3/27/17 Unearthed Arcana

[DracoKnight]

So last week we got the War Mage and the Theurge - what does everything think we should expect this week? :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Here's (http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UAThreeSubclasses.pdf) the link! :smallbiggrin:

[Temperjoke]

Artificer mark 2? 3? Whichever. :P

[DracoKnight]

Artificer mark 2? 3? Whichever. :P

I don't know why on earth you'd think there's a Mark 3...there's only been one attempt at the Artificer, and it came out in January :smallwink:

[Temperjoke]

I don't know why on earth you'd think there's a Mark 3...there's only been on attempt at the Artificer, and it came out in January :smallwink:

There was the Eberron UA artificer based on the Wizard class :P Despite attempts to forget about that version.

[Maxilian]

There was the Eberron UA artificer based on the Wizard class :P Despite attempts to forget about that version.

I liked the Wizard Artificer subclass (even got to play it and was quite fun -Not as a full class though-), but the last Artificer (IMHO) hit the mark (it was well done, it could do some little fixes but it was quite nice)

[jaappleton]

Hmm....

I don't think they're going to do Mystic subclasses yet, like a Fighter / Mystic.

......races?

[Matrix_Walker]

I'd love some new spells to play with. Bard archetypes would also please me, as I was not inspired by the last offerings for them.

[solidork]

I'd love some new spells to play with. Bard archetypes would also please me, as I was not inspired by the last offerings for them.

The 6th level ability for College of Glamour is probably my favorite ability out of any class/subclass. You know that scene in Fellowship of the Ring where Frodo offers Galadriel the one ring and she goes all beautiful/terrible? That is how I picture Mantle of Awe.

[Dhuraal]

I'd love some new spells to play with. Bard archetypes would also please me, as I was not inspired by the last offerings for them.

I'll go along with this, especially since several schools (Necromancy comes to mind) and elemental damage types are horribly under represented

[M Placeholder]

Hmm....

I don't think they're going to do Mystic subclasses yet, like a Fighter / Mystic.

......races?

They did the minotaur, so perhaps its the turn of the other Dragonlance races :)

[rbstr]

I want Feats!

Spells are ok I guess.

[jaappleton]

They did the minotaur, so perhaps its the turn of the other Dragonlance races :)

Funny you say that, because there's something odd that I haven't seen anyone speak about.

In the PHB, there's quite a few little boxes that hint at future offerings. The Paladin class has one mentioning the Oathbreaker. The Dwarf has one mentioning the Deurgar.

It's been a long time since the PHB was released.

Dragonborn has a little box mentioning Draconians.

They've never been released.

I mentioned this to Mearls a few months ago, asking if they'd been forgotten. He said no, they weren't forgotten.

Now, we've seen a few things hinting at Eberron and some hinting at Kara-Tur. It's no secret that I think a Manual of the Planes is coming, with "Here's something from _____ and here's how you can adapt it for whatever setting!"

So they've shown us Archetypes. But no races.

Hmm...

[Llama513]

Funny you say that, because there's something odd that I haven't seen anyone speak about.

In the PHB, there's quite a few little boxes that hint at future offerings. The Paladin class has one mentioning the Oathbreaker. The Dwarf has one mentioning the Deurgar.

It's been a long time since the PHB was released.

Dragonborn has a little box mentioning Draconians.

They've never been released.

I mentioned this to Mearls a few months ago, asking if they'd been forgotten. He said no, they weren't forgotten.

Now, we've seen a few things hinting at Eberron and some hinting at Kara-Tur. It's no secret that I think a Manual of the Planes is coming, with "Here's something from _____ and here's how you can adapt it for whatever setting!"

So they've shown us Archetypes. But no races.

Hmm...
Races would be interesting, but since we got mystic and finished the base class schedule I have no idea what to expect, and am just happy to be getting free content to work with

[Vorok]

Funny you say that, because there's something odd that I haven't seen anyone speak about.

In the PHB, there's quite a few little boxes that hint at future offerings. The Paladin class has one mentioning the Oathbreaker. The Dwarf has one mentioning the Deurgar.

It's been a long time since the PHB was released.


Iirc, Oathbreaker is fleshed out in the Dungeon Master's Guide as a villanous class, along with Death domain for Clerics.

[Arkhios]

Iirc, Oathbreaker is fleshed out in the Dungeon Master's Guide as a villanous class, along with Death domain for Clerics.

Yes, it is. But DMG was released after PHB.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

So last week we got the War Mage and the Theurge - what does everything think we should expect this week? :smallbiggrin:

Table settings by race

We can't be rude afterall

[RickAllison]

Iirc, Oathbreaker is fleshed out in the Dungeon Master's Guide as a villanous class, along with Death domain for Clerics.

That's his point, that all of those sidebars have seen release. Except for Draconians. So naturally, we should expect to see them at some point.

[Elite Hatter]

Table settings by race

We can't be rude afterall

Oh my gods yes. This social brackets, and proper introductory and conversational etiquette. For each race and subrace. Let's make it happen people!!

[Foxhound438]

I want Feats!

Spells are ok I guess.

*pounding fists on desk* FEATS! FEATS! FEATS! FEATS! FEATS!

aside from that, my most likely candidate is another rogue UA- we only got to see one archetype back with the ranger UA, and maybe, similar to getting more wizards after the 1 wrapped in with warlock, we'll get another 1 or 2 rogue options

If it is races, I hope for another take on warforged, and thri-kreen. The latter would probably be extra pertinent, with its psionics stuff and all.

more well laid out rules on using tool sets might also be great, particularly with things like herbalist's kit. More broadly, better crafting rules.

[M Placeholder]

*pounding fists on desk* FEATS! FEATS! FEATS! FEATS! FEATS!

aside from that, my most likely candidate is another rogue UA- we only got to see one archetype back with the ranger UA, and maybe, similar to getting more wizards after the 1 wrapped in with warlock, we'll get another 1 or 2 rogue options

If it is races, I hope for another take on warforged, and thri-kreen. The latter would probably be extra pertinent, with its psionics stuff and all.


I'm hoping that if the thri-kreen is featured, it has subraces (there were a few different kinds in the Thri - Kreen of Athas splatbook from way back).

And also the artwork of John Dollar instead of the ones in the monster manual. Mantids are adorable.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l0IA8514Fc4/UWmsCLTjIaI/AAAAAAAAqxs/KKCQA5tzfr4/s1600/2.JPG

[Steampunkette]

I want "Races of Athas" as today's UA.

Thri Kreen, Mul, Half-Giants, Cannibal Halflings, Runner Elves, the whole nine yards.

Also some feats for Athas.

And Athasian Spells.

Maybe an alternate Bard Class with no spellcasting...

[Tanarii]

These thread titles are false advertising, I thought I was gonna get a new UA right now :smallamused:

[DracoKnight]

These thread titles are false advertising, I thought I was gonna get a new UA right now :smallamused:

I post early, and then update the OP when the link drops :smallwink:

Sorry to disappoint you, it should be up soon! :smallbiggrin:

[Dr.Samurai]

He does it for the clicks Tanarii. It's all about that ad revenue!!!

[Trum4n1208]

I'd like to see either feats, spells, or crafting rules, but I'm always happy to check out whatever else they put out.

[DracoKnight]

He does it for the clicks Tanarii. It's all about that ad revenue!!!

Or just to beat Jaappleton to the punch! :smallwink:

But really: Just because I like speculating before it actually launches, and I know there are other people who share my obsession :smallwink: :smalltongue:

[Llama513]

Or just to beat Jaappleton to the punch! :smallwink:

But really: Just because I like speculating before it actually launches, and I know there are other people who share my obsession :smallwink: :smalltongue:

I have no idea what to expect so it's fun to see what other people's ideas are and see what I might like to see, and it is usually up here sooner than the actual site updates

[Arc-Royal]

I don't have a clue what to expect this week, but what I'd love to see is an official-unofficial rework of the Four Elements monk. Don't get me wrong, there are some very neat fan reworks, but I'd like to see is how WotC thinks it would be put in a healthier spot.

Given that there were more Monastic Traditions released not too long ago, though, the odds of this happening are virtually nil.

[M Placeholder]

I want "Races of Athas" as today's UA.

Thri Kreen, Mul, Half-Giants, Cannibal Halflings, Runner Elves, the whole nine yards.

Also some feats for Athas.

And Athasian Spells.

Maybe an alternate Bard Class with no spellcasting...

In 4e, Goliaths were put in place of the original half-giants, with the reasons presumably being that WotC didn't want players to have a large race (no matter how dimwitted, volatile and hamfisted it was). Considering the Giants on Athas were larger than the standard D&D giants and were unique to the world of Athas, the Goliaths didn't really fit IMO, and they were no more powerful than the Muls. Considering that in the original campaign its strongly implied that the Sorcerer Queen of Raam created Half Giants for their use in military campaigns and for their size, having a creature in 4e replace the original Half Giant that was only marginally bigger than a mul and was a pipsqueak compared to the actual giants of the world didn't make that much sense.

Hopefully we get a 10-12ft tall brute as a playable race.

[DracoKnight]

It's up! Link in the OP!

[Llama513]

drunken master is interesting, but I miss the original version, that used improvised weapons, and could breath fire,

the oath of redemption is going to be a really fun character to play, but you have to let your party know ahead of time that you are playing a oath of redemption or problems will arise

monster slayer is interesting, but relentless slayer is busted, for free shutdown a teleport, who needs counter spell, I'm just going to stare at you and shut down your high level spelll

[jaappleton]

It's up! Link in the OP!

Who the ---- would've guessed any of these?!

[Arkhios]

I must say I'm a bit disappointed by Drunken Master. And prefer my homebrew.

[Temperjoke]

Jedi-Paladin! >.>

EDIT: Also, Monster Slayer Ranger is a perfect class for Curse of Strahd.

[jaappleton]

Drunken Master is disappointing and boring.

Paladin? Holy hell. Armor of Faith alone makes it great for Sorcadins. Plus they get Shield as an Oath spell so Sorcs don't need to learn it.

Ranger? Solid. I like it.

[DracoKnight]

Drunken Master is disappointing and boring.

See I felt the opposite, I rather liked it - I had about a dozen different character concepts come to mind while reading it ^_^

[Spiritchaser]

That Paladin looks VERY strong. Great armor and an amazing spell list...

Wickedly strong capstone with a crazy catch.

Looks like a lot of fun.

Now I need a blue lightsaber.

[Arc-Royal]

Jedi-Paladin! >.>

EDIT: Also, Monster Slayer Ranger is a perfect class for Curse of Strahd.

"These paladins face evil creatures in the hope of turning them to the light, and the paladins slay them only when such a deed will clearly save other lives."

Yeah, definitely Jedi-paladin. I'm a bit worried about people seeing Redemption Paladins' description and playing them as Lawful Stupid, though. "We must reason with the Tarrasque and help it realize the error of its ways!"

[Misterwhisper]

I stopped reading at Armor of Peace.

That is complete and total BS that should never exist.

So a level 3 Paladin with no gear can have an ac of 19?

Yet, the monk class, the specific class built from the ground up to fight with no armor can have MAYBE a 16 if they pick certain races.

For a monk to ever have the ac of a gear less paladin at level 3 the monk would have to have a wisdom of 22.

[Spiritchaser]

"We must reason with the Tarrasque and help it realize the error of its ways!"

Would you mind terribly If I used that?

This guy is going to be riot to play, and I'll give myself points every time a party member rolls their eyes

[Llama513]

I stopped reading at Armor of Peace.

That is complete and total BS that should never exist.

So a level 3 Paladin with no gear can have an ac of 19?

Yet, the monk class, the specific class built from the ground up to fight with no armor can have MAYBE a 16 if they pick certain races.

For a monk to ever have the ac of a gear less paladin at level 3 the monk would have to have a wisdom of 22.

The trade off comes from that your combat abilities are not as strong as monks, you are meant to be defense oriented, protected by your deity in your journey for peace, where as a monks AC is from their training, and their offensive output is much greater than this paladin

[Nicrosil]

I'm happy that the Drunken Master is based more on swaying, chaotic motions than a weird alcohol alchemy; a character that's supposed to be constantly drunk is just a headache for the table. Mechanics wise, I think it's pretty solid. The 17th level ability is a bit concerning though; I'm AFB so I might be missing something that would put it in better context. I do wonder why Tipsy Sway recharges on a rest rather than costing ki points...

The Redemption Paladin offers its own problems being a pacifism class in a game steeped in combat. When I read the name I thought it would be a subclass name I thought it was a subclass for fallen Paladins trying to redeem themselves; though it doesn't take much to refluff it that way. Rederm one soul and yours, too, shall be saved.

Monster Hunter looks like a cross between the Hunter and the Horizon Walker. I agree Relentless Slayer needs some cost; maybe a spell slot, similar to the way Primeval Awareness used to work? Maybe a Hit Dice? I don't know.

[DracoKnight]

The trade off comes from that your combat abilities are not as strong as monks, you are meant to be defense oriented, protected by your deity in your journey for peace, where as a monks AC is from their training, and their offensive output is much greater than this paladin

Emphasis, mine.

Two words: DIVINE SMITE.

You also still get Extra Attack, Improved Divine Smite, etc. Grab shillelagh somehow and two-hand a quarterstaff to reap ridiculous rewards. You still have great combat features AND your auras. Armor of Peace is ridiculous, and should not have been 16 + DEX.

[Nicrosil]

Actually, the more I look at it, the more broken the Redemption Paladin seems. Armor of Peace for reasons listed above, Protective Spirit blowing the Champion's regen out of the water, and Emissary of Redemption seems to last forever.

For Armor of Peace, what about giving an HP bonus instead? The abilities emphasize taking hits for your team, so it would synergize with the rest of the class.

[jaappleton]

Emphasis, mine.

Two words: DIVINE SMITE.

You also still get Extra Attack, Improved Divine Smite, etc. Grab shillelagh somehow and two-hand a quarterstaff to reap ridiculous rewards. You still have great combat features AND your auras. Armor of Peace is ridiculous, and should not have been 16 + DEX.

Hexblade might offer more than getting Shillelagh to key off Charisma via Tomelock or some other means. You'd still need Strength, though. Remember, Hexblade's Cursebringer Smite scales much better than Divine Smite.

[Llama513]

Emphasis, mine.

Two words: DIVINE SMITE.

You also still get Extra Attack, Improved Divine Smite, etc. Grab shillelagh somehow and two-hand a quarterstaff to reap ridiculous rewards. You still have great combat features AND your auras. Armor of Peace is ridiculous, and should not have been 16 + DEX.

I have done something for a druid archetype that might work in this position, going with 10+prof mod+Dex, would that be better, or giving it bigger trade off for using it

[Lombra]

I swear I almost had an heart attack when I read "Drunken Master". Finally :D

[Matticusrex]

Monster slayer is insane, every single one of it's abilities is incredibly powerful and it basically shuts down casters without giving up any resources. I like it, puts them close to a casters power level and gives the deep stalker a run for it's money on assassination.

[DracoKnight]

Hexblade might offer more than getting Shillelagh to key off Charisma via Tomelock or some other means. You'd still need Strength, though. Remember, Hexblade's Cursebringer Smite scales much better than Divine Smite.

Okay, so go 3 Hexblade (for Cursebringer) and 17 Redemption Paladin...you can use CHA for your Quarterstaff, you have Improved Divine Smite, and when you choose to use Curse Bringer you can drop both a Warlock Smite and a Divine Smite on the target. OH, and you heal when you kill your Cursed target, and have passive regen while you're below half health.

EDIT: Never mind, you don't even really need to use the quarterstaff. Just summon Cursebringer every time.

[Spiritchaser]

Armor of Peace is ridiculous, and should not have been 16 + DEX.

I do appreciate your concern, but at the same time this is a mad class that cannot easily have a high dex, and if you do have a high dex you cannot leverage it with a 2h weapon... And if you go with a 1h dex weapon you get No bonus from a shield... Which would take you into the same AC range (1 worse) anyway. Edit: assuming defence fighting style, which is an opportunity cost but...

You don't have access to 2h fighting style...

I'm not saying it isn't strong. Maybe it is too strong... But I'd at least consider how self contradictory it is before coming down too hard.

[jaappleton]

Armor of Peace really shouldn't be giving that much. It should be closer to AC = 14 + Dex or AC = Dex + Cha.

16 + Dex with NO Charisma? That's 21 AC with no shield, with 20 Dex. And while you can't use a shield, it does stack with things like Bladesong, or Bracers of Defense.

[Matrix_Walker]

Oh this pally looks like allot of fun!

[Spiritchaser]

I'd agree with bladesong this is VERY strong. I don't think I'd let anyone mix those

[Temperjoke]

I think we're falling into a trap, comparing the paladin and monk in this UA to each other. How does this paladin compare to other paladins?

Armor of Peace is 16 +DEX, no other armor or shield allowed, so assuming standard array and a +2 Dex race, you could potentially have 19 armor; other paladins start at chain mail and a shield for 18. So, it's slightly more defensive than other paladins. Barbarians get 10 +DEX +CON +shield (if they want), while Monks get 10 +DEX +WIS, no shield allowed. So this seems to fall in line with those, since Barbarians are supposed to be damage absorbing tanks (not exact, but you get the mental picture), while Monks aren't supposed to be tanks, they're supposed to be strikers (in my opinion at least). So I don't think this is overpowered on it's own initially, and later in game, when you start seeing better armors like plate or magical armor, it starts getting outclassed.

