Devotion Paladin Underrated?

[kbob]

I may be misreading people but I often see Paladin of Devotion (PoD) as being listed as sub-optimal or good (not the worst) but not as good as vengeance and ancients.
I tend to think it’s just as good (not necessarily better though) but for different reasons. It doesn’t have the solo DPR of vengeance nor the tankiness of ancients, but PoD is still a Paladin so it still does those things very well just not AS well. It seems to be more about bolstering the party and being thwarting classically held views of evil (the classic Paladin). I think it’s a more all around optimized path not focused.
Where I think the PoD shines is in its auras. I know some think they’re situational but I don’t think they’re as situational as they are made out to be at times. I mean a big feature of elves is advantage on saves vs charm but you are completely immune. Outright. And only level 7. Always on, with no concentration and no resources used. And it extends to 10’ around you for allies. Having always on protection from good/evil is huge too! Yes it is redundant with aura of devotion but it also gives disadvantage on attacks against you. The Possession is not that big. But people say protection from good/evil is situational. I say no. It’s not. It covers A LOT of creature types, ones that you will more than likely be spending most of your time fighting at this point (level 15) and its always on! I want to say there is an item in curse of strahd (icon of ravenloft?) that is similar but with more restrictions and it is legendary. Aberrations, Celestials, Elementals, fey, Fiends, and Undead. Those are pretty much the bulk of your high level monsters. They can’t even dispel the ability cuz it’s always on. This ability, I think, this gets downplayed often. I was an optimizer in 3.5 days and remember that immunities and having always on conditions were invaluable and usually the greatest desired. I don’t know why 5e doesn’t get the same focus sometimes as it’s harder to get such things. By that I mean, immunities and always on features are harder to come by cuz of 5e concentration mechanics and all around nerfing things from previous editions. This, in my mind, means when such things do come around, grab them!
The other feature of PoD is sacred weapon. Turn undead is cool but that’s more flavor. Sacred weapon is wonderful. A static bonus to hit with any weapon is rare! And it’s directly related to your char mod. (Another reason to make char main ability stat, but that’s another convo). Getting advantage in 5e is not that hard. But static bonuses are! With a 20 char that’s +5 bonus. Prob have a magic weapon but if not you do now. Sword and board alone is great. But with GWF this is amazing! The only thing that sucks about it, action to use it. Bonus action (BA) sanctuary (the only good devotion spell but a REALLY good one of you know how to abuse it... no concentration, BA after attacking BBEG, make him make a wis save to even attack you, if he fails and tries to leave and go after someone else OA) or BA some smite spell. Or if your walking to the boss sub-boss activate this while he’s yapping his mouth.
Anyway. Those are just my thoughts. I’m not saying PoD is better than the other 2 but I think it’s just as good on the whole. Not as good for specific focuses but just as good by being more all around useful. More flexible. Thoughts?

[OldTrees1]

Devotion is not underrated. You just see the DPS Vengeance crowd and the protector Ancients crowd be louder.

Paladin subclasses really only have 2 features. The 15th and 20th level features are not level appropriate and require other levels that are also not level appropriate. So I will focus on the 3rd and 7th level features.


3rd level: Paladin of Devotion gets a big accuracy boost with Sacred Weapon. Assuming you are still focused on Charisma first, you are now at +2/+3 Attack compared to the Barbarian. This is like Vow of Enmity but against every opponent, except it does not help with crit fishing.

7th level: Ever since 4E introduced the "repeat save at end of every round" nerf to debuffs, immunity to those debuffs became less important. So in 5E Immunity to Charm is less important than Immunity to Compulsion was in 3E. As you noticed there is some anti synergy between Aura of Protection and Aura of Devotion. In contrast Ancient's Aura of Warding synergizes with Aura of Protection. An Ancients Paladin lets the party nuke their own location without concern.


So Devotion has good features at both levels. There is a reason it is highly recommended despite not having as vocal support.


Although I will favor Ancients in 5E. I focus on the Auras and Ancients does have the slightly better Aura.

PS: Extra lines between paragraphs makes posts easier to read. You can even user longer gaps to signal sections.

[diplomancer]

I would order the PHB Paladins thus:
Ancients>Devotion>Vengeance.

Main problem with devotion is their uninspiring spell list. But Oath of Enmity, though good at level 3, falls off as more sources of advantage become available, while Sacred Weapon stays relevant.

Turn the Unholy is interesting to compare with Turn the Faithless. Undead are more common than Fey, but if there's a Cleric in the party Turn the Faithless is better.

All 3 are very good. Devotion is less liked probably more for the fluff (so old-fashioned!) than for the mechanics.

[Chugger]

Context is very important in discussing whether or not something is great - so so - bad or w/e in 5e.

I created a Devo Pal for Curse of Strahd in AL, am so glad I did. I was the only one who could turn undead, and it literally saved us from wiping when we stumbled into a nest of vampire spawn. Turn undead is incredibly powerful - if you ever fight undead (context). In some campaigns there is almost none - but Devo can also turn fiends. In some campaigns you run into very few undead and fiends. But some campaigns are full of them.

