Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marandahir" data-source="post: 8296322" data-attributes="member: 6803643">The thing is, the Paladin already is this, mostly. It's just that the name Paladin has been applied to the top-level of the class. I'd have been fine with Knight, actually, though I get that they want to distinguish a divine magic knight from a non-magical knight, that way the Paladin features like lay on hands can be baked in.Do I think some of the default class features should be moved into the Oath of Protection or given alternate class features to let you dial in the type of divine magic knight you want? Of course. I feel like you could replace Lay on Hands with some sort of Warden feature from 4e, for example, and feel a bit better with the Oath of the Ancients emulating your 4e Warden. But I don't think the class needs to fundamentally change in a way that limits options (I think it's great that we have multiple flavours of holy knight in the class - protector, avenger, martyr, paragon, etc) in addition to flavours that reflect other types of holy knights (profane knights like the Oathbreaker, knights of warmongering deities like the Oath Conquest, Green Knights like Oath of the Ancients, Guardians of the Grey Middle like Oath of the Watchers). I don't think we need to make it into Oath of LG, Oath of CG, Oath of TN, Oath of LE, etc. That would be limiting in scope to D&D-specific tropes.I think the Barbarian class is fine, mechanically. Subclasses like Oath of the Zealot and Oath of the Beast show what it can be when you pull away from the "othered-peoples warrior rage-monster guy" that it's so often played as. It needs a new name, yes, and WotC already has used the best alternative for the class as a whole (Berserker) for the archetypal Primal Path of the class. "Warrior" isn't a bad term, though it's been used already in 5e by WotC for a generic NPC fighter-lite class, much like it had been in 3e and in D&D generally gives off vibes of a catch-all term for Fighter-like classes (probably inheritance of 2e's class groupings).</blockquote>

Verification