Why is "Oath of devotion" so.... lame?

[YoBroNo]

So, is it just me? Or does Oath of devotion just get the plain oatmeal of spell selection? I talked with my DM about it and he said that i could just play another class. however, this is the only one that is devoted to a deity rather than some other source, be it selfish goals, a kingdom, or nature. I want to play a paladin devoted to serving his god but it just feels... meh? Are there any reasonable changed to this class to make it on par with the others?

paladin: im gonna worship you. what do i get?
god: here take these spells
p: but... i already get those
g: meh. just worship me and be good.
p: but, the vengeful guy, the selfish guy, and the worldly guy all get cool stuff.
g: you will have to live with it
p: but, don't you want me to be more useful in glorifying you?
g: nah, i like unsalted rice and plain oatmeal in the mornings. if you want the other stuff i guess you could be less pure and choose them...
p: :smallmad:
g: :smallbiggrin:
p: so you don't care if i follow you or not?
g: not really, im not like the other gods vying for attention with fancy spells, people like you that worship me are a dime a dozen.
p: :smalleek:
g: [enter thug life meme]

[jmartkdr]

Sacred Weapon is awesome if your charisma is decent - remember it *stacks*.

The aura against charm is pretty darn good, since that includes a lot of hypnosis spells.

Prema- protection form evil is amazing (if a little late game.)

Dispel magic, lesser restoration, and freedom of movement are all clutch when you need them, and free up slots for other solid spell choices.

I've never felt like my devotion paladin was short cool stuff. My ancients paladin had that feeling much more often (although misty step is darn good).

[YoBroNo]

Sacred Weapon is awesome if your charisma is decent - remember it *stacks*.

The aura against charm is pretty darn good, since that includes a lot of hypnosis spells.

Prema- protection form evil is amazing (if a little late game.)

Dispel magic, lesser restoration, and freedom of movement are all clutch when you need them, and free up slots for other solid spell choices.

I've never felt like my devotion paladin was short cool stuff. My ancients paladin had that feeling much more often (although misty step is darn good).

I guess i could add this dm cuts off at level 6 for all his games

[MaxWilson]

Oath of Devotion is one of the better Oaths. Partly this is because they're the only Paladins worthy of the name (the others should be called Idealists or something), but they have pretty decent abilities too.

(1) Sacred Weapon not only gives you a magic weapon, but it's one with a huuuuge bonus that goes well with GWM and/or smiting. It does take an action to cast so only worthwhile in fights that look like they're going to be pretty long and tough, but you can pair it with a bonus-action spell like e.g. casting Sanctuary on the squishiest party member. Or you can Sacred Weapon + cast Wrathful Smite + move forward to threaten an opportunity attack, and then anyone who tries to move past you to hit the squishies gets hit with your +Enormous attack bonus and has to make a Wisdom save or be frightened basically for as long as you can keep concentration. (The chances of passing the Wisdom check with disadvantage are pretty small for anyone who would fail the Wisdom check in the first place.)

(2) Turning a whole group of scary fiends or undead is also an excellent Channel Divinity option. Large AoE and again no concentration cost. Note: clerics cannot turn fiends, and Vengeance paladins only get to frighten one creature. Turning a whole group of shadows or shadow demons can turn a potential TPK into a cakewalk. (Magic Resistance does not help demons on their saves BTW, so this is even better than a crowd control spell like Fear.)

(3) The spell list is kind of a mixed bag.

Sanctuary is a really nice defensive addition, not normally available to Paladins, which can benefit the Paladin (cast after attacking every round, if you want to) or his buddies (cast on a paralyzed buddy to prevent them from getting auto-critted). Note that it can even protect against things like beholder eye-beams (will cut the number of eye-beams by about 50%).

Protection From Evil is a terrific defensive spell which is on the Paladins spell list already, but having it on your domain list means it doesn't compete for slots and you always just have it. It's particularly relevant as you go up in levels to the point where stuff like Blur and Mirror Image stops working due to blindsight/truesight/etc., but Protection From Evil always works against fiends/fey/aberrations/elementals (and celestials).

Lesser Restoration is mostly good for ending paralyzation before somebody gets killed. Not a terrific spell to prepare but not a bad spell to have auto-prepared.

Zone of Truth is mostly for RP.

