CHILL TOUCH: Channeling the chill of the grave, make a melee spell attack against a target within reach. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 Necrotic damage, and it can’t regain Hit Points until the end of your next turn.
Would a spell like Chill Touch, which deals necrotic damage and channels the energy of death be something a Devotion Paladin with Magic Initiate can cast or it would conflict with his vow?
I also wanted to ask about the way the Oath of Dev has changed from 5ed to 5.5:
In 5e
The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order. Sometimes called cavaliers, white knights, or holy warriors, these paladins meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in pursuit of justice and the greater good. They hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct, and some, for better or worse, hold the rest of the world to the same standards. Many who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law and good and use their gods’ tenets as the measure of their devotion. They hold angels — the perfect servants of good — as their ideals, and incorporate images of angelic wings into their helmets or coats of arms.
Tenets of Devotion
Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.
Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.
In 5.5
Uphold the Ideals of Justice and Order
The Oath of Devotion binds Paladins to the ideals of justice and order. These Paladins meet the archetype of the knight in shining armor. They hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct, and some—for better or worse—hold the rest of the world to the same standards.
Many who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law and good and use their gods’ tenets as the measure of personal devotion. Others hold angels as their ideals and incorporate images of angelic wings into their helmets or coats of arms.
These paladins share the following tenets:
Let your word be your promise.
Protect the weak and never fear to act.
Let your honorable deeds be an example.
Is it me or the tenets seems to have relaxed a bit between editions?
They went from "Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise." to just "Let your word be your promise."
From 5e "The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order." to 5.5 " The Oath of Devotion binds Paladins to the ideals of justice and order."
Gone are "obey those who have just authority over you." , "Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm." and "Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom."
Usually these omissions happen for a reason.
It is similar, I am not saying an Oath of Dev pally now should start lying left and right, or even behave like an Oath of Vengeance, but it does not seem that any sort of minor mistruth would cause them to become Oathbreakers anymore. That would make the class a bit easier to play.
Could it be that in 5.5 edition it is more about "when a Devotion Paladin gives his word then he is honour bound to it", then "Lying to an evildoer to save a person life, or as part of a cover operation mission = oathbreaker".
Many who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law and good and use their gods’ tenets as the measure of personal devotion.
Meaning that there would also be the possibility for a Dev Pally to have a non Lawful God, or to be non LG and still be bound by a firm moral code. This is nice because it might open the road for NG, LN and even CG Oath of Devotions.
I mean, as much as people stretch semantic points for alignments, it’s pretty hard to justify an Evil Devotion, Ancients, or Mercy Paladin unless you’re outright chucking the tenets, and even a Good Conquest really needs a pretty permissive DM. It’s not strictly a RAW issue, but the letter of the tenets is pretty irreconcilable with definitions of the respective alignments used for entertainment purposes rather than philosophical analysis/discourse.
That said, about the only core attack spells that I would say have any chance of conflicting with Paladin tenets simply for being used in a fight are the ones that create zombies on a kill- there’s at least one where the zombie is indiscriminate about targets after it’s created and regardless creating undead like that is a relatively common Evil act in various settings, between appeals to natural order and zombies typically being presented as indiscriminate predators to humanoids. 5e is very- and imo reasonably- utilitarian about damage types themselves- dealing necrotic damage doesn’t make a spell inherently wrong to use.
CHILL TOUCH: Channeling the chill of the grave, make a melee spell attack against a target within reach. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 Necrotic damage, and it can’t regain Hit Points until the end of your next turn.
Would a spell like [spell]Chill Touch[/spell}, which deals necrotic damage and channels the energy of death be something a Devotion Paladin with Magic Initiate can cast or it would conflict with his vow?
I fail to see a tenet that it violates on its own. How you use it may be a different matter.
Is it me or the tenets seems to have relaxed a bit between editions?
They went from "Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise." to just "Let your word be your promise."
From 5e "The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order." to 5.5 " The Oath of Devotion binds Paladins to the ideals of justice and order."
Gone are "obey those who have just authority over you." , "Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm." and "Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom."
Usually these omissions happen for a reason.
It is similar, I am not saying an Oath of Dev pally now should start lying left and right, or even behave like an Oath of Vengeance, but it does not seem that any sort of minor mistruth would cause them to become Oathbreakers anymore. That would make the class a bit easier to play.
Could it be that in 5.5 edition it is more about "when a Devotion Paladin gives his word then he is honour bound to it", then "Lying to an evildoer to save a person life, or as part of a cover operation mission = oathbreaker".
Many who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law and good and use their gods’ tenets as the measure of personal devotion.
