Rav, if you have a +5 CHA and a lot of paladins are going that route, especially because of multi-classing, then it's better than a 10-15% extra hit chance.
Yeah, for reals all bets off if you're rolling for stats and can sink a bunch of 18s into all your stats at L1. Having a +5 cha for devotion means a +25% hit, and that starts getting appealing far sooner in each combat than a +10% or +15% does by a lot.
Now, if you have a high Cha because you MC'd into Hexblade then you've given up 2hander weapons so this becomes a much weirder comparison between a damage dealer vs a high AC-bro.
Pact of the Blade? That's three levels in to get CHA as your attack modifier with 2h weapons.
So, now you wanna compare whether a L3 Hexblade who will eventually become a Devotion paladin ... you know, eventually... is better than a L3 Vengeance Paladin? This is a tangent on top of a tangent.
Comparing just their two channel divinities, which is all we were talking about: Vengeance is better in almost all cases. And, when it isn't better it isn't by much or it probably didn't even matter.
Other than that, a hexblade can still use 2h weapons, they are just using STR as their attack modifier i.e. hex warrior isn't changing their attack mod. Don't a number of AL modules have methods of boosting STR by magical means? Magical gauntlets, belts or even effects, appear in WotC content.
Oh right, hypothetically you could be playing a god-king with 30 charisma at level 1 and so Devotion is clearly better. kk. Meanwhile, for the rest of us who are comparing actual player character stats, you probably have a +3. Maybe less.
If you really need to compare a L3Hexblade multiclass Devotion paladin, then, they'd be level 6 when this combo of yours comes online. A L3Hexblade/L3Devadin can pump Cha. Sure. But at this point he still doesn't even have any ASIs yet. So still has a +3 cha anyway. All he's done is allowed himself to dump Str I guess for some reason, and forgo taking ASIs, not getting extra attack, all around a worse character than the equivalent L6 Vengeance Paladin. Not sure how multiclassing 3 levels into warlock was somehow supposed to make Devotion better. Vengeance Vs whatever that thing is just blows it out of the water.
See, that's the problem with theorycrafting. There are many variables.
You're trying to introduce unnecessary variables every time the math shows vengeance is better. Yes.
And at this point, lots of paladins are multi-classed paladin/warlocks, paladin/sorcerers, paladin/bards, etc. I suspect, although don't know, that there are more multi-classed paladins at level 10 overall, than pure level 10 paladins.
Using your action to give yourself a +%hit on subsequent attacks is like financially investing. If you don't know how long it takes for that investment to pay itself back you might be making a mistake.
Let's break it down. Each Cha Mod has a different ROI (return on investment) period.
+1 Cha. This is only giving you +5% to hit. It means you're giving up 1 attack. (2 attacks if you have extra attack) It will take 20 attacks for this to add up to +1 hit. Can you make 20 attacks with this sword this combat? yes? use it. No? Don't. If you have extra attacks you need to make 40 attacks with it to get your ROI. Will that happen? Then use it.
+2 Cha. This gives +10% hit. Costs an action. You'll need to attack 10 times in combat for your ROI. 20 if you have extra attack. Think that's going to happen?
+3 Cha. We're at +15% now. Getting solidly mediocre. 7 attacks to get your ROI. 14 if you have extra attack. This might happen in some combats. Maybe.
+4 Cha. Here we go! +20% hit. Attack 5 times to ROI it. That's plausible! Might happen more than it doesn't. 10 times with extra attack, still doable.
+5 Cha. +25% hit. Boyah. Only 4 attacks to ROI now. This makes sense to use. Even at 8 to ROI with extra attack, totally doable should happen most combats easy.
Vengeance? Vengeance always makes sense to use it. Cha? Irrelevant. # swings? Irrelevant. Just get in there and start swinging at advantage. Maybe it only gives a couple + damage. Ok. Maybe it gives hundreds, great. It always gives a bonus. Meanwhile Devotion can actively hamstring your performance.
First, who said I was talking about going hexblade first? I think most paladin/hexblade combos generally have you going paladin first, for the heavy armor. It's also quite common to stick paladin until you get the level 6 Aura of Protection. Then you can go hexblade.
Second, a paladin can easily have 16 STR and 16 CHA starting off at level one. It's not really all that hard. Heck, a half elf can add a 16 CON to that mix at level one!
So you can go paladin to level 6, and if your STR and CHA are both 16 (+3), then does it really matter which one you use for your attack modifier? So you can easily be a PAM paladin/hexblade and just use your STR stat, until you get 3 levels of warlock and Pact of the Blade. After level 6, especially with Vengeance, you already have the best part of the Vengeance subclass with Vow of Enmity, you can easily multi-class out of it. It's harder with Devotion, since they have a far superior level 7 ability imo.
See, that's the problem with theorycrafting. There are many variables.
You're trying to introduce unnecessary variables every time the math shows vengeance is better. Yes.
I'm trying to show you objectively, that there are variables that you can't take into account. So your answer is to not acknowledge there ever are variables, but bulldog on ahead with your "definitive" evidence that vengeance is better because Vow of Enmity takes a bonus action. That's it. That's your entire argument...a bonus action vs an action. I have said it's not ideal for Sacred Weapon to be an action. But there are other factors that lessen that one lost turn.
I have played a vengeance paladin to level 8 and thoroughly enjoyed it. That having been said, it quite often happened where we were more than 30 ft away from our opponents, and a turn was taken to allow them to rush up on us. In those fights, I tended to throw a javelin (if they were within range) or maybe cast Bless on myself and a couple of others. In those fights, the Vow of Enmity was useless until at least Rd 2. If I had been a devotion paladin, I could have easily used Sacred Weapon in that first turn. That example is just one of those messy little things called "variables." Not all fights happen indoors, nor start in a close quarters.
Bless. Interesting spell to bring up. It adds a d4 to both attacks and saves. but... to 3 people. That's 3d4 to attack and 3d4 to saves. is that better than spending that same action for only +3 to only your own attacks? yes in every way possible. Objectively bless is better. Hands down. Every time.
If you must kill R1 buffing, Vengeance using it to cast bless is superior to Devotion using it to give themselves a + hit bonus
Rav, if you have a +5 CHA and a lot of paladins are going that route, especially because of multi-classing, then it's better than a 10-15% extra hit chance.
Yeah, for reals all bets off if you're rolling for stats and can sink a bunch of 18s into all your stats at L1. Having a +5 cha for devotion means a +25% hit, and that starts getting appealing far sooner in each combat than a +10% or +15% does by a lot.
Now, if you have a high Cha because you MC'd into Hexblade then you've given up 2hander weapons so this becomes a much weirder comparison between a damage dealer vs a high AC-bro.
Pact of the Blade? That's three levels in to get CHA as your attack modifier with 2h weapons.
So, now you wanna compare whether a L3 Hexblade who will eventually become a Devotion paladin ... you know, eventually... is better than a L3 Vengeance Paladin? This is a tangent on top of a tangent.
Comparing just their two channel divinities, which is all we were talking about: Vengeance is better in almost all cases. And, when it isn't better it isn't by much or it probably didn't even matter.
Other than that, a hexblade can still use 2h weapons, they are just using STR as their attack modifier i.e. hex warrior isn't changing their attack mod. Don't a number of AL modules have methods of boosting STR by magical means? Magical gauntlets, belts or even effects, appear in WotC content.
