D&D General Warlocks' patrons vs. Paladin Oaths and Cleric Deities

[Scribe]

There might not be a middle ground - but there is no excuse for claimung that the side you aren't on doesn't believe in consequences

Where did I say that?

 

[TwoSix]

I'm of the opinion that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. If NPCs can do it, PCs should be able to do it as well. If PCs can do it, NPCs should be able to do it as well.

To really engage with what you are describing, you'd need a classless system, and D&D isn't that kind of system.

It’s trivial to do classless PC design if needed, and generally players are content to use the core class mechanics.

And I’m very upfront that the classes the PCs are using are only a fraction of the classes that exist in the multiverse, and plenty of NPCs break class boundaries because of special circumstances.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Where did I say that?

Here (emphasis mine)

As a player, if I was playing a Paladin (often enough) Cleric (rare) Warlock (very little because of this threads exact issue) and I acted against my oath/god/patron and there was no actual consequence? The game is less for it in my view.

But, I'm old and apparently out of touch with what good gaming looks like.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It’s trivial to do classless PC design if needed, and generally players are content to use the core class mechanics.

And I’m very upfront that the classes the PCs are using are only a fraction of the classes that exist in the multiverse, and plenty of NPCs break class boundaries because of special circumstances.

I don’t understand why you play a class based game.

 

[Blue]

No. I'm saying the classes and levels are built to match the fiction. In the fiction the fledgling wannabe warlock contacts some unknown entity and blindly makes a pact. The rules call that level 1 warlock and give it the mechanic Level 1 Pact Magic.

Classes and levels are both player-facing constructs for creating player characters that are "balanced" against each other. We know they are in-world constructs looking at NPCs with the same names that don't follow the same mechanics. This was established back in 2014 when the MM had NPCs like "Druid" with 4th level casting and no wildshape, and has continued since in every published adventure and monster book since.

As words you in-world could call someone a "fighter" just as much as you could call them infantry, or warrior, or whatever word fits, and it will have the connotations of that word -- "barbarian" as a word has a meaning -- but since the classes themselves aren't in-world objects, there's no expectations that anyone except PCs will follow those specifically.

The fiction and mechanics need to be in alignment or it causes a disconnect.

Agreed, the ludodissonance when mechanics split from the narrative can be a huge issue. But remember it's really the effects of the mechanics. d20 + mod >= DC by itself isn't represented in-world, just the linear nature of skill vs. attempt. Same with classes, especially since as established the mechanical construct doesn't exist in-world.

I played a hunter who mechanically took the rogue class. I was great at aimed shots with my bow at prey that weren't expecting it or was distracted, could sneak up on them, took expertise in skills useful for an hunter. That there was a rogue class at a meta-level never touched the fiction, it's how does the effects of that class interacted with the fiction of the world that could work or not, and that was just fine.

 

[Blue]

In 5e there are NPCs that do have them. I believe they took it out for 5.5e, but there's no reason a DM can't or shouldn't make NPCs with class levels.

The 2014!DMG does allow adding class levels for customizing non-PCs. But that technique is not actually used in a single published adventure or a single monster book.

 

[Scribe]

Here (emphasis mine)

Ah yes, my preference as a player as noted, where if I betray my Oath/God/Patron, the source of my power, it can be revoked.

Yeah, getting put on a naughty list isnt enough for me.

 

[TwoSix]

I don’t understand why you play a class based game.

Well, it’s there and pretty popular.

And players like classes, because they provide them with concept hooks and a conceptual framework.

But yes, I’ve always gravitated away from strict classes. That’s why I loved Skills and Powers back in the AD&D days.

 

[tetrasodium]

If it makes sense to you, thats all that matters.



We are talking Fantasy, where real Powers grant real Power, and yes, it can be taken away.

Either way, there is no middle ground here between us, we clearly see it from completely different perspectives, so enjoy, while I continue to see the Warlock as a really weak implementation.

We might as well be fair. What he's describing is pretty much a big part of the plot for a light novel series called "is it wrong to pickup girls in a dungeon". That plot thread between Bell & Hestia was pretty significantly altered/removed/reassigned in the anime to be between Bell & another adventurer for umm.... reasons.

I too can't imagine the new player onboarding hoops involved in that sort of dramatic shift in how d&d works

 

[Scribe]

What he's describing is pretty much a big part of the plot for a light novel series called "is it wrong to pickup girls in a dungeon".

I'm not going to judge people's media choices....but....I'll stick with my more consequential version.