I really hope they don't include "Oathbreaker" again purely to eliminate the confusion it causes, as it's very clearly not intended to be that any Paladin who breaks their oath becomes an Oathbreaker. I think "sub-classes" like those really ought to be changed into monster/NPC templates with "evil paladin" features since it also isn't really playable given that Oathbreaker can be an active impediment to a non-evil party.
Death Domain Cleric is more functional but it also feels a bit redundant alongside Grave Cleric. I prefer for sub-classes to aim to be somewhat general so you can use them as good or evil as you please.
Necromancy is a bit tricky; I was actually hoping OneD&D would do away with schools of magic as Wizard sub-classes, in favour letting you pick a school as a first or second level feature (to reduce spell copying costs) and to then focus on sub-classes that more substantially change how the core class plays, such as Blade Singer and Order of Scribes. There would still be room for a Necromancer sub-class in that case, since it can be specifically about raising the dead, and it would make some sense for that to be held back for an "evil player options" section. But by ditching schools as sub-classes they could do things like combine abjurer with war magic, rework illusion into a more general control sub-class (which could still choose to focus on illusion) and so-on.
I was hoping for the same with Cleric Domains as well, i.e- make Cleric sub-classes that change how it plays so you can choose to be any type of cleric in support of your choice of deity. They've sort of done that with the Holy Orders but it feels to me like the wrong way round to do it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The move away from classes being good or evil opens a lot of role play opportunities and allows people to more easily make the characters they want. No class/sub-class should be specifically good or evil, they can however tend towards it. Necromancy could still be an illegal act but there could be reasons for the character doing it to not be evil, only unlawful. Overall I think the whole idea of good/evil in D&D is antiquated and weird, good and evil are usually statements of morality but morality is subjective.
Overall, I do not believe classes, subclasses or races/species/etc choices should be defined as good or evil, instead character should be good or evil and that should be relatively/in respect to the setting itself.
It's true that the alignment compass in D&D doesn't work anymore. Basically, because it has lost its founding function, which was to align your character on one side in the cosmic war. But as a representation of how a character should behave, it just doesn't work. Except for very flat and stereotyped characters, being "Chaotic evil" or "Legal good", to give two opposite examples, means absolutely nothing.
Thus, the existence of an "evil" subclass does not make sense. A subclass cannot tell you how your character would behave morally. A necromancer, to focus on the topic, could use his necromantic knowledge for the greater good. In that case can he be considered evil? For example, there could be a necromancer who only used his magic to raise dead people who had given his consent, and who used those zombies to plow the fields and feed orphans and other helpless people. Is that necromancer evil, and is a paladin who participates in a genocide in a peaceful goblin dungeon good?
I feel like WotC is trying to move even further away from “NPC subclasses” than they used to. I doubt we’ll even get the Oathbreaker and the Death Domain again next year.
That's what I'm afraid of. Because heaven forefend DMs have tools to build NPCs who are more than just basic combat bots at hand.
I don't really want to derail the thread, but you're the OP and raised this point... so did you really prefer the state in which monsters had a list of thirty spells, most of which were filler... and that in order to make a consistent spellcasting monster, you'd need to spend an hour building them like a PC? Or were you hoping for some hypothetical as-of-yet unmentioned mid-ground?
We really haven’t seen what they are doing for Animate Dead so building an undead army may not be an option. What they would do with the subclass will be interesting to see, if they include it in a later book.
I don’t think it needs to be in the DMG if they plan on keeping it as a PC class. But who knows, they may ditch it for a summoner class.
I feel like WotC is trying to move even further away from “NPC subclasses” than they used to. I doubt we’ll even get the Oathbreaker and the Death Domain again next year.
That's what I'm afraid of. Because heaven forefend DMs have tools to build NPCs who are more than just basic combat bots at hand.
I don't really want to derail the thread, but you're the OP and raised this point... so did you really prefer the state in which monsters had a list of thirty spells, most of which were filler... and that in order to make a consistent spellcasting monster, you'd need to spend an hour building them like a PC? Or were you hoping for some hypothetical as-of-yet unmentioned mid-ground?
I preferred the former state; it’s not hard to pick 5 combat spells out of the list for a single encounter, and as I’ve said giving them a full list provides a consistent framework for NPC spellcasting so players can understand, analyze, and engage with information presented rather than making any out of combat cast the functional equivalent of some god deciding to make the spell happen.