I agree the other channel div things is a problem in that it costs an action - and it's rare to get a prep round before a fight in 5e - and action economy is so important. In some fights it can help a lot.

Resistance to charm, again, is incredibly context-driven. Where I play AL, some of the DMs got into a habit of giving dominate human to any caster in the module and picking on the parties no-wis-save meleers, wreaking havoc. I had finished CoS and joined these campaigns - and nope, no charming around me. If someone slipped out of my aura and got charmed, over I go - poof, no more charm. But if party members getting charmed is rare, then again this feature is not stellar.

Ancients is imho overrated, at least the lvl 7 aura is somewhat, because not all campaigns feature lots of casters - some are very sparesly populated w/ casters - and not all casters cast damage spells that this aura helps against. When you are fighting a caster, the aura is great! And when you aren't - the other stuff in this type doesn't always stack up.

I've felt every time I played paladin, at times at least, I wished I'd gone with some other type - because in that moment that other type would have been perfect. But then another fight fits the type I picked and for that fight I was very happy w/ my choice. Choice of pal is something that's going to be hit or miss depending on what you're fighting.

[Waazraath]

I agree its a very solid subclass. I don't know if it's underraded, for me almost all pally subclasses are very solid. Personally, I think ancients and devotion are the most attractive subclasses. But it also depends on party and campaign.

You are right about immunities - you also see it when the berserker subclass is discussed. It's level 6 class fearture (immune to fear/charm during rage) is splendid for a martial without high wisom / wis save proficiency. Even more important than for a paladin, cause with +5 to saves, a paladin is much more likely to make such saves. But people are so annoyed with the exhaustion mechanic for berserker rage, that it is a much maligned subclass and its immunity features aren't valued enough, imo.

[Ir0ns0ul]

I think the Devotion Paladin has more balance between offense and defense. Vengeance is all about offense and Ancients is fully focused on defense.

Overall, I think it’s a very good sub-class and I even like the bonus spells (Sanctuary is great indeed, but is always good to have Lesser Restoration).

In the end of the day, though, I still believe that Conquest Paladins are top notch. Great channel divinity options, outstanding control options through their auras and great bonus spells (Spirirual Weapon!)

[Guy Lombard-O]

Devotion is less liked probably more for the fluff (so old-fashioned!) than for the mechanics.

100% this. Devotion paladins represent everything that turned me off about paladins in AD&D. I love 5E paladins in general, and I have no problem with Devotion's mechanics, but I'd never play one due to the overly restrictive, party-unfriendly tenets with which they are burdened.

[diplomancer]

100% this. Devotion paladins represent everything that turned me off about paladins in AD&D. I love 5E paladins in general, and I have no problem with Devotion's mechanics, but I'd never play one due to the overly restrictive, party-unfriendly tenets with which they are burdened.

I don't think Devotion tenets are party-unfriendly. MAYBE the one about "obeying those with just authority over you", but for that to be a problem:
1- player has to CHOOSE, through their background story, to have someone with just authority over his character
2- DM has to CHOOSE to use this hypothetical authority to create conflict for the party.

Redemption, now.... there's an Oath VERY hard to follow in the kind of game D&D is.

[KorvinStarmast]

100% this. Devotion paladins represent everything that turned me off about paladins in AD&D. I love 5E paladins in general, and I have no problem with Devotion's mechanics, but I'd never play one due to the overly restrictive, party-unfriendly tenets with which they are burdened. My brother plays one. Nobody has any issues with him being a good guy. I guess each table has its own balance point.

[kbob]

I think I see now. I guess I knew people often didn’t like the old school Paladin restrictiveness but I guess I failed to see to what level (that it gets pushed aside in discussion). I actually prefer the old school Paladin as it seems more true Paladin to me. Furthermore, I personally would like to see it inch out beyond the others at least by level 20 for that simple reason (choosing to take the harder path to follow and waiving off short-term reward for long-term gain seems like a Paladin thing or like Jedi vs dark side). I always envisioned the Paladin being annoying to have around (like Superman) but dang, when he was needed no one else would have done it (like Superman... just not as godmode). In ADnD Paladins were VERY restrictive and overall meh until they were rewarded with a holy sword. My word, that changes the entire game. And if that holy sword was a Holy Avenger, the DM just broke the game. Evil cowered in fear of the Paladin at that point as they become walking embodiments of divine wrath. But this is all preference and I get that Palys make other players feel pigeon held into playing certain tropes.

