Conquest paladins should be more warlord-like

[Corran]

I think it would be better, if both the mechanics and the tenets/general outlook of a conquest paly was a bit more warlord-esque.

Think the roleplaying aspect first. The tenets of this oath describe to me a character who would not tolerate insubordination and being openly challenged or defied. In that sense, conquest paladins make a lot of sense as military commanders of some form or another. A sergeant who expects his orders to be followed to the letter by his troops for example. Or a (pirate -idea stolen from Kane0's character) captain who would not tolerate even the slightest hint of mutiny. Etc. In that sense a more warlord-esque approach kind of fits, doesn't it? And such an approach would perhaps let us refine the tenets of this oath a bit more too, making it more friendly to teamplay. I mean, even for those conquest palys who would like to end up being the absolute tyrrants and to govern the ''world'', it would still make sense to go about it with the help of loyal allies and/or troops. So complementing the more warlord-esque approach by adding a tennet about ''teamwork under your command'' (= warlord!) or sth like that, would probably make this oath a lot more party-friendly.

Now think of the mechanics. The main focus is on fear. But that's the oathbreaker's theme and mechanical focus. So, wouldnt it be better to have this new oath have mechanics that focus on something new for paladins, and thus present us with an oath that plays significantly different than any of the pre-existing ones? I think that instead of oathbreaker stuff (anything related to fear), it would be nice to have mechanics that offer some kind of support abilities. Something like a pseudo-inspiration, or something like battlemaster's maneuvres, or something like in the direction of giving your allies advantage via one way or another. All in all, to havee mechanics that would make this oath feel significantly different in combat than the other paladin oaths.


I am not suggesting that the conquest paladin should become the default warlord (I am still waiting WotC to give me a warlord, either as a new class or as a fighter archtype, or however they think best). But I believe that the conquest paladin would do better both concept-wise and mechanics-wise if it moved in a more warlord-y direction.

What do you think?

[djreynolds]

I wish, like the clerics do, that all the paladin's smites were of differing damage.

And I could see the conquest paladin cause psychic damage with their smites instead.

I like the conquest paladin. I think it works well with its auras.

[Millstone85]

That seems like a good idea.

Also, the conquest paladin is flavored as the archetypal LN/LE character, and illustrates my problem with that alignment. All dominance, no submission, when I think it should be kiss up kick down.

[djreynolds]

I gotta say the conquest paladin is very cool, I'm not a 4E player, but is the Purple Dragon Knight supposed to be "warlordish" So I apologize for my lack of understanding of what a warlord is.

Once again, IMO, very humbly, the designers have a soft spot for the paladin because every archetype is very cool.

[Corran]

I gotta say the conquest paladin is very cool, I'm not a 4E player, but is the Purple Dragon Knight supposed to be "warlordish" So I apologize for my lack of understanding of what a warlord is.

Once again, IMO, very humbly, the designers have a soft spot for the paladin because every archetype is very cool.
Dont know much about 5e's purple dragon knight, but to have an idea of what a warlord would roughly be about regarding 5e mechanics, my first thoughts go to bardic inspiration and to some of the battlemaster's maneuvres (like commander's strike, maneuvering attack, etc). Think of a battle commander that hits things while also directing and/or boosting her allies' attacks. This (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BkFKKZGNe) homebrew will probably give you a good idea if you want to dig a little deeper.

[SharkForce]

i think that paladin might be the least suitable base class imaginable for the conquest subclass, so just about anything else you could possibly envision would be more suitable.

well... ok, rogue might be a worse fit. but apart from that, the least suitable base class.

so, taking it out of paladin and making a new class that actually does fit the idea well and which a lot of players want in the first place sounds like a great idea. more work, certainly, but much better.

unfortunately, if this is supposed to go into xanathar's guide to everything, it's probably way too late in the cycle to influence that decision. but it really would be nice if the devs finally tackled some of the stuff that players have been asking for for years (warlord).

