Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9858797" data-attributes="member: 7006">All three are the same.  None of them HAVE to do anything to get their abilities if you, the DM, do not ask of them to do anything as part of the roleplaying in-world.You say the Paladin and the Cleric have to select an Oath and a Deity.  Great.  That's the same as the Warlock selecting a Patron.  But at no point does the player of the Paladin or the Cleric actually HAVE to roleplay that Oath or relationship with the Deity.  There's nothing in-game or within the rules that requires it-- it all comes down to how the player chooses to have their character act, or you the DM require the player to have their character act.  Which is exactly the same as the player with the Warlock and their Patron.Some call it a "failure of design" that there are no points these players have to hit in order to gain or level up abilities.  But all those points are just ways the game would force players to roleplay a certain way-- "if you want to level your character up, you as a player must have your character do X, Y, and Z."  But that kind of statement written down in the book serves zero purpose unless the DM ENFORCES those points.  Which no DM is required to do, and most DMs will ignore if they don't find them interesting, compelling, or necessary.  The books cannot FORCE people to roleplay or use the rules in a certain way-- all they can do is give ideas of how you COULD roleplay or use the rules if they wanted to.Which means it all comes down to the age-old argument of what method is better for putting information in the rulebooks-- write a specific thing that DMs can just ignore if they want... or don't write a specific thing that a DM can add if they feel it necessary.  Some people find the lack of restriction and ease of creation from the latter to be better.  Others find the ease of not being forced to do some of the work that they want to see from the former to be better-- it's easier to remove something you don't want than adding something you do as the saying goes.  And every DM who falls on either side of that wall will have a differing opinion whether the Warlock and their Patron not having concrete or clear-cut rules or fluff on the relationship between the two to thus be a good thing or a bad thing (or as some people like to put it, a "success" or a "failure" of design.)But at the end of the day... you're the DM.  Only you can determine just how important these Oaths, Deities, and Patrons are within your game, and what you will ask of your players to "act out" via the roleplaying.  You want the players to do more?  You have to incentivize or punish them appropriately so they will.  But you can't expect the book to do it for you, because the book hasn't and doesn't wish to.</blockquote>

Verification