All that to be said, I didn’t bring up flavor or preference cuz my question was not about that. I genuinely thought and saw devotion being put under the others. On most optimizer lists that I’ve seen it’s usually, vengeance, ancients, and oath breaker (which shouldn’t be a Paladin but it is) as top level and devotion is on the second tier (though usually highly suggested at this tier). Or that the other 3 are blue on someone’s list (how that became the standard for everyone’s optimizer pages for best idk, but I’m down with consistency) and devotion is green (good but not optimal). I was legit confused and was wondering, only playing 5e for a year and a half, if things that I held as dominate before are not so much now (immunities, features that are always on without concentration). Though I did read a good take on why it’s not AS good cuz of saves each round, it seems that it is still something to be desired. I do still hear ancients aura is better but I’m not sure I’m convinced. I know spell damage can be nasty at times but on the whole it’s the brutes that do the most damage. I can tank it out with HP for a while and someone with healing word can keep me relevant if HP go 0. It’s save/suck spells that I hate as frontliners. You can have max HP and all party other members ready to cast HW, but that won’t help you when the evil wizard has you held and his pet is literally trying to eat you. Of course palys do have the best saves (except oath breaker which seems to be 5e’s antipaladin) but even Paladins fail saves sometimes so immunities I feel are more important than spell damage resistance. I more concerned of area effect, debuffs, and control spells than actual damage (not to say this is NO concern just not AS much... I mean a failed save on disintegration is never fun). The action to activate sacred weapon sucks but doesn’t break it. Just take that time to BA prep something I guess. But the bonus to attack anything is nice, I wish it added damage though.

But that’s just my thoughts. Again, mechanicwise I don’t see it as best just that it’s as good as the other top tiers. I think I see that others may feel the same but just don’t like the vanilla flavor. I completely respect that and completely understand why too. But I personally likes paly as the guy that always does the right thing even when it’s bad to do that. But when he is needed, all of his annoyances seem to not care at the time. Just my thoughts.

[Willie the Duck]

I think devotion paladin is much like thief rogue, life cleric, evoker wizard, hunter ranger, and so forth (not champion fighter, since there's a lot to talk about when people are disappointed in a thing) -- the things is the iconic conception of the core class, and people have had 1-50 years and countless editions to say what they have to say about the concept.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think I see now. I guess I knew people often didn’t like the old school Paladin restrictiveness but I guess I failed to see to what level (that it gets pushed aside in discussion). I actually prefer the old school Paladin as it seems more true Paladin to me.
And it's why they included it in this edition, I suspect.


I genuinely thought and saw devotion being put under the others. On most optimizer lists that I’ve seen it’s usually, vengeance, ancients, and oath breaker (which shouldn’t be a Paladin but it is) as top level and devotion is on the second tier (though usually highly suggested at this tier).
Oath breaker is a DMG option of a paladin breaks their oath; I have a hard time conceptually seeing one start from level 1, but min maxers don't seem to be bothered by that in most cases.

I, on the other hand, really like the feel of Ancients Paladin and the theme behind it. It's nice that there are choices. You can play them as a servant of The Light and not have a deity involved at all.

[Frogreaver]

Devotion has a lot of situational benefits and it’s channel divinity presents an action economy issue. It’s Oath spell list is also subpar compared to others.

I mean it’s still a paladin with some pros and cons compared to others. It’s not like you won’t ever find a good time to use the channel divinity. Basically all the subclass level 7 auras are situational.

I think we often put too much stock into subclass power differences (outside the obvious mechanically inferior ones - champion, beast master,etc). If main class adds 100% power then subclass adds 10-20% more typically and that’s highly variable depending on the campaign/dm.

[MaxWilson]

The action economy issue of Sacred Weapon is partially mitigated IME by the fact that you have really good bonus action spells already, and spells are limited to one per round. For example, if you spend a turn activating Sacred Weapon and casting Wrathful Smite and moving next to a bad guy, then if he ignores you and moves to attack someone else, you hit him with Wrathful Smite at +12ish to hit, threatening to take him out of the combat entirely. Or you could Sacred Weapon + Sanctuary. Either way, you're still playing a role in the combat that round (tanking), as well as getting ready to hit back really hard.

If Devotion Paladins got Extra Attack 2 I would totally go GWM on them. (But, they don't, so it feels like a waste--but not because of the Sacred Weapon action economy issues.)

[kbob]

The action economy issue of Sacred Weapon is partially mitigated IME by the fact that you have really good bonus action spells already, and spells are limited to one per round. For example, if you spend a turn activating Sacred Weapon and casting Wrathful Smite and moving next to a bad guy, then if he ignores you and moves to attack someone else, you hit him with Wrathful Smite at +12ish to hit, threatening to take him out of the combat entirely. Or you could Sacred Weapon + Sanctuary. Either way, you're still playing a role in the combat that round (tanking), as well as getting ready to hit back really hard.

This was alway my view on it. You have a number of BA to use. Plus, depending on DM if you’re walking up to challenge before initiative, you can be taking the opportunity to activate it. Villains like to run there mouths sometimes. “Mr Bond, before I kill you, allow me to tell you my diabolical plan.”

[diplomancer]

I think I see now. I guess I knew people often didn’t like the old school Paladin restrictiveness but I guess I failed to see to what level (that it gets pushed aside in discussion). I actually prefer the old school Paladin as it seems more true Paladin to me. Furthermore, I personally would like to see it inch out beyond the others at least by level 20 for that simple reason (choosing to take the harder path to follow and waiving off short-term reward for long-term gain seems like a Paladin thing or like Jedi vs dark side). I always envisioned the Paladin being annoying to have around (like Superman) but dang, when he was needed no one else would have done it (like Superman... just not as godmode). In ADnD Paladins were VERY restrictive and overall meh until they were rewarded with a holy sword. My word, that changes the entire game. And if that holy sword was a Holy Avenger, the DM just broke the game. Evil cowered in fear of the Paladin at that point as they become walking embodiments of divine wrath. But this is all preference and I get that Palys make other players feel pigeon held into playing certain tropes.