By current RAW, every Paladin who breaks their Oath becomes one, regardless of what that oath was or why they went against it. A Vengeance Paladin who chooses to show mercy to their quarry and set aside their grudge will become one; so will a Conquest Paladin who decides the people are better off with representative democracy.
Verifiably false.
BREAKING YOUR OATH
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
Doesn't exactly sound like the language you'd use if every Paladin who breaks an oath becomes an Oathbreaker.
Also, straight from Oathbreaker:
An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains.
A paladin must be evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker. The paladin replaces the features specific to his or her Sacred Oath with Oathbreaker features.
So not only is Oathbreaker presented very clearly as a Paladin who changes course straight for evil, but you literallyhave to be evil to take the subclass.
...You literally just proved my point. By RAW, you either become an Oathbreaker or you abandon the entire Paladin class, those are your options in the written rules. (Well, those, or breaking your Oath has no consequence at all.)
And yes, you must be evil to be an Oathbreaker, so a Paladin who breaks their oath the other way (by turning good) gets to stop being a paladin, houserule, or eat poo.
I really hope they don't include "Oathbreaker" again purely to eliminate the confusion it causes, as it's very clearly not intended to be that any Paladin who breaks their oath becomes an Oathbreaker. I think "sub-classes" like those really ought to be changed into monster/NPC templates with "evil paladin" features since it also isn't really playable given that Oathbreaker can be an active impediment to a non-evil party.
Death Domain Cleric is more functional but it also feels a bit redundant alongside Grave Cleric. I prefer for sub-classes to aim to be somewhat general so you can use them as good or evil as you please.
By current RAW, every Paladin who breaks their Oath becomes one, regardless of what that oath was or why they went against it. A Vengeance Paladin who chooses to show mercy to their quarry and set aside their grudge will become one; so will a Conquest Paladin who decides the people are better off with representative democracy.
Verifiably false.
BREAKING YOUR OATH
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
Doesn't exactly sound like the language you'd use if every Paladin who breaks an oath becomes an Oathbreaker.
Also, straight from Oathbreaker:
An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains.
A paladin must be evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker. The paladin replaces the features specific to his or her Sacred Oath with Oathbreaker features.
So not only is Oathbreaker presented very clearly as a Paladin who changes course straight for evil, but you literallyhave to be evil to take the subclass.
...You literally just proved my point. By RAW, you either become an Oathbreaker or you abandon the entire Paladin class, those are your options in the written rules. (Well, those, or breaking your Oath has no consequence at all.)
And yes, you must be evil to be an Oathbreaker, so a Paladin who breaks their oath the other way (by turning good) gets to stop being a paladin, houserule, or eat poo.
This is incorrect, it's missing from what Quar1on quoted, but if you take the whole section from the Paladin class, it's quiet clear that Paladins may seek Absolution.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
Absolution can be attained in many ways. Breaking a vow from your oath is not the end of your service as a Paladin.
If a Paladin's oath is shaken to the core, such that they no longer believe in their oath, that is generally when the changing of class or becoming an Oathbreaker truly comes in, else wise, if they have broken their oath but still fundamentally believe in it, then they will most commonly seek Absolution. Basically they reflect on what they did wrong, did they misunderstanding the teaching, did they make an error in judgement of the situation or was it a weakness in their own personality, confess to and then ask for forgiveness. In the case of say a Paladin of Devotion whom serves Torm, they may seek out a Cleric of Torm, for a Paladin of the Crown, they may seek out another knight in service to the same Crown or in the case of a Paladin of the Ancients, it could even be something else entirely (like a celestial being, or a fae creature, you can get creative with this one).
Well, they’ve said you can use 2014 subclasses with 2024 base classes, so they don’t need to re-print them for people to use them.
I know the update is backwards compatible, but if they take the current DMG down from the market at Legacy then it becomes significantly less accessible for anyone who doesn't already have it.
So your concern is that someone you don’t know who may start playing in a year an a half will have a harder time at a niche build? That argument applies to any change they make to any book. People have started playing since volo’s got the legacy tag. They’re still managing to have fun. I think the new folks will figure something out.
This is incorrect, it's missing from what Quar1on quoted, but if you take the whole section from the Paladin class, it's quiet clear that Paladins may seek Absolution.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
Absolution can be attained in many ways. Breaking a vow from your oath is not.