EDIT: Since I started thinking this, people also started tossing in multi-class issues, which always happens, and always causes people to start calling classes overpowered.

[jaappleton]

I think we're falling into a trap, comparing the paladin and monk in this UA to each other. How does this paladin compare to other paladins?

Armor of Peace is 16 +DEX, no other armor or shield allowed, so assuming standard array and a +2 Dex race, you could potentially have 19 armor; other paladins start at chain mail and a shield for 18. So, it's slightly more defensive than other paladins. Barbarians get 10 +DEX +CON +shield (if they want), while Monks get 10 +DEX +WIS, no shield allowed. So this seems to fall in line with those, since Barbarians are supposed to be damage absorbing tanks (not exact, but you get the mental picture), while Monks aren't supposed to be tanks, they're supposed to be strikers (in my opinion at least). So I don't think this is overpowered on it's own initially, and later in game, when you start seeing better armors like plate or magical armor, it starts getting outclassed.

But they're achieving that AC without a shield... So they can use a 2h weapon. That is a HUGE difference.

EDIT: Oh, and they get a Fighting style. So their Defense fighting style gets added on top. Hell, go with a Warforged for race and tack on another +1 AC.

[DracoKnight]

I do appreciate your concern, but at the same time this is a mad class that cannot easily have a high dex, and if you do have a high dex you cannot leverage it with a 2h weapon... And if you go with a 1h dex weapon you get No bonus from a shield... Which would take you into the same AC class anyway.

You don't have access to 2h fighting style...

I'm not saying it isn't strong. Maybe it is too strong... But I'd at least consider how self contradictory it is before coming down too hard.

My main concern is that you can have a +2 DEX and still reasonably have the stats on point buy to wield a two-handed weapon.

Let's say VHuman:

STR 15 + 1
DEX 13 + 1
CON 13 + 1 (Resilient CON)
INT 8
WIS 9
CHA 14

You have decent HP, and with 5 ASIs (no multiclassing) you can hit a 20 in STR and CHA, although, the better route would be +2 STR, +2 CON, +2 CHA, +2 STR, +2 CHA. You have proficiency in CON saves, and you add your Charisma bonus to ALL of your saves. You pick the Great Weapon fighting style, and in your unarmored state you have 18 AC which is the same as full plate with a great weapon, or breast plate + a shield and a one-handed weapon. With no stealth disadvantage and no gold or resource cost to you.

[Hudsonian]

This version of the paladin class is not MAD... most of the reason for it's madness is the STR requirement on plate and the typical strength weapons.

But since you don't wear armor and you don't attack often... who needs strength? All you MUST have is Dex, followed by CHA with a distant CON. I would say that dumping WIS or STR would fit perfectly into this stereotype.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I do appreciate your concern, but at the same time this is a mad class that cannot easily have a high dex, and if you do have a high dex you cannot leverage it with a 2h weapon... And if you go with a 1h dex weapon you get No bonus from a shield... Which would take you into the same AC range (1 worse) anyway. Edit: assuming defence fighting style, which is an opportunity cost but...

You don't have access to 2h fighting style...

I'm not saying it isn't strong. Maybe it is too strong... But I'd at least consider how self contradictory it is before coming down too hard.

yeah i agree. im not really seeing it as busted. Its strong, but i feel like the subclass restricts itself in combat enough already. If you play the Redemption paladin like a vengence paladin then yeah it may seem strong, but id start taking away sub class features. I doubt multiclass is an issue, yous till need 13 str on a build thats gonna need to max Con and Dex and you may want a high CHA because its likely your casting stat and you need to make those persuasion rolls.

But what you gonna do, first day everyone says new things are busted.

[DanyBallon]

Emphasis, mine.

Two words: DIVINE SMITE.

You also still get Extra Attack, Improved Divine Smite, etc. Grab shillelagh somehow and two-hand a quarterstaff to reap ridiculous rewards. You still have great combat features AND your auras. Armor of Peace is ridiculous, and should not have been 16 + DEX.

I think that the the biggest balancing of Redemption Paladin is they try to avoid violence. So even if you have all these neat Tools for dealing damage you may not be willing to use them unless against creatures of pure evil. Unfortunately, it's mostly fluff and many won't even care about it...

[Dhuraal]

Anybody else mostly bothered by the fact that the Drunken Master doesn't receive proficiency in Artisan's Tools: Brewer's Supplies?

[jaappleton]

Anybody else mostly bothered by the fact that the Drunken Master doesn't receive proficiency in Artisan's Tools: Brewer's Supplies?

This is a DAMN good catch!

[KorvinStarmast]

the oath of redemption is going to be a really fun character to play, but you have to let your party know ahead of time that you are playing a oath of redemption or problems will arise QFT. In a heavy RP group this might be a great paladin to play.
I must say I'm a bit disappointed by Drunken Master. And prefer my homebrew. I see what you did there. :smallbiggrin:


I stopped reading at Armor of Peace.

That is complete and total BS that should never exist.
For how many levels have you playtested this? This paladin gives up martial weapons. It's whole schtick is defense and non offense, except as last resort.



The Redemption Paladin offers its own problems being a pacifism class in a game steeped in combat. QFT. Most groups will probably be a bad fit for this idea.


Emphasis, mine.
Two words: DIVINE SMITE.
Limited by spell slots. It is no worse than any other Paladin with Divine Smite. If you run a 5 minute adventure day all Paladins are OP.
Monster slayer is insane, Hmm, not sure. It is keyed and directly linked to to Slayer's Eye, which is a limited use ability.
This benefit lasts until you target a different creature with this feature or until you finish a short or long rest. I like it, but someone mentioned a spell slot cost or boosting a cost (not a bad plan, Paladin Divine Smites cost spell slots, some warlock invocations cost spell slots ....) and the target gets a save.
The Target Gets a Save.
Now take a look at saves for CR level and higher creatures. Look at their stats. Uses of this feature can fail.

[Matrix_Walker]

Anybody else mostly bothered by the fact that the Drunken Master doesn't receive proficiency in Artisan's Tools: Brewer's Supplies?

Nice catch! Now I am!

[Mortis_Elrod]

Anybody else mostly bothered by the fact that the Drunken Master doesn't receive proficiency in Artisan's Tools: Brewer's Supplies?

No. I think its focusing on the appearance of being drunk, not actually getting drunk. After all your body is a temple and you should treat it as such.

Side note. There once was a thread discussing what would happen if a ranger and a paladin tried to hunt a level 20 moon druid, at the time i think the conclusion was that moon druid can't be caught. now we have revised ranger monster slayer 20. I'm pretty sure he could do it without the paladin.

[DanyBallon]

But they're achieving that AC without a shield... So they can use a 2h weapon. That is a HUGE difference.



Yeah, but their fluff and 3rd level ability is pushing them using a bludgeoning simple weapon, and the only two handed simple weapon is the Greatclub for a overwhelming 1d8 bludgeoning damage... (or a quaterstaff for the same amazing damage)

[thepsyker]

Monks get a free artisan tool at first level just take Brewer then.

[DanyBallon]

Or a quarterstaff, which is a versatile weapon doing 1d8.

Fixed :smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

Fixed :smalltongue:I removed my post, and have always wondered by great club doesn't do 1d10 bludgeoning damage, as compared to the other 2H which tend to do 1d12 or 2d12 damage.
Nvm, just realized I needed to read the Martial Weapons Table again.
1d8 now better understood.

[Temperjoke]

But they're achieving that AC without a shield... So they can use a 2h weapon. That is a HUGE difference.

EDIT: Oh, and they get a Fighting style. So their Defense fighting style gets added on top. Hell, go with a Warforged for race and tack on another +1 AC.

Defense fighting style requires actual armor, if I recall correctly, unarmored AC doesn't count. The armor without requiring a shield is a concern, but there aren't any 2H finesse weapons, which means you need a decent STR score to be able to do damage. So it balances by reducing your potential damage to focus on your protection, or your protection by focusing on your damage.

Combine that with the other level 3 ability, Warrior of Reconciliation, which basically limits you to a club, greatclub, light hammer, mace, or quarterstaff to take advantage of the ability, and your damage output is curtailed. Which is in line with this class, as it's supposed to be more defensive!

[DanyBallon]

Am I the only one that when reading the Redemption Paladin for the first time I had a mental image of St-Cuthbert (from the Greyhawk setting, not the real one :smallwink:) with the exception that St-Cuthbert doesn't mind using violence to convinced the "heretics" I think it could be easy to refluff the redemption paladin as a zealot of St-Cuthbert for a Greyhawk campaign.

[jaappleton]

Defense fighting style requires actual armor, if I recall correctly, unarmored AC doesn't count. The armor without requiring a shield is a concern, but there aren't any 2H finesse weapons, which means you need a decent STR score to be able to do damage. So it balances by reducing your potential damage to focus on your protection, or your protection by focusing on your damage.

Combine that with the other level 3 ability, Warrior of Reconciliation, which basically limits you to a club, greatclub, light hammer, mace, or quarterstaff to take advantage of the ability, and your damage output is curtailed. Which is in line with this class, as it's supposed to be more defensive!

But the lv3 feature requiring the use of simple weapons can be... Well, the entire feature can be ignored. Yes, its an alright feature. But you can also knock someone unconscious instead of outright killing them with melee weapons, and then use Intimidation. Or have an ally Intimidate.

Its a mediocre feature to begin with. Don't get me wrong, its VERY flavorful. That's for certain. But... I wouldn't base my whole combat setup around it.

EDIT: Also, good call on Defense fighting style. Nice catch.

[Maxilian]

I hate the new paladin subclass, mainly because i love it (love the theme) but its way too good... :S

[Arkhios]

I see what you did there. :smallbiggrin:

I must confess I didn't even realize I did that until you noticed it!
Must've been some kind of subconscious or even Freudian slip! :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

Folks, I don't think you could make this Redemption class work at all, given how combat heavy so much of D&D is, unless you overcompensate with the AC protection feature so that the player / character can hope to not just die while trying to convince all and sundry to put away their swords and have a cup of tea.

[jaappleton]

Folks, I don't think you could make this Redemption class work at all, given how combat heavy so much of D&D is, unless you overcompensate with the AC protection feature so that the player / character can hope to not just die while trying to convince all and sundry to put away their swords and have a cup of tea.

But even the flavor text in the beginning says Lawful Good isn't Lawful Stupid :smallbiggrin:

[Jarlhen]

I am loving the paladin. Only issue is that now you "need" str, dex, con, and charisma unless you want to run around with rapiers. Which seems kind of counter-intuitive to the class. Or grab 1 level of monk, which seems a bit meh.

[Sariel Vailo]

Drunken master Sway and or ora Ora Ora Ora Ora

[Temperjoke]

Folks, I don't think you could make this Redemption class work at all, given how combat heavy so much of D&D is, unless you overcompensate with the AC protection feature so that the player / character can hope to not just die while trying to convince all and sundry to put away their swords and have a cup of tea.


But even the flavor text in the beginning says Lawful Good isn't Lawful Stupid :smallbiggrin:


"While redeemers are idealists, they are no fools. Redeemers know that undead, demons, devils, and other supernatural threats can be inherently evil. Against such foes, the paladins bring the full wrath of their weapons and spells to bear. Yet the redeemers still pray that, one day, even creatures of wickedness will invite their own redemption."

It's like Samurai Jack said in S5E3 (potential spoilers if you haven't seen the new season):


https://youtu.be/QQHC4aj9GXA

[Fishybugs]

But the lv3 feature requiring the use of simple weapons can be... Well, the entire feature can be ignored. Yes, its an alright feature. But you can also knock someone unconscious instead of outright killing them with melee weapons, and then use Intimidation. Or have an ally Intimidate.

Its a mediocre feature to begin with. Don't get me wrong, its VERY flavorful. That's for certain. But... I wouldn't base my whole combat setup around it.

EDIT: Also, good call on Defense fighting style. Nice catch.

No class can be balanced if people are going to just ignore the parts they don't like. That was put in there to balance out exactly the problem people are pointing out as being a problem.

[Temperjoke]

I am loving the paladin. Only issue is that now you "need" str, dex, con, and charisma unless you want to run around with rapiers. Which seems kind of counter-intuitive to the class. Or grab 1 level of monk, which seems a bit meh.

Or not, I mean, the idea is the subclass is more defense-oriented, which means it's normal to do less straight damage than some of the other versions.

[Anderlith]

I really really want to play a Redemption Paladin, who is a redeemed warlord, struggling to stay his hand & resolve things without killing. He carries his old greatsword, a weapon he has done terrible things with, but he keeps it peaceknotted & beats foes with the sheathe(greatclub). He is trying to be a righteous man but the urge to snap the peaceknot & unleash his rage is always right beneath the surface

Kind of like Vasher from Warbreaker

[tkuremento]

"While redeemers are idealists, they are no fools. Redeemers know that undead, demons, devils, and other supernatural threats can be inherently evil. Against such foes, the paladins bring the full wrath of their weapons and spells to bear. Yet the redeemers still pray that, one day, even creatures of wickedness will invite their own redemption."

It's like Samurai Jack said in S5E3 (potential spoilers if you haven't seen the new season):

SNIP VIDEO

Dang good series so far, and I agree with the comparison greatly. Samurai Jack is a Samurai by name but he is probably a Paladin/Monk IMHO, maybe with a dip in Barb cause he does rage sometimes in the first few seasons.

[JumboWheat01]

Oh look, Rangers getting free spells known again, yet they say you should never do that with a Sorcerer. *sigh*

I love the thematics of the Drunken Master (and I agree, it totally should have gotten brewing tools,) and it does have some pretty nice features to make for an interesting sub-class. The thematics of the Oath of Redemption is also amazing, I like the idea of a character that's more about peace than just braining something. Though that 16+Dex AC seems a little odd. Maybe 10+Dex+Cha would've made more sense, and kept it in line with the other Unarmored Defense like the Barbarian's and Monk's.

[tieren]

Folks, I don't think you could make this Redemption class work at all, given how combat heavy so much of D&D is, unless you overcompensate with the AC protection feature so that the player / character can hope to not just die while trying to convince all and sundry to put away their swords and have a cup of tea.

I think it depends a lot on the party role he takes on.

Not wanting to kill could be a good reason to take up healing as a full time role. He could argue for restraint while buffing allies and healing the wounded, etc...

[toapat]

Dang good series so far, and I agree with the comparison greatly. Samurai Jack is a Samurai by name but he is probably a Paladin/Monk IMHO, maybe with a dip in Barb cause he does rage sometimes in the first few seasons.

its not until Episode 54 that we see Jack legitimately rage when he kills the first sister. Ashi is presumably still alive, as is presumably Glaive Sister

as for Oath of Redemption:

Spells:
Where is Sanctuary? Even not being mechanically appropriate it is thematically appropriate

Armor of Peace: probably should scale with level in some way or be Dex + Cha

Channel Divinity: these effects, while significant, seem like they should be multiple uses per rest

Aura of the Guardian: doesnt extend to 30 feet at lvl 18

Emissary of Redemption: it looks awesome but considering that it breaks on Attack Roll, Damage, or Save, its kinda a false flag capstone. Remember it also reflects half damage, which also breaks the effect.

[Misterwhisper]

its not until Episode 54 that we see Jack legitimately rage when he kills the first sister. Ashi is presumably still alive, as is presumably Glaive Sister

as for Oath of Redemption:

Spells:
Where is Sanctuary? Even not being mechanically appropriate it is thematically appropriate

Armor of Peace: probably should scale with level in some way or be Dex + Cha

Channel Divinity: these effects, while significant, seem like they should be multiple uses per rest

Aura of the Guardian: doesnt extend to 30 feet at lvl 18

Emissary of Redemption: it looks awesome but considering that it breaks on Attack Roll, Damage, or Save, its kinda a false flag capstone. Remember it also reflects half damage, which also breaks the effect.

The damage the enemy takes from Emissary of Redemption does not break its own effect because you did not cause it.

[toapat]

The damage the enemy takes from Emissary of Redemption does not break its own effect because you did not cause it.

is there some convoluted rules chain like in MTG where in the literal MTGCR if you follow every rules interaction between Shroud, Equip, and attach, that causes lightning greaves to drop off anything it equips, or just some Sage Advice?

[Millstone85]

I read "Oath of Redemption" and thought it would be for paladins who broke their oath and are trying to atone. No idea how that would work mechanically but I got excited. :smallfrown:

[Temperjoke]

I read "Oath of Redemption" and thought it would be for paladins who broke their oath and are trying to atone. No idea how that would work mechanically but I got excited. :smallfrown:

Well, something to consider, the Oath of Redemption path would be a good path for someone who's trying to atone to follow, as it emphasizes less violence than some of the other paths. I mean, someone who wants to pursue redeeming others could be doing so in hopes of redeeming himself/herself some day.

[Maxilian]

I am loving the paladin. Only issue is that now you "need" str, dex, con, and charisma unless you want to run around with rapiers. Which seems kind of counter-intuitive to the class. Or grab 1 level of monk, which seems a bit meh.