Oh right, hypothetically you could be playing a god-king with 30 charisma at level 1 and so Devotion is clearly better. kk. Meanwhile, for the rest of us who are comparing actual player character stats, you probably have a +3. Maybe less.
If you really need to compare a L3Hexblade multiclass Devotion paladin, then, they'd be level 6 when this combo of yours comes online. A L3Hexblade/L3Devadin can pump Cha. Sure. But at this point he still doesn't even have any ASIs yet. So still has a +3 cha anyway. All he's done is allowed himself to dump Str I guess for some reason, and forgo taking ASIs, not getting extra attack, all around a worse character than the equivalent L6 Vengeance Paladin. Not sure how multiclassing 3 levels into warlock was somehow supposed to make Devotion better. Vengeance Vs whatever that thing is just blows it out of the water.
See, that's the problem with theorycrafting. There are many variables.
You're trying to introduce unnecessary variables every time the math shows vengeance is better. Yes.
And at this point, lots of paladins are multi-classed paladin/warlocks, paladin/sorcerers, paladin/bards, etc. I suspect, although don't know, that there are more multi-classed paladins at level 10 overall, than pure level 10 paladins.
Using your action to give yourself a +%hit on subsequent attacks is like financially investing. If you don't know how long it takes for that investment to pay itself back you might be making a mistake.
Let's break it down. Each Cha Mod has a different ROI (return on investment) period.
+1 Cha. This is only giving you +5% to hit. It means you're giving up 1 attack. (2 attacks if you have extra attack) It will take 20 attacks for this to add up to +1 hit. Can you make 20 attacks with this sword this combat? yes? use it. No? Don't. If you have extra attacks you need to make 40 attacks with it to get your ROI. Will that happen? Then use it.
+2 Cha. This gives +10% hit. Costs an action. You'll need to attack 10 times in combat for your ROI. 20 if you have extra attack. Think that's going to happen?
+3 Cha. We're at +15% now. Getting solidly mediocre. 7 attacks to get your ROI. 14 if you have extra attack. This might happen in some combats. Maybe.
+4 Cha. Here we go! +20% hit. Attack 5 times to ROI it. That's plausible! Might happen more than it doesn't. 10 times with extra attack, still doable.
+5 Cha. +25% hit. Boyah. Only 4 attacks to ROI now. This makes sense to use. Even at 8 to ROI with extra attack, totally doable should happen most combats easy.
Vengeance? Vengeance always makes sense to use it. Cha? Irrelevant. # swings? Irrelevant. Just get in there and start swinging at advantage. Maybe it only gives a couple + damage. Ok. Maybe it gives hundreds, great. It always gives a bonus. Meanwhile Devotion can actively hamstring your performance.
First, who said I was talking about going hexblade first? I think most paladin/hexblade combos generally have you going paladin first, for the heavy armor. It's also quite common to stick paladin until you get the level 6 Aura of Protection. Then you can go hexblade.
Second, a paladin can easily have 16 STR and 16 CHA starting off at level one. It's not really all that hard. Heck, a half elf can add a 16 CON to that mix at level one!
So you can go paladin to level 6, and if your STR and CHA are both 16 (+3), then does it really matter which one you use for your attack modifier? So you can easily be a PAM paladin/hexblade and just use your STR stat, until you get 3 levels of warlock and Pact of the Blade. After level 6, especially with Vengeance, you already have the best part of the Vengeance subclass with Vow of Enmity, you can easily multi-class out of it. It's harder with Devotion, since they have a far superior level 7 ability imo.
L6 Vengeance Paladin is superior to a L3/3 Devotion Hexadin in every way. Every way.
I can't for the life of me figure out why you think this multiclass example helps your argument.
Rav, if you have a +5 CHA and a lot of paladins are going that route, especially because of multi-classing, then it's better than a 10-15% extra hit chance.
Yeah, for reals all bets off if you're rolling for stats and can sink a bunch of 18s into all your stats at L1. Having a +5 cha for devotion means a +25% hit, and that starts getting appealing far sooner in each combat than a +10% or +15% does by a lot.
Now, if you have a high Cha because you MC'd into Hexblade then you've given up 2hander weapons so this becomes a much weirder comparison between a damage dealer vs a high AC-bro.
Pact of the Blade? That's three levels in to get CHA as your attack modifier with 2h weapons.
So, now you wanna compare whether a L3 Hexblade who will eventually become a Devotion paladin ... you know, eventually... is better than a L3 Vengeance Paladin? This is a tangent on top of a tangent.
Comparing just their two channel divinities, which is all we were talking about: Vengeance is better in almost all cases. And, when it isn't better it isn't by much or it probably didn't even matter.
Other than that, a hexblade can still use 2h weapons, they are just using STR as their attack modifier i.e. hex warrior isn't changing their attack mod. Don't a number of AL modules have methods of boosting STR by magical means? Magical gauntlets, belts or even effects, appear in WotC content.
Oh right, hypothetically you could be playing a god-king with 30 charisma at level 1 and so Devotion is clearly better. kk. Meanwhile, for the rest of us who are comparing actual player character stats, you probably have a +3. Maybe less.
If you really need to compare a L3Hexblade multiclass Devotion paladin, then, they'd be level 6 when this combo of yours comes online. A L3Hexblade/L3Devadin can pump Cha. Sure. But at this point he still doesn't even have any ASIs yet. So still has a +3 cha anyway. All he's done is allowed himself to dump Str I guess for some reason, and forgo taking ASIs, not getting extra attack, all around a worse character than the equivalent L6 Vengeance Paladin. Not sure how multiclassing 3 levels into warlock was somehow supposed to make Devotion better. Vengeance Vs whatever that thing is just blows it out of the water.
See, that's the problem with theorycrafting. There are many variables.
You're trying to introduce unnecessary variables every time the math shows vengeance is better. Yes.
And at this point, lots of paladins are multi-classed paladin/warlocks, paladin/sorcerers, paladin/bards, etc. I suspect, although don't know, that there are more multi-classed paladins at level 10 overall, than pure level 10 paladins.
Using your action to give yourself a +%hit on subsequent attacks is like financially investing. If you don't know how long it takes for that investment to pay itself back you might be making a mistake.
Let's break it down. Each Cha Mod has a different ROI (return on investment) period.
+1 Cha. This is only giving you +5% to hit. It means you're giving up 1 attack. (2 attacks if you have extra attack) It will take 20 attacks for this to add up to +1 hit. Can you make 20 attacks with this sword this combat? yes? use it. No? Don't. If you have extra attacks you need to make 40 attacks with it to get your ROI. Will that happen? Then use it.
+2 Cha. This gives +10% hit. Costs an action. You'll need to attack 10 times in combat for your ROI. 20 if you have extra attack. Think that's going to happen?
+3 Cha. We're at +15% now. Getting solidly mediocre. 7 attacks to get your ROI. 14 if you have extra attack. This might happen in some combats. Maybe.
+4 Cha. Here we go! +20% hit. Attack 5 times to ROI it. That's plausible! Might happen more than it doesn't. 10 times with extra attack, still doable.
+5 Cha. +25% hit. Boyah. Only 4 attacks to ROI now. This makes sense to use. Even at 8 to ROI with extra attack, totally doable should happen most combats easy.
