There needs to be a discussion, generally, about consequences for actions. There seems to be a ton of emphasis on mechanics and on there being no mechanic for taking mechanics away, even when the PC's actions are such that it is hard to understand why there would be no consequence.
Making someone unable to play their character due to their RP decisions is problematic from a gameplay perspective, though lore-wise it's something you should expect for at least clerics, paladins, and warlocks, and maybe for druids and monks.
It is something that should be discussed with players at the character creation level. The DM should not simply assume the are accepting of such. However, it could be part of a greater discussion regarding murder hobo issues and other not-so-class-specific consequences.
Less so for Monks; the emphasis is on discipline and technique more than tapping external powers.
For monks, it would generally be a result of loss of discipline, rather than violations of an ethical code. That's why I put it in the 'maybe' category.
I mean, that depends on how the “discipline” is being interpreted; theoretically it takes discipline to maintain the kind of weapons prowess a Fighter has, but there’s not really a good roleplay way to lose that, given that drilling to keep in shape is glossed over as not narratively significant.
There needs to be actual guidance on what happens when a paladin breaks their oath. Like what abilities or features are stripped when a paladin breaks their oath. But again, I doubt WoTC did this because lately they’ve been focused on wargaming and combat and have been trying to move D&D away from narrative and story. “Going back to D&D’s roots” in the worse way possible
The Paladin UA sidebar says:
If a Paladin willfully violates their oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences might be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent Paladin might be forced to take a more appropriate subclass or even to abandon the class and adopt another one.
That seems like plenty of guidance to me; either become a more fitting type of Paladin or stop being one. What more were you looking for exactly?
There needs to be actual guidance on what happens when a paladin breaks their oath. Like what abilities or features are stripped when a paladin breaks their oath. But again, I doubt WoTC did this because lately they’ve been focused on wargaming and combat and have been trying to move D&D away from narrative and story. “Going back to D&D’s roots” in the worse way possible
The Paladin UA sidebar says:
If a Paladin willfully violates their oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences might be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent Paladin might be forced to take a more appropriate subclass or even to abandon the class and adopt another one.
That seems like plenty of guidance to me; either become a more fitting type of Paladin or stop being one. What more were you looking for exactly?
"Abandon the class" has no good guidance. Does that mean they simply cannot take more levels? If so, what happens to their Paladin levels? Does that mean they somehow change classes outright, somehow (which there is zero mechanism at all for at the moment, even voluntarily).
There needs to be actual guidance on what happens when a paladin breaks their oath. Like what abilities or features are stripped when a paladin breaks their oath. But again, I doubt WoTC did this because lately they’ve been focused on wargaming and combat and have been trying to move D&D away from narrative and story. “Going back to D&D’s roots” in the worse way possible
The Paladin UA sidebar says:
If a Paladin willfully violates their oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences might be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent Paladin might be forced to take a more appropriate subclass or even to abandon the class and adopt another one.
That seems like plenty of guidance to me; either become a more fitting type of Paladin or stop being one. What more were you looking for exactly?
"Abandon the class" has no good guidance. Does that mean they simply cannot take more levels? If so, what happens to their Paladin levels? Does that mean they somehow change classes outright, somehow (which there is zero mechanism at all for at the moment, even voluntarily).
Given that it is immediately followed by “and adopt another”, it seems logical to conclude the intent is to transition to another class at the same level. And given that despite the fact it’s often treated as a given the RAW of multiclassing is that it is dependent on a DM green light, that paradigm is not actually changed by the book in this case.
There needs to be actual guidance on what happens when a paladin breaks their oath. Like what abilities or features are stripped when a paladin breaks their oath. But again, I doubt WoTC did this because lately they’ve been focused on wargaming and combat and have been trying to move D&D away from narrative and story. “Going back to D&D’s roots” in the worse way possible
The Paladin UA sidebar says:
If a Paladin willfully violates their oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences might be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent Paladin might be forced to take a more appropriate subclass or even to abandon the class and adopt another one.
That seems like plenty of guidance to me; either become a more fitting type of Paladin or stop being one. What more were you looking for exactly?