Beacon of Hope isn't great, and Dispel Magic is expensive for a half-caster, but again, Dispel Magic is a pretty good spell to have auto-prepared just in case you need it.

I have never played and have no intentions of ever playing a pure-classed paladin beyond level 12 so I won't comment on the higher-level spells.

(4) The anti-charm aura at 7th level is amazingly good protection against a rare but seriously deadly threat. It also lets other PCs throw around Hypnotic Pattern with no risk of friendly fire "casualties." Good ability overall, IMO significantly better than the Ancients' ability to halve spell-related damage, because condition-related spells are more deadly than damage-causing spells, and this ability works against things other than spells. The Vengeance 7 ability is pretty lame.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Oath of Devotion is the Paladin's equivalent to the Champion Fighter, the generic, simple subclass that maintains the classic flavor. That's why it feels like "plain oatmeal"--it was intended to. Protection from Evil and Good, Lesser Restoration, Dispel Magic... they're not flashy spells, but they're almost always worth preparing. Turn the Unholy and Aura of Devotion are situational, but they're encounter-winning when they become relevant (and just as importantly, they're relevant at different times). And Sacred Weapon is (I think) the biggest flat attack-boosting ability in the game-- +2 to +5 to all weapon attacks, all encounter, no concentration? Talk about buffs.

If you want an alternate goody-goody Paladin Oath, you can always check out the Oath of Redemption from Xanathar's Guide to Everything. They get some great control spells, an aura to take damage for allies, and Channel Divinities to either get a huge boost to Charisma checks or to deal reaction damage when someone hits an ally.

[Cikomyr2]

Dispel magic is a condom spell. You may never expect to need it, but when you do and you don't have it, you hit yourself in the nuts

[LudicSavant]

Oath of Devotion's pretty good, I think.

Charm immunity is really good. A lot of effects don't work if you're immune to charm. More than you'd think. Everything from harpy songs to dominate person to hypnotic patterns to much more. And many of those effects are among the nastiest saves you can possibly fail.

The channel divinity is decent -- just make sure you get some scouting going on in your party so you can cast it before a combat starts.

Sanctuary's a good add to the spell list. PFG&E, Lesser Restoration, Dispel Magic, and Freedom of Movement are things you'll always want prepared.

Being always under the effect of PFG&E is also a really good defensive effect against about half the creature types in the Monster Manual.

[KorvinStarmast]

I guess i could add this dm cuts off at level 6 for all his games then the paladin isn't the problem, is it? My brother plays one, he's got no complaints.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Hey OP, are you aware that 5e Paladins are empowered by their oaths, not by their gods?

[Contrast]

So, is it just me?

So your objection is just that their spells are ones already on the paladin list? Devotion are the paladins paladin. They're the most paladiny paladins who ever paladined. If you find the idea of being a paladin and what that entails boring then yeah, you're going to find devotion boring.


this is the only one that is devoted to a deity rather than some other source

So a) Devotion paladins are not required to worship a deity and b) other paladins are totally allowed to worship a diety. Or to state more broadly, any paladin can worship a deity or not independent of their Oath. It is up to you and your DM to fluff out the source of their powers.

I think Devotion is fine but if you don't, feel free to play a Vengeance paladin who has been empowered by Illmater to bring an end to those who cause pain and suffering.

[JackPhoenix]

(2) Turning a whole group of scary fiends or undead is also an excellent Channel Divinity option. Large AoE and again no concentration cost. Note: clerics cannot turn fiends, and Vengeance paladins only get to frighten one creature. Turning a whole group of shadows or shadow demons can turn a potential TPK into a cakewalk. (Magic Resistance does not help demons on their saves BTW, so this is even better than a crowd control spell like Fear.)

Small correction: Channel Divinity is explicitly magical, so magic resistance works against it. "Your oath allows you to channel divine energy to fuel magical effects."

[Willie the Duck]

Oath of Devotion is the Paladin's equivalent to the Champion Fighter, the generic, simple subclass that maintains the classic flavor. That's why it feels like "plain oatmeal"--it was intended to.

The Devotion Paladin, Champion Fighter, Life Cleric, Evoker Wizard and Thief Rogue are all examples of 'leaning into the iconic _____' archetypes -- they support and incentivize you to do the things with which people often associate a given class (some classes can't do that with a single archetype, since there are at least 2 frequent interpretations of a class, for example is a ranger more of a animal-companion-haver or a favored-enemy-hunter?). Overall, I think the paladin's version of this concept is one of the better ones.