Vengeance? Vengeance always makes sense to use it. Cha? Irrelevant. # swings? Irrelevant. Just get in there and start swinging at advantage. Maybe it only gives a couple + damage. Ok. Maybe it gives hundreds, great. It always gives a bonus. Meanwhile Devotion can actively hamstring your performance.
First, who said I was talking about going hexblade first? I think most paladin/hexblade combos generally have you going paladin first, for the heavy armor. It's also quite common to stick paladin until you get the level 6 Aura of Protection. Then you can go hexblade.
Second, a paladin can easily have 16 STR and 16 CHA starting off at level one. It's not really all that hard. Heck, a half elf can add a 16 CON to that mix at level one!
So you can go paladin to level 6, and if your STR and CHA are both 16 (+3), then does it really matter which one you use for your attack modifier? So you can easily be a PAM paladin/hexblade and just use your STR stat, until you get 3 levels of warlock and Pact of the Blade. After level 6, especially with Vengeance, you already have the best part of the Vengeance subclass with Vow of Enmity, you can easily multi-class out of it. It's harder with Devotion, since they have a far superior level 7 ability imo.
L6 Vengeance Paladin is superior to a L3/3 Devotion Hexadin in every way. Every way.
I can't for the life of me figure out why you think this multiclass example helps your argument.
Again, where are you getting that I am saying a paladin/hexblade 3/3?
You go paladin 6, then think about multi-classing. I, literally, said that in the post you are quoting.
I played vengeance and enjoyed it, but there are other paladin subclasses, that are quite good. You might want to broaden your horizons and try some of them. Conquest is arguably the best paladin subclass imo. Vengeance could make an argument for that top spot. I think Devotion is quite close and arguably better in a number of ways, to Vengeance. People in this thread love Ancients the best. There are other subclasses besides Vengeance.
I think at this point, we can just agree to disagree.
Rav, if you have a +5 CHA and a lot of paladins are going that route, especially because of multi-classing, then it's better than a 10-15% extra hit chance.
Yeah, for reals all bets off if you're rolling for stats and can sink a bunch of 18s into all your stats at L1. Having a +5 cha for devotion means a +25% hit, and that starts getting appealing far sooner in each combat than a +10% or +15% does by a lot.
Now, if you have a high Cha because you MC'd into Hexblade then you've given up 2hander weapons so this becomes a much weirder comparison between a damage dealer vs a high AC-bro.
Pact of the Blade? That's three levels in to get CHA as your attack modifier with 2h weapons.
So, now you wanna compare whether a L3 Hexblade who will eventually become a Devotion paladin ... you know, eventually... is better than a L3 Vengeance Paladin? This is a tangent on top of a tangent.
Comparing just their two channel divinities, which is all we were talking about: Vengeance is better in almost all cases. And, when it isn't better it isn't by much or it probably didn't even matter.
Other than that, a hexblade can still use 2h weapons, they are just using STR as their attack modifier i.e. hex warrior isn't changing their attack mod. Don't a number of AL modules have methods of boosting STR by magical means? Magical gauntlets, belts or even effects, appear in WotC content.
Oh right, hypothetically you could be playing a god-king with 30 charisma at level 1 and so Devotion is clearly better. kk. Meanwhile, for the rest of us who are comparing actual player character stats, you probably have a +3. Maybe less.
If you really need to compare a L3Hexblade multiclass Devotion paladin, then, they'd be level 6 when this combo of yours comes online. A L3Hexblade/L3Devadin can pump Cha. Sure. But at this point he still doesn't even have any ASIs yet. So still has a +3 cha anyway. All he's done is allowed himself to dump Str I guess for some reason, and forgo taking ASIs, not getting extra attack, all around a worse character than the equivalent L6 Vengeance Paladin. Not sure how multiclassing 3 levels into warlock was somehow supposed to make Devotion better. Vengeance Vs whatever that thing is just blows it out of the water.
See, that's the problem with theorycrafting. There are many variables.
You're trying to introduce unnecessary variables every time the math shows vengeance is better. Yes.
And at this point, lots of paladins are multi-classed paladin/warlocks, paladin/sorcerers, paladin/bards, etc. I suspect, although don't know, that there are more multi-classed paladins at level 10 overall, than pure level 10 paladins.
Using your action to give yourself a +%hit on subsequent attacks is like financially investing. If you don't know how long it takes for that investment to pay itself back you might be making a mistake.
Let's break it down. Each Cha Mod has a different ROI (return on investment) period.
+1 Cha. This is only giving you +5% to hit. It means you're giving up 1 attack. (2 attacks if you have extra attack) It will take 20 attacks for this to add up to +1 hit. Can you make 20 attacks with this sword this combat? yes? use it. No? Don't. If you have extra attacks you need to make 40 attacks with it to get your ROI. Will that happen? Then use it.
+2 Cha. This gives +10% hit. Costs an action. You'll need to attack 10 times in combat for your ROI. 20 if you have extra attack. Think that's going to happen?
+3 Cha. We're at +15% now. Getting solidly mediocre. 7 attacks to get your ROI. 14 if you have extra attack. This might happen in some combats. Maybe.
+4 Cha. Here we go! +20% hit. Attack 5 times to ROI it. That's plausible! Might happen more than it doesn't. 10 times with extra attack, still doable.
+5 Cha. +25% hit. Boyah. Only 4 attacks to ROI now. This makes sense to use. Even at 8 to ROI with extra attack, totally doable should happen most combats easy.
Vengeance? Vengeance always makes sense to use it. Cha? Irrelevant. # swings? Irrelevant. Just get in there and start swinging at advantage. Maybe it only gives a couple + damage. Ok. Maybe it gives hundreds, great. It always gives a bonus. Meanwhile Devotion can actively hamstring your performance.
First, who said I was talking about going hexblade first? I think most paladin/hexblade combos generally have you going paladin first, for the heavy armor. It's also quite common to stick paladin until you get the level 6 Aura of Protection. Then you can go hexblade.
Second, a paladin can easily have 16 STR and 16 CHA starting off at level one. It's not really all that hard. Heck, a half elf can add a 16 CON to that mix at level one!
So you can go paladin to level 6, and if your STR and CHA are both 16 (+3), then does it really matter which one you use for your attack modifier? So you can easily be a PAM paladin/hexblade and just use your STR stat, until you get 3 levels of warlock and Pact of the Blade. After level 6, especially with Vengeance, you already have the best part of the Vengeance subclass with Vow of Enmity, you can easily multi-class out of it. It's harder with Devotion, since they have a far superior level 7 ability imo.
L6 Vengeance Paladin is superior to a L3/3 Devotion Hexadin in every way. Every way.
I can't for the life of me figure out why you think this multiclass example helps your argument.
Again, where are you getting that I am saying a paladin/hexblade 3/3?
You go paladin 6, then think about multi-classing. I, literally, said that in the post you are quoting.
...
Why did you try to add hexblade into this conversation even at all??? We were comparing two level 3 paladins, and you insisted we needed to account for hexblade multiclass... If you now insist we need to add hexblade... but after level 6... then it isn't and never was relevant and this whole derailment was for no reason. Congrats I guess?