Why would you need STR? (Having in mind that the class basically give you an ability for you to ignore your heavy armors)

[Trum4n1208]

Why would you need STR? (Having in mind that the class basically give you an ability for you to ignore your heavy armors)

For dealing damage. I don't have the book in front of me, but I can't think of a single simple, finesse bludgeoning weapon.

[Sir cryosin]

But they're achieving that AC without a shield... So they can use a 2h weapon. That is a HUGE difference.

EDIT: Oh, and they get a Fighting style. So their Defense fighting style gets added on top. Hell, go with a Warforged for race and tack on another +1 AC.

No they don't defense style only works if your wearing armor. Now of the paladin's fighting styles really dont work with this palay. Great weapon requires str which you might be dumping in this build. Protection needs a shield. Defense as I said up above. They don't get Archery or two weapon fighter.

[toapat]

Why would you need STR? (Having in mind that the class basically give you an ability for you to ignore your heavy armors)

their "Invoke Stockholm Syndrome" ability doesnt work with any finesssable weapons


No they don't defense style only works if your wearing armor. Now of the paladin's fighting styles really dont work with this palay. Great weapon requires str which you might be dumping in this build. Protection needs a shield. Defense as I said up above. They don't get Archery or two weapon fighter.

they can still use Duelist which is fine, and technically better than Two Weapon Fighting style for pally

[rbstr]

I like the general idea of Armor of Peace but really take issue with how they've implemented it here on Paladin.

Like it's a bit too strong in a vacuum but what gets my goat is that the other paladins don't get a level 3 oath feature outside of their channel divinity at all. The redeemer just straight gets extra stuff. And none of the later features really suffer for it, either.

If guess if the intent of the other level 3 feature is to limit them to only simple bludgeoning weapons I'm OK with it. But they really need to spell that out in strict wording. As I read it, its not a thing you have to do.

They need to fix that part before they fix the feature itself as a level 3 feature:
It syngergizes too well with two-handers. It's too quick and easy to get AC of 18 that has no stealth disadvantage. Sure, you do have to sacrifice wisdom to really work it, but paladin features mitigate that pretty well.
Second if you use dex to attack you're about +1 ac vs. the heavy armor sword and board with no stealth disadvantage and points in a much better save. (Plus you can now use a bow well...)
IMO the latter advantages are good enough already without getting the higher armor class too.
How about AC = 13+Dex but you can wear a shield. OR maybe AC = 15+ dex when you have no shield and are using a one handed or versatile weapon?

[Millstone85]

I think Tipsy Sway would be more thematic if it instead allowed you to redirect your own missed attack against another creature.

[ZiddyT]

For dealing damage. I don't have the book in front of me, but I can't think of a single simple, finesse bludgeoning weapon.

There's no actual reason to use a bludgeoning weapon for a ribbon ability that borders on useless.

And as for fighting styles, there's still mariner for +1 ac.

It's definitely overtuned. But I think WOTC is intent on providing at least one busted subclass for at least most classes (lore master, wu jen, redemption, hexblade, stone...)

[Beechgnome]

Do anyone else read the Monster Slayer subclass and think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

I never thought of her as a ranger before. Dual wielding stakes?

[LudicSavant]

Oath of Redemption
- Armor of Peace lets you get 29 AC without multiclassing (Shield spell, Shield of Faith, 20 in your attack stat, mariner fighting style) and still use a polearm or whatever... as well as having the Paladin's excellent save defenses. You also get excellent defensive and lockdown spells.
- The spell list is top of the line (hold person, counterspell, hypnotic pattern, shield, sleep, hold monster, wall of force... everything here is strong).
- Warrior of Reconciliation rubs me the wrong way flavorwise (feels like mind control mercy).
- Rebuke the Violent is one of the better reactions around (better than, say, the Tempest Cleric's). Aura of the Guardian is also quite good.
- Emissary of Peace is a diplomancy tool (stacks with expertise, guidance, and the like). I really don't want to see diplomancers coming back.
- Emissary of Redemption gives you resistance to all damage dealt by other creatures, and reflects half of their damage back to you. The fact that this stops working when you attack them doesn't stop it from being good.

Seems like it could be rather powercreepy.

[Trum4n1208]

There's no actual reason to use a bludgeoning weapon for a ribbon ability that borders on useless.


I would argue that roleplaying is a pretty strong reason to use said weapon/ability. Especially if your DM adheres to the idea that a Paladin who violates his Oath loses a lot of his class features. From a mechanical sense, you're completely right.

[toapat]

There's no actual reason to use a bludgeoning weapon for a ribbon ability that borders on useless.

And as for fighting styles, there's still mariner for +1 ac.

It's definitely overtuned. But I think WOTC is intent on providing at least one busted subclass for at least most classes (lore master, wu jen, redemption, hexblade, stone...)

id argue Ancients is the Busted subclass for paladin, if you allow for ranged smiting. its spellcasting is one of only 2 paladins that gets real AoE, it basically has to be fought with weapons as spells fail across the board against it, and it has the strongest single channel divinity and class features. it doesnt beat Redemption for AC but it can still also go full dex paladin and you sacrifice what? 4 DPR on the most generous interpretations of Great Weapon Fighting?

like, yes Oath of Redemption is out of whack, but its CD is very limited, its spells are not irrelevant but are fairly redundant, and its aura only really starts working halfway through the class's lifetime.\


Do anyone else read the Monster Slayer subclass and think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

I never thought of her as a ranger before. Dual wielding stakes?

its more Vanhelsing/Witcher, and Buffy would have XBX with Dagger + Hand crossbow.

[tkuremento]

its not until Episode 54 that we see Jack legitimately rage when he kills the first sister. Ashi is presumably still alive, as is presumably Glaive Sister

1, holy crap spoilers, sure I've seen it but others might have not yet.

2, He gets angry and lashes out in the past before for sure. I also wouldn't equate what is happening now to rage, more so it would be like a Paladin breaking a tenet and realizing it.

3, I was also making reference to the whole OotS Samurai thing as well.

[Misterwhisper]

I would argue that roleplaying is a pretty strong reason to use said weapon/ability. Especially if your DM adheres to the idea that a Paladin who violates his Oath loses a lot of his class features. From a mechanical sense, you're completely right.

Nothing about beating people unconscious with a quarterstaff is breaking any part of the oath.

It says violence is a last resort, nowhere does it say you can't fight back.
You can not walk into town and start just clubbing people unconscious because they look at you funny, but there is definitely nothing wrong with defending yourself or your party.

[toapat]

2, He gets angry and lashes out in the past before for sure. I also wouldn't equate what is happening now to rage, more so it would be like a Paladin breaking a tenet and realizing it.

he gets vocally angry normally, or grump angry. but hes never in actual battle rage until S5

its more like DBZ where he just screams at the top of his lungs in combat constantly

[rbstr]

id argue Ancients is the Busted subclass for paladin, if you allow for ranged smiting.

"It's busted if you don't follow the rules" isn't an especially strong argument. And that would apply to all paladins. Ancients is fine compared to the rest. Sure, spell resistance can be very good, if someone is just trying to nuke you. But none of the rest of their kit goes together with that to be it particularly above the other subclasses.

[DanyBallon]

It's amazing how your "defining" 3rd level feature is easily handwaved, when it goes against powergaming

Rant aside, I think that the idea that the redemption pally must use simple bludgeoning weapon should be enforce through it's other abilities. I think it's really flavorful and is a change from the typical paladin.

[Corsair14]

Loving the ranger. Meh on the monks but then I am meh on monks anyway.

[Mortis_Elrod]

he gets vocally angry normally, or grump angry. but hes never in actual battle rage until S5

its more like DBZ where he just screams at the top of his lungs in combat constantly

I mean....i'm not sure how YOU describe a rage, but i saw nothing like a rage in episode 54. And i just watched it. And he definitely has raged in the earlier season of the show.

[Temperjoke]

Oath of Redemption
- Armor of Peace lets you get 29 AC without multiclassing (Shield spell, Shield of Faith, 20 in your attack stat, defensive fighting style) and still use a polearm or whatever... as well as having the Paladin's excellent save defenses. You also get excellent defensive and lockdown spells.
- The spell list is top of the line (hold person, counterspell, hypnotic pattern, shield, sleep, hold monster, wall of force... everything here is strong).
- Warrior of Reconciliation rubs me the wrong way flavorwise (feels like mind control mercy).
- Rebuke the Violent is one of the better reactions around (better than, say, the Tempest Cleric's). Aura of the Guardian is also quite good.
- Emissary of Peace is a diplomancy tool (stacks with expertise, guidance, and the like). I really don't want to see diplomancers coming back.
- Emissary of Redemption gives you resistance to all damage dealt by other creatures, and reflects half of their damage back to you. The fact that this stops working when you attack them doesn't stop it from being good.

Seems like it could be rather powercreepy.

You don't get Defense style if you aren't wearing armor. Shield spell lasts 1 round, Shield of Faith requires your concentration, but then Paladins don't have a ton of spells slots, even level 1 slots. By choosing to use them up defensively, you are sacrificing your attack capability. I'm not sure where the 20 in your attack stat relates, but I believe that the interpretation for "you foreswear the weapons of war" to mean that by choosing this subclass, you lose the proficiency in martial weapons that paladins normally have. The enemies that you defeat in a manner that meets the terms of the ability also are still defeated, they're just not unconscious. Normally, we'd say the enemy was killed or unconscious (if doing nonlethal damage) when they hit 0, this paladin gets to say "no, they're going to sit there and do nothing until I can talk to them". It's more of a ribbon, since if you did nonlethal damage and knocked them out, you could just wait to wake them up to talk.

[DanyBallon]

Nothing about beating people unconscious with a quarterstaff is breaking any part of the oath.

It says violence is a last resort, nowhere does it say you can't fight back.
You can not walk into town and start just clubbing people unconscious because they look at you funny, but there is definitely nothing wrong with defending yourself or your party.

You're right, but clubbing people unconscious with a quarterstaff or a (great)club is doing less damage than with most martial weapon and uses STR, so either your character becomes MAD or you may not have maxed out DEX.
Most people complaining about Armor of Peace being OP is because they are figuring their Redemption paladin using finesse weapon since they'll have high DEX.

[KorvinStarmast]

Though that 16+Dex AC seems a little odd. Maybe 10+Dex+Cha would've made more sense, and kept it in line with the other Unarmored Defense like the Barbarian's and Monk's.
I like this idea.
If they did that, I think they'd need to allow the Paladin to use a shield, but that might blow the whole them ... oh well.... a shield is a defensive/protective item, and what's a paladin without a shield? (I realize some folks play paladins with 2H weapons, but the trope for the class seems to fall back to sword and board).

[toapat]

"It's busted if you don't follow the rules" isn't an especially strong argument. And that would apply to all paladins. Ancients is fine compared to the rest. Sure, spell resistance can be very good, if someone is just trying to nuke you. But none of the rest of their kit goes above the other subclasses.

ignoring a thematic choice of the developers isnt the same. Ancients is much stronger than Devotion, Crown, Conquest, Breaker, and Redemption. While it certainly doesnt beat Vengeance or Treason for damage, its the single across the board strongest paladin in the system, with strong defense, offense, and utility in its kit. If you give all paladins the option to use Divine Smite/Improved on ranged attacks, let barbarians use rage benefits with thrown, and figure out a solution to giving monk ranged that doesnt kill Sun Soul, Ancients is the most versatile paladin of every subclass.

that doesnt change that Redemption is the hardest to kill, but its not the strongest without question

[tkuremento]

he gets vocally angry normally, or grump angry. but hes never in actual battle rage until S5

its more like DBZ where he just screams at the top of his lungs in combat constantly

I might be remembering the time his father took like two dozen arrows and went berserk mode vs Aku.

[Trum4n1208]

Nothing about beating people unconscious with a quarterstaff is breaking any part of the oath.

It says violence is a last resort, nowhere does it say you can't fight back.
You can not walk into town and start just clubbing people unconscious because they look at you funny, but there is definitely nothing wrong with defending yourself or your party.

I wasn't saying they couldn't defend themselves or anything, I'm saying the favor of the class & the 3rd level ability encourage you to use a simple bludgeoning weapon to deal non-lethal damage to creatures that are not irredeemably evil. You said earlier that there's no reason to use those weapons, and I disagree with that on the basis of roleplaying. The class encourages you to use them non lethally against enemies that aren't irredeemably evil.

[toapat]

I mean....i'm not sure how YOU describe a rage, but i saw nothing like a rage in episode 54. And i just watched it. And he definitely has raged in the earlier season of the show.

Anyone can be angry, battle rage is a completely different thing and the entire reason why E54 ends the way it does.

again youre conflating "Screaming at top of lungs" with the barbarian class feature. the only time he kills something out of frustration + reflex is in this season.

[GM_3826]

You don't get Defense style if you aren't wearing armor. Shield spell lasts 1 round, Shield of Faith requires your concentration, but then Paladins don't have a ton of spells slots, even level 1 slots. By choosing to use them up defensively, you are sacrificing your attack capability. I'm not sure where the 20 in your attack stat relates, but I believe that the interpretation for "you foreswear the weapons of war" to mean that by choosing this subclass, you lose the proficiency in martial weapons that paladins normally have. The enemies that you defeat in a manner that meets the terms of the ability also are still defeated, they're just not unconscious. Normally, we'd say the enemy was killed or unconscious (if doing nonlethal damage) when they hit 0, this paladin gets to say "no, they're going to sit there and do nothing until I can talk to them". It's more of a ribbon, since if you did nonlethal damage and knocked them out, you could just wait to wake them up to talk.

This, pretty much. The more and more you guys talk about this the more and more it looks like you can't say that this is busted without testing it. It makes me want to play the class, both because the fluff is amazing (you guys are sort of massacring it by focusing so much on combat) and just to make sure.

[toapat]

This, pretty much. The more and more you guys talk about this the more and more it looks like you can't say that this is busted without testing it. It makes me want to play the class, both because the fluff is amazing (you guys are sort of massacring it by focusing so much on combat) and just to make sure.

honestly its not really broken like people treat it, its out of expected bounds, but not nearly to hte degree of say lore wizard

[KorvinStarmast]

Woot, just checked email, our re-assembled group may be play testing the drunken master ... about 50-50 chance, my friend in New York has not yet chosen his character yet.

[LudicSavant]

You don't get Defense style if you aren't wearing armor. Sorry, meant Mariner style.


I'm not sure where the 20 in your attack stat relates
Dexterity provides a bonus to your AC, saves, initiative, skills, and attacks.

[Misterwhisper]

I wasn't saying they couldn't defend themselves or anything, I'm saying the favor of the class & the 3rd level ability encourage you to use a simple bludgeoning weapon to deal non-lethal damage to creatures that are not irredeemably evil. You said earlier that there's no reason to use those weapons, and I disagree with that on the basis of roleplaying. The class encourages you to use them non lethally against enemies that aren't irredeemably evil.

There is no such thing as non-lethal damage in 5th edition.
Using a quarterstaff to cause 6 damage of bludgeoning is no different that causing 6 damage with an axe.
If you are hitting someone with a weapon you can choose to knock someone out instead of killing them, anyone can do this.
If the raging barbarian orc chieftain is charging you with his great axe and critically hits you, he can knock you out if he wants, no different than a pacifist doing it with a club.

[Millstone85]

It is an interesting coincidence that the Oath of Redemption and its reminder that "undead, demons, devils, and other supernatural threats can be inherently evil" would appear just as the Let's-Read-the-MM thread reached gnolls.

In this edition, they really pushed gnolls as demonic spawn, fully fiendish in mind if not completely in body. But I can hear a thousand DMs say "Not in my setting".

Playing this oath would require a deep understanding of when if at all your DM just let monsters be monsters.

[tkuremento]

So I am not really good at telling balance or not. All I know from this UA is that I WANT to play a Drunken Master Lizardfolk--or Dwarf is Volo's isn't allowed. I do want to say I feel Tipsy Sway should either gain more uses as levels go on or cost ki. Of course if it gained more uses I suppose it probably shouldn't be short rest anymore if it got above 2 uses per.

Also since it specifics a target within 5 feet of you, does that mean you could give the unit pseudo-reach for one attack? I assume that isn't the case and that the target also needs to be within 5 ft of the attacker unless the attack already has reach.

[DanyBallon]

There is no such thing as non-lethal damage in 5th edition.
Using a quarterstaff to cause 6 damage of bludgeoning is no different that causing 6 damage with an axe.
If you are hitting someone with a weapon you can choose to knock someone out instead of killing them, anyone can do this.
If the raging barbarian orc chieftain is charging you with his great axe and critically hits you, he can knock you out if he wants, no different than a pacifist doing it with a club.

except the pacifist with a club has a feature that "charm" the creature. Sure it can be handwave if you don't care with this kind of details, but doing so remove most of the fluff that make this archetype interesting.

[LudicSavant]

The enemies that you defeat in a manner that meets the terms of the ability also are still defeated, they're just not unconscious. Normally, we'd say the enemy was killed or unconscious (if doing nonlethal damage) when they hit 0, this paladin gets to say "no, they're going to sit there and do nothing until I can talk to them". It's more of a ribbon, since if you did nonlethal damage and knocked them out, you could just wait to wake them up to talk.

