Suggestions on Fallen Aasimar oathbreaker Paladin

[Surrealtrip]

Hello folks! I’m new and haven’t tried D&D before. I’ve played plenty of poker table MTG. The guy DM’ing has played a fair bit and DM’ed a bit. The others have played a bit together.
Background of the character is that he’s a strong willed Aasimar that’s been indoctrinated into the dominating religion. The world itself is run by this ancient oppressive theocracy where the top 1% take from the 99% as their divine right.
The character has been sent out to bring order to the world and only a few missions in he’s ordered to destroy a small enclave who are seditious and unholy. Upon arriving his lance is set upon by these evil peasants and 3 of the 5 other Paladins are murdered quickly by treacherous traps. The final two Paladins are put into a rage of vengeance sweep in and cause considerable destruction, killing everyone. Sweeping through the innards of the small keep they find a storage room door locked from within. They burst open the door to find a group of children huddled in the room. One boy in the front barely waist high to the character stands in front, tears in his face a small knife held in front of himself. ‘For the lord’, spoken by the other Paladin He crushes the boy and lays into the children. The character lashes out, killing the other Paladin. But the damage is done the children are dead. The Oath is broken. In one moment the years of indoctrination and control are laid back to show the rotting core of a diseased system. A few months later the character, now a broken soul, hunted by the religion he once cherished, is in a filthy ale house surrounded by a few likeminded others. Talking heresy, sedition, and an end to the corruption. The others see hope for the future. The character wants nothing but to tear it all down.

So that’s my background... now to make it mechanically viable... which I need help with. We’re starting at lvl 3. We’re allowed to use any published works.

[ProsecutorGodot]

To be clear, the character is going to be evil right? They're not tearing down the current system because they believe its unjust, they're tearing it down because they want to, it wronged them personally and that's not good.

I ask because Oathbreaker isn't really themed for characters who are trying to be better, your abilities are bad, your tenets are heinous, and your unwillingness to repent or seek atonement (which doesn't automatically mean to fall back into your old oath) is where your new powers are thrust on you by darkness.

I'm not going to tell you it's "wrong" to play this archetype, but with your background in mind I think Vengeance is a better fit.

My opinion piece aside, if you're starting at level 3 and you've already chosen (a) a Charisma race and (b) your subclass, there isn't much else to do to make the character mechanically viable. You've already done most of the work.

ASI should focus STR>CHA/CON>WIS>DEX>INT, strap yourself into the heaviest set of armor you can find and take your choice of 2H or SnB (Sword and Board) to start. If you choose 2-Hander you can either go for Polearm Master at level 4 for a guaranteed bonus action attack or GWM with a Greatsword for strong base damage and a potential (but still somewhat reliable thanks to Divine Smite nova damage) bonus action attack. If you choose SnB you can either take Shield Master as a feat at 4th level (good for knocking targets prone, check with your DM on how they rule on it first though) or an increased ASI.

The choice between CON and CHA as a secondary is usually personal taste. CON obviously lets you live longer, which is pretty good for a martial character. Maxing your CHA makes your spells and abilities stronger (for Oathbreaker specifically this translates directly to more base damage starting at level 7) and is what I personally prefer, leaving CON at 14 (or 16 with good rolls) and maxing CHA as your secondary.

Another option you have is instead of taking 3 level of Paladin to start, you take Paladin 2 and Hexblade Warlock 1 and forego your STR score in favor of maxing CHA and CON. You would still look to have at least a 13 in STR (ideally 15 for Plate Armor) but could take all later ASI in CHA, this nets you a few nice damage increased but if the campaign isn't going to be long term you might fall behind on Extra Attack and your Aura at level 7.

I would recommend keeping it simple as a starting player though, a nice solid foundation with no fiddly bits is to just take all your levels in Paladin, pick your favorite weapon and go to smite city. Use your ASI to max Strength and call it good.

[bendking]

Vengeance seems like a better thematic fit here, honestly. Oath Breaker is evil. In way it wasn't really meant for PCs.
If you want a super solid, straight Paladin build, I recommend looking at this one by LudicSavant, Ride of the Valkyries, minus the Valkyrie flavor :)
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23794664&postcount=1

You honestly can't go wrong with a straight Paladin, even more so with a Vengeance one, but it is quite benificial to at least grab the Polearm Master feat for an extra attack, and consider using it with a Spear & Shield, because it's really, really good (PAM works with spear ever since some errata).
For the second feat, it's either Great Weapon Master of Mounted Combatant: If you want to be more offensive than defensive, you can use a two-handed polearm weapon (whichever you prefer) and take Great Weapon Master instead of Mounted Combatant.