Back to the original point: At level 3, when they each get these respective channel divinity abilities, Vengeance's Vow of Enmity is superior. On demand Advantage is better than standing around not doing anything for a first turn so that you get a minor +hit boost. It is the same reason True Strike is often regarded as one of the worst spells in the game. Giving up an action for a bonus to maybe hit later is almost always worst than just using that action to attack with instead.
Even in situations where you can't attack on R1, Vengeance, as a whole, is still better because they can sink their 1st action into Bless and get a bonus to hit, saves, as well as boost 2 other members of their party.
Devotion is standing around while Vengeance is already dropping enemies.
I played vengeance and enjoyed it, but there are other paladin subclasses, that are quite good. You might want to broaden your horizons and try some of them. Conquest is arguably the best paladin subclass imo. Vengeance could make an argument for that top spot. I think Devotion is quite close and arguably better in a number of ways, to Vengeance. People in this thread love Ancients the best. There are other subclasses besides Vengeance.
I think at this point, we can just agree to disagree.
Whoa there buddy, easy on recommending him GOOD subclasses.
Vow of enmity is overrated. Only useful on one target, and once that target's gone, you're no better than anybody else. It forces you to either hold off on using it sooner because you're waiting for the big bad to appear, or you never use it at all. Devotion? Useful in any combat. If you miss on average about a third of the time, devotion bumps that up easily to hitting 80% of the time. I've had my won fair share of turns where I attack and miss, consecutively and it feels awful. It makes me think I would've been better off using that action to buff myself, and doing so prevents as frequent misses.
Let's break down your claims here. You say:
Vow of enmity is overrated.
Only useful on one target, and once that target's gone, you're no better than anybody else.
It forces you to either hold off on using it sooner because you're waiting for the big bad to appear, or you never use it at all.
Devotion? Useful in any combat.
If you miss on average about a third of the time, devotion bumps that up easily to hitting 80% of the time.
I would've been better off using that action to buff myself, and doing so prevents as frequent misses.
Every single one of these is false. Every single one.
On-Demand advantage is always great to have.
Vow of Enmity isn't their only subclass feature.
It provides value even if used on mooks.
Entirely false. I've done the math. Sacred Weapon can be an actively bad choice. Using in combat may make you perform worse than if you hadn't used it.
Okay I lied this one is true. But Vengeance's Advantage brings it to 87.75% so is better in the same situation.
Again, I've shown the math on this. Post Hoc rationalization isn't a reasonable means of determining actions. Closing your eyes, and then safely crossing the street, doesn't then mean closing your eyes before crossing the street was a sound and reasonable thing to do. The same here. Missing your attack was a low probability event. Just because it happens doesn't mean you chose wrong.
Any comparison between these two abilities shows that Vengeance's wins. except, and I've made these caveats from the start, in 2 cases. 1. Longer fights where you know you'll get the full benefit of attacking many, many times with your sacred weapon. How long? depends on your Charisma. Maths done earlier in thread. And, situation 2: You have the ability to prebuff.
My favorite is Oath of Conquest, for a few reasons.
1) Conquest has no bad features. Ancients' channel divinities are bad or overly circumstantial. Devotion's oath spells are either lackluster or spells that paladins already have access to. Vengeance has a forgettable level 7 feature. All of these oaths are great overall, but they each have individual features that are a bit disappointing. Compare to Conquest - you have a nice AOE debuff CD in Conquering Presence, and if you're stuck fighting frighten-immune foes then you still have guided strike as an effective (if a bit boring) fallback option. You have solid oath spells including Armor of Agathys, Hold Person, Spiritual Weapon, and especially Fear. Your level 7 aura isn't just good, it's character defining, completely changing how the class feels and plays. Speaking of...
2) Conquest Paladin is Different. One of the nice things about the 5e paladin is that so much is built into the base class - proficiencies, hit dice, spellcasting, smites, extra attack, aura of protection, etc. There are no bad paladin subclasses because the base class paladin makes for an effective character before you even layer subclasses on top. However, this also means that most paladins play very similarly to each other. Conquest breaks the mold by focusing on AoE rather than single target, spells over smites, debuffing & control over buffing & damage. Since your key feature, the level 7 aura, relies on opponents failing their saves, conquerors are motivated to focus on raising charisma before physical stats or weapon feats with your ability score improvements, which in turn makes the paladin base class's handful of save based spells more attractive than they are otherwise. Divine smite becomes a fallback option for dealing with frighten immune foes, rather than the core gameplay pillar that it is for basically every other paladin.
3) Conquest is a fantastic blend of theme and mechanics. The core identity of the Conquest Paladin is 'control through fear', and that weaves through all of their mechanics. Their channel divinities and spells create fear, their aura locks down those they frighten. The features that don't directly relate to fear build on the melee/lockdown/tank play style that the frighten mechanics create. Conquest even re-contextualizes some of the paladin's base class features. Aura of Courage in particular takes on an offensive application as it helps you avoid impacting your allies with the Fear spell's cone effect, while Wrathful Smite supplants Divine Smite as the Conqueror's default offensive smiting option.
......
My least favorite oath is Glory, since it just doesn't stand out that much to me, but I just as easily could have said Crown. The truth, though, is that there are no bad paladin oaths, especially after Tasha's expanded the paladin's spell list and added a useful fallback channel divinity option.
I like Oath of the Ancients for its naturey abilities, like paladin with a side of druid, and the flavor of its tenets. More about preseving joy and life and light than caring about law vs chaos etc. For some reason it just grabs me more than other paladin oaths.
My least favorite by default is oathbreaker. I don't hate it, I don't think it shouldn't exist persay...but I personally kind of feel a paladin that forsakes their oath ought to just be cut off from their power and if they want 'evil powers' should either swear an oath to evil and just be an evil themed oath rather than 'oatherbreaker' or go to some other class like warlock to receive dark powers. I wouldn't want to take oathbreaker away from players or dms that like it but as a concept I think it would work better retooled as an evil themed oath instead of just 'you broke your oaths to do evil and now how these evil powers for some reason.'
I kind of like Oath of Conquest better in terms of an 'evil' or at least potentially evil paladin.
I like Oath of the Ancients for its naturey abilities, like paladin with a side of druid, and the flavor of its tenets. More about preseving joy and life and light than caring about law vs chaos etc. For some reason it just grabs me more than other paladin oaths.
My least favorite by default is oathbreaker. I don't hate it, I don't think it shouldn't exist persay...but I personally kind of feel a paladin that forsakes their oath ought to just be cut off from their power and if they want 'evil powers' should either swear an oath to evil and just be an evil themed oath rather than 'oatherbreaker' or go to some other class like warlock to receive dark powers. I wouldn't want to take oathbreaker away from players or dms that like it but as a concept I think it would work better retooled as an evil themed oath instead of just 'you broke your oaths to do evil and now how these evil powers for some reason.'
That's kind of what oathbreaker is. They're not just any paladin who has broken their oath, but rather an Evil paladin (oathbreaker is the only paladin subclass with an explicit alignment requirement) that has broken their oath "to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power."
A paladin who simply breaks their oath does typically simply lose their powers* until they atone and re-pledge themselves to their original (or another) oath. A fallen paladin will only become an Oathbreaker of they take the extra step of rejecting the paladin way altogether and devoting themselves to evil instead**, typically becoming an npc in the process. The Oathbreaker doesn't have explicit tenets, but an active devotion is still a prerequisite, that's what the alignment requirement is about. And while there's no further mechanic that would cause a repentant Oathbreaker to lose their new unholy powers, it's worth pointing out that the Oathbreaker's damage buffing aura /also/ applies to any /enemy/ fiends or undead.
