D&D 5E How do you interpret the Oath of Ancients?
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Ancients seems more "natural order" rather than "civil order". Hence the association with nature rather than society. An Oath of Ancients paladin would, for example, value protecting life first, and order second, while an Oath of Devotion would be more about protecting order, even if to costs lives.
My Grognard view: A oath of ancients Pally (if i would allow it in a campaign i dm) is the fanatical Version of a druid. He fights rigidly everything which threatens nature, that means all unnatural things like undead but also a civilization expanding to much into the forest. Best race for that one would be elf, of course.
Since These roles are already very well covered by druid and partially by rangers or every one playing some (good or neutral aligned) elf or maybe even halfling character, i do not see the Need for that Pally subclass unless it is a key element of the campaign plot (e.g. in a tech vs. nature campaign).
Since These roles are already very well covered by druid and partially by rangers or every one playing some (good or neutral aligned) elf or maybe even halfling character, i do not see the Need for that Pally subclass unless it is a key element of the campaign plot (e.g. in a tech vs. nature campaign).
The oath itself isn't very focused on nature themes, just the abilities. To me, it feels like the devs wanted a paladin archetype tailored for elves and invented abilities for that, plugging it into ancients. That's total conjecture though. I wonder if anyone involved in the playtest can comment on the evolution of the paladin archetypes?
In any case, I played an ancients paladin whose main ideal was to bring about the best in other people. He was relentlessly optimistic and frequently complimented others. When faced with trying times, he would prefer to lighten the mood rather than double down on his resolve. An emotional wound was much more distressing to him than a physical one (unless the latter was fatal, of course).
In any case, I played an ancients paladin whose main ideal was to bring about the best in other people. He was relentlessly optimistic and frequently complimented others. When faced with trying times, he would prefer to lighten the mood rather than double down on his resolve. An emotional wound was much more distressing to him than a physical one (unless the latter was fatal, of course).
Yeah, that's exactly what I did with the ancient paladin I mentioned in the post above. He wandered through a feywild crossing as a child and was discovered by an archfey. She offered him protection til he came of age, at which point he would owe her an equal number of years of service. The bargain wasn't his oath - he came into that mostly on his own - but it certainly flavored his broader outlook on life.
Irda Ranger
First Post
Ooh, I like this. That's short and sweet, but also sufficiently not-abstract to be useful in play.
Yaarel
He Mage
Fair enough.
devotion : ancient :: cleric : druid
For me, the main difference between ancient ‘green knight’ paladin and a druid is, the druid is more rural or even wilderness. By contrast, the ancient paladin is *urban*. But urban in a fey way. Urban in the sense of chivalry, formal education, courtly, political, elite, and so on. And yet, this someone whose city is a lush forest. Probably, this is a city in the feywild, the ‘fairieknight’ of British lore. Possibly it is an elven treehouse city.
MechaTarrasque
Hero
In most D&D worlds there are times when gods have died/disappeared and new gods have popped up. You could have them swear their oaths to the "old gods" (whoever that may be in your setting), emphasizing the ancient in oath of the ancients. The OatA paladin could be the champion of the old ways, as opposed to those new-fangled ideas....
Now I see an OotA paladin hunting down all non-LG paladins.
Now I see an OotA paladin hunting down all non-LG paladins.
Similar Threads