Yes, obviously if you're absolved then you can resume being what you are. But I'm talking about what happens by default if you're not able or willing to do that.
This is like saying "well, if you die someone can just cast revivify on you." Yeah but you still died. The existence of absolution doesn't make you immune to falling any more than the existence of revivify makes you immune to death.
Personally I hoped and wished that this subclass had been part of the PHB, I was very angry and disappointed when I saw that it was NOT among the subclasses, I didn't care about the justification he gave for complementary pairs, they should have grabbed this one, which was little used because It was BAD in construction and very limited, but it's a very attractive subclass as an idea so they could have tried harder to get it right this time.
I hope, if it is NOT in the PHB, this subclass and the Artificer class (even if it comes without subclasses), are not left for complementary books, but are in the new basic trio, in the DMG, to alleviate this frustration a little. ..But I really don't know what to expect :(
And yes, I know that we can use the 2014 subclass if it is NOT in the 2024 subclass, but it sucks as it is now so this does not help me for poorly constructed subclasses that are not fixed :/
Well, they’ve said you can use 2014 subclasses with 2024 base classes, so they don’t need to re-print them for people to use them.
I know the update is backwards compatible, but if they take the current DMG down from the market at Legacy then it becomes significantly less accessible for anyone who doesn't already have it.
So your concern is that someone you don’t know who may start playing in a year an a half will have a harder time at a niche build? That argument applies to any change they make to any book. People have started playing since volo’s got the legacy tag. They’re still managing to have fun. I think the new folks will figure something out.
My concern is that they’re moving away from useful, interesting, and iconic tools.
I feel like WotC is trying to move even further away from “NPC subclasses” than they used to. I doubt we’ll even get the Oathbreaker and the Death Domain again next year.
That's what I'm afraid of. Because heaven forefend DMs have tools to build NPCs who are more than just basic combat bots at hand.
I don't really want to derail the thread, but you're the OP and raised this point... so did you really prefer the state in which monsters had a list of thirty spells, most of which were filler... and that in order to make a consistent spellcasting monster, you'd need to spend an hour building them like a PC? Or were you hoping for some hypothetical as-of-yet unmentioned mid-ground?
I preferred the former state; it’s not hard to pick 5 combat spells out of the list for a single encounter, and as I’ve said giving them a full list provides a consistent framework for NPC spellcasting so players can understand, analyze, and engage with information presented rather than making any out of combat cast the functional equivalent of some god deciding to make the spell happen.
DMs do "have the tools to make more than basic combat bots." You can build them exactly like PCs per DMG 282, or take one of the simpler monster statblock versions and tailor it per DMG 283. Nothing about MPMM takes either option away from you.
Well, they’ve said you can use 2014 subclasses with 2024 base classes, so they don’t need to re-print them for people to use them.
I know the update is backwards compatible, but if they take the current DMG down from the market at Legacy then it becomes significantly less accessible for anyone who doesn't already have it.
So your concern is that someone you don’t know who may start playing in a year an a half will have a harder time at a niche build? That argument applies to any change they make to any book. People have started playing since volo’s got the legacy tag. They’re still managing to have fun. I think the new folks will figure something out.
My concern is that they’re moving away from useful, interesting, and iconic tools.
Necromancer was left out because it was bad for a player forward book since in D&D necromancy is inherently evil. Also 2014 had too many Wizards and clerics compared to other classes. While I like summoning the dead and think Necromancer PCs have a place in the game I understand why they won’t be included in the PHB. The Necromancer is interesting and iconic, but isn’t necessarily useful. Using a 5eR Abjurer with Necromancy spells is better than the 5e Necromancer. Especially since they will be using Summon Undead, which is superior to Animate Dead and 5e Necromancer didn’t gain any benefit for using Summon Undead.
This is incorrect, it's missing from what Quar1on quoted, but if you take the whole section from the Paladin class, it's quiet clear that Paladins may seek Absolution.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
Absolution can be attained in many ways. Breaking a vow from your oath is not.
Yes, obviously if you're absolved then you can resume being what you are. But I'm talking about what happens by default if you're not able or willing to do that.
This is like saying "well, if you die someone can just cast revivify on you." Yeah but you still died. The existence of absolution doesn't make you immune to falling any more than the existence of revivify makes you immune to death.
