D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[Faolyn]

Ah, yes, I forgot. These are commoners whi are spending every moment of every day with their longbows in their hands, readying their actions against a dragon attack.

The dragon wins without doing anything: the villagers all starved to death years ago from being unable to harvest or even feed themselves.

To be fair, it's likely that a town or village will have a posted lookout or two who will spot the dragon coming from a long way away, since it's likely (a) flying and (b) a gigantic, brightly-colored mass against the sky, which is hard to stealth against unless you're a blue dragon. Which should give a town a tiny bit of time to prepare.

Fantasy towns don't have minutemen; they have 1d4+1 round'smen.

In reality, though, I don't think villages and towns are going to try to fight a dragon unless there's a lot of retired adventurers living there or commoners are routinely taught enough tactics and practice combat enough that they all count as 5th+ level fighters. I think they'd be more likely to go the tribute route. "Here, have a youth/maiden" deal.

 

[Faolyn]

I often wonder both in Homebrew and in WotC setting what the standing armies really are. I mean how often do you need soldiers? do you have a career field where there are just soldiers that make there lives being combat ready? if so how many? you need to still have farmers and fishermen and hunters, and they can fill out ranks in an emergency but what %?

I love the "calling your banners" from Game of thrones/A song of ice and fire. They have it were each lord has a very small standing army and somewhere between a few hundred to maybe a thousand or two men they can call up as reserves, but each lord answers to a bigger lord who can call on that army plus there own, and those bigger lord can be called on by the crown that doesn't have it's own standing army (although I see that last part as a flaw).

D&Dlandia has lots of threats, though. My knowledge of ADoFaI is scanty, but aren't most of the threats there other humans, with relatively few monsters? In D&Dlandia, there's your "evil humanoid" armies and raiders, if you use evil humanoids like that. There's also lots of other monsters that are either loners or travel in small groups and that are too powerful for a typical band of commoners to face. You might need to have a standing army--or at least a company of warriors--to deal with giants, manticores, chimeras, froghemoths, and the like.

 

[Faolyn]

5e puts so much of the burden on the DM to figure out what happens because as you've noted in bold the rules often enough can't be bothered to be clear enough so we need Jeremy Crawford to tweet clarifications. I'm 100% in agreement with @Micah Sweet that errata and tweets shouldn't be used anywhere near as much as they are to cover up for half-defined rules.

And before I get the inevitable "if you don't like 5e, don't play it", I do like 5e. The mechanics are for the most part much smoother and I find play generally moves at a better pace than previous editions. I just don't like how the designers were so wishy-washy about clearly defining a lot of things. Hopefully that's something that gets addressed in OneD&D.

In all fairness, having such strict rules about something like a paladin falling forces a particular chain of events to occur, without allowing the DM to say "well, in my world, what actually happens is X." Which is fine if your system and setting are tied, but are less cool for a generic system like D&D (well, generic in the sense that you're encouraged to make your own setting, not generic in the sense of using these rules with any genre). 2e was still riding on the coattails of Gygax's ideals of what real D&D was, even if unconsciously.

What they should have done is given a list of preferred options. You break your vows, you (a) become an Oathbreaker (or a Redemption paladin, depending on circumstances); (b) become a Champion fighter of equal level; or (c) can no longer take paladin levels but don't lose what you currently have. Any of those are fine; it's up to the DM and player to decide which one makes the most sense for the character and setting.

 

[Maxperson]

The problem, IMO, is, in high level play, casters have SO MANY options that AC is barely a speedbump for them - as in high AC, they can go with several other solutions.

Martials, on the other hand - even in high level play, have to hit. And if you ramp up ACs to make them hit less, you're tilting things even further toward casters.

Martials hit more than miss at high level unless they're taking a -5 for a feat, and even then they still hit reliably which is why those feats are broken. In addition, we're also saying to raise the proficiency bonus to +10 over 20 levels, not +6, so that will also compensate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In all fairness, having such strict rules about something like a paladin falling forces a particular chain of events to occur, without allowing the DM to say "well, in my world, what actually happens is X." Which is fine if your system and setting are tied, but are less cool for a generic system like D&D (well, generic in the sense that you're encouraged to make your own setting, not generic in the sense of using these rules with any genre). 2e was still riding on the coattails of Gygax's ideals of what real D&D was, even if unconsciously.

What they should have done is given a list of preferred options. You break your vows, you (a) become an Oathbreaker (or a Redemption paladin, depending on circumstances); (b) become a Champion fighter of equal level; or (c) can no longer take paladin levels but don't lose what you currently have. Any of those are fine; it's up to the DM and player to decide which one makes the most sense for the character and setting.