If it's a ribbon, it's a ribbon with wonky flavor, in my opinion. It works by mind controlling people you hit on the head hard enough to sit there and do nothing but follow your orders, which seems both vaguely dissociative and against the spirit of redemption. Could have easily been written with much better flavor.

Also, knee-jerk reactions are writing this off as a weak ribbon ability, but it actually shuts down some of the stronger tactics in the game (yo yo healing, regeneration, "won't stop at 0 hp" abilities) as well as potentially even adding allied actions to your side of the fight. It's an ability that fits into the optimized metagame masquerading as a flavor ribbon.

And... the idea of someone bludgeoning someone in the head until they're mind controlled while talking a big game about redeeming them just seems remarkably cringey to me.

[JBPuffin]

but I believe that the interpretation for "you forswear the weapons of war" to mean that by choosing this subclass, you lose the proficiency in martial weapons that paladins normally have

Can...can we stop taking away people's nice things because some fluff says something that sounds like it might? :smallsigh: First Druids and metal (it's earth, guys, just shaped; it's a "wouldn't," not a can't), now a paladin and his sword? I understand wanting something to match thematically, but it's a player's choice not to, not a mandatory no. Besides, are you expecting paladins to run around with quarterstaves to fight hyena-fiends, balrogs, and zombie hordes? Nuh-uh.

I'll leave the actual content of the UA to others' judgement.

[Misterwhisper]

except the pacifist with a club has a feature that "charm" the creature. Sure it can be handwave if you don't care with this kind of details, but doing so remove most of the fluff that make this archetype interesting.

Monks have a feature that stuns with an unarmed attack and yet people use a staff all the time.
Just because you have a class feature does not mean you are forced to stick with using it.

Alao, how people feel about fluff or role playing does not mean a thing right now, we are talking about mechanics on how the subclass works.

Subclasses are not play tested to see if the fluff or RP works, that is on the player. Playtest is for rules balance.

As it stands you can make a level 3 paladin with a rapier who has a 20 ac with no armor and no shield who stabs people for 1d8 + 5, and can still smite or cast whatever other spells he wants just like a normal paladin.

That is FAR above reasonable.

[DanyBallon]

Can...can we stop taking away people's nice things because some fluff says something that sounds like it might? :smallsigh: First Druids and metal (it's earth, guys, just shaped; it's a "wouldn't," not a can't), now a paladin and his sword? I understand wanting something to match thematically, but it's a player's choice not to, not a mandatory no. Besides, are you expecting paladins to run around with quarterstaves to fight hyena-fiends, balrogs, and zombie hordes? Nuh-uh.

I'll leave the actual content of the UA to others' judgement.

Why should they not run around with a stick? with their smite they are just as much effective as a sword wielder (ok they do a bit less damage...).

[GM_3826]

Monks have a feature that stuns with an unarmed attack and yet people use a staff all the time.
Just because you have a class feature does not mean you are forced to stick with using it.

Alao, how people feel about fluff or role playing does not mean a thing right now, we are talking about mechanics on how the subclass works.

Subclasses are not play tested to see if the fluff or RP works, that is on the player. Playtest is for rules balance.

As it stands you can make a level 3 paladin with a rapier who has a 20 ac with no armor and no shield who stabs people for 1d8 + 5, and can still smite or cast whatever other spells he wants just like a normal paladin.

That is FAR above reasonable.

No rapier. Restricted to simple weapons.

[Misterwhisper]

No rapier. Restricted to simple weapons.

That ability is restricted to simple weapons, not the paladin.

[Temperjoke]

Can...can we stop taking away people's nice things because some fluff says something that sounds like it might? :smallsigh: First Druids and metal (it's earth, guys, just shaped; it's a "wouldn't," not a can't), now a paladin and his sword? I understand wanting something to match thematically, but it's a player's choice not to, not a mandatory no. Besides, are you expecting paladins to run around with quarterstaves to fight hyena-fiends, balrogs, and zombie hordes? Nuh-uh.

I'll leave the actual content of the UA to others' judgement.

Then don't play this subclass if you want a full assortment of weapons? It's different when it's an entire class category versus a single subclass. Secondly, there are more simple weapon options that fit the bludgeoning category than just quarterstaves, like Greatclubs and maces.

Also, why are people quoting Mariner Fighting style, its from a different UA. That's basically saying, "This is overpowered because we can combine it with other unofficial stuff to make it more powerful." And if you're talking level 20 DEX to add to the unarmored bonus, the soonest you can hit that with standard stat array is like level 8, which in comparison to other classes just makes it more defensive.

Again, this class is supposed to be more defensive; every time you boost it's defense whether it's with your ASI choices, or spell slot usage, you are directly impacting your offensive capabilities. Frankly, I think it's an appropriate trade-off.


That ability is restricted to simple weapons, not the paladin.

They're referring to the interpretation that this class only allows simple weapons, which I agree is the appropriate interpretation.

[GM_3826]

That ability is restricted to simple weapons, not the paladin.

*reads the ability description again*

...Hmm.

[rbstr]

Can...can we stop taking away people's nice things because some fluff says something that sounds like it might? :smallsigh: First Druids and metal (it's earth, guys, just shaped; it's a "wouldn't," not a can't), now a paladin and his sword? I understand wanting something to match thematically, but it's a player's choice not to, not a mandatory no. Besides, are you expecting paladins to run around with quarterstaves to fight hyena-fiends, balrogs, and zombie hordes? Nuh-uh.

I'll leave the actual content of the UA to others' judgement.

They should probably have to give up something to get an extra archtype feature for third level that not only lets them out armor-class any other paladin, but lets them do so without carrying a stealth penalty or even needing to wear a shield.
It's not even that huge of a penalty, given their weapon's damage die isn't super important compared to their other sources of damage.

[DanyBallon]

Monks have a feature that stuns with an unarmed attack and yet people use a staff all the time.
Just because you have a class feature does not mean you are forced to stick with using it.

Alao, how people feel about fluff or role playing does not mean a thing right now, we are talking about mechanics on how the subclass works.

Subclasses are not play tested to see if the fluff or RP works, that is on the player. Playtest is for rules balance.

As it stands you can make a level 3 paladin with a rapier who has a 20 ac with no armor and no shield who stabs people for 1d8 + 5, and can still smite or cast whatever other spells he wants just like a normal paladin.

That is FAR above reasonable.

Fluff is part of the mechanic as well. Deliberately ignoring fluff, especially fluff that act as a limitation on a powerful feature is not helping with the playtest at all.

[Misterwhisper]

Fluff is part of the mechanic as well. Deliberately ignoring fluff, especially fluff that act as a limitation on a powerful feature is not helping with the playtest at all.

Then no Oath of Redemption Paladin can ever have a holy avenger, they are all swords.

[LudicSavant]

The fact that it is ambiguous enough to cause discussions as to whether the restriction applies to the ability or the paladin as a whole suggests that it is a poorly written ability, and should be written in a way that is clear to everyone.

[Sigreid]

All in all I think this is a poor, ill thought out effort. The Oath of Redemption in particular is a troll class and if anyone in my group made one I would kill them with fire, scatter their ashes and then banish their character from the world.:smallfurious:

[Trum4n1208]

Can...can we stop taking away people's nice things because some fluff says something that sounds like it might? :smallsigh: First Druids and metal (it's earth, guys, just shaped; it's a "wouldn't," not a can't), now a paladin and his sword? I understand wanting something to match thematically, but it's a player's choice not to, not a mandatory no. Besides, are you expecting paladins to run around with quarterstaves to fight hyena-fiends, balrogs, and zombie hordes? Nuh-uh.

I'll leave the actual content of the UA to others' judgement.

I tend to come down on the side of the player wants outweighs fluff, generally. I'm just saying that there is a reason for a Redemption Paladin to use the simple bludgeoning weapons, and that roleplaying is a valid reason to have a non-optomized character.

As for that last bit (using a quarter staff to fight demons and what not), I'd just say your Paladin has more than one weapon, as PC's tend to do.

[DanyBallon]

Then no Oath of Redemption Paladin can ever have a holy avenger, they are all swords.

And your point is?

Not all paladin are knight in shiny armor wielding a sword. This archetype definitely isn't one, but none the less he is a paladin with a vow of non-violence.

As far as I'm concerned I would suggest that Armor of Peace ties to Warrior of Reconciliation, and be limited to the use of no weapons or simple bludgeoning weapon in addition to no shield and armor. This way no more finesse shenanigans, and the class remain flavorful.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Man. I really, really want to play a Redemption Paladin! It's almost exactly a port of my favorite character from older editions ever, and I need this in my life. If ONLY it weren't quite so powerful...

I'd personally just never use their bludgeoning weapon thing and keep to a Dex/Cha build with rapiers.

[Puh Laden]

The knock them charmed ability can be useful if the creature is a spell caster with buff spells, sleep or any other non-attacking, non-saving throw spell or ability.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Anyone can be angry, battle rage is a completely different thing and the entire reason why E54 ends the way it does.

again youre conflating "Screaming at top of lungs" with the barbarian class feature. the only time he kills something out of frustration + reflex is in this season.

And again, i don't agree. Frustration +reflex /= rage. Rage is emotional, and hes had plenty of raging emotions during combat in the past. In fact in the first season the was an entire episode about jack's rage.

[ZiddyT]

Then don't play this subclass if you want a full assortment of weapons? It's different when it's an entire class category versus a single subclass. Secondly, there are more simple weapon options that fit the bludgeoning category than just quarterstaves, like Greatclubs and maces.

Also, why are people quoting Mariner Fighting style, its from a different UA. That's basically saying, "This is overpowered because we can combine it with other unofficial stuff to make it more powerful." And if you're talking level 20 DEX to add to the unarmored bonus, the soonest you can hit that with standard stat array is like level 8, which in comparison to other classes just makes it more defensive.

Again, this class is supposed to be more defensive; every time you boost it's defense whether it's with your ASI choices, or spell slot usage, you are directly impacting your offensive capabilities. Frankly, I think it's an appropriate trade-off.



They're referring to the interpretation that this class only allows simple weapons, which I agree is the appropriate interpretation.

1. Why would you not bring up mariner? If UA is on the table, UA is on the table. There's no point in debating on "well maybe some DMs will allow this UA but not this other one that is largely innocuous." We don't know your table rules, we just know there are two UA articles and the assumption can be made that generally they combine, especially since there is no multiclassing involved.

2. The issue is the amount they gain in defenses and flexibility is not an equal tradeoff to the offensive sacrifices. You basically lose 2.5 damage on a weapon swing and the ability to use GWM. In exchange you get some of the best utility and control spells, retain all smite features (which will contribute much more to your damage than what weapon delivers it), and can basically achieve the best AC in the game without much effort (you have Shield right there in the domain spells). For as much as this forum harps on UA stabbing at bounded accuracy (which I do generally think is overblown), it's amazing that this apparently slides so easily.

3. Fluff is not mechanics. Mechanics are clearly included in features and crunch. If WOTC wanted redemption Paladins to lose martial weapon proficiency, it would be written there plain as day "when you take this Oath, you lose proficiency with Martial weapons." Of course, feel free to houserule otherwise, but please don't pretend to have the moral high ground on RAI.

[Mortis_Elrod]

On another note. I really like Monster Slayer, and i think it'll be my go to for a Ranger character. Nothing else really fits for my idea than this guy. I mean with base ranger you get the general outdoorsman. But with Monster Slayer you get the guy that knows his prey like nobody else. With this you could make dragonslayers, vampire hunters, mageslayers, hellhunters, Faetrackers, ...The Exterminator. Hold on while i build Otto Orkin, otherwise known as Pest Control. Call him when you need to rid your swamps of hags, or if your local cave has a dragon infestation. Did your entire region become cursed by a vampire? Call Orkin.

[Misterwhisper]

And your point is?

Not all paladin are knight in shiny armor wielding a sword. This archetype definitely isn't one, but none the less he is a paladin with a vow of non-violence.

As far as I'm concerned I would suggest that Armor of Peace ties to Warrior of Reconciliation, and be limited to the use of no weapons or simple bludgeoning weapon in addition to no shield and armor. This way no more finesse shenanigans, and the class remain flavorful.

The have not taken a vow of non-violence.

They have a vow of peace.
It even says on irrideamable creatures they bring the full wrath of their weapons to bear.
It also says they will slay someone to save lives.

[Specter]

So, Redemption is now the best oath for Dex pallys, huh?

AC with:
20 DEX: 21
20 DEX + shield: 23
20 DEX + shield + Shield of Faith: 25
20 DEX + shield + Shield of Faith + Shield (from multiclass): 30
20 DEX + shield + Shield of Faith + Shield (from multiclass) + Defense FS: 31!

Sounds like too much to me.

[Temperjoke]

1. Why would you not bring up mariner? If UA is on the table, UA is on the table. There's no point in debating on "well maybe some DMs will allow this UA but not this other one that is largely innocuous." We don't know your table rules, we just know there are two UA articles and the assumption can be made that generally they combine, especially since there is no multiclassing involved.

2. The issue is the amount they gain in defenses and flexibility is not an equal tradeoff to the offensive sacrifices. You basically lose 2.5 damage on a weapon swing and the ability to use GWM. In exchange you get some of the best utility and control spells, retain all smite features (which will contribute much more to your damage than what weapon delivers it), and can basically achieve the best AC in the game without much effort (you have Shield right there in the domain spells). For as much as this forum harps on UA stabbing at bounded accuracy (which I do generally think is overblown), it's amazing that this apparently slides so easily.

3. Fluff is not mechanics. Mechanics are clearly included in features and crunch. If WOTC wanted redemption Paladins to lose martial weapon proficiency, it would be written there plain as day "when you take this Oath, you lose proficiency with Martial weapons." Of course, feel free to houserule otherwise, but please don't pretend to have the moral high ground on RAI.

I just find it amazing that Mariner hasn't been brought up for like the last half year at least when discussing UA classes, until this one. Sure, you get access to incredible control spells, but that doesn't mean you'll be able to use them. I mean, Paladins have a limited supply of spell slots that take a long rest to recover, so unless you are only hitting your players with one battle per day, it's easy to burn those resources up. If you want to strengthen your control spells, you have to put your points into charisma which takes away from your dexterity, which weakens your defense. If you want to increase your melee attack, you'll need to pump your strength score, which takes away from your dexterity, which weakens your defense.

Forswear: to reject or renounce under oath. Maybe they should have flat out said it, but even if they had people would argue that it's subject to interpretation. I firmly believe that it's intended that they lose access to martial weapons, which is part of what helps keep this class in check.


So, Redemption is now the best oath for Dex pallys, huh?

AC with:
20 DEX: 21
20 DEX + shield: 23
20 DEX + shield + Shield of Faith: 25
20 DEX + shield + Shield of Faith + Shield (from multiclass): 30
20 DEX + shield + Shield of Faith + Shield (from multiclass) + Defense FS: 31!

Sounds like too much to me.

They don't get to equip a shield to have their unarmored ability. Shield spell only lasts one turn. They don't get Defense FS without wearing armor. Unless you roll for stats, you won't have 20 DEX until level 8. Shield of Faith requires concentration.

[jaappleton]

So, Redemption is now the best oath for Dex pallys, huh?

AC with:
20 DEX: 21
20 DEX + shield: 23
20 DEX + shield + Shield of Faith: 25
20 DEX + shield + Shield of Faith + Shield (from multiclass): 30
20 DEX + shield + Shield of Faith + Shield (from multiclass) + Defense FS: 31!

Sounds like too much to me.

Armor of Faith states you can't use a shield. But it does stack with Bladesong and Bracers of Defense.

[ZiddyT]

I just find it amazing that Mariner hasn't been brought up for like the last half year at least when discussing UA classes, until this one. Sure, you get access to incredible control spells, but that doesn't mean you'll be able to use them. I mean, Paladins have a limited supply of spell slots that take a long rest to recover, so unless you are only hitting your players with one battle per day, it's easy to burn those resources up. If you want to strengthen your control spells, you have to put your points into charisma which takes away from your dexterity, which weakens your defense. If you want to increase your melee attack, you'll need to pump your strength score, which takes away from your dexterity, which weakens your defense.

Forswear: to reject or renounce under oath. Maybe they should have flat out said it, but even if they had people would argue that it's subject to interpretation. I firmly believe that it's intended that they lose access to martial weapons, which is part of what helps keep this class in check.



They don't get to equip a shield to have their unarmored ability. Shield spell only lasts one turn. They don't get Defense FS without wearing armor. Unless you roll for stats, you won't have 20 DEX until level 8. Shield of Faith requires concentration.

It hasn't been brought up because there hasn't been an unarmored class with default access to a fighting style. Now there is. Imagine that.

And no, you don't need to raise strength, unless you're a player specifically at your table with your houserule. But yeah, sure, I guess it would be more balanced at your table. That's not very relevant.

[Temperjoke]

It hasn't been brought up because there hasn't been an unarmored class with default access to a fighting style. Now there is. Imagine that.

And no, you don't need to raise strength, unless you're a player specifically at your table with your houserule. But yeah, sure, I guess it would be more balanced at your table. That's not very relevant.