Oathbreaking and loss of powers is an optional rule, not hard RAW. The “default” is that nothing happens, because between people feeling they were being squeezed into a single mold and people who don’t want their actions to have negative consequences, hard proscriptions are no longer a thing for classes in D&D. Which has pros and cons, and I’m not looking to rehash what I’m sure was some very fervent debates when that change was made. My biggest point in all of this is that the Villainous Classes are tools for a DM to build NPCs/BBEGs using the class template when the core PHB options don’t reflect a the classic BBEG theme. Ergo the necrotic damage and undead focused Cleric and Paladin options. Frankly, I have no confidence that the new MM will provide blocks that are designed to operate in any medium besides a single combat encounter, so I think keeping these classes in circulation will help provide a foundation for DMs who want to build a more fully fleshed out villain. It’s not about having a mandatory feature, it’s about having the tools so that, if someone who has only picked up the core 3 books after the revision wishes, they have more than a barebones block to use for a campaign’s humanoid arc villain.
By current RAW, every Paladin who breaks their Oath becomes one, regardless of what that oath was or why they went against it. A Vengeance Paladin who chooses to show mercy to their quarry and set aside their grudge will become one; so will a Conquest Paladin who decides the people are better off with representative democracy.
Verifiably false.
BREAKING YOUR OATH
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
Doesn't exactly sound like the language you'd use if every Paladin who breaks an oath becomes an Oathbreaker.
Also, straight from Oathbreaker:
An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains.
A paladin must be evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker. The paladin replaces the features specific to his or her Sacred Oath with Oathbreaker features.
So not only is Oathbreaker presented very clearly as a Paladin who changes course straight for evil, but you literallyhave to be evil to take the subclass.
...You literally just proved my point. By RAW, you either become an Oathbreaker or you abandon the entire Paladin class, those are your options in the written rules. (Well, those, or breaking your Oath has no consequence at all.)
And yes, you must be evil to be an Oathbreaker, so a Paladin who breaks their oath the other way (by turning good) gets to stop being a paladin, houserule, or eat poo.
This is incorrect, it's missing from what Quar1on quoted, but if you take the whole section from the Paladin class, it's quiet clear that Paladins may seek Absolution.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
Absolution can be attained in many ways. Breaking a vow from your oath is not.
Yes, obviously if you're absolved then you can resume being what you are. But I'm talking about what happens by default if you're not able or willing to do that.
This is like saying "well, if you die someone can just cast revivify on you." Yeah but you still died. The existence of absolution doesn't make you immune to falling any more than the existence of revivify makes you immune to death.
Oathbreaking and loss of powers is an optional rule, not hard RAW. The “default” is that nothing happens, because between people feeling they were being squeezed into a single mold and people who don’t want their actions to have negative consequences, hard proscriptions are no longer a thing for classes in D&D. Which has pros and cons, and I’m not looking to rehash what I’m sure was some very fervent debates when that change was made. My biggest point in all of this is that the Villainous Classes are tools for a DM to build NPCs/BBEGs using the class template when the core PHB options don’t reflect a the classic BBEG theme. Ergo the necrotic damage and undead focused Cleric and Paladin options. Frankly, I have no confidence that the new MM will provide blocks that are designed to operate in any medium besides a single combat encounter, so I think keeping these classes in circulation will help provide a foundation for DMs who want to build a more fully fleshed out villain. It’s not about having a mandatory feature, it’s about having the tools so that, if someone who has only picked up the core 3 books after the revision wishes, they have more than a barebones block to use for a campaign’s humanoid arc villain.
Monster Stat blocks should help design BBEG far more than PC design choices. Pick an appropriate CR Monster and modify it to be able to do what you need for story beats.
I agree, we defiantly need a Necromancer subclass. It doesnt matter if we can build one now our selves, we can do that with any class now just by taking themed skills, feats and spells. We need core rules/official supplement with appropriate themed abilities to make a badass Necro.
This is incorrect, it's missing from what Quar1on quoted, but if you take the whole section from the Paladin class, it's quiet clear that Paladins may seek Absolution.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
Absolution can be attained in many ways. Breaking a vow from your oath is not.
Yes, obviously if you're absolved then you can resume being what you are. But I'm talking about what happens by default if you're not able or willing to do that.
This is like saying "well, if you die someone can just cast revivify on you." Yeah but you still died. The existence of absolution doesn't make you immune to falling any more than the existence of revivify makes you immune to death.
