Search results

We're disagreeing on what the setting logic and class fantasy says. As I have repeatedly pointed out in the real world once a priest is sacramentally invested in at least some of the largest churches then that is done. And can't be revoked. And in the absence of actual magic I would expect...

Yes it can. Or rather the fear comes from the interesting part - the long term consequences. What it doesn't come from is the boring part - the consequences being a simple numerical change. If you were to e.g. have an Undead Marks of Corruption meter that only went one way or you e.g. recovered...

So ... it basically wastes the PCs time and is something they overcome and then never have to mention again. Like I say boring. When my things alter the character sheet this isn't going to be something they can ignore ... and isn't going to be entirely negative.

This started by someone claiming that they needed to be able to revoke powers for verisimilitude and religious integrity. I'm not saying that gods can't - but allowing Gods to do this in setting is an explicit worldbuilding choice by that DM if they can and one that works against the real world...

On the contrary. It's presented in an explicitly collaborative way. Adversarial is pitting the DM against the players and having punishment mechanics. The DM gets to control the entire world outside the PCs. It's a lot less adversarial than it was before 2008 (and DMs are not as weighed down as...

And yet I'm on the "the world can affect player mechanics" side. Emphatically so. Like I have said I am an advocate for changing subclasses - and if that isn't impacting player mechanics I don't know what is. What I'm not an advocate for is crippling the player character. Change isn't the same...

I don't have an attitude "towards DMs". I am one and count as friends some very good ones all of who do things differently. However there are certain forms of toxic behaviour I've seen from DMs - almost all of which spring from DM entitlement and the DMs thinking that they should be in charge of...

Is the cleric in an anti-magic zone or is the party? And is the anti-magic zone location based or does it move with them. Because these are very different situations. When the party is in an anti-magic zone that's a challenge that everyone is facing together and that adds a twist on things...

Do you actually have a 2024 DMG? Because it does show multiple options. For example it shows you how to create your own setting - and shows you Greyhawk as an example setting. It doesn't show all possible options but to say it only gives one choice is simply false.

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...

How so? Just because it doesn't advocate for Viking Hat DM With Unlimited Power and crippling PCs doesn't mean the 2024 DMG doesn't present multiple approaches - it does (I have a copy, picked up at MCM Comic Con). It just doesn't present all possible options.

It's as big a change as chopping both arms off a fighter.

This makes no sense; to get to the upper levels of the church they should have been clerics. So you're telling me the most important people in the church were the most powerless? You can - but you do not get to claim that the reason you want to be able to rip the powers away from a cleric and...

Not even close. The players never have the upper hand. The players would only have the upper hand if they somehow had the ability to rewrite the way the clerical orders worked and entirely redesign the god with the DM not being allowed to veto it. The DM still has overwhelmingly the upper...

There is a huge difference between "A path to make your PC a functional party member again" and not taking away their functionality. I am going to assume therefore that everything you have stated round entitled players being the problem is stated deliberately to get people angry - because that...

This, a thousand times this. I have argued throughout in favour of changing subclasses. The fallen paladin changing to the Oath of Vengeance or Conquest or even just being disillusioned and heading into the Oath of Glory is a good consequence. It changes things and it doesn't cripple the...

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...

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...

In my experience they are as prevalent in absolute numbers. Which makes them more prevalent overall. Way more prevalent. In mine I was at multiple tables with multiple active DMs. I mean we're talking tables of six with three active DMs and one not running a campaign. With me being the only...

The only way I can make any sense of Dragonlance morality is with the assumption that Paladine is the Lawful Neutral God of Balance. Even then how the heck did people not realise that the priests could no longer cast spells?