I like the concept, but there's just something about the subclass that I don't like...can't put my finger on it.
Way back in 2E, I wanted to play a diplomatic pacifist, but most of the attempts I'd seen at that had just been people playing wizards/clerics who did indirect damage. I didn't want that. The character I wanted to play was actually to see what a somewhat extreme CG elf might look like: long life gives respect and value for the lives of others, values free will and self-determination, wanted to increase good more than just reduce evil, etc. I ended up playing a Ranger who focused on the quarterstaff (but rarely used it). It gave him access to enough toys to be useful, and the martial class thing was odd, but not a huge deal. The Oath of Redemption would be a perfect fit for the character, so I immediately like it, for that reason. FWIW, the character's name was Mercule.For me, that "something" is the fact this is a martial class that advocates not being martial. Great roleplaying if not playing your class' strengths is your thing, but I would never play one. I find this concept is best as a film or literary character and far less so as one in a tabletop game (at least in games I've played where combat isn't the be-all, end-all, but plays a significant role). Of course, that's just my take.
So 13 STR, 13 CHA, 3 levels out of your primary class and then max your DEX. What class benefits from that choice?
This gets me cautiously optimistic they have realized the implementation of Hunter's Mark as a spell is problematic and would work much better as a class feature without concentration.The Ranger...they get a Hunter's Mark without the penalty of casting Hunter's Mark...
You're forgetting the old adage: don't balance a character option using flavor.Not to mention that most DMs actually want you to play your PC like they actually are. In this case, if you want to level dip into a pacifist paladin, the your PC should be acting like a pacifist. Whenever I hear terms like "build", it always seem that people completely ignore the flavor part of the class, which is just as important and class defining as any ability of said class. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are DMs that don't care about the flavor at all and only care about optimizing, and there's nothing wrong with that if the table likes that, but I don't think that's the norm by any means, so the prevalence of builds like this won't be very common, IMO
Actually this is a replacement for colossus slayer, not hunter's mark. You would have this going along side hunter's mark.