I played in a Descent into Avernus that unfortunately broke up before we could finish it. The paladin player misunderstood the captured Thurstwell Vanthampur's compliance and warning about traps as an intention to kill us with said traps.
The paladin ran him through with the blade on that misunderstanding, much to the shock to everyone at the table and to the great disturbance of the DM. DM called for a break and we took a 10er. When he came back, his paladin-in-training DMPC (he always had a DMPC in his games) then immediately declared that the paladin player had broken his oaths and upon finishing his rebuke of the paladin, the paladin's hands ran red with literal blood that would not stop - he had become an oathbreaker and continued that way until the game dissolved. I can't remember what kind of paladin he was playing, but I want to say it was Glory. Personally, I think correcting the misunderstanding and allowing a retcon would have been better, but that personal anecdote is how I can see why some in this thread would have a problem with the oathbreaker subclass being used as a form of punishment.
Except for unilaterally changing the player's subclass, it's kind of cool.
If they'd asked me about the oathbreaker mechanic, I'd've suggested:
Oathbreaking is explicitly always a player's decision
Each paladin subclass gets appropriately-themed ability swap-outs for if they break their oath. (Not mix-and-match, you get all of them replaced if you break.)
I was willing to bank on Assassin being part of the DMG "evil cycle," so that they could keep Swashbuckler in the PHB. But alas.
I like Oathbreaker mechanically (especially now that Lay on Hands works on your undead minions) but I hate, hate, hate the name.
Uh… assassin absolutely should not be made into an “evil” subclass
Relax, I didn't mean capital-E "Evil" in the alignment sense; just darker in theme/tone.
And It's a moot point anyway, since we know that Assassin is absolutely in the PHB and Swashbuckler got ousted.
Which was a shame for me, personally. Swashbuckler was my favorite from the 2014 rogue and I was hoping to get it right away. Jumping on a bit of the earlier discussion in this thread...
I played in a Descent into Avernus that unfortunately broke up before we could finish it. The paladin player misunderstood the captured Thurstwell Vanthampur's compliance and warning about traps as an intention to kill us with said traps.
The paladin ran him through with the blade on that misunderstanding, much to the shock to everyone at the table and to the great disturbance of the DM. DM called for a break and we took a 10er. When he came back, his paladin-in-training DMPC (he always had a DMPC in his games) then immediately declared that the paladin player had broken his oaths and upon finishing his rebuke of the paladin, the paladin's hands ran red with literal blood that would not stop - he had become an oathbreaker and continued that way until the game dissolved. I can't remember what kind of paladin he was playing, but I want to say it was Glory. Personally, I think correcting the misunderstanding and allowing a retcon would have been better, but that personal anecdote is how I can see why some in this thread would have a problem with the oathbreaker subclass being used as a form of punishment.
Again, though, it's not the concept that's the problem, it's the DM nuking the paladin at the first offense and not reading the description of Oathbreaker- it's the roleplay/narrative that's flawed, not the mechanics because there aren't any; if nothing else it's good for game design to have a clear "anti-paladin" class that interacts with classic Evil entities as a DM tool for a BBEG- what Good Paladin player doesn't want an evil and opposite nemesis to clash with? Honestly, as much as I like it as-is, just changing the name to Blackguard or something similar so amateurs don't see Oathbreaker and think "oh, that's what happens the instant a Paladin strays from their oath" should help mitigate the DM blunders.
The problem I have with "the player should be the only one who decides if they want to break their oath" is that the DM's suspension of disbelief matters too. If the player is a Devotion or Redemption Paladin who keeps murdering orphans, or a Druid who couldn't care less about protecting nature from being despoiled, or a Cleric of Kelemvor who keeps animating undead, then the DM can and should talk about that out of game, but the game system handing them an overt stick to use isn't a bad thing. These are classes that get their power from a source outside of themselves, an entity or ideal with its own motivations and standards, and the game mechanics should reflect that.