All that to be said, I didn’t bring up flavor or preference cuz my question was not about that. I genuinely thought and saw devotion being put under the others. On most optimizer lists that I’ve seen it’s usually, vengeance, ancients, and oath breaker (which shouldn’t be a Paladin but it is) as top level and devotion is on the second tier (though usually highly suggested at this tier). Or that the other 3 are blue on someone’s list (how that became the standard for everyone’s optimizer pages for best idk, but I’m down with consistency) and devotion is green (good but not optimal). I was legit confused and was wondering, only playing 5e for a year and a half, if things that I held as dominate before are not so much now (immunities, features that are always on without concentration). Though I did read a good take on why it’s not AS good cuz of saves each round, it seems that it is still something to be desired. I do still hear ancients aura is better but I’m not sure I’m convinced. I know spell damage can be nasty at times but on the whole it’s the brutes that do the most damage. I can tank it out with HP for a while and someone with healing word can keep me relevant if HP go 0. It’s save/suck spells that I hate as frontliners. You can have max HP and all party other members ready to cast HW, but that won’t help you when the evil wizard has you held and his pet is literally trying to eat you. Of course palys do have the best saves (except oath breaker which seems to be 5e’s antipaladin) but even Paladins fail saves sometimes so immunities I feel are more important than spell damage resistance. I more concerned of area effect, debuffs, and control spells than actual damage (not to say this is NO concern just not AS much... I mean a failed save on disintegration is never fun). The action to activate sacred weapon sucks but doesn’t break it. Just take that time to BA prep something I guess. But the bonus to attack anything is nice, I wish it added damage though.

But that’s just my thoughts. Again, mechanicwise I don’t see it as best just that it’s as good as the other top tiers. I think I see that others may feel the same but just don’t like the vanilla flavor. I completely respect that and completely understand why too. But I personally likes paly as the guy that always does the right thing even when it’s bad to do that. But when he is needed, all of his annoyances seem to not care at the time. Just my thoughts.

I believe the Ancient's Aura is usually better, mostly, because of your Steed. It really helps him stay alive (and remember, if the steed goes to 0 HP it disappears, no bouncing back with Healing Word).

Of course, if you are in a charm/dominate heavy campaign, Devotion's is better. They are both better than Vengeance's 7th level ability (which is bad in two ways, in my opinion- used as intended, it's weak sauce; abuse it with PAM and it's ridiculous and counterintuitive)

As to the fluff issue, I see no problem with the traditional Paladin (properly played and understood- OotS illustrates very well the differences between a badly played Paladin and well played ones), but I'm happy to see the different takes on it that 5e allows.

[MaxWilson]

I do still hear ancients aura is better but I’m not sure I’m convinced. I know spell damage can be nasty at times but on the whole it’s the brutes that do the most damage. I can tank it out with HP for a while and someone with healing word can keep me relevant if HP go 0. It’s save/suck spells that I hate as frontliners. You can have max HP and all party other members ready to cast HW, but that won’t help you when the evil wizard has you held and his pet is literally trying to eat you. Of course palys do have the best saves (except oath breaker which seems to be 5e’s antipaladin) but even Paladins fail saves sometimes so immunities I feel are more important than spell damage resistance. I more concerned of area effect, debuffs, and control spells than actual damage (not to say this is NO concern just not AS much... I mean a failed save on disintegration is never fun). The action to activate sacred weapon sucks but doesn’t break it. Just take that time to BA prep something I guess. But the bonus to attack anything is nice, I wish it added damage though.

I agree and endorse this view. Ancients' aura is overrated because spell damage in 5E is pretty anemic; Devotion's immunity to charm is underrated because getting dominated or hypnotized in 5E is very dangerous to you and/or your entire party.

I think the reason this viewpoint isn't more popular is that 5E is typically played to be so easy that defenses basically don't matter, you'll always win anyway. But it's a completely valid viewpoint, and an important one if you're playing adventures where the PCs might actually lose.

[Frogreaver]

The action economy issue of Sacred Weapon is partially mitigated IME by the fact that you have really good bonus action spells already, and spells are limited to one per round. For example, if you spend a turn activating Sacred Weapon and casting Wrathful Smite and moving next to a bad guy, then if he ignores you and moves to attack someone else, you hit him with Wrathful Smite at +12ish to hit, threatening to take him out of the combat entirely. Or you could Sacred Weapon + Sanctuary. Either way, you're still playing a role in the combat that round (tanking), as well as getting ready to hit back really hard.

If Devotion Paladins got Extra Attack 2 I would totally go GWM on them. (But, they don't, so it feels like a waste--but not because of the Sacred Weapon action economy issues.)

You are proposing sacred weapon + wrathful and hoping for an OA to use it?

Why not just attack + wrathful?

I’d suggest the just attack option plays out better in most circumstances. Which kind of demonstrates the action economy issues I’m talking about.