If 5e had done that, I for one would not be complaining.

(About this specific issue)

 

[Maxperson]

In reality, though, I don't think villages and towns are going to try to fight a dragon unless there's a lot of retired adventurers living there or commoners are routinely taught enough tactics and practice combat enough that they all count as 5th+ level fighters. I think they'd be more likely to go the tribute route. "Here, have a youth/maiden" deal.

Or just run, because nobody wants to die. My issue is that it can be done, not that it will be done. That it can be done makes dragons fairly pathetic compared to 3e dragons.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

D&Dlandia has lots of threats, though. My knowledge of ADoFaI is scanty, but aren't most of the threats there other humans, with relatively few monsters?

for the area I am talking (Westeros) 100% man as threats. no monsters maybe the occasional animal.

In D&Dlandia, there's your "evil humanoid" armies and raiders, if you use evil humanoids like that. There's also lots of other monsters that are either loners or travel in small groups and that are too powerful for a typical band of commoners to face. You might need to have a standing army--or at least a company of warriors--to deal with giants, manticores, chimeras, froghemoths, and the like.

right you MIGHT need one... that's the thing it's a part of world building I think gets overlooked.

 

[James Gasik]

The bolded part really applies here IMO.

As you noted, the PHB says this about a paladin failing repeatedly at their oath:

To me, that doesn't read anywhere near as straightforward as you seem to be implying. What does abandon mean? To you it seems to mean they can't take additional levels and need to multiclass but would at least retain what they've learned so far or if allowed by the DM become an Oathbreaker . To others it could mean they lose access to their class powers, since they've abandoned their class it's reasonable to argue they've also abandoned the features of that class. Either way, the rules aren't clear at all. Want an example of clear? Here's what 2e has to say about paladin's committing evil deeds, which would be the closest equivalent to failing their oath:

Harsh perhaps, but it's pretty clear what happens. No guess work on what happens to your exp or can you now specialize in a weapon.


5e puts so much of the burden on the DM to figure out what happens because as you've noted in bold the rules often enough can't be bothered to be clear enough so we need Jeremy Crawford to tweet clarifications. I'm 100% in agreement with @Micah Sweet that errata and tweets shouldn't be used anywhere near as much as they are to cover up for half-defined rules.

And before I get the inevitable "if you don't like 5e, don't play it", I do like 5e. The mechanics are for the most part much smoother and I find play generally moves at a better pace than previous editions. I just don't like how the designers were so wishy-washy about clearly defining a lot of things. Hopefully that's something that gets addressed in OneD&D.

So if you want to interpret "abandoning the class" as "losing abilities", which abilities do you lose, exactly? ASI's are class abilities according to the chart, do you lose those? Do they lose Fighting Style? Extra Attack? You gain 1d10 Hit Dice per paladin level, according to page 84. Do I lose all my proficiencies granted by my class?

Strange that if this was ever the intent, that the PHB couldn't be bothered to outline which abilities should be lost by "abandoning" the class, instead of forcing the DM to make a ruling about each one. Or does a classless character become an NPC, like the Soldier or Gladiator? Do you stop being able to play your character entirely because you violated your Oath?

If that was the case, the PHB could certainly have explained these things. Or the DMG could have a section about it.

The 3e PHB had a section for classes that could "lose" their abilities in the class description. If there's no guideline explaining how to massively rewrite a character due to failing to meet some obligation, I'm going to go with Occam's Razor on this one and assume the simplest version; ie, you have to change your Oath/God/Patron or start taking levels in some other class.

 

[James Gasik]

In all fairness, having such strict rules about something like a paladin falling forces a particular chain of events to occur, without allowing the DM to say "well, in my world, what actually happens is X." Which is fine if your system and setting are tied, but are less cool for a generic system like D&D (well, generic in the sense that you're encouraged to make your own setting, not generic in the sense of using these rules with any genre). 2e was still riding on the coattails of Gygax's ideals of what real D&D was, even if unconsciously.

What they should have done is given a list of preferred options. You break your vows, you (a) become an Oathbreaker (or a Redemption paladin, depending on circumstances); (b) become a Champion fighter of equal level; or (c) can no longer take paladin levels but don't lose what you currently have. Any of those are fine; it's up to the DM and player to decide which one makes the most sense for the character and setting.

If creatures exist in a setting that can destroy entire cities, it makes you wonder how cities came about in the first place.

 

[Greg Benage]

If creatures exist in a setting that can destroy entire cities, it makes you wonder how cities came about in the first place.

Cost-benefit? Floods destroy entire cities, but we still have a lot of ancient cities on rivers and coastlines.