[Chronos]

It has always been the case, in every edition of D&D, that any character of any class can worship and be devoted to a deity. If you want to be devoted to a deity, then go ahead, be devoted to a deity.

[MaxWilson]

Small correction: Channel Divinity is explicitly magical, so magic resistance works against it. "Your oath allows you to channel divine energy to fuel magical effects."

Ah, sad. I checked in the Oath of Devotion description but overlooked checking the base Channel Divinity.

Isn't it weird BTW how "magical" is better than normal for weapon attacks, and worse for everything else?

[KorvinStarmast]

Devotion are the paladins paladin. They're the most paladiny paladins who ever paladined. Plus many. :smallbiggrin:

I think Devotion is fine but if you don't, feel free to play a Vengeance paladin who has been empowered by Illmater to bring an end to those who cause pain and suffering. Our first 5e game had a vengeance paladin. Worked great with that kind of theme, but he didn't have a god. Just an attitude. :smallcool: And an Oath.

Small correction: Channel Divinity is explicitly magical, so magic resistance works against it. "Your oath allows you to channel divine energy to fuel magical effects." Ooh, rats.

The Devotion Paladin, Champion Fighter, Life Cleric, Evoker Wizard and Thief Rogue are all examples of 'leaning into the iconic _____' archetypes -- they support and incentivize you to do the things with which people often associate a given class {snip} Overall, I think the paladin's version of this concept is one of the better ones. Agree. But I fell in love with Ancients Paladin when I made one.

[NecessaryWeevil]

So your objection is just that their spells are ones already on the paladin list? Devotion are the paladins paladin. They're the most paladiny paladins who ever paladined. If you find the idea of being a paladin and what that entails boring then yeah, you're going to find devotion boring.


While that may be true, it doesn't make "You now know these spells that you...already know" into a selling point.

[MaxWilson]

While that may be true, it doesn't make "You now know these spells that you...already know" into a selling point.

Sanctuary is not on the regular Paladin list.

[JNAProductions]

While that may be true, it doesn't make "You now know these spells that you...already know" into a selling point.

You also get them permanently prepared for free.

It's why Clerics and Paladins expanded lists can feature spells on their list already, while Warlocks never have that.

[MaxWilson]

You also get them permanently prepared for free.

It's why Clerics and Paladins expanded lists can feature spells on their list already, while Warlocks never have that.

<Tangent> Conversely, it's why Eberron Dragonmarks are so interesting: you still have to learn/prepare the spells as normal (and if you're a wizard you still have to find them in play, or learn them as one of your free picks at level-up), and typically there's only one or two that aren't already on your class list, if you pick a Dragonmark with good stat boosts for your class. But those one or two are REALLY good, e.g. a Mark of Storms half-elf warlock can get Conjure Elemental, which is awesome for a warlock because normally you only get it 1/long rest even if you pay the invocation tax. Similarly, wizards and therefore Eldritch Knights already have access to pretty much all of the Mark of Shadow spells EXCEPT Pass Without Trace (which happens to be an Abjuration spell fortunately), but Pass Without Trace is good enough to (sometimes) justify Mark of Shadow all by itself (though the 1/long rest Invisibility doesn't hurt either). </Tangent>

Anyway, yeah, having good spells auto-prepared is good even if you could have prepared them anyway. There's always a ton of pressure on your spells-prepared.

[Illven]

Honestly they're lame, cause the instant they have an evil ruler with legitimate authority over them, they either betray said legitimate authority and fall, or commit a heinous act and eventually fall.

[Razade]

Honestly they're lame, cause the instant they have an evil ruler with legitimate authority over them, they either betray said legitimate authority and fall, or commit a heinous act and eventually fall.

How can an evil ruler's rule ever be legitimate? The only legitimate act against an evil ruler is to take them out and put in a non-evil ruler.

[Waazraath]

Honestly they're lame, cause the instant they have an evil ruler with legitimate authority over them, they either betray said legitimate authority and fall, or commit a heinous act and eventually fall.