And I guess it would be unbalanced at your table.

I'm tired of repeating the same arguments, and being presented with the same counterarguments. The discussion isn't going anywhere in regards to the paladin, so I'm done with it unless some new tweet or something changes interpretations.

[DanyBallon]

It hasn't been brought up because there hasn't been an unarmored class with default access to a fighting style. Now there is. Imagine that.

And no, you don't need to raise strength, unless you're a player specifically at your table with your houserule. But yeah, sure, I guess it would be more balanced at your table. That's not very relevant.

I guess you missed the disclaimer for UA (emphasis mine)


This Is Playtest Material
The material here is presented for playtesting and to spark your imagination. These game mechanics are in draft form, usable in your campaign but not refined by design iterations or full game development and editing. They aren’t officially part of the game and aren’t permitted in D&D Adventurers League events.
As is typical in Unearthed Arcana, the options here haven’t been tuned for multiclassing.
If we decide to make this material official, it will be refined based on your feedback, and then it will appear in a D&D book.

UAs don't go through the same proofreading and editing official rulebook goes through. So some intent may be vague, poorly formulate or suggested as fluff.

Also, as for the Mariner Fighting Style, when using playtest material, it's best to stick to core rules in order to have a common base for evaluation. Using Redemption Paladin with the Mariner Fighting Syle is perfectly fine in your home game, but is not useful for the matter of the playtest and to determine if the archetype is OP. Same goes with multiclassing.

And as I said it before, playtesting the archetype using finesse weapon and saying that it's OP is pointless as it deviates from the intent of the archetype. On the other hand, using the comment box in the survey to point out the lack of restriction on weapons other than simple bludgeoning weapon will provide much more useful input.

[ZiddyT]

I guess you missed the disclaimer for UA (emphasis mine)



UAs don't go through the same proofreading and editing official rulebook goes through. So some intent may be vague, poorly formulate or suggested as fluff.

Also, as for the Mariner Fighting Style, when using playtest material, it's best to stick to core rules in order to have a common base for evaluation. Using Redemption Paladin with the Mariner Fighting Syle is perfectly fine in your home game, but is not useful for the matter of the playtest and to determine if the archetype is OP. Same goes with multiclassing.

And as I said it before, playtesting the archetype using finesse weapon and saying that it's OP is pointless as it deviates from the intent of the archetype. On the other hand, using the comment box in the survey to point out the lack of restriction on weapons other than simple bludgeoning weapon will provide much more useful input.

Yeah, but no. The only thing WOTC has maintained is that UA is not tuned for multiclassing, not for features from other UA. Hell, there's been serveral cross-UA mentions so far (Seeker invocations in the second Warlock UA, this *Very* UA tells you how to use the ranger subclass with the revised ranger UA).

And no, it's not pointless, because you literally just drove the point home. There is no actual written restriction on weapon use, so as it stands it is poorly balanced, as written. What's pointless is talking about how you *should* interpret fluff for a playtest instead of judging how it functions as written and providing feedback on that. When you fill out the survey and say "Yep this was completely fine" because you didn't run the class as written, that's not providing valuable feedback.

[Vogonjeltz]

They all look pretty good, though drunken master might be a tad underpowered.

Also, defense fighting style doesn't work with Armor of Peace because of the mutually exclusive requirements for armor.


and the paladins slay them only when such a deed will clearly save other lives."

Looks pretty clear-cut that use of deadly force is reserved only to save the life of another. So, yeah.

[jaappleton]

Let's move on from the Paladin for a moment.

Ranger.

LOVE IT. Possibly my favorite Ranger archetype. Seems quite strong. Coupled with the Revised Ranged, with Favored Enemy and Hunter's Mark? Oh, things are going down very quickly indeed.

[Jerrykhor]

Drunken Master is lame, no new mechanics, doesnt feel like a fighting drunk at all. Did they even watch any of the old Jackie Chan kung fu movies? They should be able to do unarmed attacks without disadvantage while prone, and doing so cause them to get up without using movement. They should be able to spit alcohol mists at enemies, temporary blinding them. Drunken Technique should be reducing their movement due to their drunken stupor, but all melee attacks have disadvantage against them due to their uncanny 'drunken dodge'.

[Strill]

I stopped reading at Armor of Peace.

That is complete and total BS that should never exist.

So a level 3 Paladin with no gear can have an ac of 19?

Yet, the monk class, the specific class built from the ground up to fight with no armor can have MAYBE a 16 if they pick certain races.

For a monk to ever have the ac of a gear less paladin at level 3 the monk would have to have a wisdom of 22.

It's not overpowered at all. You're only looking at what they gain, not at what they lose. You're sacrificing armor, shields, and martial weapons, forcing you to go for a Dex build, which means less damage than a Strength build. If you max out Dex, your AC ends up at 21, meaning that mechanically, the ability amounts to a +1 AC over the standard Full Plate + Shield. Also since you're not wearing armor, you can't stack it with Defense style, or benefit from Magic shields or armor.


Armor of Peace really shouldn't be giving that much. It should be closer to AC = 14 + Dex or AC = Dex + Cha.

16 + Dex with NO Charisma? That's 21 AC with no shield, with 20 Dex. And while you can't use a shield, it does stack with things like Bladesong, or Bracers of Defense.

And you know what armor stacks with? +3 Shields and +3 armor. Who cares about Bracers of Defense?

[LudicSavant]

Drunken Master is lame, no new mechanics, doesnt feel like a fighting drunk at all. Did they even watch any of the old Jackie Chan kung fu movies? They should be able to do unarmed attacks without disadvantage while prone, and doing so cause them to get up without using movement. They should be able to spit alcohol mists at enemies, temporary blinding them. Drunken Technique should be reducing their movement due to their drunken stupor, but all melee attacks have disadvantage against them due to their uncanny 'drunken dodge'.

It's always disappointing to see material that can't deliver on the core fantasy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKEzMz6FcXs) it's inspired by.

[RickAllison]

Drunken Master is lame, no new mechanics, doesnt feel like a fighting drunk at all. Did they even watch any of the old Jackie Chan kung fu movies? They should be able to do unarmed attacks without disadvantage while prone, and doing so cause them to get up without using movement. They should be able to spit alcohol mists at enemies, temporary blinding them. Drunken Technique should be reducing their movement due to their drunken stupor, but all melee attacks have disadvantage against them due to their uncanny 'drunken dodge'.

I don't think you understand the Drunken Fist style. It is explicitly NOT fighting as a drunkard, but using a style that is based off the chaotic swaying of a drunkard. It is an actual martial art that is nearly impossible to perform while drunk because it requires perfect balance to pretend imbalance. It is a refreshing bit of realism in a fantastic class. It is distinguished by being very difficult to predict and hit.

You are thinking of the Brewmaster archetype, which is a (very much fictional) style of actually combining alcohol with martial arts. These tend to go in the opposite direction from the Drunken Fist, by using alcohol to become more resistant to damage and to access special powers rather than becoming an incredibly skilled and agile fighter. This is an archetype with roots in the DF style, but where the person actually becomes drunk because they were in fictional media that didn't need to obey reality.

So the Drunken Master wasn't supposed to be fighting drunk, but fighting while imitating a drunk. Look elsewhere for the Brewmaster, because that simply isn't the design goal for the archetype.

[Strill]

So what weapons is this Paladin supposed to use? If you wanna benefit from your unarmored defense, you need to go full DEX build, but if you wanna benefit from your level 3 ability, you need a bludgeoning weapon...and there aren't any bludgeoning finesse weapons. So what DO you use? Just say "screw it" to the level 3 ability and dual wield shortswords? Go Ranged with a Longbow?

I'm having a hard time imagining what equipment they imagined this class using.

[Misterwhisper]

It's not overpowered at all. You're only looking at what they gain, not at what they lose. You're sacrificing armor, shields, and martial weapons, forcing you to go for a Dex build, which means less damage than a Strength build. If you max out Dex, your AC ends up at 21, meaning that mechanically, the ability amounts to a +1 AC over the standard Full Plate + Shield. Also since you're not wearing armor, you can't stack it with Defense style, or benefit from Magic shields or armor.



And you know what armor stacks with? +3 Shields and +3 armor. Who cares about Bracers of Defense?

1. They are not sacrificing armor and shields, they get all the benefits of wearing heavy armor and using a shield but, none of the weight, no strength requirememt, no stealth penalty, no spending gold or hoping for loot drops, and not even occupying 2 hands. They can still use 2 hands for things like casting spells holding a weapon, 2 handing a weapon or whatever else they want.

2. They do not lose the use of martial weapons. Nowhere does it say they lose proficiency with them, there is 1 line of fluff one one optional use ability. You could easily just carry a martial weapon and not gain the benefit of that ability.

3. You can not stack it with defensive style but you can with mariner which is every bit as legal as this subclass is.

4. Who cared about bracers of defense? Everyone who does not wear armor, like monks, wizards, sorcerers and now this subtype of paladin.


You a t like they are banned from using armor and shields, if you want to play a redeemer with plate and a shield, go ahead, you still can, not a single thing about the subclass takes away proficiency or your abilities from wearing armor.

People are treating this like it is the vow of poverty and vow of non-violence feats from 3.5, it is not.

You can play a completely normal paladin with some great self heals, great bonus spells and good defense abilities with your plate and shield.

The paladin lost absolutely nothing but gained the ability to gain the benefits of plate with a shield without strength, Stealth penalty, gild, or an occupied hand.

[tkuremento]

So what weapons is this Paladin supposed to use? If you wanna benefit from your unarmored defense, you need to go full DEX build, but if you wanna benefit from your level 3 ability, you need a bludgeoning weapon...and there aren't any bludgeoning finesse weapons. So what DO you use? Just say "screw it" to the level 3 ability and dual wield shortswords? Go Ranged with a Longbow?

I'm having a hard time imagining what equipment they imagined this class using.

Level 3 doesn't specify melee weapon so... sling?

[Marcloure]

About the Monster Slayer, I like the vibe of being like a Witcher and such. But I don't think that the class inspire too much this kind of play, once their abilities works as good in humans as it does against demons or fey. On the other hand, restricting it too much may cause it to overshadow other classes in specifics cases, and be overshadowed in general scenarios. It's a hard thing to balance, but I thing if someone wants to play The Witcher, they want to be that good in killing monsters, not everything.

Drunken Master... nothing great here. I was expecting some alcohol-fire breath and something more thematic. You could just say that the archetype has other theme, and no one would say you're wrong.

Now the paladin. I truly like the ideia of a tunic and staff fighter, and the archetype seems ok in balacing. It is dex based, so nothing of GWM, but has a good starting AC that basically stops increasing at DEX +5. I don't see exactly where people found it to be overpowered.

[Misterwhisper]

Level 3 doesn't specify melee weapon so... sling?

Carry a rapier or whatever and when they are almost dead punch them

[Marcloure]

So what weapons is this Paladin supposed to use? If you wanna benefit from your unarmored defense, you need to go full DEX build, but if you wanna benefit from your level 3 ability, you need a bludgeoning weapon...and there aren't any bludgeoning finesse weapons. So what DO you use? Just say "screw it" to the level 3 ability and dual wield shortswords? Go Ranged with a Longbow?

I'm having a hard time imagining what equipment they imagined this class using.


I haven't noticed this, and I suppose WotC also did not. Ranged paladins means no Divine Smite, so it truly needs some change. Maybe make him add Dex to damage with bludgeoning simple weapons? That would solve it, and assure that the class wields this kind of weapon.

[McNinja]

Drunken Master seems a little weak and really atypical of the "drunken" style of fighting.

Paladin:
Armor of Peace
Makes sense for a defense-based, combat-avoidance subclass. The problem is that it's incredibly good for a 3rd level feature, and even better for multiclassing (I know, not balanced for MC).

Warrior of Reconciliation
Give you the option to use a staff or club to beat the stockholm syndrome into an enemy. I'm sure the more creative people can find a use for this, but why not just stab them and end the encounter? You can't make the creature attack, so what's the point?

Channel Divinity
+5 to CHA checks or return damage to an enemy as radiant damage. I like these, but the second option heavily leans to a frontline fighter, not someone hanging back and being peaceful. The first option would really help the paladin be the party face.

Aura of the Guardian
Take damage for your teammates. Nifty ability, would be improved if your Armor of Peace was THP or just additional HP instead of AC. Limited to 10 feet, so not always helpful, especially later if the balor teleports to your ranger 60 feet away.

Protective Spirit
Finally an ability that allows you to live longer and put your Aura of the Guardian to better use. An infinite use version of the Fighter's Second Wind feature.

Emissary of Redemption
You're now the party tank. These benefits are always active. You can't attack anything, but you return the damage enemies deal. Goes very well with the second channel divinity option. The only issue is that any reasonable intelligent creature (as most creatures you'll be fighting at 20th level are) would recognize REAL quick that when they hit you, they get hit back. So, you have two options - either not care about this, wield a greatsword, and use it as a sort of surprise round insurance, or move through the battlefield hoping things attack you or wasting spell slots on compelled duel.

Thematically very interesting, however you really would need to talk to your group before playing with this subclass because it could be very infuriating for other players to have to deal with it.

The Ranger subclass is nice. Slayer's Eye doesn't seem incredibly OP, although the wording on the last sentence confused be for a second - it's an infinite use ability, you just have to reapply it after you take a rest.

[tkuremento]

Carry a rapier or whatever and when they are almost dead punch them

I much prefer the concept of "I hit you with some rocks, you want to be my friend mate?"

[McNinja]

I don't see exactly where people found it to be overpowered. Because at 3rd level you could have 20 AC whereas any other class needs to bump up two stats to get there and would be lucky to have such a high AC by 15th level, let alone 3rd.

[Marcloure]

Because at 3rd level you could have 20 AC whereas any other class needs to bump up two stats to get there and would be lucky to have such a high AC by 15th level, let alone 3rd.

Any fullplate + shield paladin reaches that AC. Also, fullplate with GWM deals way more damage and has a very close AC. Ok, full plate costs 1500 GP, but half-plate + defense + shield also has 20 AC, and both itens can gain magical bonuses and get features with feats.
20 AC is indeed high for lvl 3, and is conserning when people can multiclass, but it doesn't grow too much after that. It's strong in low levels, when other AC-built paladins would have 18-19 AC, but not OP.

EDIT: 20 AC is only archived rolling ability scores, don't? Point-buying you can get up to 17 Dex, so 19 AC. It's as high as a lvl 1 armor+shield+defense fighter or lvl 2 paladin.

[Pex]

But they're achieving that AC without a shield... So they can use a 2h weapon. That is a HUGE difference.

EDIT: Oh, and they get a Fighting style. So their Defense fighting style gets added on top. Hell, go with a Warforged for race and tack on another +1 AC.

You have to be wearing armor to get the +1 AC. Since you're not wearing armor, Defense Fighting Style does nothing.

[Strill]

1. They are not sacrificing armor and shields, they get all the benefits of wearing heavy armor and using a shield but, none of the weight, no strength requirememt, no stealth penalty, no spending gold or hoping for loot drops, and not even occupying 2 hands. They can still use 2 hands for things like casting spells holding a weapon, 2 handing a weapon or whatever else they want.

Yeah, and where are they gonna get the Strength to use that 2-handed weapon, when they're maxing DEX to benefit from Armor of Peace? What benefit are they gonna get out of that second hand with no access to two-weapon fighting style? Big deal they can make opportunity attacks after casting a spell because they have a free hand.

Armor of Peace doesn't have a strength requirement because you already have to max out DEX to get any benefit from it. Adding a Strength requirement would make it worthless since you'd have to invest a bunch of ASIs for some trivial minor benefit.

I don't care about weight and gold costs. Those are ribbons, and aren't relevant to mechanical balance.

Yes they are sacrificing armor and shields. They have to build specifically for high DEX in order to benefit from this build. They also get very little from Strength, so if they care about optimization, they will dump Strength in favor of CON or CHA. Therefore, if they gain access to magic armor or to a magic shield which has some special benefit, they'll have to suffer the penalty for insufficient strength in order to use that armor. That is what I mean by "sacrificing armor and shields". The fact that they can hypothetically use normal armor and shields is completely irrelevant, since those things are weaker than Armor of Peace and therefore not worth considering.

And since I know you'll bring it up: If they invest in both Strength and Dexterity in order to gain benefits from both Armor of Peace, and any hypothetical magic armor they might find, then they're underpowered. They've handicapped themselves with less HP or less CHA or fewer feats, which would've been worth far more than the niche chance of getting a niche benefit from hypothetical magic armor.


2. They do not lose the use of martial weapons. Nowhere does it say they lose proficiency with them, there is 1 line of fluff one one optional use ability. You could easily just carry a martial weapon and not gain the benefit of that ability.Then the class is fine, because by not using simple weapons, you're down a class feature compared to other Paladins.


3. You can not stack it with defensive style but you can with mariner which is every bit as legal as this subclass is.Sounds par for the course that the devs wouldn't balance UA material with each other.


4. Who cared about bracers of defense? Everyone who does not wear armor, like monks, wizards, sorcerers and now this subtype of paladin.I'll be more didactic then. The point is that you can get way more AC from wearing armor, than not.