Oathbreaking and loss of powers is an optional rule, not hard RAW. The “default” is that nothing happens, because between people feeling they were being squeezed into a single mold and people who don’t want their actions to have negative consequences, hard proscriptions are no longer a thing for classes in D&D. Which has pros and cons, and I’m not looking to rehash what I’m sure was some very fervent debates when that change was made. My biggest point in all of this is that the Villainous Classes are tools for a DM to build NPCs/BBEGs using the class template when the core PHB options don’t reflect a the classic BBEG theme. Ergo the necrotic damage and undead focused Cleric and Paladin options. Frankly, I have no confidence that the new MM will provide blocks that are designed to operate in any medium besides a single combat encounter, so I think keeping these classes in circulation will help provide a foundation for DMs who want to build a more fully fleshed out villain. It’s not about having a mandatory feature, it’s about having the tools so that, if someone who has only picked up the core 3 books after the revision wishes, they have more than a barebones block to use for a campaign’s humanoid arc villain.
1) My point is that "Nothing happens", "Abandon paladin," and "Oathbreaker only" are all dissatisfying results in their own ways. I'm hoping the new books include another alternative.
2) I want the message to be (assuming you want your BBEG to use PC rules in the first place), that ANY subclass can be a BBEG. We don't need a dedicated "evul" one. An evil Stars Druid or Diviner Wizard could be majorly creepy and effective without resorting to tired tropes.
I agree, we defiantly need a Necromancer subclass. It doesnt matter if we can build one now our selves, we can do that with any class now just by taking themed skills, feats and spells. We need core rules/official supplement with appropriate themed abilities to make a badass Necro.
And we'll get one, but that doesn't mean it needs to be in the core book(s).
This is incorrect, it's missing from what Quar1on quoted, but if you take the whole section from the Paladin class, it's quiet clear that Paladins may seek Absolution.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
Absolution can be attained in many ways. Breaking a vow from your oath is not.
Yes, obviously if you're absolved then you can resume being what you are. But I'm talking about what happens by default if you're not able or willing to do that.
This is like saying "well, if you die someone can just cast revivify on you." Yeah but you still died. The existence of absolution doesn't make you immune to falling any more than the existence of revivify makes you immune to death.
Oathbreaking and loss of powers is an optional rule, not hard RAW. The “default” is that nothing happens, because between people feeling they were being squeezed into a single mold and people who don’t want their actions to have negative consequences, hard proscriptions are no longer a thing for classes in D&D. Which has pros and cons, and I’m not looking to rehash what I’m sure was some very fervent debates when that change was made. My biggest point in all of this is that the Villainous Classes are tools for a DM to build NPCs/BBEGs using the class template when the core PHB options don’t reflect a the classic BBEG theme. Ergo the necrotic damage and undead focused Cleric and Paladin options. Frankly, I have no confidence that the new MM will provide blocks that are designed to operate in any medium besides a single combat encounter, so I think keeping these classes in circulation will help provide a foundation for DMs who want to build a more fully fleshed out villain. It’s not about having a mandatory feature, it’s about having the tools so that, if someone who has only picked up the core 3 books after the revision wishes, they have more than a barebones block to use for a campaign’s humanoid arc villain.
1) My point is that "Nothing happens", "Abandon paladin," and "Oathbreaker only" are all dissatisfying results in their own ways. I'm hoping the new books include another alternative.
Those seem like the most logical options to me, but I digress. What would another option look like? Hmm... maybe something like...
Sudden Change
Sometimes a character undergoes a dramatic transformation in their beliefs and abilities. When a character experiences a profound self-realization or faces an entity or a place of overwhelming power, beauty, or terror, the DM might allow an immediate subclass change. Here's an example:
An Oath of Devotion paladin failed to stop a demonic horde from ravaging her homeland. After spending a night in sorrowful prayer, she rises the next morning with the features of the Oath of Vengeance, ready to hunt down the horde.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I really hope they don't include "Oathbreaker" again purely to eliminate the confusion it causes, as it's very clearly not intended to be that any Paladin who breaks their oath becomes an Oathbreaker. I think "sub-classes" like those really ought to be changed into monster/NPC templates with "evil paladin" features since it also isn't really playable given that Oathbreaker can be an active impediment to a non-evil party.
Death Domain Cleric is more functional but it also feels a bit redundant alongside Grave Cleric. I prefer for sub-classes to aim to be somewhat general so you can use them as good or evil as you please.