It is useful when you can prebuff or can’t get to the enemy or expect a really long battle. You’ll be able to use it if you take all the opportunities given. You won’t necessarily make use of it when it would be best because of action economy competition.

[MaxWilson]

You are proposing sacred weapon + wrathful and hoping for an OA to use it?

Why not just attack + wrathful?

Because activating Sacred Weapon in a tough fight puts you in a better position for rounds 2+.


I’d suggest the just attack option plays out better in most circumstances. Which kind of demonstrates the action economy issues I’m talking about.

It depends how tough the fight is and how long you therefore expect it to go. It also depends on how big a fraction of the party's offensive output rests on the Paladin.


It is useful when you can prebuff or can’t get to the enemy or expect a really long battle. You’ll be able to use it if you take all the opportunities given. You won’t necessarily make use of it when it would be best because of action economy competition.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't disagree.

[diplomancer]

Because activating Sacred Weapon in a tough fight puts you in a better position for rounds 2+.



It depends how tough the fight is and how long you therefore expect it to go. It also depends on how big of the party's offensive output rests on the Paladin.



Yeah, pretty much. I don't disagree.

I think Sacred Weapon gets bad rep because it's compared to Oath of Enmity, which a Vengeance Paladin will pretty much use every day (if not every combat). But that comparison is wrong, I believe; the "main" channel divinity of Devotion, like for Ancients, is actually "turn the unholy/faithless". Sacred weapon, like Wrath of Nature, is there to be used sometimes, when the circumstances are right, but unless you are certain you won't be facing fiends or undead, you are probably better off saving it for them.

With that in mind, I hope Tasha's will implement the "regain one 1st level slot" channel divinity that appeared in UA; it's a reasonable consolation prize for not getting to use your CD before a short rest.

[MaxWilson]

I think Sacred Weapon gets bad rep because it's compared to Oath of Enmity, which a Vengeance Paladin will pretty much use every day (if not every combat). But that comparison is wrong, I believe; the "main" channel divinity of Devotion, like for Ancients, is actually "turn the unholy/faithless". Sacred weapon, like Wrath of Nature, is there to be used sometimes, when the circumstances are right, but unless you are certain you won't be facing fiends or undead, you are probably better off saving it for them.

With that in mind, I hope Tasha's will implement the "regain one 1st level slot" channel divinity that appeared in UA; it's a reasonable consolation prize for not getting to use your CD before a short rest.

Yes, turning fiends as well as undead is amazing when it's applicable. Complete offensive action denial in a 30' radius AoE, with no concentration requirement or "save every round" clause. If it were a spell it would be at least 5th level.

[kbob]

I agree and endorse this view. Ancients' aura is overrated because spell damage in 5E is pretty anemic; Devotion's immunity to charm is underrated because getting dominated or hypnotized in 5E is very dangerous to you and/or your entire party.

I think the reason this viewpoint isn't more popular is that 5E is typically played to be so easy that defenses basically don't matter, you'll always win anyway. But it's a completely valid viewpoint, and an important one if you're playing adventures where the PCs might actually lose.

Ya I think that may be a fair point. We all agree to play dangerous. The monsters are smart and we have all lost characters at least once in our running campaign. So I’m thinking if it from that standpoint. Death and defeat are real options for the PCs. Most monsters have intels higher than 6 and most have decent wisdom. Bottom line, they will know what is “optimal” to use against optimally built PCs.

[Greywander]

What makes Ancients appealing is the broadness of Aura of Warding. It's hard to get more than a couple types of resistance, but Aura of Warding gives you resistance to all spell damage. This, combined with Aura of Protection, make an Ancients paladin a nightmare for any enemy caster to deal with. Even if you don't fight casters all that often, you can at least be confident that any caster you might face won't pose a significant threat (unless they're already way out of your league).

That said, damage reduction isn't the most important thing. Damage does absolutely nothing to you, not until you reach 0 HP. Some charm effects, like Dominate Person, can be really nasty, and will start affecting the party immediately. It's true that Aura of Protection can save you from these effects as well, but it's not guarantied.

Devotion paladins also get Purity of Spirit, albeit not until 15th level. While it doesn't work against some of the more common enemies you might face, like goblins and such, it does work against a pretty wide swath of tougher enemies. Odds are, you're going to be fighting something on that list. It is a little sad that you're already immune to fear and charm by the time you get this, though, so the only real benefits are immunity to possession and imposing disadvantage on attacks against you. I feel like this ability should have come sooner.

Personally, I actually prefer the fluff of the Devotion pally over the Ancients pally. I just like being the good guy. Dev pallies are true heroes. You do have to play them right to avoid falling into the Lawful Stupid pitfalls, though.

[OldTrees1]

Personally, I actually prefer the fluff of the Devotion pally over the Ancients pally. I just like being the good guy. Dev pallies are true heroes. You do have to play them right to avoid falling into the Lawful Stupid pitfalls, though.

This is one reason some prefer the fluff of Ancients pally over Devotion pally.
Devotion: Strive for personal moral perfection. Be honest, be brave, be honorable, do your duty. Also aid others, protect the weak, punish the wicked.
Ancient: Strive for a better world. Be a beacon of goodness, nurture the goodness in others, protect it both in yourself and in others.