You a t like they are banned from using armor and shields, if you want to play a redeemer with plate and a shield, go ahead, you still can, not a single thing about the subclass takes away proficiency or your abilities from wearing armor.Yes, because this discussion is about a character who is using their class features. Not about a character who has a bunch of class features that they never use, and they only chose the archetype because they liked the name. Non-optimized character builds are irrelevant when studying class balance.

In other words, if you're better off not using your archetype's class features, then the archetype is underpowered and needs a buff.

-----------------------------------------

You can't just look at individual aspects of individual features and say they're overpowered in a vacuum compared to some other completely different character. You have to consider the whole thing holistically, and compare it to other characters in their entirety.

[Malifice]

Some of the balance in power comes from the restrictive oath.

Not only do you have to dip 3 levels to get that AC, you also have to renounce murder hobism and become a total peacenik.

It's not a trade off many would consider barring those that want to play a pretty unique 'vow of non violence' type guy.

[Malifice]

Loving the ranger archetype.

It's the Witch hunter/ vampire hunter I've always wanted.

[Once a Fool]

I'm a bit worried about people seeing Redemption Paladins' description and playing them as Lawful Stupid, though. "We must reason with the Tarrasque and help it realize the error of its ways!"

I find the irony in this example (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque) exceptionally delightful!

[Mortis_Elrod]

Loving the ranger archetype.

It's the Witch hunter/ vampire hunter I've always wanted.

Yeah its great. Its the guy who knows about monsters cus he goes around and hunts them. Way better than the guy who studies from books, or chance encountered them that one time in the wild.

Actually that sounds like some fun rp. Every new monster you find and use Slayer eye on, you record the info in your journal. Next campaign that journal can be a cool book the group finds, detailing the ranger killing off insane monsters and how he did it.

[Mbarbs]

is there some convoluted rules chain like in MTG where in the literal MTGCR if you follow every rules interaction between Shroud, Equip, and attach, that causes lightning greaves to drop off anything it equips, or just some Sage Advice?
I realize that this is super off the point of this thread, but that's not how the rules work in MTG. I think you're mixing up protection (which does make attached things fall off) and Shroud (which does not.) The literal MTG comprehensive rules have never worked the way you describe. Protection does cause auras and equipment to fall off, which is why cards like Pentarch Ward have to have a line of text that specifically prevents that.

--------------

I really like that the Drunken Master subclass supports both a fantasy alcohol-fueled combatant and somebody using the based-on-reality drunken master style. I have a very high tolerance for cutesy things, and I even I find the "haha, I fight drunk" character concept very tiresome. It also gets a LOT of advantage on Saving Throws, which is neat, but the level 10 feature feels redundant with the level 14 feature all monks get. I get that you can use them together to make it almost impossible to fail a save, ever, and getting a similar (if slightly worse) benefit four levels early is no joke, but I wish it had another offensive or control feature instead.

[RickAllison]

I realize that this is super off the point of this thread, but that's not how the rules work in MTG. I think you're mixing up protection (which does make attached things fall off) and Shroud (which does not.) The literal MTG comprehensive rules have never worked the way you describe. Protection does cause auras and equipment to fall off, which is why cards like Pentarch Ward have to have a line of text that specifically prevents that.

--------------

I really like that the Drunken Master subclass supports both a fantasy alcohol-fueled combatant and somebody using the based-on-reality drunken master style. I have a very high tolerance for cutesy things, and I even I find the "haha, I fight drunk" character concept very tiresome. It also gets a LOT of advantage on Saving Throws, which is neat, but the level 10 feature feels redundant with the level 14 feature all monks get. I get that you can use them together to make it almost impossible to fail a save, ever, and getting a similar (if slightly worse) benefit four levels early is no joke, but I wish it had another offensive or control feature instead.

I think a "Dragonborn" race would couple perfectly with someone who wanted to play the ever-drunk character. Choose a poison breath weapon (or fire, if you light it) and get poison resistance because your body is used to imbibing grotesque amounts of alcohol. And the Strength/Charisma does fit in really well with someone who is perpetually under the influence.

[Specter]

I find the irony in this example (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque) exceptionally delightful!

Hah! Amazing.

[toapat]

And again, i don't agree. Frustration +reflex /= rage. Rage is emotional, and hes had plenty of raging emotions during combat in the past. In fact in the first season the was an entire episode about jack's rage.

Simulacrum doesnt count.


I realize that this is super off the point of this thread, but that's not how the rules work in MTG. I think you're mixing up protection (which does make attached things fall off) and Shroud (which does not.) The literal MTG comprehensive rules have never worked the way you describe. Protection does cause auras and equipment to fall off, which is why cards like Pentarch Ward have to have a line of text that specifically prevents that.

actually, they work exactly the way i described. As of SoI they actually edited auras so they also are invalidated by shroud as well.

Shroud (blocks all targeting), Attach: Conditions for validity determined by Enchant/Equip/Fortify.

since the Attachment validity is always taking into consideration the validity of the keyword creating the attached state, because of a minor revision in the rules, no Aura/Equipment/Fortification can grant shroud as of the current CR

The only thing is, similar to how Haunt doesnt work at all but is allowed to because the reasons it doesnt work at all are not Codified in the CR directly

[Arkhios]

Nowhere does the Oath *Force* you to go Dex build; that's just you silly min/max powergamers assuming something from an unarmored defense (as ridiculously strong as it is). A redeemer could easily have, let's say, just Dex 12, an AC 17, and survive really well without a need to overclock their defense any further. Since your philosophy is to use violence only as a last resort, you are hardly a threat #1. I think it's far more likely for intelligent enemies ignore you over the much more dangerous and furiously salivating Barbarian cutting people half with each swing of an axe, who is pretty much the opposite of you.

A redeemer could still have a decent strength though and might even have been using heavy armor and heavier than finesse weapons for the first two levels. When swearing the oath, the paladin simply makes a choice not to. Nothing more, but a simple choice.

[toapat]

Nowhere does the Oath *Force* you to go Dex build; that's just you silly min/max powergamers assuming something from an unarmored defense (as ridiculously strong as it is). A redeemer could easily have, let's say, just Dex 12, an AC 17, and survive really well without a need to overclock their defense any further. Since your philosophy is to use violence only as a last resort, you are hardly a threat #1. I think it's far more likely for intelligent enemies ignore you over the much more dangerous and furiously salivating Barbarian cutting people half with each swing of an axe, who is pretty much the opposite of you.

A redeemer could still have a decent strength though and might even have been using heavy armor and heavier than finesse weapons for the first two levels. When swearing the oath, the paladin simply makes a choice not to. Nothing more, but a simple choice.

honestly i think Redeemer paladin is more thematically appropriate as a Str build, and armor of Peace, while thematic, mechanically pushes the class into a direction the class doesnt feel like it wants you to be playing.

i imagine Hodor being an appropriate such paladin. Were he not completely broken from seizures.

[tkuremento]

Simulacrum doesnt count.

I've actually used this time as an excuse to watch a lot of previous Samurai Jack. I'm not watching in any order and is mostly clips but at the end of the Chicken Jack episode he does rage a little bit but not a battle rage. Also he apologizes. I seriously swear I remember him going full rage for a minute or so in one episode so I am still looking.

[Strill]

Nowhere does the Oath *Force* you to go Dex build; that's just you silly min/max powergamers assuming something from an unarmored defense (as ridiculously strong as it is).If you don't care about the class features, then why did you pick the archetype to begin with? If you only picked it for the flavor and nothing else, then it's underpowered and needs class features that are actually relevant.


A redeemer could easily have, let's say, just Dex 12, an AC 17, and survive really well without a need to overclock their defense any further.And why would you do that instead of using Full Plate? You're just proposing decisions based entirely on flavor that have no rational thought behind them. That attitude is irrelevant in determining whether a class is overpowered or not.

[Mbarbs]

actually, they work exactly the way i described. As of SoI they actually edited auras so they also are invalidated by shroud as well.

Shroud (blocks all targeting), Attach: Conditions for validity determined by Enchant/Equip/Fortify.

since the Attachment validity is always taking into consideration the validity of the keyword creating the attached state, because of a minor revision in the rules, no Aura/Equipment/Fortification can grant shroud as of the current CR

The only thing is, similar to how Haunt doesnt work at all but is allowed to because the reasons it doesnt work at all are not Codified in the CR directlyYou're definitely 100% wrong on this. It has never worked that way, and nothing changed with SoI that's remotely relevant. (There's not a single word in the SoI rules update that interacts with any of this stuff, so I'm not sure where you got that misconception; no updates of any kind were made to how auras work or to individual auras.) You can't attach additional equipment to a creature that's wearing Lightning Greaves, but once the attach ability resolves, it's fine. Attachment validity is always taken into account - for example, if a creature with equipment on it somehow gains protection from artifacts, the equipment will fall off. If it stops being a creature, the equipment will fall off. However, gaining shroud does not cause equipment to fall off. You're confusing "can be targeted with the attach ability" with "can legally have the equipment attached to it." The second is a requirement for the first, but the first is not a requirement for the second.

[Finback]

Also since it specifics a target within 5 feet of you, does that mean you could give the unit pseudo-reach for one attack? I assume that isn't the case and that the target also needs to be within 5 ft of the attacker unless the attack already has reach.

As written, it basically says yes, pseudo reach. Personally, I'd allow it - it's the equivalent of bending Neo style.

[toapat]

You're definitely 100% wrong on this.


To attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object means to take it from where it currently is and put it onto that object. If something is attached to a permanent on the battlefield,
it’s customary to place it so that it’s physically touching the permanent. An Aura, Equipment, or
Fortification can’t be attached to an object it couldn’t enchant, equip, or fortify, respectively.
There are ways to write rules to exclude situations where creating an invalid state does not exclude previously existing states.
Defining the legal status of an existing attach off of targeted keywords does not.

[skaddix]

I think its pretty broken. But my issue is more its not just broken for those who want to tank.

Its pretty easily broken by people making a Gish be it Sorcadin or Blade Singer. For Blade Singer 3 Dip is all you need. Sorcadin 3-6.

I don't think its quite as broken on Hexblade necessarily.

But I consider anything that only requires 3 Stats of Note to not be especially MAD.
In this case DEX, CHA, and CON or DEX, INT and CON.

And yeah you need 13 STR to multiclass but that is not an insurmountable barrier even with point buy.

Monk is weak but that is like the class feature at this point.

Ranger seems great and hellbent on ruining the day for casters.
Granted can I say how salty I am that the Ranger. The Ranger People gets bonus spells for free but WOTC still refuses to give the Sorcerer's any free bonus spells. The half caster can get bonus spells. But the Full Caster Sorcerer cant get any so unfair. Heck these bonus spells means the Ranger finishes with 16 Spells Known. The Sorcerer can only get 15 and they are the full caster.

I have half a mind to respond to survey purely to vent about this.

[toapat]

Monk is weak but that is like the class feature at this point.

its really just drunken master is weak. most of the monk Subclasses are decent, with the exceptions being 4 Elements SPECIFICALLY because 4 Elements monk is build at its very core wrongly because it replaces your normal classfeatures where other subclasses build upon classfeatures, while Sun Soul is just weak because it doesnt get "Extra" classfeatures.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Simulacrum doesnt count.



The whole point of the episode was that jacks rage was getting out of hand. Also Akku wouldn't have made the simulacrum without actually seeing jacks rage. he didn't have anything to go off of before he saw Jack's state.

[Anderlith]

As written, it basically says yes, pseudo reach. Personally, I'd allow it - it's the equivalent of bending Neo style.

You could explain it by the monk shoving/tossing/leading the triggering enemy into the new target. Very Jackie Chan

[toapat]

Also Akku wouldn't have made the simulacrum without actually seeing jacks rage.

Jack vs Mad Jack happens because Aku complains to himself that "Jack's Fighting Style is unbeatable" after Jack destroys a fresh army of bountyhunters.

Is jack an angry bastard? yes. but hes never in berserk fury until season 5. His Dad does go full Berserker Barbarain in Birth of Evil Part 2, but The Emperor is not Jack.

to compare, in Season 5, Jack is going crazy because only 1 time portal remains (Jack and the Traveling Creature's), and he is "barred" from it because Samurai Jack/Powerpuffgirls universe will not just "stop existing" when Jack finally gets back to -25 BA, and he just lost a 20000Aku bike that he probably spent 5 years earning enough scrap change to buy, along with an equally pricey suit of Lamelar.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Jack vs Mad Jack happens because Aku complains to himself that "Jack's Fighting Style is unbeatable" after Jack destroys a fresh army of bountyhunters.

Is jack an angry bastard? yes. but hes never in berserk fury until season 5. His Dad does go full Berserker Barbarain in Birth of Evil Part 2, but The Emperor is not Jack.

In season 5 he isn't berserk fury at all he's desperate to survive, in Jack vs Mad Jack he clearly flies into a rage after being constantly attacked by bounty hunter after bounty hunter when a man just wanted some tea.

This man did not go 5 seasons without raging once, he went 8 episodes before he lost his cool and needed to find some peace after facing a reflection of himself of which was crazy mad.

[toapat]

*snip*

in JvsMJ, he only gets pissed when his Shoe breaks, which is after Aku talks himself into the Simulacrum plan. the Bounty Hunters in his opinion are just a thing that happens to him in AY5000.

in E54, he absolutely has #7 in hand for long enough he would have, in any previous season, had time to feel a heartbeat before semi-decapitating her. The dude has many, many episodes of being shown reacting to actions and threats at Prodigal levels of combat expertise.

Being angry is not unusal for jack, its losing control that is, and thats one of the only times he has lost control and the only time he has used his hatred of Aku while doing so

[Anderlith]

Can we please put Samurai Jack discussions in Spoilers?

[toapat]

Can we please put Samurai Jack discussions in Spoilers?

i wouldnt be continuing it if Mortis would accept that he didnt spend the last week watching seasons 1-4 and thus remembering facts that never happend. i reviewed all 52 S1-4 episodes during this thread as well to remember if jack ever went barb

the only tangentially related thing to DnD is figuring out which Oath jack himself has considering none of the oaths really fit him, but he is observed using Divine Smite in Jack and the Ultra Robots.

[Mortis_Elrod]

He may have lost control but it was not due to 'rage'. But anyway besides one of the best cartoons ever, i think monster slayer is the best thing to come out of this trio of subclasses.

[toapat]

He may have lost control but it was not due to 'rage'. But anyway besides one of the best cartoons ever, i think monster slayer is the best thing to come out of this trio of subclasses.

you should watch E54 again, and listen to the conversation Jack has when hes hiding under the Beetle Drone carapace

isnt monster slayer just better Revised ranger Hunter Conclave?

[Strill]

{{scrubbed}} Full plate costs 1500 gp. That's a lot of money, and assuming you could have a plate at 3rd level is really amusing. Even if you managed to find one, the plate must be re-fitted and it costs money and takes time you might not have to spare. Roleplaying aspect is relevant for consideration in a roleplaying game.If your DM is not following the treasure tables in the DMG, that's your problem. If they were, you'd have no problem affording Full Plate. Regardless, it's a one-time obstacle that you'll complete and be done with.

As far as balance for levels 1-4 is concerned, it doesn't exist. Dual Wielding is king, Feats are king, and balance is all over the place. Things settle down at level 5. Getting an extra point or two of AC 2 levels sooner than you otherwise would won't break anything.


{{scrubbed}}
The Oath doesn't force you to do anything. It's you people who assume that if something can be done, it absolutely must be done.Because the main point of your post is irrelevant from a developer feedback perspective, and also counter-productive to the well-being of the game.

In order to determine whether the class is imbalanced, you must push it to its limits. Saying that the class is ok because you can handicap yourself is not useful in the slightest. By that standard, doubling a Wizard's spell slots is perfectly ok and balanced because they could just choose not to use them.

When you say the Oath does not "Force" you to do anything, you're ignoring the whole concept of incentives, which are fundamental to game design. This is a toxic attitude which leads to terribly balanced game systems. Take 3.5 for example. There were hundreds of feats, but a small handful were orders of magnitude more powerful than the others. That's ok because no one's "forcing" you to take the good ones, right? Wrong. That defeats the whole point of having them as a choice in the first place, and punishes players who choose feats according to thematic concerns. It means that the gap between mechanically competent players and the rest of the group grows until the DM cannot adequately challenge the mechanically competent player without rendering the other players obsolete. That leads to the Stormwind fallacy, and "powergaming" used as a dirty word. It's a fundamentally dishonest situation that's obfuscated by the system. Everyone agreed to abide by the rules going in, and everyone did abide by the rules, yet the "powergamer" is vilified for not adhering to some nebulous standard of game balance that the rules should've enforced in the first place.

Fifth edition is designed to fix this problem. It's approachable for new players specifically because it limits player choices, ensures that the strongest mechanical incentives are also the most thematically appropriate, and gives players a clear and explicit guide to how to build their character optimally through starting equipment, proficiencies, and the Quick Build paragraph.

Armor of Peace violates these principles, because while it is mechanically potent, the mechanically optimal choice does not align with the thematically appropriate choice. Nor is it clear what the mechanically optimal choice necessarily is, even after quite a bit of analysis. This leads to more divergence between "roleplayers" and "rollplayers", for no real benefit to anyone.