And the current setup is good for that with Paladins, because it outlines both awful choice/heat of the moment consequences (just roleplay a scene where the character acknowledges they fell short) and full on fall to the darkside choices (class change). The tools are right there and clearly delineate between the two, and the Oathbreaker description further highlights that it's for when someone by their deliberate choices goes full Sith, not just when they have a single bad moment.
The problem I have with "the player should be the only one who decides if they want to break their oath" is that the DM's suspension of disbelief matters too. If the player is a Devotion or Redemption Paladin who keeps murdering orphans, or a Druid who couldn't care less about protecting nature from being despoiled, or a Cleric of Kelemvor who keeps animating undead, then the DM can and should talk about that out of game, but the game system handing them an overt stick to use isn't a bad thing. These are classes that get their power from a source outside of themselves, an entity or ideal with its own motivations and standards, and the game mechanics should reflect that.
The problem with giving the GM an explicit mechanical tool is it gets used. It gets used too often, for too trivial a reason. There's a long, long, history of just that.
And Clerics don't have that. Warlocks don't. Druids don't. Barbarians don't. Only Paladins.
And the DM always has the option of DM fiating it. But that's a "break glass in case of emergency" option. It forces them to explicitly go outside the system.
A thing that the rules say can happen is much easier to use casually. And it doesn't matter how many warning labels you put on it; the DMs are going to justify it to themselves.
I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be mechanical remedies to meta-questions like "player X is role-playing poorly". Meta questions are best handled at the meta level. Letting the DM duck the interpersonal interaction doesn't solve the real problem.
I don't consider it "ducking the interpersonal interaction." I consider it a tool in the DM's toolbelt. When they talk to the player, they can say for example "over the past couple of sessions you've been behaving more like a Sharran than a Lathanderite, and she doesn't offer the Light domain you currently have. Do you see your character heading away from your current deity, and if so, would you be okay with a domain swap?"
Basically what I'm asking for them to do is to take the "Changing Subclass" rules from Tasha's and put them in core, then maybe consider how those can be broadened to class. The UA sidebar that mentions "impenitent paladins"suggests that that's more or less the direction they're going in, and I'd be totally fine with broadening that to Clerics and Druids too, maybe even Rangers and Warlocks.
If you take a 1-level dip into a paladin, you can learn to smite, right?
As per the preview article, no: it’s a second level Paladin feature, so you would need to take at least a 2-level dip.
Depends whether the spells are only available through the feature, or if they're also on the paladin spell list in general.
Hmm. Good point. I had assumed that it would be like most low-level class features, only being available when you reached that level. However, the level 2 feature only, as far as we’ve seen so far, grants the benefit of having Smite always prepared.
Paladins get spells and spell slots at level 1 but they can’t smite till level 2.
You have no basis for believing this - the article simply doesn't say it. It says at level 2, they get the spell always prepared. It does not say that at level 1 they can't choose to prepare it like any other spell.
I like having it there as an option. My first resort would always be to point out that they're about to violate their oath (DM to player). Then offer them chances to repent. Eventually, I'd discuss Oathbreaker with them. To be honest, if things continue and they're not accepting Oathbreaker as the way forward, we have a problem player at the table that would probably have to be removed - forcing them to be Oathbreaker should never be an issue.
The issue with removing Oathbreaker (call it what you will) from the game, is that it leaves me with no real options. If I can't turn them into an Oathbreaker...then the only real option is to strip them of their Oath. Mechanically, at least as it stands, 5e doesn't handle that well at all. You have to have a subclass...I guess I could remove the subclass features since they're dependent on the Oath...but I'd rather replace them with something, and Oathbreaker fits that niche.
I like the Oathbreaker. It fits a niche. It's be nice to have a Cleric equivalent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I like the Oathbreaker. It fits a niche. It's be nice to have a Cleric equivalent.
I can agree with this much - either all three of the "Priests" should have a 'fallen' subclass/subclasses, or none of them should, and instead there's just a "forced (sub)class change rule" that applies to them instead.
