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.

 

[Parmandur]

First, it's barely a playtest. It's a concept test.
How many people do you actually think are testing these classes via play?
Giving away everything, including the content that doesn't need as much testing, turns these articles into previews.

Second, WotC is a business. They're not going to give away the entire contents of a book to publically test. Even Paizo doesn't do that for their mass playtests.
If they give away everything, fewer people will buy the final product. And that's a foolish move.

Third, releasing everything reduces the amount of useful feedback gained. There's more content to be absorbed, so small details will be missed in order to absorb it all. The amount of discussion won't significantly change, just the percentage per new option: fewer people are going to be talking about each new option. There's higher odds certain options will catch the attention at the expense of other more fringe options.

Fourth, they are getting feedback. From the private friends & family playtest groups. They've been testing and looking at options for years.


Which is probably why we saw the arcane archer at all.
Very likely there was some internal concerns and mixed feedback from the F&F playtesters, so they decided to get wider opinions. To see if it worked for fighters, or if it would be better for rogues or rangers or wizards.

To your point, they play tested a few of the subclasses for SCAG, but not even most of them: good call.

 

[Jester David]

Mearl's just confirmed the inspiration of the Oath of Conquest... Darth Vader:
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/811062451047317504

 

[Jester David]

I just realised that the Treachery capstone says the bonus damage is equal to the paladin's level. Why bother saying that if it's always going to be 20 damage?

I doubt it, but future proofing for epic level play?

- Zynx, from the EN World mobile app

There's nothing that prevents a DM continuing to allow levels via multiclassing.

 

[Duan'duliir]

There's nothing that prevents a DM continuing to allow levels via multiclassing.

It specifies paladin level, not character level.

- Zynx, from the EN World mobile app

 

[Chaosmancer]

Some of the wording of conquest could do with an adjustment that would make it much more generally useful. Currently the oath very much sounds like it prohibits you from being a member of an organization: Judge Dredd doesn't fit here because he's a policeman, not a ruling dictator.

The flavour text is far too heavy on "this is a bad guy".

Douse the flame of hope is fine as an oath: good or evil, having your foes NOT rise again is great.

Rule with an iron fist: Also fine, but perhaps remove the "once you have conquered".

Strength above all: This one is where it kind of falls apart, because it's the only one that forces you to rule. If you take this away, you can have Batman (willing to sort the place out, but unwilling to rule) and Judge Dredd (a member of an order keeping organization) under this Oath. Perhaps change it to "Never compromise: There is no partial compliance. There is no deal making. There is only law. Be strong enough to enforce it or fall to your own ruin".

I thought a lot of the same at first, but rereading Strength above All… what if we were to read it as a plural “you”?

“You [organization] shall rule until a stronger one [organization] arises. Then you [organization] must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin.”

If anyone should be building armies of followers for a militaristic society, it should be these guys, so having oaths that are a little more society based makes more since. You are the arm of the militaristic society; you enforce the laws others must follow.

It seems evil, because history and the literature that followed it, but it is possible to be “good” in that you believe in this organization, and its tenants… hard to make that a PC that plays well with others though.

Mechaniclly, I agree that the aura and the 15th level ability are lacking. Most paladins are practically immune to effects by the time you get that charm immunity, and I feel these guys should also make it harder for others to be charmed or frightened.

Maybe in addition to causing the enemy to have disadvantage on frighten, you grant allies advantage against being frightened, because you are so terrifying that the enemy looks more manageable by comparison?

Both the capstones for these subclasses are amazing. Just, ridiculously good.


Aura of Treachery is interesting, because it makes the Paladin very, very good at fighting by themselves when outnumbered. Seems appropriate for these guys.

I do have to agree with [MENTION=53176]Leatherhead[/MENTION] with some of these observations, this is a paladin who is better if they can stealth at least a little, due to illusions and invisiblity. Maybe this is the guy who wants medium armor master and goes dex based, same as wearing plate and using a longsword?