Well, if you have a DM who uses a playstyle that was considered backwards at least 15 years ago, in that case yeah: "haha force the lawful good paladin to choose between good and law and watch him fall, heads I win tails you lose!" In the current setup of the game, I think it could provide nice rp opportunities without any falling necessary.

[P. G. Macer]

How can an evil ruler's rule ever be legitimate? The only legitimate act against an evil ruler is to take them out and put in a non-evil ruler.

To build further upon this, the Tenets of Devotion specify that you are to “obey those who have just authority over you” (emphasis added). Just because an authority is legitimate does not make it just.

[DeTess]

How can an evil ruler's rule ever be legitimate? The only legitimate act against an evil ruler is to take them out and put in a non-evil ruler.

'Legitimate' would refer purely to the laws of succession, so if the next person in the line of succession after the previous ruler died just so happens to be evil that doesn't change their legitimacy. If someone good then leads a rebellion, overthrows the evil ruler and installs themselves as the new ruler they would be illegitimate (unless they happened to be the next person in the line of succession after the evil ruler, and the laws of succession don't kick out anyone murdering their way up it). This illegitimacy might not matter much to the populace, and might even get swept under the rug quite quickly, but it might also come back to bite their line in a couple of generations when someone descending from the actually legitimate line tries to claim the throne back.

[LudicSavant]

The Oath of Devotion does not say that you must obey legitimate authority. It says just (e.g. "morally right and fair") authority.

I personally take this to mean that the only obligation a Devotion Paladin owes an evil ruler is a mailed fist to the face.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Honestly they're lame, cause the instant they have an evil ruler with legitimate authority over them, they either betray said legitimate authority and fall, or commit a heinous act and eventually fall.

The Oath of Devotion does not say that you must obey legitimate authority. It says just (e.g. "morally right and fair") authority.

I personally take this to mean that the only obligation a Devotion Paladin owes an evil ruler is a mailed fist to the face.
This,


Well, if you have a DM who uses a playstyle that was considered backwards at least 15 years ago, in that case yeah: "haha force the lawful good paladin to choose between good and law and watch him fall, heads I win tails you lose!" In the current setup of the game, I think it could provide nice rp opportunities without any falling necessary.
Which didn't actually work because Paladins fell from doing something evil not simply unlawful. The code was strictest in the good vs evil axis. It was the strict adherence to a code and a belief in a well ordered society that made them lawful.

Any Lawful Good adventurer is going to follow the creed.
"Lex iniusta non est lex" an unjust law is no law at all.

[DevilMcam]

Small correction: Channel Divinity is explicitly magical, so magic resistance works against it. "Your oath allows you to channel divine energy to fuel magical effects."

I may have missed it but i rechecked every entry of CD and i havent found anything pointing toward that.
RAW channeling divine energy is not magical

[Waazraath]

Which didn't actually work because Paladins fell from doing something evil not simply unlawful. The code was strictest in the good vs evil axis. It was the strict adherence to a code and a belief in a well ordered society that made them lawful.

Any Lawful Good adventurer is going to follow the creed.
"Lex iniusta non est lex" an unjust law is no law at all.

Which I personnaly agree with you, but years of annoying arguments convince me that 5e's system, where there's no room for this nonsense whatsoever, is infinitely better than to leave the room open for discussion.

[Illven]

That is my bad. I misread.

[Millstone85]

I may have missed it but i rechecked every entry of CD and i havent found anything pointing toward that.
RAW channeling divine energy is not magicalYou must have missed it.


At 2nd level, you gain the ability to channel divine energy directly from your deity, using that energy to fuel magical effects.
Your oath allows you to channel divine energy to fuel magical effects.
Does a creature with Magic Resistance have advantage on saving throws against Channel Divinity abilities, such as Turn the Faithless? Channel Divinity creates magical effects (as stated in both the cleric and the paladin). Magic Resistance applies.

[Contrast]

I may have missed it but i rechecked every entry of CD and i havent found anything pointing toward that.
RAW channeling divine energy is not magical

They quoted the relevant passage already.


Your oath allows you to channel divine energy to fuel magical effects.

Its under the Sacred Oath heading and subsequent Channel Divinity sub-heading. The Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) (p18, 'Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?') offers some guidance on assessing what is and isn't magical and one of the broad guidance points was if its described as magical, its magical.

Edit - ninja'd