"Abandon the class" has no good guidance. Does that mean they simply cannot take more levels? If so, what happens to their Paladin levels? Does that mean they somehow change classes outright, somehow (which there is zero mechanism at all for at the moment, even voluntarily).
I'm not seeing what's so complicated; either find a new Paladin subclass and swap, or rebuild as a Fighter of the same level with the same stats. It would take a fraction of the time it would to do that in 3.5, 4e, or Pathfinder.
There needs to be actual guidance on what happens when a paladin breaks their oath. Like what abilities or features are stripped when a paladin breaks their oath. But again, I doubt WoTC did this because lately they’ve been focused on wargaming and combat and have been trying to move D&D away from narrative and story. “Going back to D&D’s roots” in the worse way possible
The Paladin UA sidebar says:
If a Paladin willfully violates their oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences might be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent Paladin might be forced to take a more appropriate subclass or even to abandon the class and adopt another one.
That seems like plenty of guidance to me; either become a more fitting type of Paladin or stop being one. What more were you looking for exactly?
"Abandon the class" has no good guidance. Does that mean they simply cannot take more levels? If so, what happens to their Paladin levels? Does that mean they somehow change classes outright, somehow (which there is zero mechanism at all for at the moment, even voluntarily).
I'm not seeing what's so complicated; either find a new Paladin subclass and swap, or rebuild as a Fighter of the same level with the same stats. It would take a fraction of the time it would to do that in 3.5, 4e, or Pathfinder.
I agree. If I was DM and had to go to that extreme, which would take a lot in my opinion, it would be automatic switch to fighter of the same level and lose all paladin features. Keep your Feats, if it makes sense, and if you are high enough that you get any extra fighter ones you can chose those then.
You could even take it a step further - if they "fall", make them a Warrior of the same level to start, until they complete 1d8 long rests of training to get the Fighter features (including subclass.)
I refuse to change the paladin's remove disease. Why is this? DM's crying to hard. As far as smite goes. Separate from spells entirely. This caveat for balance always sucked. I like smite 1 d8 per proficiency point. Number of smites is proficiency bonus + charisma bonus. Simple and no spell slot or spells shared.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is something that should be discussed with players at the character creation level. The DM should not simply assume the are accepting of such. However, it could be part of a greater discussion regarding murder hobo issues and other not-so-class-specific consequences.
I mean, that depends on how the “discipline” is being interpreted; theoretically it takes discipline to maintain the kind of weapons prowess a Fighter has, but there’s not really a good roleplay way to lose that, given that drilling to keep in shape is glossed over as not narratively significant.
The Paladin UA sidebar says:
That seems like plenty of guidance to me; either become a more fitting type of Paladin or stop being one. What more were you looking for exactly?
"Abandon the class" has no good guidance. Does that mean they simply cannot take more levels? If so, what happens to their Paladin levels? Does that mean they somehow change classes outright, somehow (which there is zero mechanism at all for at the moment, even voluntarily).
Given that it is immediately followed by “and adopt another”, it seems logical to conclude the intent is to transition to another class at the same level. And given that despite the fact it’s often treated as a given the RAW of multiclassing is that it is dependent on a DM green light, that paradigm is not actually changed by the book in this case.
I'm not seeing what's so complicated; either find a new Paladin subclass and swap, or rebuild as a Fighter of the same level with the same stats. It would take a fraction of the time it would to do that in 3.5, 4e, or Pathfinder.
I agree. If I was DM and had to go to that extreme, which would take a lot in my opinion, it would be automatic switch to fighter of the same level and lose all paladin features. Keep your Feats, if it makes sense, and if you are high enough that you get any extra fighter ones you can chose those then.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
You could even take it a step further - if they "fall", make them a Warrior of the same level to start, until they complete 1d8 long rests of training to get the Fighter features (including subclass.)
I refuse to change the paladin's remove disease. Why is this? DM's crying to hard. As far as smite goes. Separate from spells entirely. This caveat for balance always sucked. I like smite 1 d8 per proficiency point. Number of smites is proficiency bonus + charisma bonus. Simple and no spell slot or spells shared.