does it "favour a player" that the GM is not allowed to take away their class abilities?

It means they can have their characters who belong to classes whose powers derive from an outside source behave however they like with no fear of that source severing that connection and depriving them of said powers. I disagree with this.

 

[TwoSix]

So long as the consequences of turning against their power source are known to the player prior to their choosing the class, there shouldn't be any problem regarding player happiness.

To date in my gaming history, there hasn't been.

But I don't want there to be consequences to turning.

If you introduce a mechanic that punishes characters from changing due to campaign events, then you have characters that are much more likely to end up static, and I don't want that.

I want clerics who have crises of faith.

I want paladins who are tempted to break their Oath (and sometimes follow through!)

I want warlocks who challenge and rebel against their patrons.

That breeds conflict, and I want my games to have tons of player-introduced conflict. That's where the game shines.

 

[mamba]

Why not? I mean, Conan relies on gut feel a lot. So does Frodo, with Aragorn and Faramir.

well, then they get what is coming their way, maybe their gut was right after all, they will find out soon enough, just like Frodo did.

To me the difference is that Frodo did not really have much of a choice, he basically already was Faramir’s prisoner if that were what Faramir wanted. The character murdering the pope presumably is free to go wherever and do whatever

 

[Micah Sweet]

Semantics. I've seen people make the same argument for stripping power from warlocks.

Don't agree with patrons not being able to strip power either.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

I would challenge those who want to strip abilities to broaden their viewpoint to the other classes, even if that means redefining the abilities of those classes. Rogues derive their abilities from their guild. Go against the guild, lose your abilities until you find a new guild. A samurai (fighter) defies his master, he is now a ronin and loses certain abilities - though maybe he gains something else for being a ronin. If you are committed to the fiction that PCs should lose abilities when they betray their ethos or Gods, then I submit that there are other areas where these same things can occur for other classes.

In other words, don't do it because D&D has always done it that way. If you want to embrace the fiction of characters losing abilities, realize that this is a game, and find a way to apply that same concept across all the classes.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I would view a temporary depowering as a plot point, not a "consequence". And consequence is getting thrown about pretty freely.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You are talking about the fiction.

But the issue of fairness is about * the play of the game*. If the player thinks that their PC has betrayed their beliefs and should lose their powers, then the player can act on that in some appropriate fashion. They don't need the GM to police it.

It is fair to the players. They chose to play a character with this class fiction, and they are informed of the risk.

 

[mamba]

In the real world, followers of the same god often believe very contradictory things, and it doesn't have any effect on their magical powers.

that might be because they have none to begin with, so who is to say which one (if any) are correct. There certainly is no way to tell by who has what powers