Meaning that there would also be the possibility for a Dev Pally to have a non Lawful God, or to be non LG and still be bound by a firm moral code. This is nice because it might open the road for NG, LN and even CG Oath of Devotions.
I suspect that it is less about relaxing between editions and more stepping back from giving you specifics. "Let your word be your bond" can mean don't lie, cheat, and steal, but removing the explicit definition encourages players to define that for themselves, but it does also open up a degree of deception, if you want. If you no longer feel pressured to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth with every breath, it plays better with groups that have a more diverse alignment.
I would say the alignment options are as open as before, not more so. If you want a LE Devotion Paladin, they are still going to let their word be their bond, protect the weak, never fear to act, and let their honorable deeds be an example... How is that lawful evil?
Would a spell like [spell]Chill Touch[/spell}, which deals necrotic damage and channels the energy of death be something a Devotion Paladin with Magic Initiate can cast or it would conflict with his vow?
RAW Oath of Devotion Paladins aren't prohibited from casting Chill Touch. When you cast such offensive spell, it's to hurt to slay another creature, which you can always do.
But if you want to ease it for your Oath of Devotion Paladin, you can always describe or refluff the ''chill of the grave'' and Necrotic ''life-draining energy'' as life-force cleansing or purify their aura of impurity.
But if you want to ease it for your Oath of Devotion Paladin, you can always describe or refluff the ''chill of the grave'' and Necrotic ''life-draining energy'' as life-force cleansing or purify their aura of impurity.
I imagine for an Oath of Devotion Paladin of Kelemvor, Chill Touch could be on point. Even for other LN deities like Tyr possibly.
But I do not see it working for a Paladin of Lathander without a reframing like the ones you suggested.
But if you want to ease it for your Oath of Devotion Paladin, you can always describe or refluff the ''chill of the grave'' and Necrotic ''life-draining energy'' as life-force cleansing or purify their aura of impurity.
I imagine for an Oath of Devotion Paladin of Kelemvor, Chill Touch could be on point. Even for other LN deities like Tyr possibly.
But I do not see it working for a Paladin of Lathander without a reframing like the ones you suggested.
Taken that the Paladin Oath of Devotion doesn't get Chill Touch, it would work if we take in consideration whatever way it gain access to which is inevitably outside it Paladin subclass.
But in and of itself, Paladin isn't prohibited from casting any cantrip spell per se.
Don't know the specifics of the deities mentioned offhand, but Paladins don't get the full martial weapons and armor kit so they can solve any conflicts they encounter with reasoned discourse. They're expected to get into fights and slay foes, and there's nothing about necrotic damage that makes it fundamentally different from slashing or radiant damage- it reduces HP the same way, and at zero the subject dies the same way and all other processes proceed as normal in the absence of a specific effect that says otherwise.
But if you want to ease it for your Oath of Devotion Paladin, you can always describe or refluff the ''chill of the grave'' and Necrotic ''life-draining energy'' as life-force cleansing or purify their aura of impurity.
I imagine for an Oath of Devotion Paladin of Kelemvor, Chill Touch could be on point. Even for other LN deities like Tyr possibly.
But I do not see it working for a Paladin of Lathander without a reframing like the ones you suggested.
Paladins don’t have to have anything to do with gods. If you choose to, of course, you can, and I’m not trying to say you are wrong. But this edition no longer requires it.
My point is, per RAW, they only need abide by their tenets. Any extra restrictions you put on them from a god are basically house rules. Which I’m bringing up because this is the rules and game mechanics forum.
But if you want to ease it for your Oath of Devotion Paladin, you can always describe or refluff the ''chill of the grave'' and Necrotic ''life-draining energy'' as life-force cleansing or purify their aura of impurity.
I imagine for an Oath of Devotion Paladin of Kelemvor, Chill Touch could be on point. Even for other LN deities like Tyr possibly.
But I do not see it working for a Paladin of Lathander without a reframing like the ones you suggested.
Paladins don’t have to have anything to do with gods. If you choose to, of course, you can, and I’m not trying to say you are wrong. But this edition no longer requires it.
I never liked this change but it is surely so for the Paladin in general.
However the new Oath of Devotion description specifically says:
Many who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law and good and use their gods’ tenets as the measure of personal devotion. Others hold angels as their ideals and incorporate images of angelic wings into their helmets or coats of arms.
So RAW it is either pick a god and stick to its ethos or follow the angels ideals. Or at the very least it's common to do so.
But if you want to ease it for your Oath of Devotion Paladin, you can always describe or refluff the ''chill of the grave'' and Necrotic ''life-draining energy'' as life-force cleansing or purify their aura of impurity.
