D&D 5E Redemption Paladin

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Really don't like Emissary of Peace giving a big, fat numerical bonus rather than advantage. A paladin will already a decent Persuasion total, no need to invalidate the roll or the rest of the party's contributions. Did a 3E /Pathfinder guy write this?

In general, I'm not a fan of pacifist characters in D&D unless the rest of the party is also playing those types. Otherwise you just shift the dirty work to the rest of the group. Sure, that one bandit you bonked on the head with your club is more receptive since you spared him. Or maybe its that the other 8 dudes he was with were burned alive and are bleeding out from your pals.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

While both give you the advantages of the charmed condition... There is one major difference between the spell vs. this ability. The spell forces the creature to view you as a friendly acquaintance (resulting in lower DC's to convince it to do something) while the paladin's ability doesn't actually make him view you as a friend and thus the DC's will in most cases be much higher since he can be friendly, indifferent or hostile....

No offense, but I do not care about this line of discussion. IMO, we've already descended into nitpicking something that isn't, at all, the point. And to make it worse, we're discussing a nit pick of a casual statement in a tangent.

So, nah, thanks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Really don't like Emissary of Peace giving a big, fat numerical bonus rather than advantage. A paladin will already a decent Persuasion total, no need to invalidate the roll or the rest of the party's contributions. Did a 3E /Pathfinder guy write this?

In general, I'm not a fan of pacifist characters in D&D unless the rest of the party is also playing those types. Otherwise you just shift the dirty work to the rest of the group. Sure, that one bandit you bonked on the head with your club is more receptive since you spared him. Or maybe its that the other 8 dudes he was with were burned alive and are bleeding out from your pals.

Some character types don't fit in some groups, sure.

Options like his work fine at all the tables where I play.

 

[Imaro]

No offense, but I do not care about this line of discussion. IMO, we've already descended into nitpicking something that isn't, at all, the point. And to make it worse, we're discussing a nit pick of a casual statement in a tangent.

So, nah, thanks.

No discussion is really necessary... the differences are right there in black and white. So yeah we can drop it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No discussion is really necessary... the differences are right there in black and white. So yeah we can drop it.

Nah, they aren't, but go ahead and childishly insist on the idea that your opinion is fact, and ignoring that you entirely missed the point while nit picking an irrelevant comparative statement, by taking what was clearly not literal, as a literal statement. If only the forums had a proper eye roll emoji.

I'm gonna go eat lunch with me wife.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Some character types don't fit in some groups, sure.

Options like his work fine at all the tables where I play.

Does the redemption guy just gloss over the rest of his companions killings though? It works great if everyone is on the same page. Otherwise its usually one hypocritical pacifist traveling with, and ignoring the actions of, a group of violent killers (by modern standards) or constant bickering over the use of force and dealing with prisoners the rest of the party doesn't want.

Sure, there are some tables where the body count is low, and they take an actual look at the PTSD that would be inflicted by the amount of carnage D&D characters likely encounter on their rise to even 5th level... but they are probably the exception, rather than the rule. Even in a non-murder hobo game, look at the amount of sentient beings you fight and probably kill in a published adventure. This is further compounded by 5E's refusal to make decent "one fight per day boss monsters", so you have to wear the party down with even more faceless mooks to get the 6-8 encounters it expects. That's a huge horde of prisoners to shuffle around the dungeon/wilderness, unless the party all agrees to a "catch and release" plan (and the DM works with them to not have it bite them on the butt).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I disagree... I think there's a pretty big difference between someone choosing to be a pacifist vs. their very nature and abilities being entwined in fulfilling an oath around pacifism. IMO It's similar to claiming we don't need a cleric class because anyone can be pious and worship a deity... Yeah but their identity and powers aren't intrinsically tied to that... I also feel like this type of oath (and the tropes/archetypes associated with it) suit the paladin class extremely well.

At the risk of spoiling the affirmation for you (8 XP and counting, with some from each side of the polite & erudite warlord debates), it's also, IMO, similar to claiming we don't need a Warlord class because anyone can be a charismatic leader or use good tactics.

Seriously, though, I'd still like to jump on your bandwagon and play a few bars: It's often been said, and not without reason, that a class shouldn't have mechanical advantages 'balanced' by RP restrictions. The "LG Only" traditional paladin has oft been the poster boy for that objection, so it's hardly surprising it come to the fore in this case. I think the critical difference, here, is that it's not just RP 'restrictions' that are independent of the 'advantages,' it's that the mechanics /are support for the RP/, for a concept that the game makes difficult to carry off with RP alone (because it's really pretty easy to KO enemies in combat rather than kill them, for instance, and because there aren't anything like 3.5 diplomancy rules, and they'd be broken if there were, &c). The RP supported /isn't/ a restriction, it's a concept, and it's not paying for anything, it's being paid for, enabled, with that mechanical support.

And, it's not like the concept or trope isn't a pervasive one. We may have different feelings about the concept - like it's a perverse product of unrealistic Star Trek Utopianism, or goofy compromises to slide a violent show in under the BS&P (I mean, just for hypothetical examples) - but if someone wants to play one, the game's richer for having mechanical options that enable it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Does the redemption guy just gloss over the rest of his companions killings though? It works great if everyone is on the same page. Otherwise its usually one hypocritical pacifist traveling with, and ignoring the actions of, a group of violent killers (by modern standards) or constant bickering over the use of force and dealing with prisoners the rest of the party doesn't want.

Sure, there are some tables where the body count is low, and they take an actual look at the PTSD that would be inflicted by the amount of carnage D&D characters likely encounter on their rise to even 5th level... but they are probably the exception, rather than the rule. Even in a non-murder hobo game, look at the amount of sentient beings you fight and probably kill in a published adventure. This is further compounded by 5E's refusal to make decent "one fight per day boss monsters", so you have to wear the party down with even more faceless mooks to get the 6-8 encounters it expects. That's a huge horde of prisoners to shuffle around the dungeon/wilderness, unless the party all agrees to a "catch and release" plan (and the DM works with them to not have it bite them on the butt).

