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

[DEFCON 1]

Well, that and I think there's just some comfort from feeling like the conventional wisdom supports you.

Like, you can love a movie that nobody else does, but it's always nice when everyone agrees with you it was a great movie.

I'm not even buying the 2024 DMG, and I'm still pleased that my personal view of clerics is becoming the more mainstream one.

This is the kind of post that I'd like to 'Like'... except I think it's ultimately better for everyone involved if they actually didn't care whether their personal views appeared or didn't appear in the rules. If we'd all be able to just let the book be what they are, and didn't hold an emotional attachment to what they did or did not say. There would be a lot less hurt feelings across the board if people didn't tie themselves that tightly to them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

if the players attack the town guards and now their is a bounty on them, is that punishment for misbehaving or a natural consequence of their actions?

You can claim all you want that this is a DM being a tyrant, but it could just as well be a natural consequence of that player’s actions.

A tyrant DM will not limit themselves to clerics, so you ‘protecting’ clerics will not make any difference either way

There's a huge difference here. A bounty gives you something to interact with. It leads to more interesting situations. Actively ripping away the class features prevents the character interacting with the world. It leads to a character that can't carry their weight.

I have advocated for consequences. In specific I've advocated throughout for changing subclasses - and I've advocated for orders of clerics policing their own. It's stripping away the abilities that's the problem.

And a tyrant DM will not limit themselves to clerics - but once you've got the idea that this is fine despite it being terrible religion and terrible storytelling and terrible DMing you may continue. Not all people who set off down the road of the tyrant DM get there. But the DMG should not point people down the tyrant path.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think this is 99% of it if not 100%. I have zero qualms houseruling. I'm at the write the whole darn game myself stage. I just don't care. I do though think the play experience is being ruined in later iterations of D&D but it started in 3e and has only gotten worse. Nothing bad ever happens to the PC mechanically. We've lost level drain, aging from magic, etc.. and I don't agree that WOTC is changing to meet player demand. I think WOTC is making a game and establishing what most of the drones will accept. and 65% of the gamer base is that way.

So yeah I'm sad that the D&D I experienced and loved is all but lost to the modern crowd. The current game is a lot less fun even if far more streamlined.

This post would have been fine if you hadn't felt the need to knock other players as just "drones". As though they were brainless automatons that are just programmed to follow what WotC gives them.

People can enjoy the current game on their own merits, not because they are drones.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

It's relevant as it pertains to the motivation for these changes in the official rules.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

yes, but in a different setting it could very well be a natural consequence, not sure why some people say the only way this can ever happen is by a DM run amok

I think the big point of contention is that it's a big mechanical consequence to a role-playing action. The character is now "not playable" until the DM decides penance is made.

I would say it would be better to either have a "fallen cleric" archetype or have the character be favored by a god covering their new disposition. Like the Mages in DL you switch your robe/moon, you don't lose all your powers.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This reference to real religion is getting ridiculous. Being ordained is not the same as receiving your daily allotment of spell power. A cleric is likely not out of the faith for failing to receive spells that day. So let's drop this whole line of ridiculous argument.

Fine - as long as you are prepared to acknowledge that what you want has precisely nothing to do with classes like clerics and paladins being religious and behaving like religious people. Indeed it has far more to do with being fired as a corporate employee than it does anything to do with religion.

And if you want examples where someone went against the will of God and were punished I'm sure if you try you can find them.

I have never opposed consequences. Simply stripping powers is however the lamest and most boring consequence possible. Being swallowed in the belly of a whale and sent on an adventure can actually lead to interesting stories.

 

[TwoSix]

We've lost level drain, aging from magic, etc.. and I don't agree that WOTC is changing to meet player demand. I think WOTC is making a game and establishing what most of the drones will accept. and 65% of the gamer base is that way.

I think if you view millions of your fellow gamers as "drones", it's probably for the best you don't have editorial authority over the changes to the game.

 

[TwoSix]

This is the kind of post that I'd like to 'Like'... except I think it's ultimately better for everyone involved if they actually didn't care whether their personal views appeared or didn't appear in the rules. If we'd all be able to just let the book be what they are, and didn't hold an emotional attachment to what they did or did not say. There would be a lot less hurt feelings across the board if people didn't tie themselves that tightly to them.

I don't disagree, but life is ultimately what it is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Then do that in your game. No one's stopping either of us particularly, because we know what we want. New players who only have the one option suggested in the 5.5 books do not.

 

[Xenolith234]

I think the big point of contention is that it's a big mechanical consequence to a role-playing action. The character is now "not playable" until the DM decides penance is made.

I would say it would be better to either have a "fallen cleric" archetype or have the character be favored by a god covering their new disposition. Like the Mages in DL you switch your robe/moon, you don't lose all your powers.

No, it’s not unplayable. That’s a dramatic take on things. The cleric is still a character to roleplay with and can use their weapons as normal. They just have to roleplay a change to their character, religion, beliefs, deity, etc., based on the choices that they made. That’s player agency.