[Theaitetos]

The Dungeon Master's Guide has Oathbreakers as evil paladins, and the confusion around it is due to it having a bad name (no pun intended). An "oathbreaker" is usually someone who broke a sacred oath, not someone who is evil. A paladin who enjoys his orders of slaughtering innocent children is evil, but didn't break his oath. A paladin who breaks his oath to defend the innocent children against his orders, is an oathbreaker.

So the paladin subclass "Oathbreaker" just was poorly named; it should have been "Blackguard", "Deathknight", or "Darth Dark Paladin".

https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/anakin-kills-younglings-gif-4.gif

If you like the class, just be a real oathbreaker, not an evil paladin. This should be reflected in an alignment change, from Lawful to Chaotic.
You're drunk, and now that you broke your oath, you doubt all of the things you were told, all of the laws you were supposed to uphold. It's up to you whether you are Chaotic Good ["The Church must be brought to justice!"], Chaotic Neutral ["I didn't sign up for this!"]… or Chaotic Evil ["I wanted to kill those children! This fu***er shouldn't have gotten in my way! I found them – I! This was the first time I had the chance to kill me some little babies!"]

[CTurbo]

I agree that the way it's written up, the Oathbreaker is evil. I also agree that the Oathbreaker shouldn't HAVE to be evil. Work with your DM to maybe tweak the features a bit if you don't want this character to be evil. I also also agree that Vengeance may be a better fit and could even make a case for Conquest here.

I love well fleshed out backgrounds and this sounds like a great character.

[Surrealtrip]

The Dungeon Master's Guide has Oathbreakers as evil paladins, and the confusion around it is due to it having a bad name (no pun intended). An "oathbreaker" is usually someone who broke a sacred oath, not someone who is evil. A paladin who enjoys his orders of slaughtering innocent children is evil, but didn't break his oath. A paladin who breaks his oath to defend the innocent children against his orders, is an oathbreaker.

So the paladin subclass "Oathbreaker" just was poorly named; it should have been "Blackguard", "Deathknight", or "Darth Dark Paladin".

https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/anakin-kills-younglings-gif-4.gif

If you like the class, just be a real oathbreaker, not an evil paladin. This should be reflected in an alignment change, from Lawful to Chaotic.
You're drunk, and now that you broke your oath, you doubt all of the things you were told, all of the laws you were supposed to uphold. It's up to you whether you are Chaotic Good ["The Church must be brought to justice!"], Chaotic Neutral ["I didn't sign up for this!"]… or Chaotic Evil ["I wanted to kill those children! This fu***er shouldn't have gotten in my way! I found them – I! This was the first time I had the chance to kill me some little babies!"]

This is what I was aiming for. You really hit the nail on the head. He has broken his oath and become chaotic but he’s neutral vs good or evil as he’s found the order he was attached to was the evil one. Doesn’t make him good mind you.

So it’s up between vengeance, oathbreaker, or maybe conquest? Hmmm mechanically what would be different?

And paladins should be strong, charisma, con, everything else in that order?

Cheers! Great food for thought

[Theaitetos]

So it’s up between vengeance, oathbreaker, or maybe conquest? Hmmm mechanically what would be different?

Every subclass has different abilities; best read up on them somewhere online or ask your DM friend to lend you the books for reading.


And paladins should be strong, charisma, con, everything else in that order?

Exactly, STR & CHA are your main stats. STR is for hit % with your weapons and dealing weapon damage; CHA is important to improve all of your paladin abilities. CON is a very passive ability, generally important for hitpoints, resisting bad effects (poison, spells, …) and maintaining concentration on your own spells.

Your race Fallen Aasimar comes with perfectly fitting stats of +2CHA and +1STR. You can be clumsy (DEX 8), foolish (WIS 8), and dumb (INT 8) without it affecting much of anything.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The Dungeon Master's Guide has Oathbreakers as evil paladins, and the confusion around it is due to it having a bad name (no pun intended). An "oathbreaker" is usually someone who broke a sacred oath, not someone who is evil. A paladin who enjoys his orders of slaughtering innocent children is evil, but didn't break his oath. A paladin who breaks his oath to defend the innocent children against his orders, is an oathbreaker.

So the paladin subclass "Oathbreaker" just was poorly named.

On one hand, I agree. Oathbreaker is a bad name.

However with what is intended for the class (not just breaking your previous Oath but being suffused with evil because of it) I don't think the subclass should be good. If you want to be a good or even neutral Paladin who has broken an oath, you should take a new oath, redemption and vengeance both fit here, vengeance specifically in regards to this character.