Paladins get spells and spell slots at level 1 but they can’t smite till level 2. Their like artificers in that they have casting at the start but don’t get their true feature until the second level.
which for as much as I don’t like 2024 paladins, I will say having spells at level 1 is a nice change. Helps ensure that at level 1 paladin doesn’t just feel like a worse fighter
As written they can manually prepare and use Divine Smite at level 1, as it's a level 1 Paladin spell; the level 2 feature just means they don't have to manually prep it along with giving them a free use. (I'm really hoping that not any class can simply grab it via Magic Initiate. I was in favor of it being a spell back when they were doing the Arcane/Divine/Primal thing, but not now.)
I like having it there as an option. My first resort would always be to point out that they're about to violate their oath (DM to player). Then offer them chances to repent. Eventually, I'd discuss Oathbreaker with them. To be honest, if things continue and they're not accepting Oathbreaker as the way forward, we have a problem player at the table that would probably have to be removed - forcing them to be Oathbreaker should never be an issue.
The issue with removing Oathbreaker (call it what you will) from the game, is that it leaves me with no real options. If I can't turn them into an Oathbreaker...then the only real option is to strip them of their Oath. Mechanically, at least as it stands, 5e doesn't handle that well at all. You have to have a subclass...I guess I could remove the subclass features since they're dependent on the Oath...but I'd rather replace them with something, and Oathbreaker fits that niche.
I like the Oathbreaker. It fits a niche. It's be nice to have a Cleric equivalent.
My problem with it is it tries to fill too many niches. For a fallen devotion paladin or ancients sure, it can make some sense. But if I’m a vengeance pally and I show someone mercy, now the undead are my friends? Or if I’m a glory paladin and I show some humility same thing. And then throw in that oathbreakers don’t really lose their powers, they just get new ones. And that people aspire to this subclass that’s intended as a punishment.
I’d like maybe a case-by-case of what happens to each subclass. Probably only a paragraph. Or, you could just say no spells (now that they include smiting) or lay on hands. That would be a punishment where you’d want to atone, but you’d still be a viable character in the mean time.
There needs to be actual guidance on what happens when a paladin breaks their oath. Like what abilities or features are stripped when a paladin breaks their oath. But again, I doubt WoTC did this because lately they’ve been focused on wargaming and combat and have been trying to move D&D away from narrative and story. “Going back to D&D’s roots” in the worse way possible
There needs to be a discussion, generally, about consequences for actions. There seems to be a ton of emphasis on mechanics and on there being no mechanic for taking mechanics away, even when the PC's actions are such that it is hard to understand why there would be no consequence.
I like having it there as an option. My first resort would always be to point out that they're about to violate their oath (DM to player). Then offer them chances to repent. Eventually, I'd discuss Oathbreaker with them. To be honest, if things continue and they're not accepting Oathbreaker as the way forward, we have a problem player at the table that would probably have to be removed - forcing them to be Oathbreaker should never be an issue.
The issue with removing Oathbreaker (call it what you will) from the game, is that it leaves me with no real options. If I can't turn them into an Oathbreaker...then the only real option is to strip them of their Oath. Mechanically, at least as it stands, 5e doesn't handle that well at all. You have to have a subclass...I guess I could remove the subclass features since they're dependent on the Oath...but I'd rather replace them with something, and Oathbreaker fits that niche.
I like the Oathbreaker. It fits a niche. It's be nice to have a Cleric equivalent.
My problem with it is it tries to fill too many niches. For a fallen devotion paladin or ancients sure, it can make some sense. But if I’m a vengeance pally and I show someone mercy, now the undead are my friends? Or if I’m a glory paladin and I show some humility same thing. And then throw in that oathbreakers don’t really lose their powers, they just get new ones. And that people aspire to this subclass that’s intended as a punishment.
I’d like maybe a case-by-case of what happens to each subclass. Probably only a paragraph. Or, you could just say no spells (now that they include smiting) or lay on hands. That would be a punishment where you’d want to atone, but you’d still be a viable character in the mean time.