As a result both can be heroes, but different types of hero.

[Greywander]

This is one reason some prefer the fluff of Ancients pally over Devotion pally.
Devotion: Strive for personal moral perfection. Be honest, be brave, be honorable, do your duty. Also aid others, protect the weak, punish the wicked.
Ancient: Strive for a better world. Be a beacon of goodness, nurture the goodness in others, protect it both in yourself and in others.

As a result both can be heroes, but different types of hero.
This might be an internal vs. external thing. The devotion paladin seeks inner goodness, to become a better person. The goodness within them will then shine out into the world around them, making the world a better place. The ancients paladin seeks outer goodness, to create a better world. The goodness without will reflect off of the people around them, making them into better people.

Both approaches have their own pitfalls. It's easy to see a devotion paladin becoming so focused on inner perfection that they ignore the evils going on around them. I.e. being good instead of doing good. This is how you get the Lawful Stupid types who adhere slavishly to dogmatic tenets, regardless of the consequences. Ancients paladins, on the other hand, I could see being subverted into doing things "for the greater good", i.e. being seduced to commit small acts of evil in the name of making the world a better place. Both oaths can learn something from each other and gain a more holistic view on what it means to do and be good.

[OldTrees1]

I partially agree. Well it is not exactly an internal vs external difference, although I see the comparison mostly fits, I don't want to overstate it either.

Ancient is still focusing on becoming a better person (nurturing the goodness within themselves, protecting the goodness within themselves) in addition to focusing outward on the internal light in others.

Devotion also focuses on punishing the wicked which is external difference.

However you do a decent job of highlighting pitfalls. One other area of pitfalls is what to do when someone does something wrong. Both mention protecting people / preventing the wrong. Devotion suggests merciful punishment for the wrongdoer. Ancient suggests nurturing the good within them. This is a case where you might need a mixture and the right ratio is subjective.

I agree with your comment about them being able to learn from each other. The Oath of Devotion is extremely resilient. They can easily become an immovable rock and survive the force of a river bearing down on them. The Oath of Ancients is good at non hostile encounters. They can easily see how everyone can work together to make the better world.

[MaxWilson]

What makes Ancients appealing is the broadness of Aura of Warding. It's hard to get more than a couple types of resistance, but Aura of Warding gives you resistance to all spell damage. This, combined with Aura of Protection, make an Ancients paladin a nightmare for any enemy caster to deal with. Even if you don't fight casters all that often, you can at least be confident that any caster you might face won't pose a significant threat (unless they're already way out of your league).

But damage-based casters are the least dangerous kinds of casters, and spellcasting damage dealers are the least common and arguably weakest kind of damage dealer. For every Flameskull or Spirit Naga threatening 8d6 (28) points of Fireball/Lightning, there's a metric ton of Fire Giants, Purple Worms, Star Spawn Seers, Neogi Masters, Intellect Devourers, Mind Flayer Arcanists, dragons, demon lords, etc. threatening either twice that much non-spell damage or else nasty non-damaging spells like Hold Person, Wall of Force, and Dominate Monster. What high-level spellcasters there are in the MM tend to come preloaded with weak spells like Time Stop and Power Word Kill, and if they switch to strong ones like True Polymorph and Holy Aura, the Ancients aura would do even less.

5E magic is quite simply bad at damage.


This is one reason some prefer the fluff of Ancients pally over Devotion pally.
Devotion: Strive for personal moral perfection. Be honest, be brave, be honorable, do your duty. Also aid others, protect the weak, punish the wicked.
Ancient: Strive for a better world. Be a beacon of goodness, nurture the goodness in others, protect it both in yourself and in others.

As a result both can be heroes, but different types of hero.

Ancients doesn't take a stand though on what goodness _is_, and it feels like a bit of a corporate cop-out on the part of WotC. "Goodness is whatever you decide it is!" The thing is, even bad guys always feel internally like they're really the good guys in their own story.

Ancients feels like an okay way to describe an alignment like Neutral God, but it just doesn't do it for me as a set of actual ideals held by a PC, much less paladin ideals (with all the baggage of the word "paladin"). It makes me want to drill down: what traits in yourself and others are you trying to nurture? Is dishonesty a betrayal of your ideals? How about unkindness? Etc.

[OldTrees1]

Ancients doesn't take a stand though on what goodness _is_, and it feels like a bit of a corporate cop-out on the part of WotC. "Goodness is whatever you decide it is!" The thing is, even bad guys always feel internally like they're really the good guys in their own story.

Ancients feels like an okay way to describe an alignment like Neutral God, but it just doesn't do it for me as a set of actual ideals held by a PC, much less paladin ideals (with all the baggage of the word "paladin"). It makes me want to drill down: what traits in yourself and others are you trying to nurture? Is dishonesty a betrayal of your ideals? How about unkindness? Etc.

Well kindness is explicit. Dishonesty would sometimes betray the ideals.

