D&D (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

Status
Not open for further replies.

TiQuinn

Registered User
no conflict between someone being ‘disadvantaged’ for a choice they willingly and knowingly made, similar to choosing a Wizard or a Fighter and having to live with those consequences when it comes to character abilities

I could not care less about the DMG quote, of course it conflicts with it

Read back those two sentences you just wrote to yourself and tell me again how they don't contradict each other. Someone playing a Paladin or Cleric picks up the 5.5 PHB and DMG, and does not think they're going to be arbitrarily punished for not having the approval of their god. Then, you state that you don't care and that of course what you think conflicts with that. You have now presented a conflict yourself.

And we are discussing the current edition of the game, and why it's a good idea not to take away those class features. You can obviously do what you want at your own table, but you're clearly presenting something that is neither fair nor expected by players reading the new edition, and frankly, it's not for setting logic - it's for the novel in your head as a DM.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Remathilis

Legend
I will accept the idea clerics are a God's lapdogs and can have their toys removed at a whim when WotC gives me a Core white mage/mystic/divine soul/invoker class that gets access to divine magic without needing to guess what the DM's imaginary God is going to consider proper or not.

Until then, I welcome clerics being able to be divine casters without a God micromanaging them.
 

TiQuinn

Registered User
Because they are different class fantasies. Who am I to tell a player they have to play a fighter with an off switch for their abilities if that class fantasy doesn't have one built in?

Clearly, we disagree. I know exactly where you're coming from, and I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from. You will argue for what you want out of the game, and I will argue for what I think the game should be.
 

TiQuinn

Registered User
I feel like people keep getting lost in the idea that players have no recourse to bad DMing and as such need rules to protect them.

People need rules to set the expectation for how the designers envision the game to be played. Those rules can be modified per table, but knowing the baseline expectation is a good starting point, a North Star in effect. Go back to the 1E DMG/PHB by Gary Gygax to see what happens when someone takes that starting point, and plays it out. It can create that anti-social effect. It takes a long time for people to unlearn those behaviors and some never do.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend, he/him
I feel that the note is less "protecting players from DMs" and more offering DMs a narrative explanation for not missing with their players if they go against the gods. Like, if a FM were nervous that it wouldn't make sense for a Chaotic Neutral vagabond to still be getting power from Peor...this bit clears up that it is OK.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Read back those two sentences you just wrote to yourself and tell me again how they don't contradict each other. Someone playing a Paladin or Cleric picks up the 5.5 PHB and DMG, and does not think they're going to be arbitrarily punished for not having the approval of their god. Then, you state that you don't care and that of course what you think conflicts with that. You have now presented a conflict yourself.

And we are discussing the current edition of the game, and why it's a good idea not to take away those class features. You can obviously do what you want at your own table, but you're clearly presenting something that is neither fair nor expected by players reading the new edition, and frankly, it's not for setting logic - it's for the novel in your head as a DM.
Continuing to assert what you think others are thinking or feeling in this way is not conducive to fair discussion. We have told you that are feelings on setting logic differ from yours, and apparently from WotC's current design paradigm. They and you are not more right than we are, and we're not more right than you. It's all preference.

You are correct that this thread is about 5.5. Some people disagree with a tenet in a 5.5 book. They are allowed to talk about their disagreement.
 

ad_hoc

(she/her)
I feel like people keep getting lost in the idea that players have no recourse to bad DMing and as such need rules to protect them. But we always forget that bad DMs have nothing forcing adherence to the rules, and good DMs aren't anti-socials monkey brains out to "get" their players. As such those rules meant to protect PCs are toothless wastes of paper and ink. They are nothing more than guidance that some will believe in until a DM says "no" in response to a hopeful player citing the rule.

I don't see this as anything more than WotC flailing around because they fundementally misunderstand how social the game is. Jerks don't care about a line in the DMG, and non-jerks don't act in ways that require that line. So I don't know that this "rule" does anything but give false hope to players in poorly run games.

The advice should be "if your DM does this without prior a conversation on it, you should leave that game" and it should be in the PHB under a "social contract" chapter. But maybe that is a hot take.

While I agree with the first part of your post, I appreciate bits about how the default game's themed and narratives are.

So a cleric having the power now is different than previous editions where the cleric prayed for their spells every rest and then was imbued with them. I like having that clarified. I don't need to use it but it is nice to know the concept of the class now. Divine intervention power remains weird in this situation though.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I will accept the idea clerics are a God's lapdogs and can have their toys removed at a whim when WotC gives me a Core white mage/mystic/divine soul/invoker class that gets access to divine magic without needing to guess what the DM's imaginary God is going to consider proper or not.

Until then, I welcome clerics being able to be divine casters without a God micromanaging them.
Why do you need that? There are plenty of 3pp, or previous edition examples of what you want, or you could homebrew. Why does WotC have to include it in the current PH for it to count in your estimation?
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
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."
Well, that’s a house rule then. If alignment shifts based on actions (that’s good), and divine magic is permanent (that’s stupid), then you can have a lawful evil cleric of Bahamut…which makes zero sense.

“Yes, Bahamut gave me this power decades ago, and it’s mine now forever and he can’t take it back, so I use Bahamut’s gift to undermine worship of Bahamut and there’s nothing the god who gave me this power can do about it. Ha ha ha.”
 

TiQuinn

Registered User
Continuing to assert what you think others are thinking or feeling in this way is not conducive to fair discussion. We have told you that are feelings on setting logic differ from yours, and apparently from WotC's current design paradigm. They and you are not more right than we are, and we're not more right than you. It's all preference.

You are correct that this thread is about 5.5. Some people disagree with a tenet in a 5.5 book. They are allowed to talk about their disagreement.

Continuing to argue a point even after I’ve identified that we don’t agree, have a different perspective on the game, and that there are other forums for you to discuss your preferred playstyle is badgering. It takes two to tango.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top