* how the power loss works isn't defined by the rules, it's left up to the player and DM to work out. It could be all paladin class features, or just the subclass features, or something else.
** the evil powers behind an oathbreaker are also not explicitly defined by the rules, it could be powerful demons, devils, undead, evil gods, the mysterious dark powers of Ravenloft, etc. Any powerful entity or force of supernatural evil that might choose to reach out to a fallen paladin at their lowest and most broken point to twist them into a champion of everything they once fought so hard to oppose.
I like Oath of the Ancients for its naturey abilities, like paladin with a side of druid, and the flavor of its tenets. More about preseving joy and life and light than caring about law vs chaos etc. For some reason it just grabs me more than other paladin oaths.
My least favorite by default is oathbreaker. I don't hate it, I don't think it shouldn't exist persay...but I personally kind of feel a paladin that forsakes their oath ought to just be cut off from their power and if they want 'evil powers' should either swear an oath to evil and just be an evil themed oath rather than 'oatherbreaker' or go to some other class like warlock to receive dark powers. I wouldn't want to take oathbreaker away from players or dms that like it but as a concept I think it would work better retooled as an evil themed oath instead of just 'you broke your oaths to do evil and now how these evil powers for some reason.'
That's kind of what oathbreaker is. They're not just any paladin who has broken their oath, but rather an Evil paladin (oathbreaker is the only paladin subclass with an explicit alignment requirement) that has broken their oath "to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power."
A paladin who simply breaks their oath does typically simply lose their powers* until they atone and re-pledge themselves to their original (or another) oath. A fallen paladin will only become an Oathbreaker of they take the extra step of rejecting the paladin way altogether and devoting themselves to evil instead**, typically becoming an npc in the process. The Oathbreaker doesn't have explicit tenets, but an active devotion is still a prerequisite, that's what the alignment requirement is about. And while there's no further mechanic that would cause a repentant Oathbreaker to lose their new unholy powers, it's worth pointing out that the Oathbreaker's damage buffing aura /also/ applies to any /enemy/ fiends or undead.
* how the power loss works isn't defined by the rules, it's left up to the player and DM to work out. It could be all paladin class features, or just the subclass features, or something else.
** the evil powers behind an oathbreaker are also not explicitly defined by the rules, it could be powerful demons, devils, undead, evil gods, the mysterious dark powers of Ravenloft, etc. Any powerful entity or force of supernatural evil that might choose to reach out to a fallen paladin at their lowest and most broken point to twist them into a champion of everything they once fought so hard to oppose.
I think the reason it feels weird to me is that...anyone can go to evil. It feels bizaare to me that a paladin doing that would get these powers of an oathbreaker, where someone who was not a paladin but does the same evil stuff/swears themselves to evil etc would not. It's the implication that the oathbreaker had to have been a paladin before that feels weird to me. And it would have worked better if it was itself an evil aligned oath with its own tenets etc, instead of this open ended 'once a paladin that forsook their oaths and turned to evil, which despite not having the powers from that old oath has these eveil powers that weirdly mirror normal paladins in a lot of ways.'
In my mind, the process ought to go more like this.
Is a paladin.
Forsakes or breaks oath. Loses paladin powers.
Goes to evil, basically as a blank slate with their past as a paladin being irrelevant.
Where as, the way I understand Oathbreaker, it's more
Is a paladin
Forsakes or breaks oath, loses powers.
Goes to evil, inexplicably gains evil paladin powers. If they lose their original oath powers by breaking their oath, those powers coming back but in an evil form when they then go to evil just makes 0 sense to me.
Why is the being a paladin thing a requriement at all? I just feel like it'd work better as an oath to evil type thing instead of 'oath breaker.'
This is all just my personal prefrences and opinion of course, just because it doesn't mesh with me personally doesn't make it 'bad' in a wider sense.
Maybe if the subclass explained more where these powers came from beyond 'they used to be a paladin but now they're evil' or had something like tenets etc or examples in the subclass description I'd like it more. As it is, it just feels pretty weird.
I like Oath of the Ancients for its naturey abilities, like paladin with a side of druid, and the flavor of its tenets. More about preseving joy and life and light than caring about law vs chaos etc. For some reason it just grabs me more than other paladin oaths.
My least favorite by default is oathbreaker. I don't hate it, I don't think it shouldn't exist persay...but I personally kind of feel a paladin that forsakes their oath ought to just be cut off from their power and if they want 'evil powers' should either swear an oath to evil and just be an evil themed oath rather than 'oatherbreaker' or go to some other class like warlock to receive dark powers. I wouldn't want to take oathbreaker away from players or dms that like it but as a concept I think it would work better retooled as an evil themed oath instead of just 'you broke your oaths to do evil and now how these evil powers for some reason.'
That's kind of what oathbreaker is. They're not just any paladin who has broken their oath, but rather an Evil paladin (oathbreaker is the only paladin subclass with an explicit alignment requirement) that has broken their oath "to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power."
A paladin who simply breaks their oath does typically simply lose their powers* until they atone and re-pledge themselves to their original (or another) oath. A fallen paladin will only become an Oathbreaker of they take the extra step of rejecting the paladin way altogether and devoting themselves to evil instead**, typically becoming an npc in the process. The Oathbreaker doesn't have explicit tenets, but an active devotion is still a prerequisite, that's what the alignment requirement is about. And while there's no further mechanic that would cause a repentant Oathbreaker to lose their new unholy powers, it's worth pointing out that the Oathbreaker's damage buffing aura /also/ applies to any /enemy/ fiends or undead.
* how the power loss works isn't defined by the rules, it's left up to the player and DM to work out. It could be all paladin class features, or just the subclass features, or something else.
** the evil powers behind an oathbreaker are also not explicitly defined by the rules, it could be powerful demons, devils, undead, evil gods, the mysterious dark powers of Ravenloft, etc. Any powerful entity or force of supernatural evil that might choose to reach out to a fallen paladin at their lowest and most broken point to twist them into a champion of everything they once fought so hard to oppose.
I always wanted to play a good alignment Oathbreaker. Somebody who was once sworn to a dark god, maybe Asmodeus, who has done terrible/awful things, but now has doubts and has become an Oathbreaker.
The oathbreaker's mechanics do work particularly well for a character who was cursed with dark powers against their will. A Simon Belmont / Guts from Berserk situation. Particularly with the level 7 aura also buffing the creatures of darkness that hunt you.
The oathbreaker's mechanics do work particularly well for a character who was cursed with dark powers against their will. A Simon Belmont / Guts from Berserk situation. Particularly with the level 7 aura also buffing the creatures of darkness that hunt you.
Oathbreaker is the only paladin that has an alignment requirement. But if we are playing an Oathbreaker in the first place, then there already is some DM Fiat and allowance going on, so it's not much of a stretch to then be of good alignment, instead of evil.
The oathbreaker's mechanics do work particularly well for a character who was cursed with dark powers against their will. A Simon Belmont / Guts from Berserk situation. Particularly with the level 7 aura also buffing the creatures of darkness that hunt you.
Yeah, I have nothing against the actual abilities it has, and like anything it can be reflavored or given a homebrew context. It's just the default flavor that's kind of off for me.
