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

[Blue]

No it doesn’t. It suggests multiclassing or subclass respecing, which are part of the rules, not removing powers, which are not. Bottom line, the DM has no powers to punish players, any more than the players are allowed to punish the DM. Everyone is equal, the DM is not judge, jury and executioner.

What you didn't quote from the comment was "it removes powers and replaces them with something else".

Or do you think that if you switch to another class or to the oathbreaker subclass as the section mentioned that you will get all of the new abilities and keep the other abilities.

Please, this was clearly listed in the SAME SENTENCE as you quoted, there was really no way to miss it. Please do not misrepresent what I said to make your point.

Becides, the 2024 tenets are so broad you would have to be trying really hard to break them.

Great, I don't want to take away someone's powers. But if a player wants their arc (like they need to be even with the 2014 rules) to become an oathbreaker, I'd be down with that.

 

[TwoSix]

Trouble is the fact that knowing those kinds of consequence could be on the table was the grease & fuel powering everything else coming into play before that point. It says a lot that the folks defending the 5e-ism of consequence immunity by pointing exclusively to removing PVC power as the first last and only goal while those on the other side of things can talk about things more broadly.

For example: Wayyyy back in post 6 I gave an example from actual play with a player at my table that shows how the total severing of consequence being welded to an encouragement for them to resist the class's basic conceit eliminates the entire "oh cool I better step out here & take point on [doing thing] so I can get some brownie points" set of proactive PC & stern look from patron to PC fueled motivations... I could be wrong, but I think the " neotrad" crowd calls players acting out things like that italicized sorta behavior "ROLEplaying", seems fretting over possible power loss is just mere "ROLLplay".

I don't have players who need consequences just to play appropriately.

Good players jump on hooks that allow them to demonstrate their character concept.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What you didn't quote from the comment was "it removes powers and replaces them with something else".

Multiclassing does not. In 5e an ex-paladin retains all their abilities. And a subclass respec replaces on set of powers with a different set.

 

[Scribe]

I don't have players who need consequences just to play appropriately.

Good players jump on hooks that allow them to demonstrate their character concept.

Ah yes, we had the 'well your preferences are just bad gameplay' and now 'well my players are simply good and yours are by comparison obviously not'.

 

[TwoSix]

Ah yes, we had the 'well your preferences are just bad gameplay' and now 'well my players are simply good and yours are by comparison obviously not'.

You did read the post that was linked, right? That's a player not engaging with the game. Their DM was complaining about them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You did read the post that was linked, right? That's a player not engaging with the game. Their DM was complaining about them.

I can’t see post you are replying to, but one thing I learned as a teacher - if someone is not engaging, punishing them isn’t going to make the situation any better.

 

[Scribe]

You did read the post that was linked, right? That's a player not engaging with the game. Their DM was complaining about them.

They are engaging the game, "nothing in the rules impacts me, thats not how Warlocks work so we are good to go" is quite literally a failing of the game, which the player is knowledgeable enough to engage.

Now, the spirit of the game? Sure, you got me there. The spirit of the game however has been trampled on for some time, and removing things, or never implementing things, which guide the players to engage with the spirit of the game?

Well thats just DM fiat and bad game design, apparently.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it's kinda funny that people get worked up about clerics, paladins and warlocks breaking their oaths.

Where is the desire for druids to fight other druids to gain levels? For monks to remain poor and donate all but a fraction of their treasure to worthy causes? For rangers to be good aligned and only own what they can carry? For barbarians to be illiterate and not be able to rage if they become lawful? (Or better, attack magic users on sight!) For bards to follow druidic teachings and be partially neutral?

Oh right, there isn't one. Because those are silly restrictions that add nothing to the game. Further, they limit roleplaying and force all characters into very specific boxes (like all druids everywhere belonging to one huge world-spannning organization).

 

[tetrasodium]

You did read the post that was linked, right? That's a player not engaging with the game. Their DM was complaining about them.

Curious how citing a relevant play example is a mere case of "complaining". Is that sort of redefinition a bit of "neotrad" jargon for describing events at the table?

I lived through GM'ing and wrote the original post6. It's talking about d&d5e where both the rules themselves supported the player and the (then lead something at wotc had been quite clear on the player making an A-OK intended choice with consequences they were immune to... So much so that the player cited him at the time. The former lead even had an earlier tweet affirming that shield.

 

[TwoSix]

Curious how citing a relevant play example is a mere case of "complaining". Is that sort of redefinition a bit of "neotrad" jargon for describing events at the table?

Are you not complaining about the player and his actions? Pretty clear you are from that post.

I lived through GM'ing and wrote the original post6. It's talking about d&d5e where both the rules themselves supported the player and the (then lead something at wotc had been quite clear on the player making an A-OK intended choice with consequences they were immune to... So much so that the player cited him at the time. The former lead even had an earlier tweet affirming that shield.

The player was not in the wrong for invoking that rule. The player was in the wrong for not pursuing a story-relevant hook without offering a narration as to why.

A good player elevates the table by pursuing story.