D&D 5E Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part IX: Paladin)

[Neonchameleon]

Devotion to a difficult moral standard is literally the core of the Paladin concept.

The thing about Oath of Devotion is that it isn't generic devotion any more than Oathbreaker is a generic approach to breaking your oath (Redemption I think would be more common). It's the specific Classic Lawful Good Paladin's oath. If I were trying to play an AD&D or 3.X paladin in 5e then Oath of Devotion is IMO the main real choice except for edge cases.

It is the through line that the class has had for literally its entire existence,

And here's where we disagree. The 4e and 5e paladins have Devotion to a variety of specific standards and it's about the oath. Meanwhile the AD&D 1e & 2e, 3.0, and 3.5 paladins have all had just one standard in the core rules specifically centered around an inflexible understanding of lawful goodness. And I think there is very definite value in keeping that as a subclass.

 

[Undrave]

I've said it before : I think Paladins should not be spellcasters who give up spell slots to Smite, but the other way around. They should give up Smites to do 'Miracles' (i.e. cast certain spells). This would lead to more bespoke spell lists and ways to expend the Paladin's spellcasting through subclasses. I could see one getting rituals, for exemple.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've said it before : I think Paladins should not be spellcasters who give up spell slots to Smite, but the other way around. They should give up Smites to do 'Miracles' (i.e. cast certain spells). This would lead to more bespoke spell lists and ways to expend the Paladin's spellcasting through subclasses. I could see one getting rituals, for exemple.

I think the Paladin and Ranger both really should have ritual casting even if you take out the regular spellcasting, but I'm otherwise on board with Paladins not being spellcasters. But if I need to make them as compatible as possible with the existing subclasses, I would completely separate Divine Smite from spell slots, OR, change it to an extra 1d6 radiant damage whenever you hit with a weapon attack that deals extra damage from a spell.

My preference though would be to separate them, because if the Paladin is a spellcaster, combat optimizer shouldn't feel obligated to save their spell slots for smiting.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The thing about Oath of Devotion is that it isn't generic devotion any more than Oathbreaker is a generic approach to breaking your oath (Redemption I think would be more common).

It doesn't really seem that way from its description. "The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order. Sometimes called cavaliers, white knights, or holy warriors, these paladins meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in pursuit of justice and the greater good. They hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct, and some, for better or worse, hold the rest of the world to the same standards." The only way this is different from devotion-in-the-generic is the requirement of goodness. Remove the requirement of goodness and it literally is just "be devoted to something." In fact, in pure mechanical terms, nothing about the Oath of Devotion requires you to be good. You could very easily be an evil Devotion Paladin--because it's protection from evil and good, after all. And everyone knows Lucifer was an angel...

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the parenthetical. Redemption is about helping others to achieve redemption, not about finding it yourself (though you totally could do that, it wouldn't contradict anything, it's just not what the oath is about.) The Redemption features are all about nonviolence, diplomacy, and incapacitation instead of killing--but even the example oath tenets explicitly say, "Any such action [read: passing lethal judgment on an evildoer] must be carefully weighed and the consequences fully understood, but once you have made the decision, follow through with it knowing your path is just."

It's the specific Classic Lawful Good Paladin's oath. If I were trying to play an AD&D or 3.X paladin in 5e then Oath of Devotion is IMO the main real choice except for edge cases.

I mean, sure? I'm not really challenging that. I'm just saying, this is blander than unflavored oatmeal. It is, in effect, "Paladin, just Good." Which almost all Paladins will be good regardless, so...yeah. I get that there is a reason such things should exist. But it's incredibly dull and boring. The only subclasses that are more boring than Devotion are Champion Fighter and Berserker Barbarian, and those died right quick.

And here's where we disagree. The 4e and 5e paladins have Devotion to a variety of specific standards and it's about the oath.

But they're still about devotion. That's my point. Devotion is the heart of what the Paladin class is. It doesn't matter that the Oath of Devotion entails goodness; to be a Paladin IS to be devoted. ALL Oaths are devotional. Every single one of them. Hence my statement about "cookie-flavored cookies." I wouldn't--at all--mind there being a...I dunno, "Oath of Righteousness," where it's about being an absolutely sterling example of moral rectitude for others, and sometimes encouraging (or bullying) others to follow that example. Beacuse not all Paladins will be righteous. But EVERY Paladin, absolutely all Paladins, will be devoted.

Meanwhile the AD&D 1e & 2e, 3.0, and 3.5 paladins have all had just one standard in the core rules specifically centered around an inflexible understanding of lawful goodness. And I think there is very definite value in keeping that as a subclass.