[Corran]

unfortunately, if this is supposed to go into xanathar's guide to everything, it's probably way too late in the cycle to influence that decision. but it really would be nice if the devs finally tackled some of the stuff that players have been asking for for years (warlord).
Oh yeah, I realize that. I was considering trying for the first time to ''homebrew'' it by tweaking the tenetes somewhat and their powers, because it just hit me (and it might be a bad idea that sounds good just to me) that some warlord flavour would fit that oath a lot, and changing the both the tenets and the mechanics somewhat, would probably make it a more distinguished oath and perhaps much easier to wrk it in a group.

So I was mostly looking to see if people here though that the warlord flavour would be something that could perhaps fit.

What do you think of the tenets? Do you think they are completelly unsalvagable? If we changed the tenets somewhat to include something about how these paladins value teamwork and other warlordly stuff, while also keeping tenets that would say something like ''orders need to be followed'' and stuff like that, do you think it could maybe work?

ps: This post is quite messy, wrote it in a hurry...

[lunaticfringe]

The Oath or tenets of the various Paladin archetypes are just fluff. You could easily change them, I allow quite bit of latitude with regards to Oaths or, depending on the character, remove them. Custom Oaths are a thing you should definitely do imho.

You could easily play Conquest as a Enchanter-Knight who uses fear to defeat opponents. Oathbreaker Tiefling is Just a Tiefling tapping into his Fiendish Heritage. Ancients Paladin is member of the militant arm of Druidic Society/Circle. Vengeance made a pact with an outsider to defeat the Sorcerer-King.

[SharkForce]

Oh yeah, I realize that. I was considering trying for the first time to ''homebrew'' it by tweaking the tenetes somewhat and their powers, because it just hit me (and it might be a bad idea that sounds good just to me) that some warlord flavour would fit that oath a lot, and changing the both the tenets and the mechanics somewhat, would probably make it a more distinguished oath and perhaps much easier to wrk it in a group.

So I was mostly looking to see if people here though that the warlord flavour would be something that could perhaps fit.

What do you think of the tenets? Do you think they are completelly unsalvagable? If we changed the tenets somewhat to include something about how these paladins value teamwork and other warlordly stuff, while also keeping tenets that would say something like ''orders need to be followed'' and stuff like that, do you think it could maybe work?

ps: This post is quite messy, wrote it in a hurry...

i think the tenets could be relatively easily salvageable. in fact, putting them on a class where they are not oaths that the character absolutely must follow (which is what paladin is) would probably make them fine, since they would then just be guidelines, not absolute laws on how you must live your life for every waking moment of it. because ultimately, when people in the other thread point to examples of what they think conquest paladins would be like, it's usually more along the lines of "sometimes in specific situations these people act like conquest paladins, but they're able to turn it off when it isn't appropriate".

change "you absolutely must never show mercy to your enemies" or "you are not allowed to ever forgive someone for disobeying an order, you must punish them to make an example of them to others" into "you usually don't show mercy to your enemies" and "you don't like it when people disobey orders without good reasons", and it's possible for someone to interpret it as a license to be a jerk (as is the case with pretty much anything), but it isn't a *requirement* to be a jerk.

[djreynolds]

Dont know much about 5e's purple dragon knight, but to have an idea of what a warlord would roughly be about regarding 5e mechanics, my first thoughts go to bardic inspiration and to some of the battlemaster's maneuvres (like commander's strike, maneuvering attack, etc). Think of a battle commander that hits things while also directing and/or boosting her allies' attacks. This (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BkFKKZGNe) homebrew will probably give you a good idea if you want to dig a little deeper.

I like this, I could see a valor bard variation of this.

And don't worry about the SCAG purple dragon knight

[Arkhios]

I like this, I could see a valor bard variation of this.

And don't worry about the SCAG purple dragon knight

If by this you refer to that Warlord Homebrew (of mine), it was essentially modeled from Valor Bard/Battle Master combination.

[djreynolds]

If by this you refer to that Warlord Homebrew (of mine), it was essentially modeled from Valor Bard/Battle Master combination.

It works, I was about to ask Corran if he could come up with a multiclass combo that could show me a warlord... your homebrew more than suffices.

I would use bard as the chassis.