I never said that Armor of Peace wasn't overpowered. I'm critizing the approach I find irritating: powergamist attempt to break everything and then complain how broken it is.That "powergamist" attitude is called analysis. It's how you derive truth from complex questions and reach accurate conclusions through which you can provide accurate feedback to the developers.

[Mortis_Elrod]

you should watch E54 again, and listen to the conversation Jack has when hes hiding under the Beetle Drone carapace

isnt monster slayer just better Revised ranger Hunter Conclave?

I think hunter should have been named 'generic warrior ranger', and I agree I think monster slayer is a more 'hunter ' feel. It's the ranger that knows prey, can spot weak points and is good at using that knowledge to react fast enough to 'nope' monster abilities. (Not restricted to monsters but that's the theme, perfectly good mageslayer too). Though hunter conclave has some nice things too, and they focus on different aspects so I think it's fine.

[GM_3826]

OK, back to Mariner+Oath of Redemption. Sure, Unearthed Arcana are generally assumed to be combinable with one another... but I'd veto that combination in particular since the rules from that Unearthed Arcana have been made official as part of Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, and the Mariner was not part of them. The Minotaur's absence could be explained by them saving it for a potential Dragonlance book, but there's no excuse for the Mariner fighting style. It's silly to suggest that the Mariner fighting Style combining too well with the Oath of Redemption is a bad thing when the point is to test whether or not X would be broken. Under official rules in the future that combination would not be a problem.

[Hrugner]

Ranger once again has a potentially plot breaking ability at third level. I like the idea of being able to spend some bonus actions wandering through town and uncovering vampire clans, werewolf packs, dopplegangers and who ever else is trying to hide in plain site, but I also think it would **** over half the stories I've ran in my time as a DM. Getting half proficiency on that wisdom check to stop escapes may be too enticing to ever finish the class rather than grabbing a few levels of bard. It's a potent class, and it could really suck the fun out of some games.

Drunken master doesn't seem all that interesting. The monk's tipsy sway could get a few more uses per rest and I'd like it a bit more. Drunken technique needs to be much more potent as well; adding dash to the disengage flurry or a chance of negating the ki cost somehow would be nice. Right now that ki expenditure needs to compete with stunning fist and this isn't doing it. Intoxicated frenzy seems fun for those times when hitting a bunch of things once is cool, and it makes the ki point awesome, but you wait too long for it.

The paladin has awesome defenses, and you get a cool unarmored dude which is always fun, but your fluff strongly discourages being the first to strike so they'll probably need the defenses if they're being played to their theme. Warrior's reconciliation is interesting, it could be too potent being able to order an enemy to cast wall spells, healing, buffs, or spells that don't require saving throws. It would be nice if the command was spelled out as to what, if any, type of action it takes to command them. They also have a bitchin spell list, so they have some strong cases not to spend all of their spells on smiting. I think in play they'd be pretty well balanced and well rounded finally giving an option for a paladin who doesn't go the "kill em all and let god sort them out." direction toward goodness. You'd need a party and a DM who was on board with the character, and that may be a tall order.

[DanyBallon]

If you don't care about the class features, then why did you pick the archetype to begin with? If you only picked it for the flavor and nothing else, then it's underpowered and needs class features that are actually relevant.

And why would you do that instead of using Full Plate? You're just proposing decisions based entirely on flavor that have no rational thought behind them. That attitude is irrelevant in determining whether a class is overpowered or not.

You realize that all "unarmored" class feature are a mean to have decent AC without having to invest too much in DEX?
Some people see only the maximum AC that they can pull out of these feature, but they are not the main reason they exist. The bladesigner being the best example as its fluff describe mostly a STR user (longsword user being the first style developped).

So a redemption paladin having high STR and medium DEX still benefits from Armor of Peace while still by folowing the intent of the class description (fluff).

Also, a reminder about the playtest, they are not meant just to see if the options are OP or not, but also if they are thematic enough to be interesting to play and roleplay.

[GraakosGraakos]

A lot of people seem to have an issue with the paladin in such a combat centric game. But D&D's default is an absolute morality. So demons, devils, undead, abominations, monstrosities, beasts, dragons, and some fey would be considered un-redeemable. Humans and some humanoids would be Redemption material, and that could be a fun arc if that's what you're playing beforehand. Maybe you preach the thieves guild into submission after knocking the snot out of them instead of murdering two dozen people.

[joaber]

I don't see much problem in this giant AC calculation. To really get advantage from that you need to build a dex base paladin. Just forget great weapons, polearm master and anything that hit with more than 1d8. There isn't any finesse bludgeonning simple weapon, this exclude one of your features.
You can't gain bonus ac with magic armor or shield. Dual weilder could give you +1AC, bit you can't cast shield without drop one weapon or biy war caster, and you don't have feat/ASI for both + max dex and cha.
This isn't for multiclass, altought is cool to think in abusive builds, we can't ask for balance at this point. But I see future even for multiclass (maybe not a AC16+dex at lvl 3, but close to that). To multiclass as paladin you need cha and str 13, the str 13 is a hard price for any dex build. Some builds like bladesinger, monk or moon druid that want this feature + divine smite have the cha 13 cost too, with wis or int. This doesn't look a problem for thise guys that roll stats and get 18,18,17,17,17,14. But the game isn't balanced for you, is based in point buy.
I think that redemption get a little too much, but this isn't about just that feature. The Oath get spells, divine channels and aura until lvl 7. From each oath, one of those is great, another is "ok" and the other is "meh".
Redemption have a great spell selection, rebuke the violent is a great channel divine and the lvl 7 feature is "meh". But they still got +2 features at lvl 3.

[jaappleton]

I don't see much problem in this giant AC calculation. To really get advantage from that you need to build a dex base paladin. Just forget great weapons, polearm master and anything that hit with more than 1d8. There isn't any finesse bludgeonning simple weapon, this exclude one of your features.
You can't gain bonus ac with magic armor or shield. Dual weilder could give you +1AC, bit you can't cast shield without drop one weapon or biy war caster, and you don't have feat/ASI for both + max dex and cha.
This isn't for multiclass, altought is cool to think in abusive builds, we can't ask for balance at this point. But I see future even for multiclass (maybe not a AC16+dex at lvl 3, but close to that). To multiclass as paladin you need cha and str 13, the str 13 is a hard price for any dex build. Some builds like bladesinger, monk or moon druid that want this feature + divine smite have the cha 13 cost too, with wis or int. This doesn't look a problem for thise guys that roll stats and get 18,18,17,17,17,14. But the game isn't balanced for you, is based in point buy.

I agree. Though if you include multiclassing (I know, a slippery slope with UA), you can mix this with Kensei or even standard Monk to get some decent Dex based weaponry.

I'm really trying to consider when Armor of Faith is superior to armor. Its certainly thematic, and at first shocking (16 + Dex is the highest we've come across) to see the number. But.... It's not as outrageous as it sounds.

[jaappleton]

Level 3 Ranger feature

Slayer's Eye

Lasts until you select another creature or until you finish a short or long rest

Huh? So in a battle, I can put the Eye on an enemy. And at the end of a fight, move it to myself. And keep it going all day long.

Correct?


Edit: Also, it doesn't work with Hunter's Mark, does it? Both require a bonus action to activate. So fine, one on one turn and the other subsequently. But both require a bonus action to move. So when the target does, you lose one. Right?

[Mbarbs]

There are ways to write rules to exclude situations where creating an invalid state does not exclude previously existing states.
Defining the legal status of an existing attach off of targeted keywords does not.Having Shroud does not mean that an object can't be enchanted, equipped, or fortified. It means that it can't be targeted. It happens that the Equip ability targets, and results in an equipment being attached to a creature, but the reason you can't use the Equip ability on a creature with Shroud is only that it can't be targeted, not that it can't be equipped. The rule you're misunderstanding is Shroud, not Attach. The most common reason that a creature with Shroud will have an enchantment or equipment attached to it is that it gained Shroud after the fact, but there are also ways that it can get one on it without being targeted. Attachment doesn't intrinsically involve targeting, only the Equip and Enchant (and Fortify) abilities do.

[DanyBallon]

Level 3 Ranger feature

Slayer's Eye

Lasts until you select another creature or until you finish a short or long rest

Huh? So in a battle, I can put the Eye on an enemy. And at the end of a fight, move it to myself. And keep it going all day long.

Correct?


Edit: Also, it doesn't work with Hunter's Mark, does it? Both require a bonus action to activate. So fine, one on one turn and the other subsequently. But both require a bonus action to move. So when the target does, you lose one. Right?

I guess they'll have to change the wording from target creature to target enemy

But do we need everything written as lawyer proof? Can we just get by the intent and not try to cheat the game?

[Saiga]

Level 3 Ranger feature

Slayer's Eye

Lasts until you select another creature or until you finish a short or long rest

Huh? So in a battle, I can put the Eye on an enemy. And at the end of a fight, move it to myself. And keep it going all day long.

Correct?


Edit: Also, it doesn't work with Hunter's Mark, does it? Both require a bonus action to activate. So fine, one on one turn and the other subsequently. But both require a bonus action to move. So when the target does, you lose one. Right?

I'm pretty sure Slayer's Eye can be used at will, you don't need to transfer it. It's just that if you use your bonus action to target another creature, it will end on the first. It also ends after you finish a short or long rest.

But you can use your Slayer's Eye as many times as you want to, even if your target dies and you don't move it.

[JumboWheat01]

Level 3 doesn't specify melee weapon so... sling?

I know it's implied that it should be a melee weapon but... I love the idea of a halfling sling-adin popping in my head now.

[Beechgnome]

Keaton: "No killing."
Verbal: "Not if we do it my way."

Now with Redemption paladin we have the ultimate pacifist party:


Paladin (Redemption)
Monk (Tranquility)
Warlock (Seeker)
Mystic (Nomad)


Good mix of tanks, casters and depending on how the Nomad is built, skills and healing.

Would be fun to try this out with a Yawning Portal death maze dungeon.

[Belltent]

Level 3 Ranger feature

Slayer's Eye

Lasts until you select another creature or until you finish a short or long rest

Huh? So in a battle, I can put the Eye on an enemy. And at the end of a fight, move it to myself. And keep it going all day long.

Correct?


Edit: Also, it doesn't work with Hunter's Mark, does it? Both require a bonus action to activate. So fine, one on one turn and the other subsequently. But both require a bonus action to move. So when the target does, you lose one. Right?

You can take a bonus action to use it as much as you like. They are only listing the criteria under which you would lose the bonus: if I take a BA to think about creature B, I lose the benefit I got on creature A. If I finish a rest, I lose the benefit on whatever creature it was on.

You can also cast HM one turn, use this the next, and benefit from both.

EDIT: It also sounds like maybe you think you'd lose one because you couldn't move them both the turn after a creature dies? That's ok, Hunter's Mark stays around as long as your concentration stays up and you can move it on any subsequent round. You could kill a HM'd target at 9 am and move the mark at 3 pm without a recast, provided you didn't break concentration and upcasted it high enough to get the longer duration.

[Marcloure]

You realize that all "unarmored" class feature are a mean to have decent AC without having to invest too much in DEX?
Some people see only the maximum AC that they can pull out of these feature, but they are not the main reason they exist. The bladesigner being the best example as its fluff describe mostly a STR user (longsword user being the first style developped).

So a redemption paladin having high STR and medium DEX still benefits from Armor of Peace while still by folowing the intent of the class description (fluff).

Also, a reminder about the playtest, they are not meant just to see if the options are OP or not, but also if they are thematic enough to be interesting to play and roleplay.

Let's assume a STR redeemer paladin with 14 DEX. He has 18 AC and wields a heavy weapon. That is not any absurd from any other paladin who could have 17 AC (half plate, or 18 with Defender style) and still wields a heavy blade, or 19 (20 with defender) AC with half plate and shield, both without putting a single score point into DEX. I don't see how the redeemer is broken doing this, while any other paladin could do the same without sacrificing character features and with any other archetype.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I'm a huge lover of RP rules for classes but it seems completely reasonable for Redeemer to not lose proficiency. The way it's worded implies they want to non lethally subdue the redeemable with your club-charm (or rather, the "you have to listen to my speach" power) while bringing the full force of a Holy Avenger smite to bare against Liches and Balors.

[DanyBallon]

Let's assume a STR redeemer paladin with 14 DEX. He has 18 AC and wields a heavy weapon. That is not any absurd from any other paladin who could have 17 AC (half plate, or 18 with Defender style) and still wields a heavy blade, or 19 (20 with defender) AC with half plate and shield, both without putting a single score point into DEX. I don't see how the redeemer is broken doing this, while any other paladin could do the same without sacrificing character features and with any other archetype.

Exactly my thought, but there is a believe that you need to maximize any feature that grant you AC, hence the complain that Armor of Peace is OP whatever the intent of the class is to provide a way for a STR built without armor to have a decent AC.

[Marcloure]

Yeah. I think the idea is goint STR with staff or club and getting some DEX. The lack of bludgeoning finesse weapon requires a STR based character, and it also fluff better.

[jaappleton]

Yeah. I think the idea is goint STR with staff or club and getting some DEX. The lack of bludgeoning finesse weapon requires a STR based character, and it also fluff better.

.....Morgan from The Walking Dead?

[Dudewithknives]

Yeah. I think the idea is goint STR with staff or club and getting some DEX. The lack of bludgeoning finesse weapon requires a STR based character, and it also fluff better.

You could just play a base human and have:

Str: 14
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 14
Cha: 14

Ac: 18
To hit of +4
Damage of 1d6 +4 if dueling or 1d8 +2 reroll 1's
Solid HP

No penalties to anything from gear, and good skill bonuses.

[KorvinStarmast]

All in all I think this is a poor, ill thought out effort. The Oath of Redemption in particular is a troll class and if anyone in my group made one I would kill them with fire, scatter their ashes and then banish their character from the world.:smallfurious:


You could just play a base human and have:

Str: 14
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 14
Cha: 14

Ac: 18
To hit of +4
Damage of 1d6 +4 if dueling or 1d8 +2 reroll 1's
Solid HP

No penalties to anything from gear, and good skill bonuses.
You could also go VHuman and get:

S13(+1) D13(+1) C14 I9 W10 Ch14 which equals
S14 D14 C14 I9 W10 Ch14
Pick a feat: Inspiring Leader? PAM? Con? Lucky? Lots of choices here.
The additional skill I'd drop into something wisdom based so it goes up a bit with level over time.
Alternately, bump into to 10 and leave Con at 13 but take resilient con, or do the same with Dex. (Dex saving throws versus spells and such getting a boost is not a bad thing).

All in all a decent basis from which to grow. You may never want or need to boost your Ch, though I'd recommend it since a few of your later spells (Hold Monster, Hold Person) need you to bump DC for contested saves ...

[rbstr]

That's the thing though: You don't need to max dex for it to be simply superior to any other paladin's armor/weapon options. Everyone's favorite Variant Human can start at 16 strength, 14 dex, 14 con (Resilient con), 8 int, 9 wis and 14 cha. Or half elf can do 16, 14, 14, 8, 10, 14
So they've 18 AC at level 3 with none of the disadvantages a "normal" strength/heavy armor paladin has like: disadvantaged Stealth, big GP expense and don/doff time.
The redeemer just gets to have it all for no price. It's even an extra archetype feature at at level none of the other paladins get anything except Channel Divinity.

Frankly, if it encouraged maxing dex more, or the wording truly forced the simple weapons, it wouldn't be the same kind of balance issue since it'd take away the strength weapons' feats (which are, basically, their only advantage. but that's another argument about the god stat dex). It's not as super big of a deal for a rapier paladin to have +1 AC on a longsword+shield. But it is still just flat better without a sacrifice...which is why it's not a balanced option.

[Trum4n1208]

I'm a huge lover of RP rules for classes but it seems completely reasonable for Redeemer to not lose proficiency. The way it's worded implies they want to non lethally subdue the redeemable with your club-charm (or rather, the "you have to listen to my speach" power) while bringing the full force of a Holy Avenger smite to bare against Liches and Balors.

That's very much how I'm picturing it. I picture a Redeemer Paladin using his sword/hammer/what have you as being the equivalent of Clint Eastwood walking into that saloon at the end of Unforgiven. It's the ultimate sign that the gloves are coming off and things are about to get serious. The whole "a wise man fears the anger of a gentle man" is always a fun moment for a PC to have, I think.

[Dudu]

Yes, the paladin is hitting with a club those bandits on the road. But if a big balor is threatening the wizard tower he picks his greatsword instead.

I see no issue. In fact, it's in the fluff that the redemeer isn't stupid enough to not know some threats must be dealt with with brute force.

[thepsyker]

As a few others have said I like that Drunken Master works for either the fantasy Archtype or the real world style depending on how the player wants to handle it. That said it could probably use a bit more umph. Tipsy Sway for example seems fairly comparable to the Rangers Horde Attacker ability, which is at will so I don't think it really needs either the Short rest gate or the Ki gate some have suggested. You basically need to be fighting two enemies at once and for one of them to miss an attack to pull it off and then the attack uses the enemies damage, which may or may not be better than yours. In all it seems circumstantial enough to work as an at will reaction attack. Drunks Luck then while nice enough seems kind of boring, although I'm not sure what could replace it. Maybe something with improvised weapons?

