Each Paladin subclass (Oath) has tenets that define its moral code. If a Paladin violates their oath, the DM may rule that they’ve become an Oathbreaker.
• Oathbreaker Paladin (DMG) is a mechanical subclass that replaces your original one.
• This change can alter:
• Spell list
• Channel Divinity options
• Aura features
• General character flavor and role in the party
2. Channel Divinity (Subclass-Dependent)
Each oath gives specific Channel Divinity options tied to its tenets.
• Oath of Vengeance might give Vow of Enmity (advantage on attacks vs. one target).
• Oath of Devotion gives Sacred Weapon (add Cha to attack rolls).
Though not enforced by mechanics, a Paladin who violates their tenets might lose access to these temporarily, at DM discretion.
3. Divine Smite and Spellcasting
These core Paladin features aren’t directly tied to tenets, but a DM might narratively restrict divine powers if a Paladin strays far from their oath.
4. Homebrew or DM Rulings
In some campaigns:
• DMs may mechanically tie tenets to specific boons or consequences.
• Violating tenets could cause divine disapproval, quest imposition, or loss of powers until atonement (similar to older editions).
TL;DR:
By RAW (Rules as Written): Paladin tenets are flavorful roleplaying guidelines with no direct mechanical effects.
By RAI (Rules as Intended) and DM discretion: Breaking your tenets might cause you to lose subclass features or become an Oathbreaker, which does have mechanical consequences.
Mechanics to me are things that impact the game the same way across all tables. "If X then Y." Sure you can house rule something, but the RAW is the same.
The impact of role playing and the effect it has on story or the character as decided by the whims of the DM are not "Mechanics" to me. They are "Rulings".
By RAI (Rules as Intended) and DM discretion: Breaking your tenets might cause you to lose subclass features or become an Oathbreaker, which does have mechanical consequences.
Asserting that this is the RAI doesn't sit right - DM discretion does not mean that it's the intended way to play or rule something. In my experience, a lot of tables and players use the Tenets of a subclass to guide that character's personality, but give no weight to the tenets (or tenet breaking) itself. In my opinion this is fully in the category of Roleplay, and not Mechanics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
A Paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most dedicated are fallible. Sometimes a Paladin transgresses their oath.
A Paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution, spending an all-night vigil as a sign of penitence or undertaking a fast. After a rite of forgiveness, the Paladin starts fresh.
If your Paladin unrepentantly violates their oath, talk to your DM. Your Paladin should probably take a more appropriate subclass or even abandon the class and adopt another one.
This places no mechanical consequences on breaking one's oath, leaving it entirely in the realm of player decisions and role-play.
And the Oathbreaker subclass is much more an anti-paladin than it is a "not holding to a high standard" subclass.
Oathbreaker was a poorly designed subclass, it had nothing to do with breaking your oath in terms of its mechanics, it was a pro-necromancy paladin that's all.
To a broader point: people should stop treating mechanics and role-play as completely separate independent entities. Your character should have an RP reason why they are the subclass they are, or the class they are. Certainly the rules shouldn't be proscriptive of what those reasons must be, but there should be a reason. And if that reason is no longer valid, your character should change their class & subclass accordingly.
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 are a few examples:
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.
A wizard lies down for a nap beneath an oak tree whose roots reach into the Feywild. In his dreams, he faces visions of multiple possible futures. When he awakens, his subclass features have been replaced by those of the School of Divination.
A cleric of the War Domain has spent years in conflict with the enemies of her temple. But one day, she wanders into a sun-dappled glade, where her god once shed a tear of mercy over the world's suffering. Drinking from the glade's brook, the cleric is filled with such compassion for all people that she now bears the powers of the Life Domain, ready to heal rather than make war.
See DMG2014 Creating Nonplayer Characters:
Villainous Class Options
You can use the rules in the Player's Handbook to create NPCs with classes and levels, the same way you create player characters. The class options below let you create two specific villainous archetypes: the evil high priest and the evil knight or anti paladin.