The alternative is be a Fighter, you no longer have this divine power. I think 3.XE had it right in that regard

[da newt]

It may also be worth thinking about how this character is going to interact with the rest of the party. There ought to be some redeeming quality to the guy that will allow him to be a valuable member of the team / party.

One of the groups I play with is struggling with a PC who is a crap team mate - why is he allowed to be part of the party? If this was more real, we would have voted him off the island long ago ...

[Theaitetos]

On one hand, I agree. Oathbreaker is a bad name.

However with what is intended for the class (not just breaking your previous Oath but being suffused with evil because of it) I don't think the subclass should be good. If you want to be a good or even neutral Paladin who has broken an oath, you should take a new oath, redemption and vengeance both fit here, vengeance specifically in regards to this character.

You'd just be an "Oathchanger", not an "Oathbreaker". Paladins aren't necessarily good or neutral, they are primarily Lawful! That's what their oaths are and what their tenets demand. They have considerable leeway concerning the Good-Neutral-Evil axis, as it's perfectly fine for a Conquest, Vengeance, or Crown Paladin to be evil – even evil Ancients or Redemption paladins are entirely thinkable. The lawful evil Conquest Hell Knights are even mentioned in the books.

Breaking an oath means you are wavering on the Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic axis, as you're now willing to break the laws & edicts because they conflict with your personal choice of moral code (Good-Neutral-Evil). You think you know better than your elders & superiors, you now do things your way. This is being more chaotic, not evil.

As long as there isn't a new system (or set of doctrines/tenets) that you subscribe to, you are a more chaotic character, an Oathbreaker. If you found something else to fight FOR (instead of fighting AGAINST the old system), you can take another oath and become lawful again.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You'd just be an "Oathchanger", not an "Oathbreaker". Paladins aren't necessarily good or neutral, they are primarily Lawful! That's what their oaths are and what their tenets demand. They have considerable leeway concerning the Good-Neutral-Evil axis, as it's perfectly fine for a Conquest, Vengeance, or Crown Paladin to be evil – even evil Ancients or Redemption paladins are entirely thinkable. The lawful evil Conquest Hell Knights are even mentioned in the books.

Breaking an oath means you are wavering on the Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic axis, as you're now willing to break the laws & edicts because they conflict with your personal choice of moral code (Good-Neutral-Evil). You think you know better than your elders & superiors, you now do things your way. This is being more chaotic, not evil.

As long as there isn't a new system (or set of doctrines/tenets) that you subscribe to, you are a more chaotic character, an Oathbreaker. If you found something else to fight FOR (instead of fighting AGAINST the old system), you can take another oath and become lawful again.

That's why I agree Oathbreaker is a bad name, I'm referencing what is in the DMG which self describes itself as Evil, not touching on the Chaotic/Lawful axis.

For what I think an Oathbreaker should be, again, 3.5E had it right. You either repent, taking your oath anew (perhaps swearing a new one if you cannot reconcile the old) or you aren't a Paladin. Your oath is your power, you shouldn't get powers without some source.

5e fails in that regard, the only mechanics we have for breaking your oath is a drastic fall to evil as your power source (law or chaos is negotiable, evil is not).

[DarknessEternal]

Who cares about the description? No mechanics necessitate oathbreaker being evil.

[da newt]

DMG pg 97: "A paladin must be evil and at least lvl 3 to become an oathbreaker" - seems pretty definitive to me ...

[Magicspook]

DMG pg 97: "A paladin must be evil and at least lvl 3 to become an oathbreaker" - seems pretty definitive to me ...

Are you going to restrict yourself based on some arbitrary rule written in a certain book by some guy who had a different opinion? Why the heck would you? It's not like the police will be at your house if you don't follow that rule...

[da newt]

I completely understand your view point - you can change any rules you want to, but if you choose to violate that RAW, what gives any written rule any validity? Where does it end?

The oathbreaker is written to be a special case that requires the DM's permission to allow a Paladin PC to be EVIL. If you change the oathbreaker to have no alignment or other requirements, then it just becomes another subclass with it's own mechanical specialties. If that works for your table go for it, but for me it makes sense for those sorts of special powers to have a cost and they shouldn't work for a 'GOOD' paladin. In my opinion, to allow that cheapens what it means to be a paladin in the same way that a Warlock Pact and Fallen Aasimar ought to have strings attached.

[Arkhios]

Are you going to restrict yourself based on some arbitrary rule written in a certain book by some guy who had a different opinion? Why the heck would you? It's not like the police will be at your house if you don't follow that rule...

The DM might not let it slide, though. It's a rule from a rulebook. Rules exist so that the game doesn't fall apart.