The oathbreaker's mechanics do work particularly well for a character who was cursed with dark powers against their will. A Simon Belmont / Guts from Berserk situation. Particularly with the level 7 aura also buffing the creatures of darkness that hunt you.
Yeah, I have nothing against the actual abilities it has, and like anything it can be reflavored or given a homebrew context. It's just the default flavor that's kind of off for me.
The default is an NPC anyway. The class was designed as an evil villain for a DM to use. So the default, isn't really playable anyway, without some homecooking! Just DM Fiat a little more to allow them to be any alignment! :)
""What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford, principle rules designer for 5e
The oathbreaker's mechanics do work particularly well for a character who was cursed with dark powers against their will. A Simon Belmont / Guts from Berserk situation. Particularly with the level 7 aura also buffing the creatures of darkness that hunt you.
Yeah, I have nothing against the actual abilities it has, and like anything it can be reflavored or given a homebrew context. It's just the default flavor that's kind of off for me.
The default is an NPC anyway. The class was designed as an evil villain for a DM to use. So the default, isn't really playable anyway, without some homecooking! Just homebrew a little more to allow them to be any alignment! :)
""What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford, principle rules designer for 5e
The Oathbreaker at the begining dosen't HAVE TO follow the evil side ASI, it can go back to the Oath it was devoted by performing a long long quest. If the Oathbreaker still wanna stay as is, then it's OK. Who wanna be a BBEG here, you or the Oathbreaker ????
The difference (for channel divinity) is always favoring Vengeance, in vs Devotion. The loss of a bonus action to gain a %hit on any number of actions outweighs the "benefit' of giving up a whole action for a small %hit bonus to future actions. It's just math.
Be mad about it if you want. But vengeance is mathematically superior in almost every encounter.
There are fringe cases. extremely long combats against massive numbers of weak enemies. Sure. But honestly your party wizard/sorc is the MVP in this fight anyway so hows it matter if you hit for one extra hit or not. They're blasting dozens of enemies at a time.
Almost any fight where your impact is relevant if you could pick one or the other, vengeance is mathematically going to net you higher damage.
So out of curiosity, since the Devotion paladin in all your examples is using his CD to boost his attack with an action... what's he doing with his BA? Just sitting on his ass? Not casting any spell or something? The vengeance paladin had to use his BA for his vow, the Devotion paladin still has his open to do something like cast wrathful smite or shield of faith (assuming 1st lvl spells only).
Saying the vengeance pally is just better because BA vs action boosters and ruling out the Devotion paladin using his BA to do something is kinda.. dismissing of what the D. paladin could be doing with his BA instead of just using sacred weapon.
You also fail to acknowledge situations where sacred weapon would be incredibly helpful, say darkness magical or otherwise, Vengeance gets 1 turn of normal attacks than disadvantage for the rest of the combat, devotion either doesn't because the weapon is glowing and gives him light or in magical darkness would at least give a bonus that offsets disadvantage. Same would apply to fighting in a storm granting disadvantage or heavy snows.. or a fog cloud or.. well you get the point.
What about GWM? sacred weapon allows for a much more constant combat encounter with GWM vs vow. being -2ish constantly is a lot better than -5 on every attack beyond the first baddie
How does vow map out vs sacred weapon once we reach extra attack? Devotion is down 2 attacks round 1 but from than on is making 2 attacks with a bonus again vs Vow getting his bonus only against 1 target. (honestly asking here)
What happens when Vengeance paladin isn't within range on turn 1? He can dash and hope for Op attacks vs devotion moving 30 and using sacred weapon. Not sure about your DM but ours doesn't start every combat within 30 feet.
Sure in a white room vengeance is going to come out ahead if your combats are short or against a single big baddie n some easy to thrash minions, where initiative was rolled with the main target within 30 feet, but toss in more variables to enemy numbers, longer combats, D paladin using his BA on turn 1 on a buff or spell cast, things imposing disadvantage, the big target being outside walking range.. and sacred weapon can easily come out ahead. (I will say that I count the magic part of sacred weapon very lightly I find it rare to run into resistant monsters before there's a +1 weapon)
In general, I support the idea that vengeance is usually superior to devotion, more for the oath spells than for the channel divinity. Vow of Enmity is usually slightly better than Sacred Weapon, but both are good and there are situations that give the latter the edge, including when the party gets a round to prepare for combat, when fighting enemies with resistance to non-magical weapon damage if the paladin doesn't yet have a magical weapon, and in particular when the paladin has an alternative source of advantage - say the blind fighting combat style in combination with an ally casting fog cloud or darkness. And while VoE/SW will be either paladin's main go to channel divinity, I do think the Devotion paladin has an edge with their secondary CD. Turn the Unholy is more situational than Abjure Enemy, but when do do end up in a fight with multiple undead or fiends, which is something that happens in many campaigns, TtU is quite strong and worth using. AE on the other hand rarely finds a use, at least ime, since it's a single target effect and VoE is already a go to tool for going after individual enemies.
I still overall give a slight edge on channel divinities to OoV, but if your campaign goes long enough to spend much time at or above level 7, OoD has a much better feature there. Charm can be a significant threat, particularly when you consider that a number of dominate and incapacitate effects are tied to the charm condition, so blanket immunity not just for the paladin but also nearby allies is a significant feature, where as Relentless Avenger, while not exactly useless, doesn't exactly wow anyone. Of course, a Vengeance Paladin can multiclass out into sorcerer, bard, warlock, or fighter after level 6 and do just fine, but not every game allows multiclassing and not every player wants to bother with it even when it is allowed.
Regardless, I'd say the relative difference in utility of the level 7 features more than makes up the slight difference in the channel divinities, at least in games that last long enough to see level 7. The main thing that swings the comparison strongly back into the Oath of Vengeance's favor is the oath spells. Paladins can have difficulty effectively positioning themselves in combat, and misty step (and potentially dimension door at later levels) makes a huge difference, while hunter's mark, hold person, and haste are all strong offensive tools not normally accessible to paladins. The Oath of Devotion spell list is much weaker overall, and what useful spells it does include are mostly spells that paladins already have access to regardless. That doesn't make them useless, protection from evil, lesser restoration, and dispel magic as oath spells are still effectively +1 preparation slot each, but yeah, Vengeance wins out hard here with probably the best oath spell list of any paladin subclass.
All that said, there's not a huge difference in power between them. Most of what paladins do is baked into the base class features, which means all paladin oaths start off in a strong place. Even the weakest paladin subclasses are still above average when compared to all subclasses of all classes in the game, and neither devotion nor vengeance is in the running for weakest paladin subclass. A player can reasonably choose between them based purely on which tenets sound like the best thematic fit for their character concept and they'll do fine either way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First, who said I was talking about going hexblade first? I think most paladin/hexblade combos generally have you going paladin first, for the heavy armor. It's also quite common to stick paladin until you get the level 6 Aura of Protection. Then you can go hexblade.
Second, a paladin can easily have 16 STR and 16 CHA starting off at level one. It's not really all that hard. Heck, a half elf can add a 16 CON to that mix at level one!
