Hi! I feel like the features for the new spirit guardian subclass are a little weak. The stacking effects of the spiritual protectors are pretty cool but the extra 1d6 damage option should scale up as you level up, at level 10 an extra d6 doesn’t do much. Speaking of level 10 I also feel like two low level spells that you can only use once a day is little underwhelming, especially because augury is very situational. I think a better option would be the commune or divination spell, something that would be used often enough to be useful. And finally the level 14 feature is just a chance to hit a third time? Like I get barbarians are supposed to be all about giving out damage but this feels kinda slapdash. Maybe give them some kind of ranged ability, like sending out your spirits to do damage or distract from afar, give them more control abilities that martial classes usually don’t get.

Thank you for listening to my Ted Talk.

 This is going to be a very long comment, but before I start, I'd like to say that I have no intention of angering or offending you, JarieSuisen, nor do I want to pick a fight with you. I just want to lay out my opinion of the Oathbreaker and my counterarguments in support of it, because I think it's pretty cool.

Quote from JarieSuisen >>

Seriously, this is no "oathbreaker", it's just a typical Evil-aligned paladin. Just call it Dark Paladin, which would be SO much better fitting.

The very concept of an oathbreaker "oath" is counter to the concept of the Paladin. If anything, the subclass features should be "You gain nothing. You must forge a new oath to serve under." and literally nothing else. It would not delete you being a Paladin, but would nerf you until you took on a new actual oath. It would also be one of the only ways to change subclasses by normal mechanics.

You're actually not wrong about the Oathbreaker being an evil Paladin or counter to the concept of the Paladin. Judging by it's fluff, I'd say its meant to be 5e's take on the Antipaladin of previous editions. Antipaladins (also known as Blackguards) are former Paladins who've fallen from grace and turned to evil, gaining corrupted versions of their former powers in the process. In order to become an Antipaladin in earlier editions, you had to start with a certain number of Paladin levels, which you would slowly replace your with Antipaladin levels as you leveled up; this was a way of mechanically representing this fall from grace and turn to evil. If I had to guess, I'd argue this is the primary reason why the Oathbreaker is called the Oathbreaker, with some other reasons being a need for naming cohesion among the Paladin's subclasses and the fact that since the 5e Paladin is defined by its oath, a 5e Antipaladin would need to be defined by the lack or loss of one.

That said, I think the Oathbreaker shouldn't have tenets. That makes it feel too much like an actual oath, rather the remains of a broken one.

Quote from JarieSuisen >>

Except, that only sounds like a reason to break one's oath. "Wait, if I just kill that kid I suddenly get cool new powers like raising the dead to serve me? Dude, it's murder time! I thought my oath actually mattered!" You lose no core abilities of being a paladin, you just swap them for some cool edgy powers.

Quote from JarieSuisen >>

I genuinely hate the idea of a Paladin that falls being somehow painted as them doing something noble.

 The Oathbreaker's fluff paints a Paladin breaking their oath as an evil act with selfish motivations, such as "corruption, pride, or thirst for power." The noble thing it refers to is a Paladin who's broken their oath using the Oathbreaker's powers to "achieve a great and noble deed to atone for their past evils." If you think that the Oathbreaker's powers sound like a reason to break one's oath, well, I'm sure that some Paladins broke their oath precisely because they found its powers appealing.

The fluff also seems to imply that only evil Paladins can become Oathbreakers, but I'd consider that aspect to be open to interpretation. However, I also think it's worth noting that there is some official precedent for a Paladin to have a genuinely noble reason for breaking their oath. Baldur's Gate III has an NPC called the Oathbreaker Knight, an Undead spirit who appears to Paladin PCs that have broken their oath with the goal of guiding them through rejecting or embracing their new powers. In life, he was a Paladin who served a brutal and tyrannical nobleman, committing all sorts of violent acts in his name, only to snap and slay his master when he could no longer stomach his cruelty, breaking his oath in the process.

