Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MechaTarrasque" data-source="post: 7705554" data-attributes="member: 6801226">When the conquest paladin's player starts hinting that it would be appropriate for a persuasion check (or worse yet an intimidation check) against the other PC's if they disagree with his/her paladin (and reminding everyone about the paladin's nice charisma score), you know it will be a long, unpleasant session......About the arm of the empire bit, that seems like the oath of the crown's gig.  Not that they couldn't start doing that (say with an oath of justice paladin who more concerned about bring his/her prey than the death-dealing vengeance paladin), but there aren't so many paladin subclasses (yet) that it would be necessary to fill in that level of detail.I think I am coming around to Jester David's POV on these subclasses--they are testing the waters to see if we want more creepy/evil PC options (bard and paladin), more magic barbarians (and more magic but spell-less PC options in general), fighter classes with built in fluff, etc. As such, I think these are evil by intent and that intent is to see if a bunch of people go "cool" or "how could you?" in the survey.  [And for the record, my answers are:  yes, evil is okay, but putting it in the DM section is best (forbidden fruit); magic barbarians are good; I appreciate keeping the number of magic systems low in 5e and I am sure at some point I will think there are too many magical class/subclass features for noncasters, but that is a long way in the future and may not happen; and I think the convenience of fluffed fighters for new/casual/busy players outweighs the problems, but I would also be open to sidebars:  here is the most convenient way to make a samurai with a battlemaster, etc.  not listing out every step, but some of the big steps, like the quick start instructions in the PHB.]</blockquote>

Verification