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

[Tales and Chronicles]

As a DM, I have infinite dragons against bad characters. Against bad players I have my closed door.

I don't need to touch their character build to make my points.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Unless they play with a DM who will talk with them about the possibility of it being added.

Which is pretty much what we would want in this situation anyway, regardless of what the book did or did not say.

What if the DM is new too. No one will know about any other to play, because the new books only give one choice as an example. It allows options but shows you none.

 

[TwoSix]

You see it as stopping their character development. If they were an actual character rather than a set of mechanics, then this only develops their character more.

I see mechanically punishing a player for trying to make their character more interesting as inherently problematic.

If my cleric becomes an apostate, gets hunted down by inquisitors, and dies trying to fight them, no problem. That's awesome. There's nothing I love more in RP than my character going down in a blaze of glory for something meaningful.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You see it as stopping their character development. If they were an actual character rather than a set of mechanics, then this only develops their character more.

D&D is lousy at character development because of the whole class/level system encouraging characters to grow via Number Go Up. Meanwhile by your logic literally anything develops the character more.

But what it almost unquestionably does is turns the now spelless cleric into The Load, unable to meaningfully carry their weight within the party. And that means that the character within the group becomes problematic. It works for a solo campaign but not as one of a five man band unless they are the focus of a Very Special Episode. Otherwise they become the escorted within an escort mission rather than part of a team.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And thus you should challenge the character narratively but not mechanically.

The mechanics follow the narrative in my game.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

You see it as stopping their character development. If they were an actual character rather than a set of mechanics, then this only develops their character more.

It's a commoner with a few proficiencies and more HP, let's not pretend it's a great opportunity to advance your character goals unless it was "dying while adventuring".

 

[Emerikol]

If you're saying a spellcaster with no spells isn't a fundamental change, I don't know how to proceed.

If the cleric is standing in an anti-magic zone is the class fundamentally changed? At this moment in time, the cleric is unable to cast spells because in game their Deity won't give them the spells. Naturally, an all or nothing approach is a strawman most of the time. Typically the chastisement of their Deity is gradual as the class slips further into apostasy. The intent is restoration not destruction.

 

[Xenolith234]

I see mechanically punishing a player for trying to make their character more interesting as inherently problematic.

If my cleric becomes an apostate, gets hunted down by inquisitors, and dies trying to fight them, no problem. That's awesome. There's nothing I love more in RP than my character going down in a blaze of glory for something meaningful.

Its narrative consequences from their deity, not a DM punishing their player. The mechanics follow the narrative. If a character knowingly, continually, goes against their deity’s tenets, then they’re knowingly making a choice that will put them in disfavor. It makes zero sense that a god would keep granting an apostate their power.

 

[Micah Sweet]

He makes it sound like it's one singular person's fault rather than a shift in what their customers want.

Hard to say. One person is the tip of the spear here.

 

[Remathilis]

If it's one or the other, they aren't both 5e.

I use the downtime rules in Xanathar and not the ones in the DMG. Apparently that's no longer 5e.