I like the warlord homebrew

[Arkhios]

It works, I was about to ask Corran if he could come up with a multiclass combo that could show me a warlord... your homebrew more than suffices.

I would use bard as the chassis.

I like the warlord homebrew

Thank you for the compliment.

Honestly, at first - before I began working on Warlord - I wanted to create a spell-less variant of bard, but around mid-way into having warlord finished, I realized that warlord is the spell-less bard I was looking for.

So, yes. Bard is a perfect chassis for warlord if you can't or don't want to use homebrews. Valor Bard even more so.

[Corran]

So, if we were to replace the level 7 ''fear'' aura with something more warlord-like, what would you use?

If I wanted to bring in pseudo-inspiration, how wouldyou do it? With the channel divinities maybe?

What about maneuvres? How would that fit in? Channel divinity again?

[Arkhios]

So, if we were to replace the level 7 ''fear'' aura with something more warlord-like, what would you use?

If I wanted to bring in pseudo-inspiration, how wouldyou do it? With the channel divinities maybe?

What about maneuvres? How would that fit in? Channel divinity again?

The most iconic warlord feature from 4th edition that I can think of is perhaps Inspiring Word. I think that could be made as a Channel Divinity at 3rd level. Maybe something like Inspiring Leader feat does. Temporary Hit Points equal to 1d10+your charisma modifier for all friendly creatures within 10 feet of you (to last only 1 minute? I don't know.)

Another Channel Divinity option could be something that lets a creature of your choice to use a reaction to move its speed without provoking opportunity attacks. Maybe call it Call of Maneuver or something.

I wouldn't want to step on the battle master's toes too much with the maneuvers, although it seems to be a thing even D&D designers are doing.

Not sure about the 7th level feature. On one hand, the "fear" aura is quite fitting. But on the other I can see why it might cause some concerns.

[djreynolds]

I had an idea for the champion archetype, when the champion scored a critical hit every team member would get either advantage on their next attack or an inspiration. But if the champion rolled a 1, the team got disadvantage on the next spell or attack.

If a positive/negative could be introduced.... it would be more exciting. Something spectacular that the warlord could inspire or deflate the party?

[Corran]

Not sure about the 7th level feature. On one hand, the "fear" aura is quite fitting. But on the other I can see why it might cause some concerns.
Yeah, perhaps it is just me, but I would prefer if the conquest theme was more associated with victory (to conquest means to win battles) gained via leadership and ''teamwork'' instead of just via throwing in some fear effects due to some not very well thought-out fluff. Would make the conquest oath more unique (when compared to the other oaths) both in term of flavour and mechanics. But that's just my opinion.

Thanks for the suggestions.
Inspiring word as a channel divinity could work well.
You are right about not throwing in maneuvres (I really dont like how WotC borrows stuff from some classes and moves them around to other classes, makes classes feel less unique... -that's why I dont like AoA and SW being oath spells for this oath -and conquering aura is a slightly different version of dreadful aspect...).

The 7th level aura is tricky. Hard to find a permanent benefit that would feel warlordy... will give it some more thought.

[Zalabim]

I think it would be better, if both the mechanics and the tenets/general outlook of a conquest paly was a bit more warlord-esque.

Think the roleplaying aspect first.
I don't really see a problem with Conquest's tenets. Fight to win the war, using fear against your enemies. Rule justly and fairly, not with mercy or whimsy. Live by the sword and die by the sword.

Or conquer, rule your conquests, and defend your conquests. Unless you're joining an adventuring party by beating them all, I don't see the conflict. The party is usually there as equals, not subjects.


Now think of the mechanics. The main focus is on fear. But that's the oathbreaker's theme and mechanical focus.
The oathbreaker isn't a player option, doesn't have tenets, isn't an official option since it's in the DMG like the Aasimar, and isn't focused on fear. Its capstone uses fear, like Conquest's aura, but a hypothetical villainous option that only uses it at level 20 doesn't lock out that option from a player subclass that can use the mechanic earlier.

[Creyzi4j]

I play my conquest paladin like an inquisitor. He flogs NPCs for being bad, doomsays and wears a towelhead while on combat.
His god is good aligned tho'