Necromancy is a bit tricky; I was actually hoping OneD&D would do away with schools of magic as Wizard sub-classes, in favour letting you pick a school as a first or second level feature (to reduce spell copying costs) and to then focus on sub-classes that more substantially change how the core class plays, such as Blade Singer and Order of Scribes. There would still be room for a Necromancer sub-class in that case, since it can be specifically about raising the dead, and it would make some sense for that to be held back for an "evil player options" section. But by ditching schools as sub-classes they could do things like combine abjurer with war magic, rework illusion into a more general control sub-class (which could still choose to focus on illusion) and so-on.
I was hoping for the same with Cleric Domains as well, i.e- make Cleric sub-classes that change how it plays so you can choose to be any type of cleric in support of your choice of deity. They've sort of done that with the Holy Orders but it feels to me like the wrong way round to do it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The move away from classes being good or evil opens a lot of role play opportunities and allows people to more easily make the characters they want. No class/sub-class should be specifically good or evil, they can however tend towards it. Necromancy could still be an illegal act but there could be reasons for the character doing it to not be evil, only unlawful. Overall I think the whole idea of good/evil in D&D is antiquated and weird, good and evil are usually statements of morality but morality is subjective.
Overall, I do not believe classes, subclasses or races/species/etc choices should be defined as good or evil, instead character should be good or evil and that should be relatively/in respect to the setting itself.
It's true that the alignment compass in D&D doesn't work anymore. Basically, because it has lost its founding function, which was to align your character on one side in the cosmic war. But as a representation of how a character should behave, it just doesn't work. Except for very flat and stereotyped characters, being "Chaotic evil" or "Legal good", to give two opposite examples, means absolutely nothing.
Thus, the existence of an "evil" subclass does not make sense. A subclass cannot tell you how your character would behave morally. A necromancer, to focus on the topic, could use his necromantic knowledge for the greater good. In that case can he be considered evil? For example, there could be a necromancer who only used his magic to raise dead people who had given his consent, and who used those zombies to plow the fields and feed orphans and other helpless people. Is that necromancer evil, and is a paladin who participates in a genocide in a peaceful goblin dungeon good?
I don't really want to derail the thread, but you're the OP and raised this point... so did you really prefer the state in which monsters had a list of thirty spells, most of which were filler... and that in order to make a consistent spellcasting monster, you'd need to spend an hour building them like a PC? Or were you hoping for some hypothetical as-of-yet unmentioned mid-ground?
We really haven’t seen what they are doing for Animate Dead so building an undead army may not be an option. What they would do with the subclass will be interesting to see, if they include it in a later book.
I don’t think it needs to be in the DMG if they plan on keeping it as a PC class. But who knows, they may ditch it for a summoner class.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I preferred the former state; it’s not hard to pick 5 combat spells out of the list for a single encounter, and as I’ve said giving them a full list provides a consistent framework for NPC spellcasting so players can understand, analyze, and engage with information presented rather than making any out of combat cast the functional equivalent of some god deciding to make the spell happen.
...You literally just proved my point. By RAW, you either become an Oathbreaker or you abandon the entire Paladin class, those are your options in the written rules. (Well, those, or breaking your Oath has no consequence at all.)
And yes, you must be evil to be an Oathbreaker, so a Paladin who breaks their oath the other way (by turning good) gets to stop being a paladin, houserule, or eat poo.
^ That.
This is incorrect, it's missing from what Quar1on quoted, but if you take the whole section from the Paladin class, it's quiet clear that Paladins may seek Absolution.
Absolution can be attained in many ways. Breaking a vow from your oath is not the end of your service as a Paladin.
If a Paladin's oath is shaken to the core, such that they no longer believe in their oath, that is generally when the changing of class or becoming an Oathbreaker truly comes in, else wise, if they have broken their oath but still fundamentally believe in it, then they will most commonly seek Absolution. Basically they reflect on what they did wrong, did they misunderstanding the teaching, did they make an error in judgement of the situation or was it a weakness in their own personality, confess to and then ask for forgiveness. In the case of say a Paladin of Devotion whom serves Torm, they may seek out a Cleric of Torm, for a Paladin of the Crown, they may seek out another knight in service to the same Crown or in the case of a Paladin of the Ancients, it could even be something else entirely (like a celestial being, or a fae creature, you can get creative with this one).