So you can go paladin to level 6, and if your STR and CHA are both 16 (+3), then does it really matter which one you use for your attack modifier? So you can easily be a PAM paladin/hexblade and just use your STR stat, until you get 3 levels of warlock and Pact of the Blade. After level 6, especially with Vengeance, you already have the best part of the Vengeance subclass with Vow of Enmity, you can easily multi-class out of it. It's harder with Devotion, since they have a far superior level 7 ability imo.
Bless. Interesting spell to bring up. It adds a d4 to both attacks and saves. but... to 3 people. That's 3d4 to attack and 3d4 to saves. is that better than spending that same action for only +3 to only your own attacks? yes in every way possible. Objectively bless is better. Hands down. Every time.
If you must kill R1 buffing, Vengeance using it to cast bless is superior to Devotion using it to give themselves a + hit bonus
I got quotes!
L6 Vengeance Paladin is superior to a L3/3 Devotion Hexadin in every way. Every way.
I can't for the life of me figure out why you think this multiclass example helps your argument.
I got quotes!
Again, where are you getting that I am saying a paladin/hexblade 3/3?
You go paladin 6, then think about multi-classing. I, literally, said that in the post you are quoting.
I played vengeance and enjoyed it, but there are other paladin subclasses, that are quite good. You might want to broaden your horizons and try some of them. Conquest is arguably the best paladin subclass imo. Vengeance could make an argument for that top spot. I think Devotion is quite close and arguably better in a number of ways, to Vengeance. People in this thread love Ancients the best. There are other subclasses besides Vengeance.
I think at this point, we can just agree to disagree.
...
Why did you try to add hexblade into this conversation even at all??? We were comparing two level 3 paladins, and you insisted we needed to account for hexblade multiclass... If you now insist we need to add hexblade... but after level 6... then it isn't and never was relevant and this whole derailment was for no reason. Congrats I guess?
Back to the original point: At level 3, when they each get these respective channel divinity abilities, Vengeance's Vow of Enmity is superior. On demand Advantage is better than standing around not doing anything for a first turn so that you get a minor +hit boost. It is the same reason True Strike is often regarded as one of the worst spells in the game. Giving up an action for a bonus to maybe hit later is almost always worst than just using that action to attack with instead.
Even in situations where you can't attack on R1, Vengeance, as a whole, is still better because they can sink their 1st action into Bless and get a bonus to hit, saves, as well as boost 2 other members of their party.
Devotion is standing around while Vengeance is already dropping enemies.
I got quotes!
This all started with your post:
Let's break down your claims here. You say:
Every single one of these is false. Every single one.
Any comparison between these two abilities shows that Vengeance's wins. except, and I've made these caveats from the start, in 2 cases. 1. Longer fights where you know you'll get the full benefit of attacking many, many times with your sacred weapon. How long? depends on your Charisma. Maths done earlier in thread. And, situation 2: You have the ability to prebuff.
I got quotes!
My favorite is Oath of Conquest, for a few reasons.
1) Conquest has no bad features. Ancients' channel divinities are bad or overly circumstantial. Devotion's oath spells are either lackluster or spells that paladins already have access to. Vengeance has a forgettable level 7 feature. All of these oaths are great overall, but they each have individual features that are a bit disappointing. Compare to Conquest - you have a nice AOE debuff CD in Conquering Presence, and if you're stuck fighting frighten-immune foes then you still have guided strike as an effective (if a bit boring) fallback option. You have solid oath spells including Armor of Agathys, Hold Person, Spiritual Weapon, and especially Fear. Your level 7 aura isn't just good, it's character defining, completely changing how the class feels and plays. Speaking of...
2) Conquest Paladin is Different. One of the nice things about the 5e paladin is that so much is built into the base class - proficiencies, hit dice, spellcasting, smites, extra attack, aura of protection, etc. There are no bad paladin subclasses because the base class paladin makes for an effective character before you even layer subclasses on top. However, this also means that most paladins play very similarly to each other. Conquest breaks the mold by focusing on AoE rather than single target, spells over smites, debuffing & control over buffing & damage. Since your key feature, the level 7 aura, relies on opponents failing their saves, conquerors are motivated to focus on raising charisma before physical stats or weapon feats with your ability score improvements, which in turn makes the paladin base class's handful of save based spells more attractive than they are otherwise. Divine smite becomes a fallback option for dealing with frighten immune foes, rather than the core gameplay pillar that it is for basically every other paladin.
3) Conquest is a fantastic blend of theme and mechanics. The core identity of the Conquest Paladin is 'control through fear', and that weaves through all of their mechanics. Their channel divinities and spells create fear, their aura locks down those they frighten. The features that don't directly relate to fear build on the melee/lockdown/tank play style that the frighten mechanics create. Conquest even re-contextualizes some of the paladin's base class features. Aura of Courage in particular takes on an offensive application as it helps you avoid impacting your allies with the Fear spell's cone effect, while Wrathful Smite supplants Divine Smite as the Conqueror's default offensive smiting option.
......
My least favorite oath is Glory, since it just doesn't stand out that much to me, but I just as easily could have said Crown. The truth, though, is that there are no bad paladin oaths, especially after Tasha's expanded the paladin's spell list and added a useful fallback channel divinity option.
I like Oath of the Ancients for its naturey abilities, like paladin with a side of druid, and the flavor of its tenets. More about preseving joy and life and light than caring about law vs chaos etc. For some reason it just grabs me more than other paladin oaths.
My least favorite by default is oathbreaker. I don't hate it, I don't think it shouldn't exist persay...but I personally kind of feel a paladin that forsakes their oath ought to just be cut off from their power and if they want 'evil powers' should either swear an oath to evil and just be an evil themed oath rather than 'oatherbreaker' or go to some other class like warlock to receive dark powers. I wouldn't want to take oathbreaker away from players or dms that like it but as a concept I think it would work better retooled as an evil themed oath instead of just 'you broke your oaths to do evil and now how these evil powers for some reason.'
I kind of like Oath of Conquest better in terms of an 'evil' or at least potentially evil paladin.
That's kind of what oathbreaker is. They're not just any paladin who has broken their oath, but rather an Evil paladin (oathbreaker is the only paladin subclass with an explicit alignment requirement) that has broken their oath "to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power."
A paladin who simply breaks their oath does typically simply lose their powers* until they atone and re-pledge themselves to their original (or another) oath. A fallen paladin will only become an Oathbreaker of they take the extra step of rejecting the paladin way altogether and devoting themselves to evil instead**, typically becoming an npc in the process. The Oathbreaker doesn't have explicit tenets, but an active devotion is still a prerequisite, that's what the alignment requirement is about. And while there's no further mechanic that would cause a repentant Oathbreaker to lose their new unholy powers, it's worth pointing out that the Oathbreaker's damage buffing aura /also/ applies to any /enemy/ fiends or undead.
* how the power loss works isn't defined by the rules, it's left up to the player and DM to work out. It could be all paladin class features, or just the subclass features, or something else.
** the evil powers behind an oathbreaker are also not explicitly defined by the rules, it could be powerful demons, devils, undead, evil gods, the mysterious dark powers of Ravenloft, etc. Any powerful entity or force of supernatural evil that might choose to reach out to a fallen paladin at their lowest and most broken point to twist them into a champion of everything they once fought so hard to oppose.
