D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[Imaro]

It sounds like it's a mechanical 'patch' against the possibility of a DM 'abusing' his Empowerment to undermine an already-difficulty-to-pull-off character concept. That's odd in 5e, which generally trusts the DM.

Does it? The DM still has the ability to set the starting attitude for the NPC, and the DC's for the social checks the paladin makes to effect change within the character.

With the NPC/or monster being reduced to zero beforehand I don't really see the whole he gets one temporary hit point but can't attack you as a 'patch' against the possibility of a DM abusing his empowerment any more than other class abilities... is Hold Person a patch for DM empowerment? It's an ability which if executed correctly has a result. If anything I think it's being used to avoid the normal 0 hit point state of unconsciousness while validating the fact that the player has successfully defeated this enemy in combat. And since it is a player facing mechanic that is specific to the redemption paladin and it adds very little overhead to the game as a whole for those not playing one.

 

[Manbearcat]

Alright, have a few here to post. @Morrus;

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, given (a) the context of the same sort of supernatural patronage as Warlocks for Paladins (be it actual deities or oaths/quests which empower them with divinity),

Sure, anything unique to the paladin might be divinely granted, then again, the gods may have created the world, making everything divinely granted, so you could go either way with it. It doesn't seem a terribly important question, whether the power is magical or not. The Paladin has magical powers, he casts spells. He has non-magical powers, being an exceptional warrior. Until he's standing in an anti-magic field, it makes not practical difference, and even then, it doesn't make a difference to the class identity as a divinely-empowered warrior-knight.

2) The Come and Get It debates were about the edition war

Yeah, they were. 'Nuff said.

One minute Charm. One minute Hold Person (effectively). No saving throw allowed.

Yes, the enemy is already defeated in this case, but that is beside the point for this aspect of the discussion.

It seems like a big part of the point. The Redemption Paladin's concept is that he tries to give people that chance at redemption, right? Well, if they constantly take one last stab at him before expiring rather than listen, that's not going to go over well.

I don't see how automatically changing the creature's Starting Attitude from Hostile to Indifferent and then giving the Paladin Advantage on Wisdom (Insight) to uncover the creature's Flaw is "inelegant"

c) It ensures that the creature is not going to attack outright so we don't have to go the route of "mechanical patch" as @Tony Vargas called it.

An indifferent, but still fanatical or evil or whatever enemy might still resort to violence, I suppose. I can see how that would lessen the need, though, I'm thinking 'patch' may not have been the best way to put it....

I'm not going to venture an opinion on the bigger design issue you raise (it's an interesting one; I just don't feel qualified to comment).

That 5e generally 'trusts' the DM?
Or that the concept is hard to pull off in D&D?
Because those I thought fairly safe to assume...

But I like your description of it as a "mechanical 'patch'". That's how I feel, yes. (And the whole phrase is doing work for me - I'm not against mechanics, but this one doesn't seem right - subject to [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION]'s post upthread, which I'm still digesting.)

Yeah, 'patch' even implies there's already a hole there, maybe I should have said 'reinforced,' or something, like a patch on a high-wear area?

Does it?

I'm not sure, so I thought I'd mention it and see what people thought. Apparently, it's close to what's bothering pemerton.

Personally, I don't see it as a problem (I'm fine with mechanics of that nature), just something that stands out from most of the rest of 5e. Which makes sense, it's an unusual sub-class, taking on an unusual, historically-difficult-in-D&D (but extremely common in some genres) concept.

Part of me also feels like it's "just not D&D," the concept, that is. D&D has often been, to me, a sort of rejoinder to the dumber-seeming things genre heroes do because they're not real, they're being written by an author. When a player is running the PC, it can act in what the player considers more rational, less genre-conforming, ways. But, that's no reason not to include something in 5e, if anyone else feels that way they can just not introduce the sub-class into their campaigns.

Actually, there's another source of problems with the aspect of the concept that ability addresses - your fellow players

The DM still has the ability to set the starting attitude for the NPC, and the DC's for the social checks the paladin makes to effect change within the character.

Nod, it's one, not wildly powerful ability, set against a backdrop of DM Empowerment that permeates the game. It's odd. There's little danger of it hijacking the DM's authority.