Word Cloud:
mercy, kindness, and forgiveness,
kindle the hope
beating back despair.
good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world
Where life flourishes
song laughter beauty art
beacon for all who live in despair.
light of your joy and courage

I admit Ancients use a lot of words when they define good, but they do have the outlines of a definition there (which is a limitation of other oaths as well). They want life to flourish. They focus on the traits of inspiring and propagating hope, and then performing and propagating action in the sustaining arts (must eat to live) and creative arts (propagates the positive emotions that make life worth living instead of filled with despair).

There is a reason why their tenants are to perform the actions of care for (nurture) others, care for (protect) others, self care (protect) and self care (nurture).

You are right to identify it as closer to NG.

Although you could turn this question around on the Devotion Paladin. How do they define good? They would reply "conforming to the strict conduct of avoiding the morally prohibited and striving to do the morally superogatory". They use words like "justice, virtue, order, word, promise, wisdom, honor, fairness, duty, trust, obey, & authority" which don't really reveal much. So we turn to their other words of "honesty, courage, aid, protect, punish, mercy". They are honest & brave, they aid & protect, and the punish. They are the just law but don't define justice beyond integrity and protection.

[Dork_Forge]

Personally my issues with Devotion fall down to the action economy of Sacred weapon and the spell list, an action to use means that you're getting no damage out for an entire turn for the most part (of course you can build around this, like a Lizard Folk activating SW with their action and Hungry Jaws bonus). I don't mind the action cost for Nature's Wrath because you're still actively doing something to the other side with that action and it provides a control effect that Paladin's don't really have in abundance.

Spell wise both the other PHB Oaths get Misty Step, that's a very hard spell to pass up for me (and the Vengeance Paladin in one of the games I'm running has made great use of it).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

We've played 4 campaigns in 5e including CoS and had 4 paladins, none of them Devotion. I think your first few sentences hit the nail on the head: they are good, but most of the other subclasses have something(s) about them that are great. The 7th level aura is arguably great and situational, however anyone inside that aura is also inside the 6th level aura and less likely to fail the save anyway. Contrast that with the Ancients 7th level aura and it helps on a fail or successful save.
I agree with the other posts that Devotion has largely been 'done' and for our group of experienced players that may be a reason for opting out as much as mechanics. With CoS done I doubt any of us will play a 5e Devotion Paly.

[MaxWilson]

We've played 4 campaigns in 5e including CoS and had 4 paladins, none of them Devotion. I think your first few sentences hit the nail on the head: they are good, but most of the other subclasses have something(s) about them that are great. The 7th level aura is arguably great and situational, however anyone inside that aura is also inside the 6th level aura and less likely to fail the save anyway.

Well, sort of. Bunching up in Fireball Formation is necessary to get the saving throw bonus, but if you just want to break a Dominate Monster or a Hypnotic Pattern or a Neogi Charm/etc., you can just move adjacent to the victim and they snap out of it--that is, you can bunch up retroactively.

[diplomancer]

Personally my issues with Devotion fall down to the action economy of Sacred weapon and the spell list, an action to use means that you're getting no damage out for an entire turn for the most part (of course you can build around this, like a Lizard Folk activating SW with their action and Hungry Jaws bonus). I don't mind the action cost for Nature's Wrath because you're still actively doing something to the other side with that action and it provides a control effect that Paladin's don't really have in abundance.

Spell wise both the other PHB Oaths get Misty Step, that's a very hard spell to pass up for me (and the Vengeance Paladin in one of the games I'm running has made great use of it).

Nature's wrath is pretty bad; the fact that the target gets to choose to make a Str or Dex save means that your chances of it working are small; and if it doesn't work, you used your action for nothing, while with sacred weapon you have a guaranteed effect. I think I used it three times during the entire course of a campaign all the way to 20th level (worked once).

Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, those are the "minor CDs" of those oaths, so it's ok for them to be not that good

[Dork_Forge]

Nature's wrath is pretty bad; the fact that the target gets to choose to make a Str or Dex save means that your chances of it working are small; and if it doesn't work, you used your action for nothing, while with sacred weapon you have a guaranteed effect. I think I used it three times during the entire course of a campaign all the way to 20th level (worked once).

Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, those are the "minor CDs" of those oaths, so it's ok for them to be not that good

I don't think it's bad at all, it has no size of type restriction and imposes one of the nicer debuffs, the fact that it uses a dedicated short rest resource instead of a spell slot is a nice mediating factor (if it used a slot my opinion would be more engative). The save or fail thing isn't really a big deal, most things are (attacks, any effect that isn't save for half damage) and you can pair it with things like Portent, Bane etc. to help make sure they fail (it also pairs nicely on a Fighter/Paladin with Action Surge to capitalise). Though I would choose Vow of Emnity over either of them, personally.

I disagree on the minor part, though that's probably because I don't like considering a situational ability to be the major one.

[Lord Raziere]

Well kindness is explicit. Dishonesty would sometimes betray the ideals.

Word Cloud:
mercy, kindness, and forgiveness,
kindle the hope
beating back despair.
good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world
Where life flourishes
song laughter beauty art
beacon for all who live in despair.
light of your joy and courage

I admit Ancients use a lot of words when they define good, but they do have the outlines of a definition there (which is a limitation of other oaths as well). They want life to flourish. They focus on the traits of inspiring and propagating hope, and then performing and propagating action in the sustaining arts (must eat to live) and creative arts (propagates the positive emotions that make life worth living instead of filled with despair).