Also the fact that getting advantage makes their crits weaker if they used Poison Strike is probably an oversight. My first thought was if they have advantage they get to deal max damage, they could probably add a line about a bonus for critting…. But is it really necessary? Getting the 23 to 40 damage (remember it is 20+lv) and double dice on your actual attack and the smite you are most likely dropping? Plus another 20 if you have Icon of Deceit active. That it a lot of damage to be flinging around, even for a paladin. Too bad it is poison for the Channel Divinity, but they can chose not to use it if fighting something immune.


So, I think so re-flavoring of the Conquest, to make it more super LN instead of LE, and I think they are solid, if not exactly what I want subclasses.

I wanted more neutral paladins I guess, people who weren’t super-good, but these guys are a bit more evil empires and lieutenants to dark lords than I really wanted. Not bad, but not what wanted.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

That is true. They have said "major mechanical expansion", not "one book." Their publishing style has been more "one book", but who knows? Feelings towards most of these UA options seem bimodal (some love, some hate), so that could lead to 2 or more books......

They also seem to focus their books around stories, I don't think they will just produce a book with options that has no story behind it.

Maybe a story of a secret war between the feywild and shadow fell, where many of the battles are fought out by proxies on te prime.
could be a reason why we see a lot of Fey and shadow/evel themed subclasses so far

 

[Dualazi]

In the other thread speculating on this week's offering, I asked for a hell-knight/blackguard revamp, and got two instead! Christmas IS real!

More seriously I like the general gist of both of these options, though I would agree that things like smite should probably be more thematically in-line with the assumed alignment of the paladin in question, although that does risk shifting power quite a bit due to undead/fiends being far more consistent enemies than the forces of good.

Aura of Conquest is fine, the synergy is good with your main ability and can also be tapped into by other party members. If the monster's successive saves once affected are also with disadvantage, then that's pretty excellent debuff potential with some help. They also have the fear spell, for when their channel is used up.

The level 15 feature needs to be buffed, though, charm immunity coming that late isn't super amazing, and that's all that's here.

The capstone for conquest is insane, basically stealing the limelight of the fighter and barb simultaneously.

I really like treachery as well, and I think the earlier concerns of its abilities not working well together are slightly overblown, since this seems to be a real candidate for a dex based paladin. Even if you go the more traditional method, I think it works well enough, save needing some way of making the poison use not be worse on a crit with advantage.

While I know no one really cares about capstone balance, Icon of Deceit is too good in my opinion, namely from the CC part of the ability. It's triggered on any damage, and can repeatedly neuter an enemy's entire offense. This does require the paladin to be hit, obviously, but the paladin taking one hit to shut down the next is essentially the damage reduction from conquest, coupled with the ability to make sure your allies aren't targeted. Throw in some amazing damage boosts and Invisibility and it's a bit much I think.

 

[gyor]

The Oath of Conquest Paladins appear to have two subgroups Tyranny Knights and Hellknights. People are getting confused thinking all Oath of Conquest Paladins are Hellknights, they aren't, only the ones that serve the powers of hell are called Hellknights.

So an OoC that serves Bane, Tempus, Lovitar would be called a Tyranny Knight or Iron Monger, one who serves Asmodeaus , Glazya, Belial, ect... would be a Hellknight, it's just a subset of OoC Paladins.

So you can have LG OoC Paladins consistent with the fluff , maybe they focus on defeating an Empire of Chaotic Evil via conquest by an Empire of Lawful Good.

As for the Oath of Treachery, could see Chaotic Good characters attracted to it, believing in their own judgement over a ridged code of conduct.

 

[unknowable]

I wish people would stop talking about Conquest as if it has to be evil. Heck even Treachery doesn't have to be evil it can be an example of a coward paladin that has fallen from their ways or become disillusioned. Admittedly Treachery mechanically is a bit harder to explain.

But nothing out of the conquest abilities or even their oaths dictate that they have to be evil.

 

[questing gm]

My thoughts on the new Sacred Oaths. http://questinggm.blogspot.my/2016/12/unearthing-arcana-paladin-sacred-oaths.html