D&D General What Happens if a Cleric/Warlock/etc PC Gravely Offends Their Supernatural Patron?

[Cadence]

That is one billion percent okay. In fact, the game has again not forced that on character for nigh on 20 years since Tome and Blood.

It doesn't look optional in the Wizard write-up in the PhB. Is it phrased that way elsewhere?

 

[Vaalingrade]

It doesn't look optional in the Wizard write-up in the PhB. Is it phrased that way elsewhere?

Core is the only part of D&D. Clearly.

And the literal book title in my post is invisible.

 

[Lanefan]

Abuse in what sense? It's a storytelling trope not a mechanical balance issue.

Yes it is a mechanical balance issue, in that part of the balancing mechanisms for these classes is that their actions are restricted by the choices they've made* in terms of who their deity/patron is and what said deity/patron expects of them in return for the powers granted.

Take away those restrictions and those classes become much more flexible in what they can do and how they do it, and thus more powerful.

* - and before someone raises the player-agency argument, note that by making these choices the player has voluntarily waived some agency by accepting the associated restrictions; thus this line of argument holds no water.

So the only thing a player who "abuses" this is doing is telling the DM what kind of story they want to have for their character. Maybe that story is "I love the Warlock mechanics but I don't really like the flavor of the character class" or maybe it's "I want to have a dustup with my Patron and have that be part of my story". Or maybe the player doesn't like the DM showing up as an NPC and telling them to go do something or else. It's not like the character's abilities are balanced by the DM having to have the patron show up every once in a while to slap the character around or something.

To me the player that abuses this is merely telling the DM they want the benefits without the drawbacks. Hell, as a player if I can gain benefits for my character without drawbacks I'll take 'em all day long; it's on the DM (or, in this case, the system) to fairly enforce the drawbacks as and when they arise.

 

[Cadence]

Core is the only part of D&D. Clearly.

And the literal book title in my post is invisible.

My brain was on 5e and I was thinking that was for a much older one (3? 3.5?).

As it's a general thread I should have checked.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

You know, now that I think about it, the last character I had come close to falling was actually an evil cleric of a blood-deity. Her "transgression" was failing to sacrifice to it. She started having nightmares about something being hungry. The next step would have been for her powers to start fading out, little by little....had she not left the game (nor figured out what was going on).

 

[Lanefan]

Core is the only part of D&D. Clearly.

And the literal book title in my post is invisible.

Question is, you say that spellbooks haven't been required since Tome and Blood but does something in an expansion book from one edition set a precedent for all future editions? What does 5e have to say on it, for example?

 

[GetInTheHole]

The original title was "blatantly" offend. But even "gravely" works.

I generally assume a player is moving their character along in life within the assumed parameters of their class. A cleric believes. A warlock knows their pact...etc, etc.

If they want to "blatantly" or "gravely" offend that, well, then I'm also going to assume they want to RP down that path. It wasn't me railroading them. I'm not giving them the Kobayashi Maru test. I don't play gotcha games. So, with everyone at the table knowing that going in, hang onto your butts because here we go.

If something was given in my world, it can be taken away. The fun going down that route is how we decide to allow the PC to regain the lost powers. And, if at the end of the day a player wants to RP their PC getting stripped of all powers and trundle them off to run an inn or be a farmer, so be it.

 

[Oofta]

Question is, you say that spellbooks haven't been required since Tome and Blood but does something in an expansion book from one edition set a precedent for all future editions? What does 5e have to say on it, for example?

You don't need a spell book to recover spells. However you must have a book to study to commit the spell to memory. That means no changing spells or learning new ones. You gain spells when you level, but they have to be written into your book first. You won't be able to cast any rituals you don't have committed to memory either, they normally require your spell book.

So sure. Want to spend your entire wizarding career with the spells you had prepped at character creation? Go for it. Unless there are house rules involved you'll only ever have 2 1st level spells. Choose wisely.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Yes it is a mechanical balance issue, in that part of the balancing mechanisms for these classes is that their actions are restricted by the choices they've made* in terms of who their deity/patron is and what said deity/patron expects of them in return for the powers granted.

Take away those restrictions and those classes become much more flexible in what they can do and how they do it, and thus more powerful.

* - and before someone raises the player-agency argument, note that by making these choices the player has voluntarily waived some agency by accepting the associated restrictions; thus this line of argument holds no water.

To me the player that abuses this is merely telling the DM they want the benefits without the drawbacks. Hell, as a player if I can gain benefits for my character without drawbacks I'll take 'em all day long; it's on the DM (or, in this case, the system) to fairly enforce the drawbacks as and when they arise.

I'm not sure I agree that Clerics and Warlocks are the top of the heap power wise, to warrant a "balancing mechanism". Paladins maybe. (Mostly joking on that last part).

And that is assuming that roleplaying restrictions can balance mechanical advantages, which is a whole other conversation.

 

[Yaarel]

However you must have a book to study to commit the spell to memory. That means no changing spells or learning new ones. You gain spells when you level, but they have to be written into your book first.

There is an ambiguous overlap.

"Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook."

I rule that the player can prepare from these new leveling spells directly, that the player "can" add, before going into the spellbook, but lose any excess spell.