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

[Emerikol]

I also don’t like using group checks in social interactions (talking to the noble). Social interactions aren’t much fun when they’re resolved by a single roll or group roll. I like my social interactions to be a little more complex than that—similar to 4e skill challenges. The goal is to draw all of the characters in, so multiple individual rolls are useful—characters can see the results of other characters interactions and build on them or adjust their approach.

This is probably one of the best things that come out of 4e. Though I would use complex checks sparingly it does have a place in the right circumstances.

 

[Emerikol]

Here's an interesting tidbit! In the Gods and Divine Magic section, it states this "For game purposes, wielding divine power isn’t dependent on the gods’ ongoing approval or the strength of a character’s devotion. The power is a gift offered to a select few; once given, it can’t be rescinded."

In other words: "No, DMs, you're not allowed to punish a wayward cleric PC by having their god revoke their clerical powers."

That would be rule 0'd quickly. It seems as though they want to block anything bad that ever happened to PCs from the game. Another reason to just avoid the modern incarnation of the game.

 

[mamba]

Here's an interesting tidbit! In the Gods and Divine Magic section, it states this "For game purposes, wielding divine power isn’t dependent on the gods’ ongoing approval or the strength of a character’s devotion. The power is a gift offered to a select few; once given, it can’t be rescinded."

that just feels wrong at a very basic level wrt what gods can and cannot do. I never took the powers away but imo there absolutely is the ability to. It also is clearly not compatible with DL lore where many priests lost their powers days before the Cataclysm as a warning sign

Also, assume the cleric angered their god and advances in level afterwards, do they gain whatever powers come with that or can they be cut off from advancing until they atone? Is it a one-time gift or ongoing gifts.

 

[TwoSix]

Here's an interesting tidbit! In the Gods and Divine Magic section, it states this "For game purposes, wielding divine power isn’t dependent on the gods’ ongoing approval or the strength of a character’s devotion. The power is a gift offered to a select few; once given, it can’t be rescinded."

In other words: "No, DMs, you're not allowed to punish a wayward cleric PC by having their god revoke their clerical powers."

So a standardization of what Eberron has been doing for 20 years. Good on them.

The narrative behind divine magic becomes one of transformation, not of a conduit.

If losing connection to the divine entity should cause a character change, then the DM and player can collaborate to make that change.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

that just feels wrong at a very basic level wrt what gods can and cannot do. I never took the powers away but imo there absolutely is the ability to. It also is clearly not compatible with DL lore where many priests lost their powers days before the Cataclysm as a warning sign

Yeah. I certainly do not advocate randomly taking away character's powers, but this is simply not how it works on many settings. I don't think rules should retcon setting metaphysics like this. (And I obviously won't be changing mine for my homebrew setting.)

My rationale for the metaphysical difference between warlocks and clerics was that for warlocks it was a gift* of power whilst for clerics it was channelling.

(*Well not technically a "gift" necessarily, if you paid for it, but you get the idea.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here's an interesting tidbit! In the Gods and Divine Magic section, it states this "For game purposes, wielding divine power isn’t dependent on the gods’ ongoing approval or the strength of a character’s devotion. The power is a gift offered to a select few; once given, it can’t be rescinded."

In other words: "No, DMs, you're not allowed to punish a wayward cleric PC by having their god revoke their clerical powers."

More proof that WotC cares more about player empowerment than anything else.

 

[TiQuinn]

More proof that WotC cares more about player empowerment than anything else.

Okay, if class features can be taken away from a class like the Paladin or the Warlock, then every class should equally have the same possibility of having class features taken away.

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of fairness, and not take away class features.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay, if class features can be taken away from a class like the Paladin or the Warlock, then every class should equally have the same possibility of having class features taken away.

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of fairness, and not take away class features.

I prefer to err on the side of setting logic.

 

[TiQuinn]

Double post.

 

[TiQuinn]

I prefer to err on the side of setting logic.

Setting logic is different from novel-writing, how?