[Dudewithknives]

That's the thing though: You don't need to max dex for it to be simply superior to any strength paladin's options. Everyone's favorite Variant Human can start at 16 strength, 14 dex, 14 con (Resilient con), 8 int, 9 wis and 14 cha. Or half elf can do 16, 14, 14, 8, 10, 14
So they've 18 AC at level 3 with none of the disadvantages a "normal" strength/heavy armor paladin has like: disadvantaged Stealth, big GP expense and don/doff time.
The redeemer just gets to have it all for no price. It's even an extra archetype feature at at level none of the other paladins get anything except Channel Divinity.

Frankly, if it encouraged maxing dex more, or the wording truly forced the simple weapons, it wouldn't be the same kind of balance issue since it'd take away the strength weapons' feats (which are, basically, their only advantage. but that's another argument about the god stat dex). It's not a super big deal for a rapier paladin to have +1 AC on a longsword+shield.

I do not mind the overly defensive mechanics going on with the paladin, I just do not like the idea of a paladin at level 3 is so much better of an unarmed defense than the monk class that is completely built around having unarmed defense.

A paladin with 10s in every stat will have the same ac as a monk who maxed out 2 different stats at level 3. If the paladin took a dex of 16 which is easily possible at level 1, they have a better ac than a monk at level 20 who spent 3 ASL to get it and had to buy 2 16's at character creation.

I think it should be: 10 + Dex +Cha and let them keep the shield.

Or

14 + dex

[Marcloure]

That's the thing though: You don't need to max dex for it to be simply superior to any other paladin's armor/weapon options. Everyone's favorite Variant Human can start at 16 strength, 14 dex, 14 con (Resilient con), 8 int, 9 wis and 14 cha. Or half elf can do 16, 14, 14, 8, 10, 14
So they've 18 AC at level 3 with none of the disadvantages a "normal" strength/heavy armor paladin has like: disadvantaged Stealth, big GP expense and don/doff time.
The redeemer just gets to have it all for no price. It's even an extra archetype feature at at level none of the other paladins get anything except Channel Divinity.

Frankly, if it encouraged maxing dex more, or the wording truly forced the simple weapons, it wouldn't be the same kind of balance issue since it'd take away the strength weapons' feats (which are, basically, their only advantage. but that's another argument about the god stat dex). It's not as super big of a deal for a rapier paladin to have +1 AC on a longsword+shield. But it is still just flat better without a sacrafice...which is why it's not a balanced option.

Any paladin could have 17-19 AC at lvl 2. And don't need to wear armor isn't always good, since you can't magically enhance it. The Redeemer paladin also can't benefit from feats like Shield Master or Heavy Armor Master.

[DanyBallon]

Yes, the paladin is hitting with a club those bandits on the road. But if a big balor is threatening the wizard tower he picks his greatsword instead.

I see no issue. In fact, it's in the fluff that the redemeer isn't stupid enough to not know some threats must be dealt with with brute force.

How much would he lose from not using a greatsword? about 3 damage per hit? is it that important when smite is contributing more to damage than the base weapon? On the other hand, you can't use the -5/+10 part of GWM...

[Marcloure]

I do not mind the overly defensive mechanics going on with the paladin, I just do not like the idea of a paladin at level 3 is so much better of an unarmed defense than the monk class that is completely built around having unarmed defense.

A paladin with 10s in every stat will have the same ac as a monk who maxed out 2 different stats at level 3. If the paladin took a dex of 16 which is easily possible at level 1, they have a better ac than a monk at level 20 who spent 3 ASL to get it and had to buy 2 16's at character creation.

I think it should be: 10 + Dex +Cha and let them keep the shield.

Or

14 + dex

I think the idea is to not penalize the paladin for choosing this Oath. Any paladin could reach 20+ AC, why block the Redeemer from that? He has more AC them a monk, yes, but all paladin does. They are the front line.

[Spellbreaker26]

How much would he lose from not using a greatsword? about 3 damage per hit? is it that important when smite is contributing more to damage than the base weapon? On the other hand, you can't use the -5/+10 part of GWM...

Can't you just get a greatclub? That's heavy, bludgeoning, simple weapon. So you can get the Redeemer bonuses and use GWM.

[DanyBallon]

Can't you just get a greatclub? That's heavy, bludgeoning, simple weapon. So you can get the Redeemer bonuses and use GWM.

Unfortunately I double checked and the Greatclub do not have the Heavy property (at least not in the 1st printing) it only have the Two-Handed property

[Marcloure]

So the redeemer has more AC than a Greatsword pally, but way less damage withou GWM. And he has the same AC of a full equiped armor and shield build, but can't magically or "featly" enhance his itens. Looks balanced to me.

[Spellbreaker26]

Unfortunately I double checked and the Greatclub do not have the Heavy property (at least not in the 1st printing) it only have the Two-Handed property

Literally the one time Greatclub would be of any use whatsoever and it still manages to suck.

[jaappleton]

Literally the one time Greatclub would be of any use whatsoever and it still manages to suck.

I love this post so much. :smallbiggrin:

[Spellbreaker26]

I love this post so much. :smallbiggrin:

It just aggravates me how totally useless it is. The Greatsword is similar since it costs FIVE TIMES as much as the maul to do a worse damage type.

[rbstr]

Any paladin could have 17-19 AC at lvl 2. And don't need to wear armor isn't always good, since you can't magically enhance it. The Redeemer paladin also can't benefit from feats like Shield Master or Heavy Armor Master.

"But he can't use +1 plate" is nonsense. There are Bracers of Defense for +2 AC at the same rarity!
A couple of niche places where you need to have armor does not take away Armor of Peace's general superiority.


So the redeemer has more AC than a Greatsword pally, but way less damage withou GWM. And he has the same AC of a full equiped armor and shield build, but can't magically or "featly" enhance his itens. Looks balanced to me.

They can have exactly the same damage as a Greatsword pally (since they can simply be a greatsword pally without reduced effectiveness), with the same AC, just without having to wear armor. How is that not simply better?
The idea that there are no magical AC-enhancing items or defense-enhancing feats to be had is also simply wrong: The non-armor wearer's options there are as good, if not better. There are magic items only usable w/o armor, like those Bracers.
Same goes for feats. A dex-using redeemer could, for example, pick up dual wielder and gain an additional +1 AC among its other benefits. A normal sword/board-wielding paladin would actually lose 1AC to go that route.

"Not having to wear armor or use a shield to get the equivalent AC is a disadvantage" is not a well considered opinion.

[Matticusrex]

Pretty sure an oathbreaker with PAM and GWM is still miles better than a Dex pally with some extra AC

[toapat]

Pretty sure an oathbreaker with PAM and GWM is still miles better than a Dex pally with some extra AC

outside of RP reasons, im not sure where Redeemer is even better than Devotion other than making Persuade checks during a 6 hour feast.

[Marcloure]

"But he can't use +1 plate" is nonsense. There are Bracers of Defense for +2 AC at the same rarity!
A couple of niche places where you need to have armor does not take away Armor of Peace's general superiority.



They can have exactly the same damage as a Greatsword pally (since they can simply be a greatsword pally without reduced effectiveness), with the same AC, just without having to wear armor. How is that not simply better?
The idea that there are no magical AC-enhancing items or defense-enhancing feats to be had is also simply wrong: The non-armor wearer's options there are as good, if not better. There are magic items only usable w/o armor, like those Bracers.
Same goes for feats. A dex-using redeemer could, for example, pick up dual wielder and gain an additional +1 AC among its other benefits. A normal sword/board-wielding paladin would actually lose 1AC to go that route.

"Not having to wear armor or use a shield to get the equivalent AC is a disadvantage" is not a well considered opinion.

There is no bludgeoning weapon that is light. But yes, he could indeed still dual-wield (though without TWF style), or use a greatsword, and abdicate the "charm" feature. This case would maybe be problematic.
About defensiveness, his max AC is what? 23? That sure is high and for a low price, but not the highest an AC focused paladin can get. And isn't in the ideia of the archetype to be defense focused? Also, reaching the max AC means maxing DEX, but there is no bludgeoning weapon that has finesse. So he needs STR for the "charm", or to abidicate the second feature.

Maybe the solution is to be a bit more restrictive with the archetype. I think he should forgo the use of martial weapons as part of his oath. He still has the proficiency, but attack with one, and breaks the Oath.

[DanyBallon]

There is no bludgeoning weapon that is light. But yes, he could indeed still dual-wield (though without TWF style), or use a greatsword, and abdicate the "charm" feature. This case is problematic.
About defensiveness, his max AC is what? 23? That sure is high and for a low price, but not the highest an AC focused paladin can get. And isn't in the ideia of the archetype to be defense focused? Also, reaching the max AC means maxing DEX, but there is no bludgeoning weapon that has finesse. So he needs STR for the "charm", or to abidicate the second feature.

Maybe the solution is to be a bit more restrictive with the archetype. I think he should forgo the use of martial weapons as part of his oath. He still has the proficiency, but attack with one, and breaks the Oath.

I wouldn't go as far as removing the martial proficiency, as it will bar out any possibility to use a martial weapon against pure evil enemies. Instead, I'd modify Armor of Peace to work only if no armor, no shield and character is using bludgeonning simple weapon or is unnarmed.

[tkuremento]

There is no bludgeoning weapon that is light.

Club, bludgeoning, simple, light

[Specter]

Back to Ranger...

Seeing the Deep Stalker and the new Monster Slayer, it makes me wonder why they didn't just give every ranger archetype bonus spells, since rangers only learn 11 spells. Hunter's Mark-Pass Without Trace-Nondetection-Locate Creature-Commune With Nature would have worked just fine for Hunter.

[Mortis_Elrod]

There is no bludgeoning weapon that is light.

i mean... i guess i wouldn't consider the light hammer a weapon, but that's just mean man.

[Marcloure]

I just realized that if the paladin wants to use a greatsword, he is problably maxing STR. So, he can have up to 16 DEX and 19 AC. Not broken if you considerer that he is removing points from CON or CHA to boost his DEX. With 14 Dex, a more reasonable value, and he gets 18 AC, 20 with bracers. Any other Heavy weapon paladin could have the same with defensive style and +1 fullplate, paying more but with the possibility of rising it even higher.

[DanyBallon]

Back to Ranger...

Seeing the Deep Stalker and the new Monster Slayer, it makes me wonder why they didn't just give every ranger archetype bonus spells, since rangers only learn 11 spells. Hunter's Mark-Pass Without Trace-Nondetection-Locate Creature-Commune With Nature would have worked just fine for Hunter.

Keep hope! Revised ranger is not officially released yet!

[Marcloure]

i mean... i guess i wouldn't consider the light hammer a weapon, but that's just mean man.

Yeah, club is also light. I haven't checked that. Max of 21 AC then, with 14 DEX.

[jaappleton]

Back to Ranger...

Seeing the Deep Stalker and the new Monster Slayer, it makes me wonder why they didn't just give every ranger archetype bonus spells, since rangers only learn 11 spells. Hunter's Mark-Pass Without Trace-Nondetection-Locate Creature-Commune With Nature would have worked just fine for Hunter.

I said that to Mearls & JC awhile ago. Beast and Hunter need Conclave bonus spells like the Deep Stalker. And now it seems every Ranger Conclave has gotten them SINCE the Revised Ranger. I think that when the Revised Ranger sees an official release, they'll have bonus spells.

[jaappleton]

A note about the new Paladin:

Defensive. Obviously.

But I can't think of anything more awesome than killing an enemy with Rebuke the Violent. The idea of the Paladin pleading with an enemy to put their weapon down, for the foe to repent because its not too late, until they grievously injure your ally... Say the enemy crits your best friend, and takes them below zero HP. Then the Paladin retaliates by using his divine wrath to punish the unrepentant with the same force.

Its flavorful as heck. It really is. Thematically, its one of the most well-put together UA archetypes that I've seen.

[Trum4n1208]

A note about the new Paladin:

Defensive. Obviously.

But I can't think of anything more awesome than killing an enemy with Rebuke the Violent. The idea of the Paladin pleading with an enemy to put their weapon down, for the foe to repent because its not too late, until they grievously injure your ally... Say the enemy crits your best friend, and takes them below zero HP. Then the Paladin retaliates by using his divine wrath to punish the unrepentant with the same force.

Its flavorful as heck. It really is. Thematically, its one of the most well-put together UA archetypes that I've seen.

I agree. It's got some great flavor to it. I really like it. Myself and our group's other regular DM are both rather impressed with it across the board.

[Scarytincan]

I'm not a fan of the fact that drunken master lvl 3 ability, which for monk subclasses is either the first or second strongest ability of the subclass, is completely a weaker version of a feat that many monks like anyway. Sure u can save that feat slot now, but what else do you get? A would-be cool ability Except limited to one per rest completely stealing my interest in it; a nice save bonus that can stack with diamond soul and lucky, but considering those two already exist, is very boring; and a situational extra attack when u are in the middle of multiple enemies, somewhere a monk doesn't really wanna be, in addition to spreading dmg generally being less optimal.

Love the idea, hate the delivery.

[MeeposFire]

I think people are making way too much of the defensive benefits. First off on a single class paladin shield can be useful but it also will suck up your spell resources which you really cannot afford. Remember as a paladin you NEED those spell slots to deal good damage without them you are not that good especially if you went dex and thus have no good ways to increase your damage. Remember also that high AC does not eliminate enemies and like so many times before a character with very high defense and little offense will not be anywhere near as effective as you think in a group. How many spells per combat are you really going to use to boost your AC anyway? You do not get that many and if you multiclass you were likely going to get shield anyway so the point is mostly moot (what iwth the heavy armor you could have worn instead).

Also rarity is not the only conceren between magic armor/shields and bracers of armor. Remember bracers of armor require you to attune to them which may mean you cannot use another item down the line whereas you can wear magic armor, magic shield, and something like a ring of protection and use the same number of attunements. That cna be important.

[Pex]

I don't see much problem in this giant AC calculation. To really get advantage from that you need to build a dex base paladin. Just forget great weapons, polearm master and anything that hit with more than 1d8. There isn't any finesse bludgeonning simple weapon, this exclude one of your features.
You can't gain bonus ac with magic armor or shield. Dual weilder could give you +1AC, bit you can't cast shield without drop one weapon or biy war caster, and you don't have feat/ASI for both + max dex and cha.
This isn't for multiclass, altought is cool to think in abusive builds, we can't ask for balance at this point. But I see future even for multiclass (maybe not a AC16+dex at lvl 3, but close to that). To multiclass as paladin you need cha and str 13, the str 13 is a hard price for any dex build. Some builds like bladesinger, monk or moon druid that want this feature + divine smite have the cha 13 cost too, with wis or int. This doesn't look a problem for thise guys that roll stats and get 18,18,17,17,17,14. But the game isn't balanced for you, is based in point buy.
I think that redemption get a little too much, but this isn't about just that feature. The Oath get spells, divine channels and aura until lvl 7. From each oath, one of those is great, another is "ok" and the other is "meh".
Redemption have a great spell selection, rebuke the violent is a great channel divine and the lvl 7 feature is "meh". But they still got +2 features at lvl 3.

:smallsigh:

Point Buy is the variant, popular as it may be. Dice rolling is just as legitimate. The game is balanced around Bounded Accuracy. Why presume the worst in people who use dice rolling that they only care about god-stats?

[tkuremento]

:smallsigh:

Point Buy is the variant, popular as it may be. Dice rolling is just as legitimate. The game is balanced around Bounded Accuracy. Why presume the worst in people who use dice rolling that they only care about god-stats?

Standard Array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 is still a thing as well. It isn't even listed in the variant so it is assumed to be legal when rolling is legal for use and I have no idea why rolling wouldn't be legal for use at most tables. Sure you can get multiple 18s but the statistical likelihood is so dismal that it almost screams cheating. Of course there would be a technical chance that in the infinite universe with infinite Earths that there is a person alive who only rolls 18s for everything they roll on the 3d6 or 4d6 drop lowest.

[Strill]

Let's assume a STR redeemer paladin with 14 DEX. He has 18 AC and wields a heavy weapon. That is not any absurd from any other paladin who could have 17 AC (half plate, or 18 with Defender style) and still wields a heavy blade, or 19 (20 with defender) AC with half plate and shield, both without putting a single score point into DEX. I don't see how the redeemer is broken doing this, while any other paladin could do the same without sacrificing character features and with any other archetype.

That build is underpowered. You're MAD, requiring Strength, Charisma, Constitution, and Dexterity. So in order to reach parity with Full Plate, you had to put a 14 in Dexterity that could've gone into Charisma or Constitution instead. Now you're behind on HP or saving throws or Spell DC, and for what?

What did you even get out of it that a Paladin with Full Plate wouldn't?

[tkuremento]

That build is underpowered. You're MAD, requiring Strength, Charisma, Constitution, and Dexterity. So in order to reach parity with Full Plate, you had to put a 14 in Dexterity that could've gone into Charisma or Constitution instead. Now you're behind on HP or saving throws or Spell DC, and for what?

What did you even get out of it that a Paladin with Full Plate wouldn't?

Assuming you aren't given full plate but have to buy it then 1,500 gp :smallbiggrin: