My first Paladin, and first Dnd character, was an oath of devotion Paladin. I didn't really know how to use him, but I enjoyed the concept of a holy knight. Now, much later on in my Dnd career, I'm playing a paladin once more, and I chose oath of vengeance partly for mechanics, partly for flavor, and 30% because the lvl 20 ability is to turn into a friggin AVENGING ANGEL!
I am really enjoying playing Oath of Vengeance (in Curse of Strahd). My tabaxi paladin is chaotic good which goes well with the whole 'ends justify the means' angle, and Strahd makes a great focus for the vengeance. My guy leveled up after a terrible battle and so took the oath after his best friend was killed. At level 4 I went with the Sentinel feat which further reinforces the idea of both punisher and protector. You hurt my friends I hurt you. From a roleplaying perspective I think there is a lot of potential for complexity with this one...and... you know... SMITES
I don't know if I'm the only one, but I love the RP aspect of the Oath of Redemption Paladin. I live role playing out the struggle of trying to end a conflict without violence, and laying the smack down when SHTF. Plus I like using the Soldier background, giving a good dynamic where he tries to end a conflict he participated in.
Thematically the treachery paladin was really well implemented. There are lots of effective options for cool, dark knight villains or anti-heroes, but the focus on trickery, confusion, turning enemies against each other, and especially multiple methods to secure a last minute escape make the treachery paladin just, I don't know, "dastardly" in a way that the others aren't. Such a shame the subclass seems to have been abandoned. The play test version still exists, but mechanically it kind of needed a second pass. Oh, well.
The UA looks more or less alright, the poison ability needs a rework, but overall I'd say it looks like a fun time. Core concept right now is for a guy who becomes a Paladin but has no clue what that actually means. Essentially play chaotic stupid without being disruptive. Lol
For me, my favorite is kind of Oathbreaker. Me and my DM have decided to reskin it though to be called "Oath of the Fallen". It really just swaps bestow curse with speak with dead. Anyway I did this because I wanted my character to still be able to work with his deity, Apollo.
Well, it's interesting. The concept of the Oathbreaker is that the G-ds don't want you so the forces of evil accept you overwhelmingly. It's like if you were the spy of one country and defected, your old country's enemy would be glad to take you in and utilize your services. You could be an Oath Breaker breaker, and the G-ds would accept you if you reject fiends and undead: evil. However, a lot of paladin benefits affect "your allies" which could be fiends and undead if you're in an evil campaign. The Oath of Conquest certainly doesn't off a feeling of justice.
Heck, you don't even have to stay a Paladin. If you break your Oath, the forces of good and evil and just look at you and think "Wos this guy has no commitment, they'll be a terrible employee." Then just replace all you Paladin levels with fighter levels, or a different martial class depending on how you played while a Paladin. So you lost the holy power but kept the martial prowess.
I always thought switching classes after breaking your oath was weird. Well, I don't have holy magic anymore, but I can punch real good now for absolutely no reason, or I'm suddenly just really adept at armed robbery. I feel like Oathbreaker paladin makes the most sense is my point.
Also, with Oathbreaker, there seems to be a lot of different opinions of how good the class is. Some people say it's amazing and the only problem is it doesn't roleplay as well. Others say that it's terrible because concentration spells and it boosts all fiends and undead.
If you were a paladin of an evil god and broke your oath, would you not be good or at least neutral? Not all gods are good.
By default, paladins don't swear their oath 'to a god', they just swear the oath. And they lose their powers not from breaking faith with a god, but from breaking faith with their oath. The only oath whose tenets align with evil is the oath of conquest. An evil conquest paladin could break their oath in a way that would have them moving away from evil, but that doesn't mean the forces of good in the universe would be willing to reward them with new powers that replace the old ones without having them first commit to a more benevolent path. And even if they did, the powers they would grant are not the powers of the oath breaker subclass, with its dark and dangerous spells and an aura that empowers fiends and undead.
Again, homebrew lore changes are common. I've played good oath breakers whose dark powers were explained by a curse upon them or their bloodline, like Simon Belmont or Guts from Berserk. But the default lore for oath breaker is that a paladin who breaks their oath and loses their subclass powers does not immediately and automatically become an oath breaker. Rather they are left depowered (though to what exact degree is left up to the player and DM, they might just lose subclass powers, or the might lose paladin features as well) until they choose one of two paths: they can seek atonement and then re-commit to a paladin oath - either the same oath as before or another one. Or they can refuse to seek atonement and instead commit themselves to evil, becoming an Oath Breaker. There are not established rules for what happens if they stray from that path, but it's worth pointing out that the oath breaker's aura enhances the damage of nearby fiends or undead whether those monsters are friendly to the oath breaker or not.
So what do you do with an evil conquest paladin who abandons their oath to pursue a more good and compassionate path? Well the answer there is obviously that the fallen conquest paladin must seek atonement - though in their case it will be atonement for swearing such a callous oath in the first place, not atonement for breaking it - and then swear a new oath more in line with their new, more benevolent disposition. They would then become some other kind of paladin - redemption in particular would be a fitting choice in this case. They would not become an oath breaker, because everything about an oath breaker - not just the lore but the powers as well - is about embracing the powers of darkness that our hypothetical remorseful conqueror is trying to reject.
My first Paladin, and first Dnd character, was an oath of devotion Paladin. I didn't really know how to use him, but I enjoyed the concept of a holy knight. Now, much later on in my Dnd career, I'm playing a paladin once more, and I chose oath of vengeance partly for mechanics, partly for flavor, and 30% because the lvl 20 ability is to turn into a friggin AVENGING ANGEL!
I am really enjoying playing Oath of Vengeance (in Curse of Strahd). My tabaxi paladin is chaotic good which goes well with the whole 'ends justify the means' angle, and Strahd makes a great focus for the vengeance. My guy leveled up after a terrible battle and so took the oath after his best friend was killed. At level 4 I went with the Sentinel feat which further reinforces the idea of both punisher and protector. You hurt my friends I hurt you. From a roleplaying perspective I think there is a lot of potential for complexity with this one...and... you know... SMITES
I don't know if I'm the only one, but I love the RP aspect of the Oath of Redemption Paladin. I live role playing out the struggle of trying to end a conflict without violence, and laying the smack down when SHTF. Plus I like using the Soldier background, giving a good dynamic where he tries to end a conflict he participated in.
The UA oath of treachery makes me want to play a Blackguard.
Thematically the treachery paladin was really well implemented. There are lots of effective options for cool, dark knight villains or anti-heroes, but the focus on trickery, confusion, turning enemies against each other, and especially multiple methods to secure a last minute escape make the treachery paladin just, I don't know, "dastardly" in a way that the others aren't. Such a shame the subclass seems to have been abandoned. The play test version still exists, but mechanically it kind of needed a second pass. Oh, well.
The UA looks more or less alright, the poison ability needs a rework, but overall I'd say it looks like a fun time. Core concept right now is for a guy who becomes a Paladin but has no clue what that actually means. Essentially play chaotic stupid without being disruptive. Lol
My first D&d character for a campaign was an Ancients Paladin.
I too loved the Fey connections, taking an oath as old as elves and the rituals of druids, and was able to successfully role play the character.
My character was half elven and a folk hero blessed by the Fey
For me, my favorite is kind of Oathbreaker. Me and my DM have decided to reskin it though to be called "Oath of the Fallen". It really just swaps bestow curse with speak with dead. Anyway I did this because I wanted my character to still be able to work with his deity, Apollo.
good choice, Oathbreaker is great. It doesn't mean you're evil though, and vengeance doesn't mean you're good.
By default oath breaker kind of does mean being evil. It's easy enough (and common enough, ime) to homebrew around that, though.
If you were a paladin of an evil god and broke your oath, would you not be good or at least neutral? Not all gods are good.
Well, it's interesting. The concept of the Oathbreaker is that the G-ds don't want you so the forces of evil accept you overwhelmingly. It's like if you were the spy of one country and defected, your old country's enemy would be glad to take you in and utilize your services. You could be an Oath Breaker breaker, and the G-ds would accept you if you reject fiends and undead: evil. However, a lot of paladin benefits affect "your allies" which could be fiends and undead if you're in an evil campaign. The Oath of Conquest certainly doesn't off a feeling of justice.
Heck, you don't even have to stay a Paladin. If you break your Oath, the forces of good and evil and just look at you and think "Wos this guy has no commitment, they'll be a terrible employee." Then just replace all you Paladin levels with fighter levels, or a different martial class depending on how you played while a Paladin. So you lost the holy power but kept the martial prowess.
I always thought switching classes after breaking your oath was weird. Well, I don't have holy magic anymore, but I can punch real good now for absolutely no reason, or I'm suddenly just really adept at armed robbery. I feel like Oathbreaker paladin makes the most sense is my point.
Also, with Oathbreaker, there seems to be a lot of different opinions of how good the class is. Some people say it's amazing and the only problem is it doesn't roleplay as well. Others say that it's terrible because concentration spells and it boosts all fiends and undead.
As I said, you can change to your preference. There are plenty of fighter builds that protect the allies around you.
Sure, but I like my find steed. (I named him Murderbasket) I also like casting spells. Paladins get more and better spells than eldritch knight.
By default, paladins don't swear their oath 'to a god', they just swear the oath. And they lose their powers not from breaking faith with a god, but from breaking faith with their oath. The only oath whose tenets align with evil is the oath of conquest. An evil conquest paladin could break their oath in a way that would have them moving away from evil, but that doesn't mean the forces of good in the universe would be willing to reward them with new powers that replace the old ones without having them first commit to a more benevolent path. And even if they did, the powers they would grant are not the powers of the oath breaker subclass, with its dark and dangerous spells and an aura that empowers fiends and undead.
Again, homebrew lore changes are common. I've played good oath breakers whose dark powers were explained by a curse upon them or their bloodline, like Simon Belmont or Guts from Berserk. But the default lore for oath breaker is that a paladin who breaks their oath and loses their subclass powers does not immediately and automatically become an oath breaker. Rather they are left depowered (though to what exact degree is left up to the player and DM, they might just lose subclass powers, or the might lose paladin features as well) until they choose one of two paths: they can seek atonement and then re-commit to a paladin oath - either the same oath as before or another one. Or they can refuse to seek atonement and instead commit themselves to evil, becoming an Oath Breaker. There are not established rules for what happens if they stray from that path, but it's worth pointing out that the oath breaker's aura enhances the damage of nearby fiends or undead whether those monsters are friendly to the oath breaker or not.
So what do you do with an evil conquest paladin who abandons their oath to pursue a more good and compassionate path? Well the answer there is obviously that the fallen conquest paladin must seek atonement - though in their case it will be atonement for swearing such a callous oath in the first place, not atonement for breaking it - and then swear a new oath more in line with their new, more benevolent disposition. They would then become some other kind of paladin - redemption in particular would be a fitting choice in this case. They would not become an oath breaker, because everything about an oath breaker - not just the lore but the powers as well - is about embracing the powers of darkness that our hypothetical remorseful conqueror is trying to reject.
Completely fair