D&D General The 3.5 Binder was a really cool class

[jmartkdr2]

I mean in D&D 5e, I wouldn't put it past them. But sure, fine. Only 90% of the sheet.


As if GMs have ever needed a reason for doing either of those? What's your point here?


Show me where 3e limits the GM's behavior in this. I was given to understand that it is--very literally--the case that a deity can take away a divine character's powers at any time and for any reason. It is, after all, always specifically a gift, a "granting" of power each day, and the deity can just decide not to do that if they feel like it. Doing so isn't even a violation of alignment. And a believer talking back to their deity? A believer telling that deity that their gracious boon of power is unfit? Sounds like a perfect recipe for having "grossly violated" the tenets of one's faith--you have, after all, back-talked your own god, telling them they're wrong to have failed to grant you your spells. At which point you literally don't have class features, you're a worse Fighter.

Like are you being serious here? This is the very thing that a lot of people hated about divine magic in 3.x. It's yours only until the GM decides otherwise, and guess who gets to set the standards? The GM. All power, no responsibility.


Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. Not even close.

There are plenty of ways to do things that do, in fact, actually put limits on what the GM can do. Rules the GM must abide by or they are--openly and explicitly--breaking the rules.

It's only D&D, as far as I can tell, where there's this bizarre notion that the GM needs to never have any rules whatsoever, but the players not only can and should but must be hemmed in on every side by rules.


No. It's "don't design rules which depend on foolish assumptions, like no one EVER being a jerk in even the smallest ways".


"The perfect is the enemy of the good". Yes, perfect defense against jerk-GM behavior is impossible. Useful defense against the vast majority of jerk-GM behavior, however, is quite possible. Rules that actually set standards, that actually make consequences--and that make it just as easy for players to call out bad GM behavior as it is for GMs to call out bad player behavior--are quite possible. It's only D&D, as far as I can tell, where people deny that this is possible and pretend that the only way any game can be designed is "GM has absolute perfect latitude to do whatever they want whenever they want for as long as they want" or "the GM is never free to do anything at all".

(And @Alzrius) I may regret butting in here, but:

It’s not the jerk dms we need to worry about. It’s the well-meaning dms who think they’re adding challenges but are actually just discouraging creative play by over-punishing or over-meddling or whatever.

A jerk dm will screw over the cleric/paladin/warlock no matter what the rules say. A naive dm might use the possibility simply because they assume it was put there to be used. Or they might over-use it (ie micro-managing patrons) because no one told them about how not to do that. Or thinking that paladins are only interesting if you give them impossible moral dilemmas. Etc.

There should be solid guidance for how to use these hooks, which prevent overuse (rather than assuming any misuse is intentional) while still leaving the door open if they come up organically.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

(And @Alzrius) I may regret butting in here, but:

It’s not the jerk dms we need to worry about. It’s the well-meaning dms who think they’re adding challenges but are actually just discouraging creative play by over-punishing or over-meddling or whatever.

A jerk dm will screw over the cleric/paladin/warlock no matter what the rules say. A naive dm might use the possibility simply because they assume it was put there to be used. Or they might over-use it (ie micro-managing patrons) because no one told them about how not to do that. Or thinking that paladins are only interesting if you give them impossible moral dilemmas. Etc.

There should be solid guidance for how to use these hooks, which prevent overuse (rather than assuming any misuse is intentional) while still leaving the door open if they come up organically.

Exactly.

It is not malicious behavior that is most concerning. That's just the most obvious thing. The actual concern is people who genuinely believe they are doing the right thing....when they manifestly are NOT.

And good rule design takes this into account and builds in appropriate limits, explanations, guidance, etc. Something sorely lacking in both 3e and 5e, particularly guidance.

Well-designed rules structure power in a context, with a specific purpose and focus. Poorly-designed rules dump absolute latitude and minimal to non-existent guidance for how, when, and most importantly why to use such power.

Two rulesets can be functionally equivalent in what you can do with them, but one can be worlds better solely because it is actually structured to foster cooperation, collaboration, understanding, responsibility, etc. While the other just throws the GM (and this players by proxy) into the deep end, face-first, and says "hope you can swim!"

And just to be clear? I have personally seen GMs like this in 3.5e. Thank God I never actually sat at the table of the one I personally knew who, as I discovered over time, absolutely would put players in no-win situations maliciously. (He was also a terrible player, and I know for a fact he scared off at least one person from ever GMing again because of his atrocious behavior and attitude.) But I've known several more who thought "an adventure where you have to figure out how to survive without your god's powers" would be an awesome and revelatory story....which they would then spring on a player with zero prior warning because of course, why would you warn the player, that would ruin the story of it!

So yeah. It's a power with extreme and brutal implications for the player character, and one given with at best extremely poor explanation or advice.