DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
IMO the paladin class is so strong it doesn't even need subclass features, so just flavor it however you want and remove subclasses from it. 

I don't agree with that. It's strong, yes, but it only really overshines if you have too few encounters during the adventuring day. A paladin going nova is a scary thing and if he can go nova reliably, then...IMO the paladin class is so strong it doesn't even need subclass features, so just flavor it however you want and remove subclasses from it.![]()
That's fine, but I also feel that way about Monks and Rogues as well. They have so many features, subclass features aren't really needed.I don't agree with that
I've never seen a paladin get spells. I mean, on paper they do, but in combat they seem to use all the slots on smites.That's fine, but I also feel that way about Monks and Rogues as well. They have so many features, subclass features aren't really needed.
While Paladins don't have as many core features, they get spells and their core features are so strong, subclasses aren't necessary--which is why many of their subclass features are fairly weak IMO.
Yeah, that's a pity IME, but I understand it. Paladin's (especially at higher levels) have some really good spells.I've never seen a paladin get spells. I mean, on paper they do, but in combat they seem to use all the slots on smites.![]()
I agree. When I made my Oath of Ancients Paladin I was really excited to try out the spells. It didn't take long for me to realize that the smite spells were mostly junk. Why cast a spell before you hit and then hope you haven't lost concentration by the time it is used, just to do less damage than a normal smite and get a small effect? Once I realized how good smite was, the only spell I ever cast was the occasional Misty Step to get up on someone fast or get to someone who was at the top of a 20 foot cliff or something. It was a shame, really.Yeah, that's a pity IME, but I understand it. Paladin's (especially at higher levels) have some really good spells.
Whereas for me I think the theme is completely out of left field*, and it--like the Oath of Vengeance being "Avengers"--feels like a slap in the face to people who actually liked the 4e Warden.Same!
Also the closest we have to a Warden.
I can see why they did it as paladin much like druid is a fairly small class concept and is hard to make different flavours off that sound cool.Whereas for me I think the theme is completely out of left field*, and it--like the Oath of Vengeance being "Avengers"--feels like a slap in the face to people who actually liked the 4e Warden.
Like, if someone told you you could play a Warlock, and it turned out Warlock was just a Wizard subclass that had spooky fluff and one "talk to your patron" feature, but no Hex, no eldritch blast, no invocations, literally nothing like either the 3e or 4e Warlock....would you think "hey, awesome, they gave us something kinda-sorta-vaguely Warlock-like"? Or would you think, "Wow, this was the best they could do, huh? And they're still calling it 'Warlock.' Just wow"?
I'm definitely in the latter camp. It's a similar stance to my rather significant frustration with the "no no no never EVER add more classes, in fact we should have fewer classes and condense everything down as much as possible." That is, trying to shoehorn too many distinct ideas into a single framework very frequently results in one of three things: (a) diluting those distinct ideas until they're barely there (as is the case with Paladin), (b) diluting the base so far that it ceases to have enough stuff in it to be compelling on its own (e.g. I would say Wizard and Fighter are in this camp), or (c) a power-creep spiral (Twilight Cleric being a good example here.)
The purpose of making an actually new class, if a new class is warranted, is to carve out a solid thematic-mechanical package and give it the solidity and support it needs. Subclasses then offer the opportunity to specialize, diversify, or present interesting contrast.
*The Green Knight already exists. It's called the Ranger. The fact that many folks, such as @CleverNickName, see a better Ranger in the Oath of the Ancients Paladin is a condemnation of both things IMO, not a positive about either.