Quote from JarieSuisen >>

This subclass existing puts in a bright light one of the biggest problems in class design: it is supremely rigid and there are no proper mechanics to support a change.

 I kind of agree with you on this one, but this is mainly because I think it would be cool if the Oathbreaker subclass allowed you to alter how Lay on Hands and Divine Smite work. For example, Lay on Hands could be modified to allow you to deal Necrotic damage to a creature and heal yourself, while Divine Smite could be altered to deal Necrotic damage and deal an extra 1d8 damage to anything other than Fiends and Undead.

Quote from JarieSuisen >>

If anything, the subclass features should be "You gain nothing. You must forge a new oath to serve under." and literally nothing else. It would not delete you being a Paladin, but would nerf you until you took on a new actual oath. It would also be one of the only ways to change subclasses by normal mechanics.

The Oathbreaker is most likely going to appear in an XTGE/TCOE-esque rules expansion, meaning that using it at all will be entirely optional and you can easily houserule it out of existence. Even the subclass itself kind of acknowledges this, since its fluff's section about a Paladin PC breaking their oath and becoming an Oathbreaker begins with the phrase "At the DM's Discretion." The 2014 DMG (where the 5e Oathbreaker first appeared) also specified that, after redeeming themselves for whatever broke their oath, Oathbreakers can swear a new oath or re-swear their old one, with the caveat that the next time they broke their oath would be permanent.

TL;DR: The Oathbreaker is meant to be an evil Paladin and counter to the concept of the Paladin, because it is 5e's Antipaladin.

Quote from InterruptingOctopus >>

Quote from RecordiconKnok >>

Quote from InterruptingOctopus >>

I've never understood what necromancy had to do with punishment in oathbreaker paladin.
If we're gonna have a necromancer paladin why aren't they called "oath of undying"?

An oathbreaker's abilities in my opinion would have a lot more narrative potential if it was more a class that gets more power as it takes a beating. "repenting" for their transgression by taking "punishment". Perhaps even "absorbing" party member's damage depending on aura.

 I think the idea is that when a Paladin breaks their oath, their divine power is corrupted into an unholy facsimile of itself, and necromancy and the undead are generally depicted as unholy in D&D. It’s why Clerics, who are holy people, have Turn Undead.

 See that could make sense sure but... oath of domination exists. At the risk of making a loaded statement, that sounds very corrupt and evil. Idk i'd rather have necromancer paladins be flavored as "oath of unrest" and a "punishment" for breaking oaths being "oath of atonement". 

 After reviewing the Oathbreaker's fluff, I'd actually say that it's meant to be 5e's version of the Antipaladin of previous editions. Antipaladins are former paladins who've fallen from grace and turned to evil. To become one, you had to start as a Paladin and then slowly replace your Paladin levels with Antipaladin levels. In other words, the Oathbreaker is meant to be a fallen hero who's betrayed their own principles for selfish reasons.

Also, the fluff seems to imply that only evil Paladins can become Oathbreakers, but I'd consider that aspect to be open to interpretation. I also don't think the Oathbreaker should have tenets, since that makes it feel more like an actual oath instead of the remains of a broken one.

What i want to know is why the hell did you re release Banneret without any playtests, it was the worst possible subclass, and it wasnt changed almost at all from being garbage, and we didnt even have a playtest to voice our concerns

They did.  It was pitched as having a dragon companion but that got taken out since (allegedly) it would be similar to Drakewarden Ranger 

Thats not realy a playtest for what we got there, it was playtest for a completely diferent class that would in no way fit with established DND lore(if they named it something else it could be a cool new subclass though), we saw nothing even close to this travesty in playtests

I would like Shepard druid to be redone as it no longer works in the new rules.

I really like the Oathbreaker out of all of these subclasses but I would like it to go away from an undead and fiend theme to something more like a fallen angel theme.

Like a Dark Knight that lost faith in a higher power and decided to take matters in their own hands. Their power could be powered by their dark psyche and instead of a undead companion they could summon forth their dark psyche in the form of a shadow simulacrum.

