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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marandahir" data-source="post: 8056330" data-attributes="member: 6803643">Personally, I don't think subclasses should be that narrow. Liches and Orcus are both Undead (or closely associated with the Undead). If it's called the Undead, a Lich should be a possible patron. Instead, it should have room for both Pact of the Blade style "Death Knights" and pact of the tome style "Liches-In-Training." And room for being a Vampire thrall.I do agree about Oath of Treachery; I thought it was vastly preferable to Oathbreaker, and would wish instead that Oathbreaker belonged to a Ronin/historical Black Knight type concept of someone who has abandoned their oaths. I don't see all Oathbreakers becoming Blackguards because they broke their oaths. The one as written feels like someone who broke an Oath of Devotion specifically (maybe also Oath of Redemption).  Though the name felt weird - I'm swearing an oath to betray? Treachery is more like the opposite of Oaths, hence the overlap with Oathbreaker. Still was a better iteration on the Oathbreaker's stories, but neither really fulfilled what they were named for. Might be an issue with calling Paladin subclasses Sacred Oaths… in 4Essentials we had the similar but destinct Cavalier Paladin Virtues and Blackguard Paladin Vices. I think Treachery fit that narrative chart a bit better than it did for "Oaths."Ultimately, I don't MIND them publishing the Undead, but I'd prefer if they just out and said, "this is proposed errata for SCAG." And if they do that, they should just errata Way of the Four Elements Monk, PHB Ranger & Beast Master, etc, rather than dropping them as alternate iterations on the same concept. But then again, maybe this is all for that "Big Book of Character Options and Variants" in which case… sure?</blockquote>

Verification