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

[Micah Sweet]

It's been over 15 years since gods cutting off access to spells has been part of the current PHB or DMG. It is therefore emphatically not part of the default and is therefore either (a) something the DM needs to explicitly pitch in advance, (b) hidden well within the small print of the setting material (which the players may not have read), or (c) the DM changing the contract. It has not been a part of the default social contract since 3.5 had paladins falling - and even that wasn't clerics losing spells.

I always go with option (a), when I have reason to believe my players don't already know how I stand on the subject.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And that's what kept me from playing... well Paladins and Monks, because clerics already had prep-casting to keep me away from them.

I think things that keep players from playing classes they might otherwise like is a huge detriment to the game.

To me, that's what new classes with different class narratives are for. Change the fiction, and change the mechanics to suit.

 

[TwoSix]

To me, that's what new classes with different class narratives are for. Change the fiction, and change the mechanics to suit.

I do both. If the players like the mechanics but not the narrative, we reskin. If the player likes the concept but not the mechanics, we'll modify the class, build a new class or subclass, or find a 3pp option that fits.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And that's what kept me from playing... well Paladins and Monks, because clerics already had prep-casting to keep me away from them.

I think things that keep players from playing classes they might otherwise like is a huge detriment to the game.

In general yes.

To me, that's what new classes with different class narratives are for. Change the fiction, and change the mechanics to suit.

And this is somewhere I agree with you. But I'd argue that clerics should be dealing more with their churches and orders than directly with their deities. Especially when you cut off so many avenues of roleplay.

If you want to deal directly with a patron then play a warlock, and warlock patrons tend to be lower ranked than actual deities. And even there if something's a gift it can't directly be taken back.

 

[Vaalingrade]

To me, that's what new classes with different class narratives are for. Change the fiction, and change the mechanics to suit.

But we aren't allowed to have new classes anymore. Just a handful of subclasses ever few months.

I'm more a fan of letting classes be broad concepts that the player then customizes and flavors anyway.

Maybe god doesn't believe in me, but I believe in them SO HARD regardless of how badly I'm misinterpreting them.

Or --and cookie for anyone who gets the reference -- "Lord Zomelgustaar... is a god I made up."

 

[tetrasodium]

I’ve found your posts as unpersuasive as you’ve probably found mine.

But I do remember you railing on in another thread about how me discussing “bad DMs” was toxic behavior, and yet this thread has done a lot to reaffirm my viewpoints on that score.

No it's not that your posts are "unpersuasive", I don't recall ever seeing you actually making an effort to explain why this was a good change. The closest I can recall is talk of character redemption & growth arcs from players who apparently can't be bothered to say something like "Yea I know but I want to play out a character redemption/growth arc". That's not a good reason since I've yet to see anyone able to read minds well enough to know that is the goal.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you want to deal directly with a patron then play a warlock, and warlock patrons tend to be lower ranked than actual deities. And even there if something's a gift it can't directly be taken back.

I had a Pact of the Blade Warlock who was a cinnamon roll of a guy whose dagger was a cursed athame that convinced him it was his grandma's soul stuck in a dagger. It kept trying to tempt him to evil, but he was also convinced that grandma was going a bit senile and it was his job to be like 'no grammy, we don't need to burn down that orphanage; those are children not demons. Bless her heart, she really hates demons!'.

 

[mamba]

I think things that keep players from playing classes they might otherwise like is a huge detriment to the game.

at that point it is just a Wizard with funny spells. A class is more than the total of its abilities and changing the archetype will have some people like it more while others like it less. I don’t think this change would be all upside and no downside

 

[Vaalingrade]

A class is more than the total of its abilities

Not to me.

To me they're a prefab toolbox that start building my character concept off of.

 

[SkidAce]

Watched new players discuss the in game ramifications of the cleric/god relationship.

GM told the player of the cleric of Heironeous that had used trickery and deceit instead of valor in combat, that their dreams were being disturbed by the rumblings of thunder, and they felt their connection to their god weakening.

But here's the key, THEY CAME UP WITH THAT ON THEIR OWN, to them it was implicit in the story of being a Valor cleric.

So it doesnt matter when/if the PH or DMG says the DM can or can't, players bring their concepts of the relationship to the game from books/culture/movies, whatever, and it made sense to them.