I imagine for an Oath of Devotion Paladin of Kelemvor, Chill Touch could be on point. Even for other LN deities like Tyr possibly.
But I do not see it working for a Paladin of Lathander without a reframing like the ones you suggested.
Paladins don’t have to have anything to do with gods. If you choose to, of course, you can, and I’m not trying to say you are wrong. But this edition no longer requires it.
I never liked this change but it is surely so for the Paladin in general.
However the new Oath of Devotion description specifically says:
Many who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law and good and use their gods’ tenets as the measure of personal devotion. Others hold angels as their ideals and incorporate images of angelic wings into their helmets or coats of arms.
So RAW it is either pick a god and stick to its ethos or follow the angels ideals. Or at the very least it's common to do so.
Nope.
First, that's not rule text.
Second, the list is not an exhaustive list and there is no RAW requirement. It does not say "those who swear this oath either do this or that" or "Those who are not [devoted to gods ...] instead hold angels ..."
Those are suggestions for flavor for your paladin and nothing else.
Because from the only 2 examples provided it seems that a sizable portion of the Devotion pallys base their oaths on their god ethos.Otherwise why even bothering writing so? If they didn't want to give that idea they would not have written that.
Mind, I understand that the rules completely allow for Sir Festivus the Agnostic. I'm saying that the text says many Dev Pally have an Oath very much linked to their god.
Also the sentence following this text is the one listing the 3 Paladin tenets. What makes one sentence flavor text and the next rules? Because if one isn't and the next one is then there is no clear demarcation.
Because from the only 2 examples provided it seems that a sizable portion of the Devotion pallys base their oaths on their god ethos.Otherwise why even bothering writing so? If they didn't want to give that idea they would not have written that.
Mind, I understand that the rules completely allow for Sir Festivus the Agnostic. I'm saying that the text says many Dev Pally have an Oath very much linked to their god.
Also the sentence following this text is the one listing the 3 Paladin tenets. What makes one sentence flavor text and the next rules? Because if one isn't and the next one is then there is no clear demarcation.
First, you are very right that there is no clear demarcation. This gets especially challenging in some spell descriptions. It's pretty annoying and was something I'd been hoping they'd clean up when 5.5 came out, but here we are.
I think the idea is, when they say something like "many" they're just trying to give players ideas about how someone might play the character. Especially with devotion pallys, as they are the version that stays closest to the classic paladins of previous editions. But how many people actually do it that way isn't something that anyone knows, I don't think. I doubt there's DM's out there saying, sorry, Ted over there played a devotion paladin without a god already, so if you do, our table would be running afoul of the "Many are devoted to gods" part, so better find yourself a god. Even if the devs might be able to scrape data off here and see how common a devotion paladin is to play, they have no idea if everyone, or no one, or what percentage in between are making what kinds of role play choices for their characters.
As far as the tenets, it's basically the same thing. It's always going to come down to a table-by-table and case-by-case choice about what kinds of behaviors are out of bounds.
Which gets us back to this being the rules forum, and there's no rules that say certain spells are forbidden to certain paladins, so they are not. And that's probably to the good, since spells are really just tools, and what matters most about a tool is how you use it.
It is similar, I am not saying an Oath of Dev pally now should start lying left and right, or even behave like an Oath of Vengeance, but it does not seem that any sort of minor mistruth would cause them to become Oathbreakers anymore. That would make the class a bit easier to play.
Could it be that in 5.5 edition it is more about "when a Devotion Paladin gives his word then he is honour bound to it", then "Lying to an evildoer to save a person life, or as part of a cover operation mission = oathbreaker".
Most of your post has already been addressed, but I think this is worth comment.
That has never been part of the rules. Oathbreaker is a poorly-named class for the old-school "anti-paladin" types, who serve evil with the devotion of a traditional paladin's devotion to good. There is nothing in the rules that says any amount of breaking their oath automatically turns a paladin into an Oathbreaker. Indeed, depending on the oath, the violations could very well be antithetical to the Oathbreaker subclass's precepts.
By the rules, there aren't any mechanical penalties for violating one's oath whatsoever. It's a role-playing concern, and, IMO, any changes to a character for reasons like that should only be done with an out-of-character discussion, and also the player's agreement. Unilateral character alterations like that have long been a cause of ill-feeling in D&D, and are best avoided.
Many who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law and good and use their gods’ tenets as the measure of personal devotion.
Meaning that there would also be the possibility for a Dev Pally to have a non Lawful God, or to be non LG and still be bound by a firm moral code. This is nice because it might open the road for NG, LN and even CG Oath of Devotions.
