D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

I dont get why pacifism equals no armor in the head of the designers. I mean, paladins are still the militant side of an ideal, they are still warriors. Why does believing an enemy can be saved from himself and giving second chances interfers in any way with the fact of using armors?

Well if you enter a bandit camp heavely armed and armored they might assume you are there with the intention to kill them.
They might even atack as a way of self defence as you clearly came there looking for a fight.

 

[Imaro]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the first part, but the second is demonstrably false. The subclass actively gives up base elements of the class' kits, such as weapon and armor proficiency. It's really MAD, because it wants dex, cha, str (since there aren't any finesse bludgeoning simple weapons), and definitely con since a number of the subclass features are centered around you getting hit. The paladin's smiting ability goes largely to waste, and that's assuming you justify its use against things like constructs and fiends. The capstone either functions once per enemy or forces you to sit there like a lump.

Not sure what you were trying to prove here... but I don't think I'm buying it.

You don't loose armor proficiencies or weapon proficiencies... You can still wear plate mail and use a shield but you have a natural AC of 16 + Dex mod if you choose not to. You can also still wield any weapon you want but if you want to use warrior of Reconcilitaion on a foe you must use a simple weapon that does bludgeoning damage... small price to pay for an auto-charm at zero hit points that doesn't require a rest... it's not (and I don't think it was meant to be) an optimal attack...

He's only as MAD as you want him to be...with lay on hands + Protective Spirit+ Healing spells... he doesn't have to have an exceptional Con to utilize Aura of the Guardian (the paladin's only ability that relies on being damaged).

I personally don't think he will be or should be trying to use Warrior of Reconciliation in every combat... So no he doesn't need to focus on Strength as much as Dex... or if he does want to subdue all enemies he will need to wear armor and use a shield... he still has that option.

The only classes I can see the pacifist angle actually working on are druid/cleric, since they have enough utility and full spellcasting to allow them to get more or less the full mileage out of their class options while still fitting the theme. Hell, in 4e the pacifist cleric had to be nerfed because its healing throughput was insane. Not saying they have to go that route again, but tacking the current abilities onto the paladin just makes him a crappy cleric.

Nope makes him a pretty good paladin...with some tactical/strategic choices to make in and out of combat.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The other part of this that makes me smile is that it's a throwback to the old Cleric rule of only using bludgeoning weapons.

EDIT: Alternately, spend an ASI on the Feat and dual wield maces. It's too bad Paladins don't have the option of Two Weapon Fighting Style. In fact...a dual-wielding Redemption Paladin has no applicable fighting style. So never mind.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This kind of subclass definitely gives evidence to the idea that for some players, an ability a class gets that they choose not to use is an effective "nerf" to the character (because they are giving up an ability that others of the class do use, but are not getting anything in return.) I can understand that... but I don't think it's something that really needs to be taken into consideration or "fixed" per se.

So if the Redemption paladin choose not to use Divine Smite even though most other paladins do (and instead just uses all their spell slot for casting actual spells), that doesn't mean the subclass isn't worth having. Or if the Redemption paladin is granted proficiency in heavy armor and martial weapons (due to them being a paladin) but then chooses to not wear armor and wield a simple bludgeoning weapon, that also doesn't mean the subclass isn't worth having. Too often I think we get stuck in your standard min-max / optimization mindset, wherein the PC (however they are built) gets immediately placed up and compared to other PCs of a similar type and if it comes out as "weaker", then it's not worth having it.

But that's the exact issue that leads to bloat-- the idea that any new option must be functionally equivalent power-wise to the very best option currently available. But what'll end up happening is that if you do that for every single new option in an expansion such as this... through gameplay it'll soon be discovered that several of those options end up going too far accidentally and outclass every other similar option available. And voila! The power-level has now shifted in the game.

Far better to create options that are not balanced against the best option available, but against the default or middle ground, and instead merely give you variant methods to play and experience, rather than trying to keep pace with the power-level of the game. Because that way you have a bit more wiggle-room and haven't blown the curve should it be mathed out six months later than New Option X is actually more powerful that originally thought (especially after the optimizers get ahold of it and max it for all its worth.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The oddest thing to me is that in a game whose identity is "kill them and take their stuff" has had two or three pacifist PCs so far. That just seems odd.

Boggles my mind that so many people see that as the identity of the game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not sure what you were trying to prove here... but I don't think I'm buying it.

You don't loose armor proficiencies or weapon proficiencies... You can still wear plate mail and use a shield but you have a natural AC of 16 + Dex mod if you choose not to. You can also still wield any weapon you want but if you want to use warrior of Reconcilitaion on a foe you must use a simple weapon that does bludgeoning damage... small price to pay for an auto-charm at zero hit points that doesn't require a rest... it's not (and I don't think it was meant to be) an optimal attack...

He's only as MAD as you want him to be...with lay on hands + Protective Spirit+ Healing spells... he doesn't have to have an exceptional Con to utilize Aura of the Guardian (the paladin's only ability that relies on being damaged).

I personally don't think he will be or should be trying to use Warrior of Reconciliation in every combat... So no he doesn't need to focus on Strength as much as Dex... or if he does want to subdue all enemies he will need to wear armor and use a shield... he still has that option.





Nope makes him a pretty good paladin...with some tactical/strategic choices to make in and out of combat.

All of this.

Also, I'll add that Warrior of Reconciliation wants you to use str weapons. Great. Just like normal. This paladin simply also gets benefit from having a Dex bonus. Ok. That isn't MAD, it's the same situation a str ranger, or a barbarian, or any fighter that uses medium armor. You'll want good Cha and str, decent Dex and con, anything else is optional. In a game where you don't need any starting stat to be higher than a 16 after race mod, ever.

What is the problem?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ok, yeah...I can see that. You know what, I like that very much and now I wish paladins had alternative armor calculation (plus shield) in their base class like the barbarian, with archetype giving sometime more armor prof. like Valor giving heavy amors to play the classic knight in shining armor. Vengance Paladin without armor would make for a nice 4e avenger, while for the other archetype that would allow players to play the fanatic without armor.

I have considered just doing that. You get the armor proficiencies, but you can also choose to wear no armor or shield, and get AC about like using heavy armor and shield. We would just flavor it differently for each oath. Vengeance is like the violent flip side of redeemer, guided by faith, devotion is flavored the same as redeemer, ancients gets basically a Barkskin style effect.

But for now we are playing more by the book bc we have a lot of new players and I don't want to overwhelm them with houserules and home-brew.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I get what you mean, I'm starting a campaign for new-ish players and decided to go with the PHB + 1 rule, but with so many good and interesting homebrew ideas out there, I keep falling in the trap of saying ''hey, you could use this or this'', breaking my own rule. Most of the them arent even interested in the things I find cool and stick to the PHB!

 

[epithet]

I really want to play one of these, as basically a jedi. It seems like a fun character to play, and the arguments against it seem to me to emerge from an unfortunately narrowed point of view.

 

[pemerton]

I also see them as a class that simply will not strike first mirroring the Order of the Gauntlet. This doesn't mean they won't strike. It simply means that when they do strike, it will have definite meaning and just cause behind it.

Nothing in the description suggests that they won't "strike first" - eg it talks about using violence in pursuit of the greater good.

Unless by "strike" you also mean "threaten".