With the NPC/or monster being reduced to zero beforehand I don't really see the whole he gets one temporary hit point but can't attack you as a 'patch' against the possibility of a DM abusing his empowerment

Say the ability didn't exist. It'd still be pretty reasonable for an enemy brought back to consciousness by a heal check (or just waiting 1d4 hrs) to be pretty well cowed. But, /technically/ his offensive capabilities are unaffected. It looks to me like the ability addresses that technicality, removing the temptation to decide the NPC, for whatever reason, would rather get off one last attack before he dies than listen to the paladin preach at him for a whole minute (which, [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] can back me up on this, is probably enough to make that forthcoming eternity in hell look a lot more palatable).

any more than other class abilities... is Hold Person a patch for DM empowerment?

I hadn't thought of it that way, but /if/ we think of spells as push-button character-definition-supporting coupons that let your PC display an appropriate ability with minimal interference, that would mean the Redemption paladin's ability isn't odd, at all, spells being an extremely commonplace mechanic.

Interesting thought.

If anything I think it's being used to avoid the normal 0 hit point state of unconsciousness while validating the fact that the player has successfully defeated this enemy in combat.

That's a good way of putting it, yes: basically the same thing I was getting at with 'mechanical patch,' but in more neutral language.

 

[Manbearcat]

Sure, anything unique to the paladin might be divinely granted, then again, the gods may have created the world, making everything divinely granted, so you could go either way with it. It doesn't seem a terribly important question, whether the power is magical or not. The Paladin has magical powers, he casts spells. He has non-magical powers, being an exceptional warrior. Until he's standing in an anti-magic field, it makes not practical difference, and even then, it doesn't make a difference to the class identity as a divinely-empowered warrior-knight.

That is a game balance and D&D sim issue. My issue is wholly unrelated. The current iteration of these resolution mechanics would make me feel (either as the GM beholdong it or the player of the Paladin) as though the fiction produces a PC that is either:

1) Magical "loooooook into my eyes" beguiler

Or

2) Mundane hypnotist

Neither of those are NPC inspired/shamed to potential absolution by spiritually weighty priest.

Sure seems like a big part of the point. The Redemption Paladin's concept is that he tries to give people that chance at redemption, right? Well, if they constantly take one last stab at him before expiring rather than listen, that's not going to go over well.

"The point" here being its relevance to a comparison to Come and Get It. In this case, it bears no such relevance, because the CaGI "issue" wasn't about balance. It was about:

A) the (nonsense) grievance over "Martial Mind Control" generally (see also the Marked condition)...

and

B) NPC agency generally "why no save allowed???"...

and

C) NPC agency and process sim concerns specifically "but ranged characters should be immune to CaGI because they would never engage the warrior in melee!" (see tangential Proned Oozed issue) and...

D) PC agency if they go from ally to enemy "what, my guy is just going to run up to the warrior and I have no say???"

Consequently, how powerful it should or shouldn't be because the NPC has already been bested is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the fictional positioning changes to "you are a conscious actor lacking physical and magical restraint...but YOU WILL BEHAVE THIS WAY...FOR 1 WHOLE MINUTE no save."

The fictional position is Come and Get It turned up to eleventy-nine. I don't see how this can possibly be up for dispute.

 

[Imaro]

Alright, have a few here to post. Imaro


1) In post 87 I stated that Fey Presence and Hypnotic Gaze were clearly magical charms. However (not having my books available), I thought I remembered the text of one or both of them as not explicitly calling the effect magical (or a spell). Now, looking at the text, Fey Presence is the one. It doesn't call the effect out as magical (or a spell) although through the context of supernatural patronage (and the general context of the ability), one clearly should infer it is magical.


So, given (a) the context of the same sort of supernatural patronage as Warlocks for Paladins (be it actual deities or oaths/quests which empower them with divinity), (b) a similar lack of explicitly calling the effect magical, and (c) the context of the ability itself (being tantamount to not just a Charm spell but also a Hold Person spell with duration of 1 minute for both...no save) and all the other divine-patronage-driven Paladin abilities...why would you infer that the Redemption Paladin's ability is mundane while being confident (as I am and I believe you are) that the Warlock's effect is magical?