The Death Domain is an additional domain choice for evil clerics, and the Oathbreaker offers an alternative path for paladins who fall from grace. A player can choose one of these options with your approval.
Paladin: 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.
Oathbreaker was a poorly designed subclass, it had nothing to do with breaking your oath in terms of its mechanics, it was a pro-necromancy paladin that's all.
To a broader point: people should stop treating mechanics and role-play as completely separate independent entities. Your character should have an RP reason why they are the subclass they are, or the class they are. Certainly the rules shouldn't be proscriptive of what those reasons must be, but there should be a reason. And if that reason is no longer valid, your character should change their class & subclass accordingly.
It's not so much badly designed as the naming failed to land squarely with the community and too many memes confusing people about how it was intended to work. The "antipaladin" concept has been around since well before 5e under various names- on the surface "Oathbreaker" is the logical evil counterpart option to put on the chassis that is otherwise defined by Divine Oaths. As a subclass theoretically designed mostly as something for a DM to build a BBEG around, the Oathbreaker's features and name make sense and are in the same field as prior iterations of "paladin with the polarity reversed".
As for the whole bit about changing classes/subclasses and roleplay, there's a case to be made for it to happen at times but there's also a lot of reasons both for in-universe rationale and table experience that class/subclass should be more on the "locked in choice" side of things than the "what vibe I'm feeling right now" one. But that discussion is probably outside the scope of this thread. And, at the end of the day it's all down to DM fiat, which- while an aspect of the game as a whole- is really something separate from mechanics because mechanics are supposed to be consistent and knowable, while DM fiat is by definition just what a particular person feels like going with.
But it's not that in 5e. This makes sense for prior editions where paladins were by definition Lawful Good. But in 5e, we have Vengeance which would work equally well as a villain or a hero, and we have Conquest which is mostly villainous or at best an anti-hero. Ancients, Watchers, and Crown could all work as either an antagonist or a hero and slant mostly Neutral. Even Devotion could be interpreted in a way to make them at least an antagonist. Whereas I've had many an argument with players that necromancy isn't inherently evil, and that they should be allowed to make their heroic PC an Oathbreaker who worships a god like Bane or gains their power without a divine patron.
Plus even mechanically, I don't think Oathbreaker really works. It's power level swings wildly based on how many undead they are able to raise and how many undead/fiends they are fighting.
But it's not that in 5e. This makes sense for prior editions where paladins were by definition Lawful Good. But in 5e, we have Vengeance which would work equally well as a villain or a hero, and we have Conquest which is mostly villainous or at best an anti-hero. Ancients, Watchers, and Crown could all work as either an antagonist or a hero and slant mostly Neutral. Even Devotion could be interpreted in a way to make them at least an antagonist. Whereas I've had many an argument with players that necromancy isn't inherently evil, and that they should be allowed to make their heroic PC an Oathbreaker who worships a god like Bane or gains their power without a divine patron.
Plus even mechanically, I don't think Oathbreaker really works. It's power level swings wildly based on how many undead they are able to raise and how many undead/fiends they are fighting.
No, it’s not literally that in 5e, but the intent behind the design is quite clear when you read the description. And, again, it wasn’t designed as a serious PC option, it was designed as a framework to build a villain on, ergo the minion support.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. Roleplay & Oathbreaking (Indirect Mechanical Impact)
Each Paladin subclass (Oath) has tenets that define its moral code. If a Paladin violates their oath, the DM may rule that they’ve become an Oathbreaker.
• Oathbreaker Paladin (DMG) is a mechanical subclass that replaces your original one.
• This change can alter:
• Spell list
• Channel Divinity options
• Aura features
• General character flavor and role in the party
2. Channel Divinity (Subclass-Dependent)
Each oath gives specific Channel Divinity options tied to its tenets.
• Oath of Vengeance might give Vow of Enmity (advantage on attacks vs. one target).
• Oath of Devotion gives Sacred Weapon (add Cha to attack rolls).
Though not enforced by mechanics, a Paladin who violates their tenets might lose access to these temporarily, at DM discretion.