I think the reason it feels weird to me is that...anyone can go to evil. It feels bizaare to me that a paladin doing that would get these powers of an oathbreaker, where someone who was not a paladin but does the same evil stuff/swears themselves to evil etc would not. It's the implication that the oathbreaker had to have been a paladin before that feels weird to me. And it would have worked better if it was itself an evil aligned oath with its own tenets etc, instead of this open ended 'once a paladin that forsook their oaths and turned to evil, which despite not having the powers from that old oath has these eveil powers that weirdly mirror normal paladins in a lot of ways.'
In my mind, the process ought to go more like this.
Is a paladin.
Forsakes or breaks oath. Loses paladin powers.
Goes to evil, basically as a blank slate with their past as a paladin being irrelevant.
Where as, the way I understand Oathbreaker, it's more
Is a paladin
Forsakes or breaks oath, loses powers.
Goes to evil, inexplicably gains evil paladin powers. If they lose their original oath powers by breaking their oath, those powers coming back but in an evil form when they then go to evil just makes 0 sense to me.
Why is the being a paladin thing a requriement at all? I just feel like it'd work better as an oath to evil type thing instead of 'oath breaker.'
This is all just my personal prefrences and opinion of course, just because it doesn't mesh with me personally doesn't make it 'bad' in a wider sense.
Maybe if the subclass explained more where these powers came from beyond 'they used to be a paladin but now they're evil' or had something like tenets etc or examples in the subclass description I'd like it more. As it is, it just feels pretty weird.
its like dark ibn
currently playing Kis the cleric in DM Training Ground: You Are In A Room(reboot, reboot)
I always wanted to play a good alignment Oathbreaker. Somebody who was once sworn to a dark god, maybe Asmodeus, who has done terrible/awful things, but now has doubts and has become an Oathbreaker.
The oathbreaker's mechanics do work particularly well for a character who was cursed with dark powers against their will. A Simon Belmont / Guts from Berserk situation. Particularly with the level 7 aura also buffing the creatures of darkness that hunt you.
Oathbreaker is the only paladin that has an alignment requirement. But if we are playing an Oathbreaker in the first place, then there already is some DM Fiat and allowance going on, so it's not much of a stretch to then be of good alignment, instead of evil.
Yeah, I have nothing against the actual abilities it has, and like anything it can be reflavored or given a homebrew context. It's just the default flavor that's kind of off for me.
The default is an NPC anyway. The class was designed as an evil villain for a DM to use. So the default, isn't really playable anyway, without some homecooking! Just DM Fiat a little more to allow them to be any alignment! :)
""What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!" - Jeremy Crawford, principle rules designer for 5e
The Oathbreaker at the begining dosen't HAVE TO follow the evil side ASI, it can go back to the Oath it was devoted by performing a long long quest. If the Oathbreaker still wanna stay as is, then it's OK. Who wanna be a BBEG here, you or the Oathbreaker ????
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
So out of curiosity, since the Devotion paladin in all your examples is using his CD to boost his attack with an action... what's he doing with his BA? Just sitting on his ass? Not casting any spell or something? The vengeance paladin had to use his BA for his vow, the Devotion paladin still has his open to do something like cast wrathful smite or shield of faith (assuming 1st lvl spells only).
Saying the vengeance pally is just better because BA vs action boosters and ruling out the Devotion paladin using his BA to do something is kinda.. dismissing of what the D. paladin could be doing with his BA instead of just using sacred weapon.
You also fail to acknowledge situations where sacred weapon would be incredibly helpful, say darkness magical or otherwise, Vengeance gets 1 turn of normal attacks than disadvantage for the rest of the combat, devotion either doesn't because the weapon is glowing and gives him light or in magical darkness would at least give a bonus that offsets disadvantage. Same would apply to fighting in a storm granting disadvantage or heavy snows.. or a fog cloud or.. well you get the point.
What about GWM? sacred weapon allows for a much more constant combat encounter with GWM vs vow. being -2ish constantly is a lot better than -5 on every attack beyond the first baddie
How does vow map out vs sacred weapon once we reach extra attack? Devotion is down 2 attacks round 1 but from than on is making 2 attacks with a bonus again vs Vow getting his bonus only against 1 target. (honestly asking here)
What happens when Vengeance paladin isn't within range on turn 1? He can dash and hope for Op attacks vs devotion moving 30 and using sacred weapon. Not sure about your DM but ours doesn't start every combat within 30 feet.
Sure in a white room vengeance is going to come out ahead if your combats are short or against a single big baddie n some easy to thrash minions, where initiative was rolled with the main target within 30 feet, but toss in more variables to enemy numbers, longer combats, D paladin using his BA on turn 1 on a buff or spell cast, things imposing disadvantage, the big target being outside walking range.. and sacred weapon can easily come out ahead. (I will say that I count the magic part of sacred weapon very lightly I find it rare to run into resistant monsters before there's a +1 weapon)
In general, I support the idea that vengeance is usually superior to devotion, more for the oath spells than for the channel divinity. Vow of Enmity is usually slightly better than Sacred Weapon, but both are good and there are situations that give the latter the edge, including when the party gets a round to prepare for combat, when fighting enemies with resistance to non-magical weapon damage if the paladin doesn't yet have a magical weapon, and in particular when the paladin has an alternative source of advantage - say the blind fighting combat style in combination with an ally casting fog cloud or darkness. And while VoE/SW will be either paladin's main go to channel divinity, I do think the Devotion paladin has an edge with their secondary CD. Turn the Unholy is more situational than Abjure Enemy, but when do do end up in a fight with multiple undead or fiends, which is something that happens in many campaigns, TtU is quite strong and worth using. AE on the other hand rarely finds a use, at least ime, since it's a single target effect and VoE is already a go to tool for going after individual enemies.
I still overall give a slight edge on channel divinities to OoV, but if your campaign goes long enough to spend much time at or above level 7, OoD has a much better feature there. Charm can be a significant threat, particularly when you consider that a number of dominate and incapacitate effects are tied to the charm condition, so blanket immunity not just for the paladin but also nearby allies is a significant feature, where as Relentless Avenger, while not exactly useless, doesn't exactly wow anyone. Of course, a Vengeance Paladin can multiclass out into sorcerer, bard, warlock, or fighter after level 6 and do just fine, but not every game allows multiclassing and not every player wants to bother with it even when it is allowed.
Regardless, I'd say the relative difference in utility of the level 7 features more than makes up the slight difference in the channel divinities, at least in games that last long enough to see level 7. The main thing that swings the comparison strongly back into the Oath of Vengeance's favor is the oath spells. Paladins can have difficulty effectively positioning themselves in combat, and misty step (and potentially dimension door at later levels) makes a huge difference, while hunter's mark, hold person, and haste are all strong offensive tools not normally accessible to paladins. The Oath of Devotion spell list is much weaker overall, and what useful spells it does include are mostly spells that paladins already have access to regardless. That doesn't make them useless, protection from evil, lesser restoration, and dispel magic as oath spells are still effectively +1 preparation slot each, but yeah, Vengeance wins out hard here with probably the best oath spell list of any paladin subclass.
All that said, there's not a huge difference in power between them. Most of what paladins do is baked into the base class features, which means all paladin oaths start off in a strong place. Even the weakest paladin subclasses are still above average when compared to all subclasses of all classes in the game, and neither devotion nor vengeance is in the running for weakest paladin subclass. A player can reasonably choose between them based purely on which tenets sound like the best thematic fit for their character concept and they'll do fine either way.