Okay addressing (a): Even if Fey Presence isn't called out with the specific words magical... it is clearly called out as being granted by the supernatural patron of the warlock... the paladin's ability isn't called out as being granted by his divinity...unlike his spellcasting ability which is clearly designated as drawing on divine magic or his Lay on Hands ability which is called out as a "blessed" touch or even under the Sacred Oath section where the Channel Divinity abilities are called out as divine energy used to fuel magical effects. There's literally no evidence that supports it being magical written anywhere. It's especially obvious when we see the sources of so many paladin abilities being called out specifically when they are magical. This doesn't support a purely magical interpretation of the ability... ambiguous maybe (though again there's tons of abilities that state outright or have a source called out that is magical), but not one where it is magical only.


On to (b.): This supports my assertion as we see numerous times in the paladin's description where his special abilities are called out as specifically magical or divine. This ability isn't and thus while arguably could be ambiguous (which I have also stated earlier in the thread but in that case you're choosing to interpret it as magical) doesn't support a purely magic interpretation either.


Finally (c) I disagree with this assertion in general. It doesn't function like a Charm spell... it does not make the creature friendly with you... a creature does not realize it was charmed after the ability is used... a creature does not have to be reduced to zero hit points to have a charm spell used on it.


It's not effectively a hold person spell either as this ability can only be used on an enemy with zero hit points who has been brought to 0 with a blunt weapon, doesn't requires concentration to maintain it's effects, it allows speech (unlike hold person), this ability doesn't grant auto-fails on Str or Dex saves, doesn't give attacks advantage against the target and any attacks that hit him withinn 5' are not auto-crits.


So yes I'm sorry but what you basically seem to be saying is that because it doesn't call it out specifically as mundane... as opposed to calling it out as magical, examples of which the book is rife with, it must be magical... the problem with this line of thinking is that I don't see any mundane abilities that they call out as being non-magical or specifically refer to a non-magical source as granting something... they are just not called out as magical... same as this ability.

2) The Come and Get It debates were about the edition war meme of "Martial Mind Control." That is really it. There were all sorts of anecdotal arguments about it, but they all boiled down to "I don't like Come and Get It (and any derivatives thereof) because it is Martial Mind Control."

Sorry if I find it a little hard to believe that every person that had an issue with it could be so easily and simplistically summed up. But given that it seems the issue was because there was no chance to avoid it... is that correct?

Again, if this is not a magical ability, then this is (unlike CaGI) ACTUAL "MARTIAL MIND CONTROL", except much more significantly so (and infinitely less sensical for what actually happens in the moment-to-moment interchange of physical martial contests) than CaGI. One minute Charm. One minute Hold Person (effectively). No saving throw allowed.

What mind control is taking place? I see parameters imposed, as with any condition but I'm failing to see where a choice or reaction is actually chosen for the target by the player of the paladin. The target is restricted from taking certain actions, which is no different from the fact that if stunned said target could not take actions or reactions and can't move...is that mind control?


I think the bigger issue(s) with CaGi were
1.) The fact that as originally published there was no way to avoid this ability (even with the paladins ability one can simply win the battle to totally bypass it) and..
2.) That a tactical decision was forced upon the NPC's who were affected...i.e. mind control, a decision was made for them. this isn't the case with the paladin's ability... no decision is actually made for any NPC independent of the DM or deciding die rolls.

Yes, the enemy is already defeated in this case, but that is beside the point for this aspect of the discussion. The "issues" with CaGI were not questions of balance. They were about a certain loud segment of folks decrying "Martial Mind Control" (in this case, forced movement without any resolution mechanic to resolve that portion of the effect). This is why they changed the entirety of CaGI from automatic Force Move adjacent and then Attack vs AC to Attack vs Will to resolve all.

It's not a question of "balance" it's a question of having a way to avoid the ability affecting you (which CaGi eventually added and the paladin abiltiy already has) and whether the ability's affect forces the NPC/creature to take a specific action (this is the mind control part...which the paladin's ability doesn't have).

3) I don't see how automatically changing the creature's Starting Attitude from Hostile to Indifferent and then giving the Paladin Advantage on Wisdom (Insight) to uncover the creature's Flaw is "inelegant" (which could then be leveraged to maybe change the creature's Attitude from Indifferent to Friendly or for Advantage on Charisma check to cement the Interaction).

It's inelegant because it exacerbates the probnlem you are complaining about... now we are controlling the NPC/creatures mind with no chance to resist. We are saying he or she chooses the become indifferent or friendly because...why exactly? Why has the NPC made this choice and why is it taken out of the DM's hands? That's martial mind control right there because how this NPC or creature feels about the paladin has been auto-magically adjusted for no apparent reason.