There are no alignment restrictions on paladins, either. Alignment is mostly vestigial these days, anyway, and is best treated as a description of how one behaves. It seems unlikely that a Devotion paladin could hold to their oath and still be describable as "evil", but I'd consider that a challenge, not an impossibility. (One possibility that immediately springs to mind is somebody who is vicious and cruel by inclination but, for some reason, is desperately trying to hold to the oath. The tension is the heart of the character, and mucking with the character's class would be ruining the fun.)
Would a spell like Chill Touch, which deals necrotic damage and channels the energy of death be something a Devotion Paladin with Magic Initiate can cast or it would conflict with his vow?
I also wanted to ask about the way the Oath of Dev has changed from 5ed to 5.5:
In 5e
In 5.5
Is it me or the tenets seems to have relaxed a bit between editions?
They went from "Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise." to just "Let your word be your promise."
From 5e "The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order." to 5.5 " The Oath of Devotion binds Paladins to the ideals of justice and order."
Gone are "obey those who have just authority over you." , "Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm." and "Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom."
Usually these omissions happen for a reason.
It is similar, I am not saying an Oath of Dev pally now should start lying left and right, or even behave like an Oath of Vengeance, but it does not seem that any sort of minor mistruth would cause them to become Oathbreakers anymore. That would make the class a bit easier to play.
Could it be that in 5.5 edition it is more about "when a Devotion Paladin gives his word then he is honour bound to it", then "Lying to an evildoer to save a person life, or as part of a cover operation mission = oathbreaker".
Meaning that there would also be the possibility for a Dev Pally to have a non Lawful God, or to be non LG and still be bound by a firm moral code. This is nice because it might open the road for NG, LN and even CG Oath of Devotions.
Ultimately, that’s a question for your DM.
If it were me, I would say it’s perfectly fine.
As far as alignment, there is already no alignment restriction on any paladin.
I mean, as much as people stretch semantic points for alignments, it’s pretty hard to justify an Evil Devotion, Ancients, or Mercy Paladin unless you’re outright chucking the tenets, and even a Good Conquest really needs a pretty permissive DM. It’s not strictly a RAW issue, but the letter of the tenets is pretty irreconcilable with definitions of the respective alignments used for entertainment purposes rather than philosophical analysis/discourse.
That said, about the only core attack spells that I would say have any chance of conflicting with Paladin tenets simply for being used in a fight are the ones that create zombies on a kill- there’s at least one where the zombie is indiscriminate about targets after it’s created and regardless creating undead like that is a relatively common Evil act in various settings, between appeals to natural order and zombies typically being presented as indiscriminate predators to humanoids. 5e is very- and imo reasonably- utilitarian about damage types themselves- dealing necrotic damage doesn’t make a spell inherently wrong to use.
I fail to see a tenet that it violates on its own. How you use it may be a different matter.
I suspect that it is less about relaxing between editions and more stepping back from giving you specifics. "Let your word be your bond" can mean don't lie, cheat, and steal, but removing the explicit definition encourages players to define that for themselves, but it does also open up a degree of deception, if you want. If you no longer feel pressured to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth with every breath, it plays better with groups that have a more diverse alignment.
I would say the alignment options are as open as before, not more so. If you want a LE Devotion Paladin, they are still going to let their word be their bond, protect the weak, never fear to act, and let their honorable deeds be an example... How is that lawful evil?
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
RAW Oath of Devotion Paladins aren't prohibited from casting Chill Touch. When you cast such offensive spell, it's to hurt to slay another creature, which you can always do.
But if you want to ease it for your Oath of Devotion Paladin, you can always describe or refluff the ''chill of the grave'' and Necrotic ''life-draining energy'' as life-force cleansing or purify their aura of impurity.
I imagine for an Oath of Devotion Paladin of Kelemvor, Chill Touch could be on point. Even for other LN deities like Tyr possibly.
But I do not see it working for a Paladin of Lathander without a reframing like the ones you suggested.
Jayce_Danathar this is an interesting thread about Oath of Devotion Paladins: Can a Paladin of Vengeance kill a bound enemy?
PS. IMO, casting Chill Touch won't keep the paladin up at night.
Taken that the Paladin Oath of Devotion doesn't get Chill Touch, it would work if we take in consideration whatever way it gain access to which is inevitably outside it Paladin subclass.
But in and of itself, Paladin isn't prohibited from casting any cantrip spell per se.