Again, I think it should be rewritten to actually reflect that it is about devotion to righteousness, not about devotion-in-general. Because all Paladins, by definition, are devoted to something. "devotion, n.: 1. profound dedication, especially to religion. 2. earnest attachment to a cause, person, etc." But profound dedication to the Bane, the Lord of War, or Erathis, the Law-Queen, means quite different things from being a Paladin with profound dedication to righteousness.

 

[Lycurgon]

Personally I don't see the Oath of Ancients as an attempt to incorporate Wardens into 5e. I see them as an attempt to make what they say they are - Green Knights or Fey Knights. It is about protecting the Light and Beauty in the world, not about being guardians of nature.

guess what I'd say is, the way most people speak about 5e...

The first thing isn't supposed to ever be "yep," because the system is supposed to be more open, more accepting, more flexible than any version before. Admitting that it is a kludge, and more importantly that one is in fact needed to accomplish something, is a pretty major let-down from the system that supposedly touted modularity, flexibility, ease of modification, etc.

I don't think it is fair to criticise 5e for not living up to being modular, flexible and easy to modify if the solutions you are looking at is just using existing rules and kludging classes together. The point that it is easy to modify means that you need to modify it to get a result that is not already part of the published rules. 5e is easy to modify and create new rules. If you want a Warlord or a Warden, which don't exist in the official rules, you can make one or find one made by other people. Or you can modify existing rules and put things together in different way, creating new options by taking a bit from here, there and anywhere to make what you want. If you want to make use of the open, flexible and easy to modify nature of 5e, you need to be willing to modify or accept the modifications others have made/suggested.

I like KibblesTasty's homebrew Warden class. For me, it has the right flavour and mechanics to capture the concept of the 4e Warden. I am not entirely sure about the balance of it yet, I haven't playtested it yet, but the flavour is great for a Warden conversion. It fits in well with how the existing rules work and adds new and interesting powers to do things similar to what the 4e version could.
KibblesTasty has also made a Warlord homebrew too, although I am not that familiar with it so can't say much about it (so have lots of other people on the internet, but KibblesTasty is one of the more popular class and subclass homebrewer.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

5e is easy to modify and create new rules.

Having been working on my own homebrew things for a couple of years now (and specifically a proper homebrew class mostly over the course of this current year)....I significantly disagree with that assertion. It's not any easier than it was in 3e, and only easier in a very limited sense than it was in 4e (namely, that the balance is worse and you have theoretically fewer levels to work with.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The Oath of the Ancients is a good Green Knight-style Paladin or even a nice paladin as imagined for elves. It's probably my favorite paladin oath. The OotA haters can get lost. They ain't no friends of mine.

Sooooo...about those "haters"....

 

[Neonchameleon]

It doesn't really seem that way from its description. "The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order. Sometimes called cavaliers, white knights, or holy warriors, these paladins meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in pursuit of justice and the greater good. They hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct, and some, for better or worse, hold the rest of the world to the same standards." The only way this is different from devotion-in-the-generic is the requirement of goodness. Remove the requirement of goodness and it literally is just "be devoted to something." In fact, in pure mechanical terms, nothing about the Oath of Devotion requires you to be good. You could very easily be an evil Devotion Paladin--because it's protection from evil and good, after all. And everyone knows Lucifer was an angel...

You'd be a decidedly off-brand Oath of Devotion Paladin playing one as evil. If its the fluff you're going for then note all the words about "The loftiest ideals..."

As for singling out the mechanics I'd be surprised to see the following mechanics on an evil paladin based in large part on D&D history:

• Turn the Unholy; traditionally D&D has gone for good = turning, evil = commanding
• Spell known: Sanctuary. This sort of protective spell rarely shows up thematically on evil characters
• Zone of Truth: While I have a lot of respect for Neil Gaiman's rebuttal of "always telling the truth would make for a better world" it is nevertheless normal to associate goodness with truth and evil with lies. And it's definitely lawful.
• Lesser Restoration: Again healing and cursebreaking is normally associated with goodness
• Beacon of Hope again feels very much like a good aligned spell.

So yes, everyone knows that Lucifer was an angel. This doesn't somehow change angelic iconography to be evil. It just makes it possible. Likewise the Devotion paladin is set up in a number of ways as both lawful and good in ways e.g. the Oath of Glory isn't. Frankly if you're calling this "blander than unflavoured oatmeal" I'd suggest you take a lateral flow test.