Something like that solves a lot of problems I have with the current iteration of resolution mechanics:


a) It allows for social conflict resolution that doesn't involve "Martial Mind Control".
b) It emulates the weight of the Paladin's divinity impacting the creature's attitude (which protagonizes the player because the move from Hostile to Indifferent is guaranteed and now they can engage in thematically coherent absolution).
c) It ensures that the creature is not going to attack outright so we don't have to go the route of "mechanical patch" as @Tony Vargas called it.
d) It mechanically maps much better to an actual absolution process or trope.
e) It still requires resolution mechanics/approach success for the absolution to work.
f) I could scribe text for it that is likely shorter than the current text.

a.)Yes it actually does involve "Martial Mind Control" you've auto-magically made the NPC or monster decide to be more disposed towards you.


b.) No it reinforces "Martial Mind Control" and makes it easier by lowering the DC's because the NPC or creature is now indifferent or friendly (of course most creatures after taking a thrashing like that and in their right mind would probably run away at this point but we'll ignore that for now). that is the only thing it does differently. The charmed effect protagonizes the player, giving him or her the opportunity to redeem or not and not auto-magically changing the targets feelings towards the paladin can also result in failure as opposed to guaranteed success which is also thematically coherent for this archetype.


c.)But the creature can flee, hide, order an attack and so on...and why wouldn't he at indifferent and having just been beat to the edge of unconsciousness...


d.) No it doesn't. It's your personal preference but it has some major gaps in it...


e.) Yes but it's pretty much trivial now thus eliminating the chance for the unreedemable villain or even one who at the end hates the paladin for what he's trying to do (since he must be indifferent now) which is also a trope for this archetype.


f.) Eh and it would still have all of the problems above...

 

[Tony Vargas]

The fictional position is Come and Get It turned up to eleventy-nine. I don't see how this can possibly be up for dispute.

It's not up for dispute, it's not even up for consideration:

1) It's a class with magical powers.

If you find the idea of the Redemption Paladin 'mind controlling' his defeated foe 'without magic' objectionable, assume it's a magical power granted by his deity.

2) It's not 4e.

Surely you've seen all the places 5e blithely does something that was raison de guerre d'édition without more than a raised eyebrow from any but the most persistently berserk edition-warriors? [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has gone into them in detail, I believe.


I mean, that's two converging double-standards, there, a quadruple standard, even. ;P

Seriously, though, it means this one long-un-do-able (but for diplomancers, I guess, and that's another kettle of wyrms), very un-D&D, very genre, very narrow and unusual character concept (that I can't recall anyone ever asking for around here) has a shot at becoming supported by 5e.
That's good for 5e's goal of broadening supported styles.

 

[Imaro]

I hadn't thought of it that way, but /if/ we think of spells as push-button character-definition-supporting coupons that let your PC display an appropriate ability with minimal interference, that would mean the Redemption paladin's ability isn't odd, at all, spells being an extremely commonplace mechanic.

Interesting thought.

But it's not just spells... it's character abilities in general. The Ranger's Natural Explorer ability (just as a purely non-magical example) has a ton of these packaged under it that auto-succeed with their effect.

 

[Tony Vargas]

... the paladin's ability isn't called out as being granted by his divinity...unlike his spellcasting ability which is clearly designated as drawing on divine magic or his Lay on Hands ability which is called out as a "blessed" touch or even under the Sacred Oath section where the Channel Divinity abilities are called out as divine energy used to fuel magical effects. There's literally no evidence that supports it being magical written anywhere.

Fine as far as it goes, but the Paladin is a divinely-empowered character,

... ambiguous maybe

Ambiguous is enough to side-step the whole G&GI comparison. Otherwise, Manbearcan it spot-on. :shrug: Seems like an easy out.

It doesn't function like a Charm spell...

It alters the creature's behavior, and state of mind. Seems pretty comparable.

Sorry if I find it a little hard to believe that every person that had an issue with it could be so easily and simplistically summed up.

More easily.

But given that it seems the issue was because there was no chance to avoid it... is that correct?

No, that it was martial. There were plenty of spells that had affects with no attack roll or saves starting with HotFL, they roused minimal comment by comparison - ironically, at about the same time, C&GI was errata'd to take the attack roll before the pull, anyway. It's still notorious.

What mind control is taking place?

The subjects state of mind has been altered. He's become 'docile' that's a mental state.