If you actually read the sidebar and description of Oathbreaker, you would see that simply changing to a different Oath is an option for rejecting your current one and that Oathbreaker is specifically coded as “fell from grace and now trafficks with Evil powers”. They went with the name because in the PHB all the Paladins were supposed to lean towards Good- even Vengeance is about striking down Evil, not getting even with the guy who tosses his trash in your yard- ergo an Evil-coded one would break any of their Oaths. Unfortunately, too many people just see the name and assume it’s the default result of any broken Oath; so they probably need to change the name so people don’t have to actually read the class description to understand its meaning, since that’s clearly an unrealistic expectation.
There needs to be a discussion, generally, about consequences for actions. There seems to be a ton of emphasis on mechanics and on there being no mechanic for taking mechanics away, even when the PC's actions are such that it is hard to understand why there would be no consequence.
Making someone unable to play their character due to their RP decisions is problematic from a gameplay perspective, though lore-wise it's something you should expect for at least clerics, paladins, and warlocks, and maybe for druids and monks.
Less so for Monks; the emphasis is on discipline and technique more than tapping external powers.
For monks, it would generally be a result of loss of discipline, rather than violations of an ethical code. That's why I put it in the 'maybe' category.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes
Except for unilaterally changing the player's subclass, it's kind of cool.
If they'd asked me about the oathbreaker mechanic, I'd've suggested:
Again, though, it's not the concept that's the problem, it's the DM nuking the paladin at the first offense and not reading the description of Oathbreaker- it's the roleplay/narrative that's flawed, not the mechanics because there aren't any; if nothing else it's good for game design to have a clear "anti-paladin" class that interacts with classic Evil entities as a DM tool for a BBEG- what Good Paladin player doesn't want an evil and opposite nemesis to clash with? Honestly, as much as I like it as-is, just changing the name to Blackguard or something similar so amateurs don't see Oathbreaker and think "oh, that's what happens the instant a Paladin strays from their oath" should help mitigate the DM blunders.
The problem I have with "the player should be the only one who decides if they want to break their oath" is that the DM's suspension of disbelief matters too. If the player is a Devotion or Redemption Paladin who keeps murdering orphans, or a Druid who couldn't care less about protecting nature from being despoiled, or a Cleric of Kelemvor who keeps animating undead, then the DM can and should talk about that out of game, but the game system handing them an overt stick to use isn't a bad thing. These are classes that get their power from a source outside of themselves, an entity or ideal with its own motivations and standards, and the game mechanics should reflect that.
And the current setup is good for that with Paladins, because it outlines both awful choice/heat of the moment consequences (just roleplay a scene where the character acknowledges they fell short) and full on fall to the darkside choices (class change). The tools are right there and clearly delineate between the two, and the Oathbreaker description further highlights that it's for when someone by their deliberate choices goes full Sith, not just when they have a single bad moment.
The problem with giving the GM an explicit mechanical tool is it gets used. It gets used too often, for too trivial a reason. There's a long, long, history of just that.
And Clerics don't have that. Warlocks don't. Druids don't. Barbarians don't. Only Paladins.
And the DM always has the option of DM fiating it. But that's a "break glass in case of emergency" option. It forces them to explicitly go outside the system.
A thing that the rules say can happen is much easier to use casually. And it doesn't matter how many warning labels you put on it; the DMs are going to justify it to themselves.
I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be mechanical remedies to meta-questions like "player X is role-playing poorly". Meta questions are best handled at the meta level. Letting the DM duck the interpersonal interaction doesn't solve the real problem.
I don't consider it "ducking the interpersonal interaction." I consider it a tool in the DM's toolbelt. When they talk to the player, they can say for example "over the past couple of sessions you've been behaving more like a Sharran than a Lathanderite, and she doesn't offer the Light domain you currently have. Do you see your character heading away from your current deity, and if so, would you be okay with a domain swap?"
Basically what I'm asking for them to do is to take the "Changing Subclass" rules from Tasha's and put them in core, then maybe consider how those can be broadened to class. The UA sidebar that mentions "impenitent paladins"suggests that that's more or less the direction they're going in, and I'd be totally fine with broadening that to Clerics and Druids too, maybe even Rangers and Warlocks.