Most of that depends on the specific character.

Ive played a Monk that was a lot like this subclass in theme, and I've DMed for an Avenger/Assassin whose backstory was having been brought to an epiphany by a mark who became her mentor, and she sought to atone for her "sins" by helping others find a better path.

In both cases, trying to stop other PCs from killing people wasn't an issue.

Firstly, we don't do the murder hobo thing, as a group. It's super weird to us, and I wouldn't believe it was even a normal/common thing if so many people didn't insist to me that it is.

Second, I have no idea what you're talking about with the PTSD part of the post? In a game with less bloodshed, why would you assume there is a lot of carnage? That seems contradictory, to me.

We don't solve every problem by killing people. We rarely shoot first, and when we do it's when it's clear there isn't another option.

We just....don't kill most of the people we fight? We don't assume that 0hp = dead, and we don't kill people that surrender. We treat their wounds if necessary and leave them or send them in the direction of the nearest temple, or lock them up in their own hideout/whatever and send for proper authorities. In adventures that aren't in civilization (most of our are, in the end), we just tuck them away somehwere safe and leave.

Because they are not in any shape to sneak up behind us and try to kill us again. It's pretty simple.

And the redemption guys make it simpler, bc they tend to have the skills to convince enemies to go home and rethink their lives.

About fights per day: it's a guide line. If it doesn't fit what you want out of the game, don't use it.

Or use social and exploration challenges to fill in for most of the encounters per day

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Most of that depends on the specific character.

Ive played a Monk that was a lot like this subclass in theme, and I've DMed for an Avenger/Assassin whose backstory was having been brought to an epiphany by a mark who became her mentor, and she sought to atone for her "sins" by helping others find a better path.

In both cases, trying to stop other PCs from killing people wasn't an issue.

Firstly, we don't do the murder hobo thing, as a group. It's super weird to us, and I wouldn't believe it was even a normal/common thing if so many people didn't insist to me that it is.

Second, I have no idea what you're talking about with the PTSD part of the post? In a game with less bloodshed, why would you assume there is a lot of carnage? That seems contradictory, to me.

We don't solve every problem by killing people. We rarely shoot first, and when we do it's when it's clear there isn't another option.

We just....don't kill most of the people we fight? We don't assume that 0hp = dead, and we don't kill people that surrender. We treat their wounds if necessary and leave them or send them in the direction of the nearest temple, or lock them up in their own hideout/whatever and send for proper authorities. In adventures that aren't in civilization (most of our are, in the end), we just tuck them away somehwere safe and leave.

Because they are not in any shape to sneak up behind us and try to kill us again. It's pretty simple.

And the redemption guys make it simpler, bc they tend to have the skills to convince enemies to go home and rethink their lives.

About fights per day: it's a guide line. If it doesn't fit what you want out of the game, don't use it.

Or use social and exploration challenges to fill in for most of the encounters per day

I'd wager yours is a VERY atypical game. Not the "non murder hobo" aspect, but the whole bandaging defeated opponents, KO, etc. My Al-Quadim game was pretty similar due to wanting recurring antagonists, so they'd just "cutscene escape" at 0HP. But I'd argue most D&D games have swaths of dead bodies, because that's just how the game works on its default setting... assuming you play by published rules, a character will fight a ton of creatures as they level. Going through that much bloodshed would realistically leave most people a hardened shell of a person or probably having nightmares for the rest of their lives. But in D&D, roasting a half dozen sentients alive with a fireball is pretty routine.

5E D&D is an attrition grind, with the whole 6-8 encounters expected (or at least all the apologists tell me when I complain about how pathetically easy combat is). To have an actual deadly encounter, you need to whittle down the party with even more mook fights... which leads to higher levels of bloodshed. Again, typical campaign and published adventure expectation.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'd wager yours is a VERY atypical game. Not the "non murder hobo" aspect, but the whole bandaging defeated opponents, KO, etc. My Al-Quadim game was pretty similar due to wanting recurring antagonists, so they'd just "cutscene escape" at 0HP. But I'd argue most D&D games have swaths of dead bodies, because that's just how the game works on its default setting... assuming you play by published rules, a character will fight a ton of creatures as they level. Going through that much bloodshed would realistically leave most people a hardened shell of a person or probably having nightmares for the rest of their lives. But in D&D, roasting a half dozen sentients alive with a fireball is pretty routine.

5E D&D is an attrition grind, with the whole 6-8 encounters expected (or at least all the apologists tell me when I complain about how pathetically easy combat is). To have an actual deadly encounter, you need to whittle down the party with even more mook fights... which leads to higher levels of bloodshed. Again, typical campaign and published adventure expectation.

Eh, the character type works fine without the rest of the party going out of their way to avoid killing people who try to kill them. It isn't an issue at all in our games right now, but when I was playing with a different group it wasnt a problem either.
I don't see his Paladin having a problem with their companions not holding back against violent attackers just because she does. Do your players tend to ambush orcs and slay them without mercy? No judgements, just trying to understand.

Ive also never seen a group run 5e as an attrition grind, or blow through encounters, so I'm not sure what the deal with that issue is, but either way it's nothing to do with whether or not a non lethal character that tries to avoid violence if possible is a problemTic character type. This character type works in 4e, The One Ring, Star Wars Saga Edition, Alternity....I never tried it in 3.5, and I barely remember 2e, because I was a teenager, and intoxicated a lot back then, but we pretty much only fought supernatural evil back then, most of the time, so it wouldn't really have come up.