New UA Paladin Sacred Oaths are Oath of Conquest and the Oath of Treachery

I'm disappointed about no Oath of Liberty, but I'll take a look at what they are bringing, when they get around to getting the page to work.

 

[kalil]

Bleh. I have not been impressed by the UA subclasses in general, but this was certainly a new low watermark.

 

[akr71]

Anybody got a link to the actual pdf yet? I can get the synopsis from the WotC site, but no document.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Anybody got a link to the actual pdf yet? I can get the synopsis from the WotC site, but no document.

http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UAPaladin_SO_20161219_1.pdf

there you go.


And I really like the Treacherous strike ability.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Wow, now it seems there are more evil paladin oaths then good guy oaths (if you count DMG). THat feels.....really weird, since I grew up with paladins being the pinnacle of good.

Hmm ...

2 "Good" Oaths (Devotion, Ancients)
2 "Neutral" Oaths (Vengeance, Crown)
3 "Evil" Oaths (Oathbreaker, Conquest, Treachery)

Yeah ...

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I have to reject both of these. The don't feel like paladins. They don't even feel like oaths. The Oath of Conquest could work, if it focused on conquering a particular location. The Oath of Treachery is just an alternative to the oathbreaker rules.

I wouldn't mind an Oath of Liberty. I know people who loved that concept in 3E. I could also see an Oath of Law. A Lawful Neutral paladin with a borderline tyrannical faith in the law. Judge Dredd as a Paladin.

 

[akr71]

http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UAPaladin_SO_20161219_1.pdf

there you go.


And I really like the Treacherous strike ability.

Thanks!

 

[Patrick McGill]

Conquest should've been more about martial and war religion than lawful evil hell knights. No need to narrow it.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I could also see an Oath of Law. A Lawful Neutral paladin with a borderline tyrannical faith in the law. Judge Dredd as a Paladin.

This one already exists in the Crown Paladin.

Definitely want to see Oath of Liberty though.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Conquest should've been more about martial and war religion than lawful evil hell knights. No need to narrow it.

Agreed. When I was first starting to read it, I was thinking of the actual historical knights like the Templars. Crushing your enemies is hardly limited to demons and devils. The Church has a pretty storied history of taking that approach in the past as well

 

[MechaTarrasque]

It's up. Initial thoughts:

Conquest's flavor is ... disappointing. Would've much preferred it be strictly of a military bent, or like that of a Crusader. The Nine Hells flavor (which I get is optional, granted) just comes out of left field. Don't particularly care for the fact you have to be a strong-armed tyrant after, either.

Treachery is just another way to be a Blackguard/Oathbreaker. Ehhh ...

Hellknights are popular in Pathfinder, and based on their products (not to mention good sense), I suspect WotC/Paizo keep track of what works/doesn't work with each other's products. It is part of the reason summoning is weaker in 5e, and the mystic has a connection to the Far Realm (to give that creepy feeling like the Occult classes [basically PF psychic classes] in PF). It isn't all one-way, the PF witch is pretty much a 4e warlock without eldritch blast (which wasn't so important in 4e).

Still, it wouldn't have hurt for them to throw in a "good" paladin oath or 2 to balance out the bad ones.