Don't know the specifics of the deities mentioned offhand, but Paladins don't get the full martial weapons and armor kit so they can solve any conflicts they encounter with reasoned discourse. They're expected to get into fights and slay foes, and there's nothing about necrotic damage that makes it fundamentally different from slashing or radiant damage- it reduces HP the same way, and at zero the subject dies the same way and all other processes proceed as normal in the absence of a specific effect that says otherwise.
Paladins don’t have to have anything to do with gods.
If you choose to, of course, you can, and I’m not trying to say you are wrong. But this edition no longer requires it.
My point is, per RAW, they only need abide by their tenets. Any extra restrictions you put on them from a god are basically house rules. Which I’m bringing up because this is the rules and game mechanics forum.
I never liked this change but it is surely so for the Paladin in general.
However the new Oath of Devotion description specifically says:
So RAW it is either pick a god and stick to its ethos or follow the angels ideals. Or at the very least it's common to do so.
Nope.
First, that's not rule text.
Second, the list is not an exhaustive list and there is no RAW requirement. It does not say "those who swear this oath either do this or that" or "Those who are not [devoted to gods ...] instead hold angels ..."
Those are suggestions for flavor for your paladin and nothing else.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
That is why I wrote in the same paragraph:
Because from the only 2 examples provided it seems that a sizable portion of the Devotion pallys base their oaths on their god ethos.Otherwise why even bothering writing so? If they didn't want to give that idea they would not have written that.
Mind, I understand that the rules completely allow for Sir Festivus the Agnostic. I'm saying that the text says many Dev Pally have an Oath very much linked to their god.
Also the sentence following this text is the one listing the 3 Paladin tenets. What makes one sentence flavor text and the next rules? Because if one isn't and the next one is then there is no clear demarcation.
Nonetheless, this sentence is incorrect:
You added the either/or and claimed it was RAW. It's not. It's not rules text and it's not even what the text says.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
First, you are very right that there is no clear demarcation. This gets especially challenging in some spell descriptions. It's pretty annoying and was something I'd been hoping they'd clean up when 5.5 came out, but here we are.
I think the idea is, when they say something like "many" they're just trying to give players ideas about how someone might play the character. Especially with devotion pallys, as they are the version that stays closest to the classic paladins of previous editions. But how many people actually do it that way isn't something that anyone knows, I don't think. I doubt there's DM's out there saying, sorry, Ted over there played a devotion paladin without a god already, so if you do, our table would be running afoul of the "Many are devoted to gods" part, so better find yourself a god. Even if the devs might be able to scrape data off here and see how common a devotion paladin is to play, they have no idea if everyone, or no one, or what percentage in between are making what kinds of role play choices for their characters.
As far as the tenets, it's basically the same thing. It's always going to come down to a table-by-table and case-by-case choice about what kinds of behaviors are out of bounds.
Which gets us back to this being the rules forum, and there's no rules that say certain spells are forbidden to certain paladins, so they are not. And that's probably to the good, since spells are really just tools, and what matters most about a tool is how you use it.
Thanks. I loved your answer :)
I made a [either/or]/OR statement. Not a either/or statement. It is very different logic wise.
The potential for the first portion to be incorrect was included already in the second portion: "Or at the very least it's common to do so."
If a portion of a logical statement is ignored, its correctness surely varies.
Most of your post has already been addressed, but I think this is worth comment.
That has never been part of the rules. Oathbreaker is a poorly-named class for the old-school "anti-paladin" types, who serve evil with the devotion of a traditional paladin's devotion to good. There is nothing in the rules that says any amount of breaking their oath automatically turns a paladin into an Oathbreaker. Indeed, depending on the oath, the violations could very well be antithetical to the Oathbreaker subclass's precepts.
By the rules, there aren't any mechanical penalties for violating one's oath whatsoever. It's a role-playing concern, and, IMO, any changes to a character for reasons like that should only be done with an out-of-character discussion, and also the player's agreement. Unilateral character alterations like that have long been a cause of ill-feeling in D&D, and are best avoided.
There are no alignment restrictions on paladins, either. Alignment is mostly vestigial these days, anyway, and is best treated as a description of how one behaves. It seems unlikely that a Devotion paladin could hold to their oath and still be describable as "evil", but I'd consider that a challenge, not an impossibility. (One possibility that immediately springs to mind is somebody who is vicious and cruel by inclination but, for some reason, is desperately trying to hold to the oath. The tension is the heart of the character, and mucking with the character's class would be ruining the fun.)
Thanks, all great points here!
OMG, I never realized that there are no real mechanics for breaking your Oath. There were so in 3rd ed, and my mind automatically filled the gap 😅
Your statement about RAW was completely false.
You made a RAW statement about fluff text. There is no actual requirement for a Paladin to follow a god or angel, not by RAW.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.