I think the bigger issue(s) with CaGi were
1.) The fact that as originally published there was no way to avoid this ability

It was errata'd the attitudes toward it didn't change.

(even with the paladins ability one can simply win the battle to totally bypass it) and..

If that's an example of a way to avoid the ability, there were /many/ (and much easier than outright defeating the fighter in battle) ways of avoiding it. Stay far away from the fighter (and slow/imobilize/restrain him so he can't run up to you, place an impassible barrier between you, surround the fighter with minions/conjurations/whatever (no occupiable space adjacent, the pull fails), tag yourself with a restrained condition etc...etc...

2.) That a tactical decision was forced upon the NPC's who were affected...i.e. mind control, a decision was made for them.

Not so much. Had it been "on it's turn, the enemy must approach you," that would have been unique. Tons of powers pulled, though, it was no different from any of those in a tactical-decision sense.

this isn't the case with the paladin's ability... no decision is actually made for any NPC independent of the DM or deciding die rolls.

His state of mind is changed, though.

But it's not just spells... it's character abilities in general. The Ranger's Natural Explorer ability (just as a purely non-magical example) has a ton* of these packaged under it that auto-succeed with their effect.

Character abilities that 'just work,' sure. If you can do something anyone can, just better (or a lot better, like Expertise), you declare an action and the DM might decide something else applies or that it's impossible. But abilities like spells just happen - they may not always succeed at what you were trying to accomplish with them, but they happen - and an auto-success, is well, successful.
Abilities like those, and the one we're talking about, are thus character- and class- (or sub-class in this case) defining and concept supporting. Defining/supporting in a way that's less dependent on DM magnanimity than being really strong, or being really good at a skill or other check that anyone might attempt.

So even if it's rough, or has narrative-consistency issues for some folks, I hope they keep it in some form.











* It looks like 6 equal a ton. Seriously, though, only one of those is anything like an auto success (never getting lost), two let you move at full speed while attempting something, but you still might fail, and the other three give you better results when you succeed, but not guarantee success (gathering twice as much food as normal doesn't help when you'd've otherwise gathered none, for instance).

 

[Imaro]

Character abilities that 'just work,' sure. If you can do something anyone can, just better (or a lot better, like Expertise), you declare an action and the DM might decide something else applies or that it's impossible. But abilities like spells just happen - they may not always succeed at what you were trying to accomplish with them, but they happen - and an auto-success, is well, successful.
Abilities like those, and the one we're talking about, are thus character- and class- (or sub-class in this case) defining and concept supporting. Defining/supporting in a way that's less dependent on DM magnanimity than being really strong, or being really good at a skill or other check that anyone might attempt.

So even if it's rough, or has narrative-consistency issues for some folks, I hope they keep it in some form.











* It looks like 6 equal a ton. Seriously, though, only one of those is anything like an auto success (never getting lost), two let you move at full speed while attempting something, but you still might fail, and the other three give you better results when you succeed, but not guarantee success (gathering twice as much food as normal doesn't help when you'd've otherwise gathered none, for instance).

When I said auto-suceess I was more talking about abilities that just work. You don't need to make a check to move at full speed while attempting the actions... you just can. And like you said spells don't just work... they often allow a save, attack roll or something else. Maybe I expressed it poorly but my main point was that these types of abilities (like the redemption paladin's) aren't the sole purview of spells... all classes have them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When I said auto-suceess I was more talking about abilities that just work. You don't need to make a check to move at full speed while attempting the actions... you just can.

True, you're moving faster whether you succeed or fail (unless someone is twice as fast as you to begin with, which seems unlikely with a ranger), so that's half a ton (3) of 'em.

Maybe I expressed it poorly but my main point was that these types of abilities (like the redemption paladin's) aren't the sole purview of spells... all classes have them.

I got it, it was just an aside.

Spells are the best, most prolific, example, though, and yes, all classes have them, at least in one sub-class and/or in some way, and some even have a couple of others, the fighter for instance, in addition to the EK having spells, has /two/ such abilities (Second Wind & Action Surge*).

But the main point is that the RP's (OK, better spell it out) Redemption Paladin's is justified and ultimately consistent with 5e design, even if it needs some work and/or everyone may not be entirely comfortable with it.













* Like the movement-not-halved examples, it doesn't let you do anything more that just anyone might attempt, but it lets you do it twice as fast/often within a single turn, so it counts.