Or perhaps I have been playing too much Final Fantasy 14 but I always like the idea of an Anti Paladin and a Oathbreaker to still have a good side but they use darkness to accomplish their goals like Riku from the Kingdom Hearts series.

Plus I feel the undead theme is already covered by the upcoming Necromancer. If you want to go with an Undead and Fiend theme perhaps make a different Oath subclass and have the Oathbreaker be a morally gray Paladin who has forsaken the light to manipulate the darkness. 

Reminding y'all once again: real-life Drunken Master style is not literally about drinking. It's about using erratic movements and deceptive behaviors to trick your opponents into making bad attacks and underestimating your abilities. Make them think you're drunk and only avoiding/hitting them through "dumb luck" so they keep trying the same, predictable moves over and over again. This also works in social situations: You'd be surprised how trusting people will be if they think you won't remember what they said, or how easy it is to bluff out of trouble when they think you don't know what you're doing. This should be the Deception and/or Performance specialist Monk (maybe with a little Illusion magic?), not Popeye with booze instead of spinach.
However: If you're going to do this specifically, using alcoholic effects to enhance their fighting style, it should be the "Warrior of The Drink". "Warrior of Intoxication" makes it sound like they're selling drugs (or attacking with them).

Spiritual Guardian path feels like it's stepping on Wild Heart's toes a bit, but it does that in a marginally different way, so it still kinda works.

Storm Herald's Damage Reduction on top of their Rage resistance seems very strong, but I'll yield to your playtest data over mine. I'd like a "Hurricane" or "Tornado" option in addition to the "Wildfire", "Thunderstorm", and "Blizzard" options. Maybe something doing a lot of Pushing and/or area disruption? or would that be redundant?

Cavalier feels like it's giving Fighter a better version of Hunter's Mark, and I think that warrants another look (particularly at Ranger, imo, but whichever works.)

Oathbreaker feels way too deep into "Hellknight" territory, flavor wise. This is a Paladin that found ways to "cheat" for their powers, not a "soul damned to Hell because they like the smell of suffering". A "fallen angel" doesn't necessarily hate the ones they betrayed, nor is that always their motivation for doing so. In my mind, they're tragic figures; the ones in desperation, willing to sacrifice everything for the power to right a wrong they perceived, even if the wrong is in their original Paladin tenets or "righting" it condemns them to suffer. That's the theming I'd lean into instead: "power at a price". (Also, as it is, it overlaps a lot with Vengeance, both mechanically and flavorfully, and doesn't seem to offer much reason to use it over that.)
Side notes: If you're going to do an Antipaladin, you can just do that. That's your "I accepted Hell because F you guys!" Paladin, perhaps an "oath of spite" or "oath of demonic fealty". (Maybe give them a little Warlock flavor as well? or make it another Paladin-flavored Warlock subclass? since that's their schtick...)
If you're going for an undead or necromancy theme, you can play into that a bit more, but that's also not really an "oath breaker". On the contrary, that's someone forging and/or enforcing oaths (and contracts) with the dead (like an Orzhov agent on Ravnica). I would call it something like "oath of the soul shepherd" or "oath of obligation".

I'm really glad that these revision surveys are being done, it's great that the community gets to critique changes before they're officially made! 

"When you make an attack roll with a Melee weapon as part of the Attack action and roll 18– 20 on the d20

I think no...they are not implying that...

I don't think that Opportunity Attack is 'part of the Attack action' being addressed.

Quote from Thornbringer75 >>

Warrior of intoxication is absolutely terrible and whoever came up with this shouldn't be working on ANYTHING DNnD related."Drunken Master" is the only proper name for well the Drunken Master Martial Arts style. This is like changing Ninja to Warrior of the Shadow or something.....wait what? 😆 

 Just to be clear, the Warrior of Shadow is a revision of the Way of Shadow, not the Way of the Ninja.