If you take a 1-level dip into a paladin, you can learn to smite, right?
Instagram/YouTube CeCe.Simulacrum
Twitch yourwelcomez
As per the preview article, no: it’s a second level Paladin feature, so you would need to take at least a 2-level dip.
Depends whether the spells are only available through the feature, or if they're also on the paladin spell list in general.
Hmm. Good point. I had assumed that it would be like most low-level class features, only being available when you reached that level. However, the level 2 feature only, as far as we’ve seen so far, grants the benefit of having Smite always prepared.
You have no basis for believing this - the article simply doesn't say it. It says at level 2, they get the spell always prepared. It does not say that at level 1 they can't choose to prepare it like any other spell.
Re Oathbreaker.
I like having it there as an option. My first resort would always be to point out that they're about to violate their oath (DM to player). Then offer them chances to repent. Eventually, I'd discuss Oathbreaker with them. To be honest, if things continue and they're not accepting Oathbreaker as the way forward, we have a problem player at the table that would probably have to be removed - forcing them to be Oathbreaker should never be an issue.
The issue with removing Oathbreaker (call it what you will) from the game, is that it leaves me with no real options. If I can't turn them into an Oathbreaker...then the only real option is to strip them of their Oath. Mechanically, at least as it stands, 5e doesn't handle that well at all. You have to have a subclass...I guess I could remove the subclass features since they're dependent on the Oath...but I'd rather replace them with something, and Oathbreaker fits that niche.
I like the Oathbreaker. It fits a niche. It's be nice to have a Cleric equivalent.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I can agree with this much - either all three of the "Priests" should have a 'fallen' subclass/subclasses, or none of them should, and instead there's just a "forced (sub)class change rule" that applies to them instead.
As written they can manually prepare and use Divine Smite at level 1, as it's a level 1 Paladin spell; the level 2 feature just means they don't have to manually prep it along with giving them a free use. (I'm really hoping that not any class can simply grab it via Magic Initiate. I was in favor of it being a spell back when they were doing the Arcane/Divine/Primal thing, but not now.)
My problem with it is it tries to fill too many niches. For a fallen devotion paladin or ancients sure, it can make some sense.
But if I’m a vengeance pally and I show someone mercy, now the undead are my friends? Or if I’m a glory paladin and I show some humility same thing.
And then throw in that oathbreakers don’t really lose their powers, they just get new ones. And that people aspire to this subclass that’s intended as a punishment.
I’d like maybe a case-by-case of what happens to each subclass. Probably only a paragraph. Or, you could just say no spells (now that they include smiting) or lay on hands. That would be a punishment where you’d want to atone, but you’d still be a viable character in the mean time.
There needs to be a discussion, generally, about consequences for actions. There seems to be a ton of emphasis on mechanics and on there being no mechanic for taking mechanics away, even when the PC's actions are such that it is hard to understand why there would be no consequence.
If you actually read the sidebar and description of Oathbreaker, you would see that simply changing to a different Oath is an option for rejecting your current one and that Oathbreaker is specifically coded as “fell from grace and now trafficks with Evil powers”. They went with the name because in the PHB all the Paladins were supposed to lean towards Good- even Vengeance is about striking down Evil, not getting even with the guy who tosses his trash in your yard- ergo an Evil-coded one would break any of their Oaths. Unfortunately, too many people just see the name and assume it’s the default result of any broken Oath; so they probably need to change the name so people don’t have to actually read the class description to understand its meaning, since that’s clearly an unrealistic expectation.
Making someone unable to play their character due to their RP decisions is problematic from a gameplay perspective, though lore-wise it's something you should expect for at least clerics, paladins, and warlocks, and maybe for druids and monks.
Less so for Monks; the emphasis is on discipline and technique more than tapping external powers.
For monks, it would generally be a result of loss of discipline, rather than violations of an ethical code. That's why I put it in the 'maybe' category.