3. Divine Smite and Spellcasting
These core Paladin features aren’t directly tied to tenets, but a DM might narratively restrict divine powers if a Paladin strays far from their oath.
4. Homebrew or DM Rulings
In some campaigns:
• DMs may mechanically tie tenets to specific boons or consequences.
• Violating tenets could cause divine disapproval, quest imposition, or loss of powers until atonement (similar to older editions).
TL;DR:
By RAW (Rules as Written): Paladin tenets are flavorful roleplaying guidelines with no direct mechanical effects.
By RAI (Rules as Intended) and DM discretion: Breaking your tenets might cause you to lose subclass features or become an Oathbreaker, which does have mechanical consequences.
Mechanics to me are things that impact the game the same way across all tables. "If X then Y." Sure you can house rule something, but the RAW is the same.
The impact of role playing and the effect it has on story or the character as decided by the whims of the DM are not "Mechanics" to me. They are "Rulings".
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Asserting that this is the RAI doesn't sit right - DM discretion does not mean that it's the intended way to play or rule something. In my experience, a lot of tables and players use the Tenets of a subclass to guide that character's personality, but give no weight to the tenets (or tenet breaking) itself. In my opinion this is fully in the category of Roleplay, and not Mechanics.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
All the 24 PHB has to say on the subject is:
This places no mechanical consequences on breaking one's oath, leaving it entirely in the realm of player decisions and role-play.
And the Oathbreaker subclass is much more an anti-paladin than it is a "not holding to a high standard" subclass.
Oathbreaker was a poorly designed subclass, it had nothing to do with breaking your oath in terms of its mechanics, it was a pro-necromancy paladin that's all.
To a broader point: people should stop treating mechanics and role-play as completely separate independent entities. Your character should have an RP reason why they are the subclass they are, or the class they are. Certainly the rules shouldn't be proscriptive of what those reasons must be, but there should be a reason. And if that reason is no longer valid, your character should change their class & subclass accordingly.
See TCE Customizing Your Origin:
See DMG2014 Creating Nonplayer Characters:
I think it's just a choice what is up to DM.
A note on Oathbreaker: They haven't simply broken their oath. They've gone so far beyond that they've become nearly beyond redemption.
It's not so much badly designed as the naming failed to land squarely with the community and too many memes confusing people about how it was intended to work. The "antipaladin" concept has been around since well before 5e under various names- on the surface "Oathbreaker" is the logical evil counterpart option to put on the chassis that is otherwise defined by Divine Oaths. As a subclass theoretically designed mostly as something for a DM to build a BBEG around, the Oathbreaker's features and name make sense and are in the same field as prior iterations of "paladin with the polarity reversed".
As for the whole bit about changing classes/subclasses and roleplay, there's a case to be made for it to happen at times but there's also a lot of reasons both for in-universe rationale and table experience that class/subclass should be more on the "locked in choice" side of things than the "what vibe I'm feeling right now" one. But that discussion is probably outside the scope of this thread. And, at the end of the day it's all down to DM fiat, which- while an aspect of the game as a whole- is really something separate from mechanics because mechanics are supposed to be consistent and knowable, while DM fiat is by definition just what a particular person feels like going with.
But it's not that in 5e. This makes sense for prior editions where paladins were by definition Lawful Good. But in 5e, we have Vengeance which would work equally well as a villain or a hero, and we have Conquest which is mostly villainous or at best an anti-hero. Ancients, Watchers, and Crown could all work as either an antagonist or a hero and slant mostly Neutral. Even Devotion could be interpreted in a way to make them at least an antagonist. Whereas I've had many an argument with players that necromancy isn't inherently evil, and that they should be allowed to make their heroic PC an Oathbreaker who worships a god like Bane or gains their power without a divine patron.
Plus even mechanically, I don't think Oathbreaker really works. It's power level swings wildly based on how many undead they are able to raise and how many undead/fiends they are fighting.
No, it’s not literally that in 5e, but the intent behind the design is quite clear when you read the description. And, again, it wasn’t designed as a serious PC option, it was designed as a framework to build a villain on, ergo the minion support.