For that matter your mechanical criticisms can be levelled at the Oath of Redemption which has as its only clearly good feature its aura. "Emissary of Peace" for example is exactly the skill you'd need to whip up an angry mob with pitchforks and torches and its abilities like sleep and hold person are great for kidnappers.

I mean, sure? I'm not really challenging that. I'm just saying, this is blander than unflavored oatmeal. It is, in effect, "Paladin, just Good." Which almost all Paladins will be good regardless, so...yeah. I get that there is a reason such things should exist. But it's incredibly dull and boring. The only subclasses that are more boring than Devotion are Champion Fighter and Berserker Barbarian, and those died right quick.

Except that it's Paladin, Good and Pure - which is a whole lot of flavour in its own right. And the Champion Fighter is also mechanically useless while not doing anything thematically the Battlemaster doesn't so is redundant while the Berserker will get you killed so is worse than useless. Putting the Oath of Devotion Paladin into the same category as those two is sheer nonsense; those two are two of the four worst subclasses in the game (alongside the PHB Beast Master for turning your game into an escort mission and the Four Elements Monk for having its abilities be so overcosted that in practice most people are going to be stronger without a subclass).

Am I saying that the Oath of Devotion Paladin is great? Not in the slightest. It's average. Mechanically it's functional with some flavour to the mechanics. Flavour-wise it has a definite niche by being the "classic" paladin especially when the other two are the Warden-inspired Ancients and the "burn it down" probably not good Oath of Vengeance. Can things be done to improve it? Yes, definitely. I'm not claiming it's above average either mechanically or thematically. But does it have a thematic niche? Yes. The "classic D&D" paladin (which only looked good compared to older classes). Does it execute mechanically? To a non-trivial extent, yes

But they're still about devotion. That's my point. Devotion is the heart of what the Paladin class is. It doesn't matter that the Oath of Devotion entails goodness; to be a Paladin IS to be devoted.

... is this entire rant just about the name Oath of Devotion and a complaint that it is not, as you suggest, the Oath of Righteousness? Are you writing paragraphs and screeds about a single word in the name?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Except that it's Paladin, Good and Pure - which is a whole lot of flavour in its own right.

I just...don't agree with that. Again, that's blander than unflavored oatmeal as far as I'm concerned. That's like saying "Mad Scientist, Unhinged and Brilliant" or "Shōnen Protagonist, Ridiculously Strong and Bizarrely Friendly." Sure, not all Paladins will be Good (since I prefer the 4e style thereof.) But purity, in the terms of a Paladin...is purity of devotion. Like...that's literally what it is. “My good blade carves the casques of men,/My tough lance thrusteth sure,/and my strength is as the strength of ten/because my heart is pure.” (Tennyson, Sir Galahad.) The purity is the devotion; the devotion is the purity. They are one and the same, inseparable.

But does it have a thematic niche?

I never really said otherwise. I am arguing that its thematic niche is dull and insipid, and thus should not be the winner. Redemption, on the other hand, actually had flavor and texture to it, and represents a much more interesting and critical struggle: how long to press the "all life is sacred, every injury is a wrong, every soul is worth redeeming" doctrine, in the face of a world where you cannot always find the resources and effort and (most importantly) time to achieve that redemption, where one must sometimes accept that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and yet never fall prey to the cynicism that says "well if the perfect can be the enemy of the good, we should not seek the perfect in the first place."

That's a fantastically interesting, worthy struggle--and one that will follow such a character for their whole life, no matter what other things they face. They will always wrestle with that, and always wonder if they made the right decisions in the past, or if they will err in the future, even despite their genuine and continuing devotion.

... is this entire rant just about the name Oath of Devotion and a complaint that it is not, as you suggest, the Oath of Righteousness? Are you writing paragraphs and screeds about a single word in the name?

No. I think other parts of it should change just as you do. But I do take special umbrage with the use of that word, because "devotion" is literally what every Paladin should have. Not every Paladin should care about redemption, or royal authority, or ensuring that the wicked are punished. But every Paladin should be devoted.

The mechanics--or, perhaps I should say mehchanics--aren't particularly interesting. The fluff is worse, and the name is outright rank. Collectively, we have something that, yes, it serves a valid function. It's also one of the worst options on the list, and one that I dearly hope gets heavily reworked in "One D&D."

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Devotion is bland. All Paladins are devoted to something. And they all have Lay On Hands and protective aura for their pals, so 'oh this is the nice Paladin' doesn't really mean anything.