D&D General Warlocks' patrons vs. Paladin Oaths and Cleric Deities

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Er, none of that changes the progression or abilities. The fighter still progresses from 1st level to 20th level, gaining the exact same abilities/choices as every other fighter, at the exact same levels.

Does he, really, though? Each Fighter can choose different feats, skills, fighter style, masteries, ability scores. What are the chances they will be picking the exact same ones? And even if they do - will they encounter the same scenarios so two Fighters could actually sit down and cmopare notes and realize that they have the same abilities and do things exactly the same way?
Would they even do the same things in exactly the same way - The game mechanics are an abstraction of what is happening in-universe, and we are free to interpret many details. The rules don't say if your swing your sword from left to right, or strike at someone's knee or at their head or whatever.

One fighter might have critted an Orc, leading to the GM narrating it as a masterful stroke that cut the Orc in half. A few level laters, he spectacularly crits an Ogre, and recalling that scene, the GM narrates it as cutting the Ogre in half. The game rules don't state the character has a people-splitting class ability, but... it happened twice now, maybe in-universe, the Fighter actually has a people-splitting technique, always finding a way to use his momentum to strike a weakened opponent in a maneuver that can easily split that opponent in half. And maybe he will split a Giant in half in a few levels simply because the player and GM keep going with that narration, making it part of that character's style. While another fighter with the exact same game abilites might actually prefer to pierce their enemies vital organs, or gets a different gory maneuver for each killing blow.
The game rules are always just an abstraction of what is really happening in-universe. There might very well be in-game-universe techniques, skills, maneuvers and practices that are not modeled in game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The trouble with it is that the article is a mess

More than a mess, it's a subtle attack on anyone who plays the game in a way the author disapproves of. Let's put people in little boxes and then misrepresent what they do.

 

[Maxperson]

Does he, really, though? Each Fighter can choose different feats, skills, fighter style, masteries, ability scores. What are the chances they will be picking the exact same ones? And even if they do - will they encounter the same scenarios so two Fighters could actually sit down and cmopare notes and realize that they have the same abilities and do things exactly the same way?
Would they even do the same things in exactly the same way - The game mechanics are an abstraction of what is happening in-universe, and we are free to interpret many details. The rules don't say if your swing your sword from left to right, or strike at someone's knee or at their head or whatever.

One fighter might have critted an Orc, leading to the GM narrating it as a masterful stroke that cut the Orc in half. A few level laters, he spectacularly crits an Ogre, and recalling that scene, the GM narrates it as cutting the Ogre in half. The game rules don't state the character has a people-splitting class ability, but... it happened twice now, maybe in-universe, the Fighter actually has a people-splitting technique, always finding a way to use his momentum to strike a weakened opponent in a maneuver that can easily split that opponent in half. And maybe he will split a Giant in half in a few levels simply because the player and GM keep going with that narration, making it part of that character's style. While another fighter with the exact same game abilites might actually prefer to pierce their enemies vital organs, or gets a different gory maneuver for each killing blow.
The game rules are always just an abstraction of what is really happening in-universe. There might very well be in-game-universe techniques, skills, maneuvers and practices that are not modeled in game.

Yes he does. The very first thing every fighter in the setting learns is a fighting style and second wind. None of them can learn action surge before he learns those two things, and all of them MUST learn action surge as their very next thing they improve with. Then all of them get their subclass after they learn those three things. Every battle master learns exactly 3 maneuvers. Not one, not five, but three, and only after learning action surge and second wind. If he wants a feat or ability score increase, he's out of luck until the level after he gains his subclass. Then once he has his feat, the very next thing that every fighter gets is an extra attack. And so on.

Do they all pick the same feats and fighting styles? No, but they all get a feat/ability increase and a fighting style in the same progression as every other fighter.

 

[GobHag]

More than a mess, it's a subtle attack on anyone who plays the game in a way the author disapproves of. Let's put people in little boxes and then misrepresent what they do.

Nah, it's relatively accurate for except for NordicLARP. No more an issue then calling people 'Killers, Explorers, Achievers' etc, etc.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nah, it's relatively accurate for except for NordicLARP.

You only think that because (a) your own experience is limited and (b) since the article gained its pernicious influence people have felt pressured to conform to the stereotypes it presented.

No more an issue then calling people 'Killers, Explorers, Achievers' etc, etc.

Whist any attempt to categorise players is going to be misleading, a system in which you rate a mix of preferences on a sliding scale is going to do less damage.

 

[tetrasodium]

You only think that because (a) your own experience is limited and (b) since the article gained its pernicious influence people have felt pressured to conform to the stereotypes it presented.

Whist any attempt to categorise players is going to be misleading, a system in which you rate a mix of preferences on a sliding scale is going to do less damage.

Without quoting the blog post or resorting to jargon define it in plain English.

 

[Li Shenron]

While a deity or warlock patron can't just deny your spells or class features, they very much can directly or indirectly intervene in your life. They can communicate with you in dreams, visions, and omens. They can exercise power over their portfolio (a displeased god of weather might make sure the weather around you is always against you). They can send other servants--whether that be other clerics or warlocks, or angels, fiends, or other supernatural agents. Any of these servants may attempt to persuade you, or they may attempt to kill you depending on the circumstances and their orders. In the case of many clerics who belong to a clerical order, the order itself will police its members without explicit divine direction needed. And in the final extreme, the entity could directly manifest its power to whatever extent the rules on mythic beings allow it to in a setting. The iconic thunderbolt out of the sky to deal a massive amount of damage. The earth opening to swallow you up. The entity themselves (or their avatar) appearing before you to duke it out. These beings have power, and the potential consequences of defying them are commensurate with that power, just like with any other NPC in the world. (A fighter or monk poorly representing the ideals of the esteemed school they trained at might have to deal with some very unhappy high ranked members of that school!)

I think this is a good explanation.

You could also have a Rogue whose "patron" is the leader of the Rogue's very powerful guild, or a Fighter whose "patron" is the king or lord to which the Fighter has sworn, and the rest of the text can be the same.

The difference is that some people don't want the Cleric, Paladin or Warlock to have a choice, while Rogues and Fighters do, including choosing not to have a "patron" at all.

Considering that Clerics/Paladin/Warlock as class mechanics don't get anything more than the others, I don't think it's fair that they are demanded more roleplay restrictions.

Then, if a player of any class actually wants restrictions as well as risks and liabilities, as a DM I probably want to give them some benefits as well, but not mechanical ones.

Side note: I wonder how many of those who miss clerics and paladins being forced into roleplay restrictions of AD&D or lose their powers also miss the sheer amount of players choosing to be a Chaotic Neutral character to just do whatever they wanted. Because THAT was a direct consequence.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Without quoting the blog post or resorting to jargon define it in plain English.

What "it" are you referring to?

 

[tetrasodium]

What "it" are you referring to?

I'm not the one who first used the term you are up in arms over me having mentioned. I'll take this deflection as acceptance that simply asking for said term to be defined in plain English without quoting the blog post is a very high bar.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm not the one who first used the term you are up in arms over me having mentioned. I'll take this deflection as acceptance that simply asking for said term to be defined in plain English without quoting the blog post is a very high bar.

It's the whole schema of terminology, not the one term, that has proved so damaging to the RPG scene.

But if you want a definition, here is this: there is no "it". "It" does not exist. People do not fit into neat little boxes, there are just thousands of individuals all with their own unique preferences.