So your concern is that someone you don’t know who may start playing in a year an a half will have a harder time at a niche build? That argument applies to any change they make to any book. People have started playing since volo’s got the legacy tag. They’re still managing to have fun. I think the new folks will figure something out.
Yes, obviously if you're absolved then you can resume being what you are. But I'm talking about what happens by default if you're not able or willing to do that.
This is like saying "well, if you die someone can just cast revivify on you." Yeah but you still died. The existence of absolution doesn't make you immune to falling any more than the existence of revivify makes you immune to death.
Personally I hoped and wished that this subclass had been part of the PHB, I was very angry and disappointed when I saw that it was NOT among the subclasses, I didn't care about the justification he gave for complementary pairs, they should have grabbed this one, which was little used because It was BAD in construction and very limited, but it's a very attractive subclass as an idea so they could have tried harder to get it right this time.
I hope, if it is NOT in the PHB, this subclass and the Artificer class (even if it comes without subclasses), are not left for complementary books, but are in the new basic trio, in the DMG, to alleviate this frustration a little. ..But I really don't know what to expect :(
And yes, I know that we can use the 2014 subclass if it is NOT in the 2024 subclass, but it sucks as it is now so this does not help me for poorly constructed subclasses that are not fixed :/
My concern is that they’re moving away from useful, interesting, and iconic tools.
DMs do "have the tools to make more than basic combat bots." You can build them exactly like PCs per DMG 282, or take one of the simpler monster statblock versions and tailor it per DMG 283. Nothing about MPMM takes either option away from you.
Necromancer was left out because it was bad for a player forward book since in D&D necromancy is inherently evil. Also 2014 had too many Wizards and clerics compared to other classes. While I like summoning the dead and think Necromancer PCs have a place in the game I understand why they won’t be included in the PHB. The Necromancer is interesting and iconic, but isn’t necessarily useful. Using a 5eR Abjurer with Necromancy spells is better than the 5e Necromancer. Especially since they will be using Summon Undead, which is superior to Animate Dead and 5e Necromancer didn’t gain any benefit for using Summon Undead.
Oathbreaking and loss of powers is an optional rule, not hard RAW. The “default” is that nothing happens, because between people feeling they were being squeezed into a single mold and people who don’t want their actions to have negative consequences, hard proscriptions are no longer a thing for classes in D&D. Which has pros and cons, and I’m not looking to rehash what I’m sure was some very fervent debates when that change was made. My biggest point in all of this is that the Villainous Classes are tools for a DM to build NPCs/BBEGs using the class template when the core PHB options don’t reflect a the classic BBEG theme. Ergo the necrotic damage and undead focused Cleric and Paladin options. Frankly, I have no confidence that the new MM will provide blocks that are designed to operate in any medium besides a single combat encounter, so I think keeping these classes in circulation will help provide a foundation for DMs who want to build a more fully fleshed out villain. It’s not about having a mandatory feature, it’s about having the tools so that, if someone who has only picked up the core 3 books after the revision wishes, they have more than a barebones block to use for a campaign’s humanoid arc villain.
That’s why I wrote this alternative to the Oathbreaker, it specifically does not require an Evil alignment at all: (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/436605/The-Dark-Paladin-a-DMs-Alternative-to-the-Oathbreaker-and-Two-New-Spells?affiliate_id=3811156). I’m working on another alternative (or two) to o the Oathbreaker as well.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Monster Stat blocks should help design BBEG far more than PC design choices. Pick an appropriate CR Monster and modify it to be able to do what you need for story beats.
I agree, we defiantly need a Necromancer subclass. It doesnt matter if we can build one now our selves, we can do that with any class now just by taking themed skills, feats and spells. We need core rules/official supplement with appropriate themed abilities to make a badass Necro.
1) My point is that "Nothing happens", "Abandon paladin," and "Oathbreaker only" are all dissatisfying results in their own ways. I'm hoping the new books include another alternative.
2) I want the message to be (assuming you want your BBEG to use PC rules in the first place), that ANY subclass can be a BBEG. We don't need a dedicated "evul" one. An evil Stars Druid or Diviner Wizard could be majorly creepy and effective without resorting to tired tropes.
And we'll get one, but that doesn't mean it needs to be in the core book(s).
Those seem like the most logical options to me, but I digress. What would another option look like? Hmm... maybe something like...
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)