There is a reason why their tenants are to perform the actions of care for (nurture) others, care for (protect) others, self care (protect) and self care (nurture).

You are right to identify it as closer to NG.

Although you could turn this question around on the Devotion Paladin. How do they define good? They would reply "conforming to the strict conduct of avoiding the morally prohibited and striving to do the morally superogatory". They use words like "justice, virtue, order, word, promise, wisdom, honor, fairness, duty, trust, obey, & authority" which don't really reveal much. So we turn to their other words of "honesty, courage, aid, protect, punish, mercy". They are honest & brave, they aid & protect, and the punish. They are the just law but don't define justice beyond integrity and protection.

Agreed, I do prefer Ancients over Devotion as Ancients emphasizes inspiring positive qualities in others to improve the world and not just be an example of purity but Devotion paladin to be fair is quite the step up from 3.5 paladin code. it defines good virtues while being flexible enough to be less locked into problematic absolutes of contention that lead to confusing and troublesome extremes of behavior. consistency is an overrated value in morality. while some rules are a good solid base to build on, they can't always handle the complexities built on top of them, and Devotion paladins are incredibly basic: their tenets are mostly about one's own purity and thus is concerned mostly with keeping oneself clean. Someone who is more willing to dirty their hands to help others would see Devotion paladins as a form of moral cowardice, unwilling to brave the murkier waters to do more good in the world so they can say that their integrity is uncompromised while others suffer, if they don't be compassionate enough. such pure moral integrity is not without cost. It is good to value the process, but when the process fails it is not immorality to recognize when a box needs to be thought outside of, or that it needs to be fixed.

why, the only reason why warring states and thus their constant war periods ever end is because a strong warlord conquers them and makes sure they unite into one empire that then is relatively peaceful in comparison -when they don't decide to start conquering other places too fast and instead take that sort of thing slow and gradual- a reason why the Oath of Conquest might even exist in the first place. would a Devotion or Ancients paladin even be willing to take the measures to ensure such success, against foes willing to use their codes against them? But on the other hand, its doubtful an Oath of Conquest stays the backbone of empire for long, and its more beneficial for something like the Oath of the Crown to become the norm for a kingdom or empire.

after all, Conquest would be driven to keep conquering in the short term and thus ruin the empire long term if they do it too fast stretch themselves too thin too soon, but the Crown paladins would put the welfare of their nation and civilization above anything else- they are the epitome of a Lawful Neutral paladin, and are what a Devotion paladin could potentially devolve into if they are not careful about thinking beyond the systems and processes. I find the Crown paladins to be a much more plausible paladin for most nations to have as loyal retainers in their militaries, while Devotion as potentially problematic for a nation in that they could be too pure for their purposes. when a king or leader orders you to do something, they expect you to do it without question-and I'd say a Devotion Paladin has the potential to be too compassionate to carry out some orders and thus get exiled to become a hedge knight and that this is a good thing (dare I say, even working as intended), but the Oath of the Crown has an advantage in that it can obey the rules without having to care about the suffering caused by those rules- they just have to care about the culture they champion and nothing else.

thus Ancients, Redemption and Devotion are better in comparison to Crown, because their compassion in both oaths separate them from being what the Crown paladins are: loyal soldiers of the state and nothing else, perfect for some oppressive or cruel ruler to take advantage of them for whatever reason they want. no one ever said the laws the Crown Paladin follows were just after all, and "just following orders" is a terrifying phrase. and then there is the self-explanatory Oath of Vengeance, the potentially narcissistic Oath of Glory, while Oath of Treachery and Oathbreaker don't have tenets- and thus are technically no different from any other PC.

Oath of Watchers is interesting but has no real moral weight to it by itself, since its tenets don't weigh it one way or another. technically there is nothing stopping an evil empire from having an order of these to fight angels even as another one fights demons and other threats.

[MaxWilson]

Someone who is more willing to dirty their hands to help others would see Devotion paladins as a form of moral cowardice, unwilling to brave the murkier waters to do more good in the world so they can say that their integrity is uncompromised while others suffer, if they don't be compassionate enough. such pure moral integrity is not without cost. It is good to value the process, but when the process fails it is not immorality to recognize when a box needs to be thought outside of, or that it needs to be fixed.

It comes off a little self-serving, but still, not a bad BBEG speech. Dr. Horrible would approve--that is, he would if he still had the ability to feel anything.

I don't trust any "paladin" who is this self-congratulatory about his morally dubious choices. I'm more likely to trust someone like John Marcone who admits to having become a professional monster, even if it's for a good cause.

[Lord Raziere]

It comes off a little self-serving, but still, not a bad BBEG speech. Dr. Horrible would approve--that is, he would if he still had the ability to feel anything.

I don't trust any "paladin" who is this self-congratulatory about his morally dubious choices. I'm more likely to trust someone like John Marcone who admits to having become a professional monster, even if it's for a good cause.

Who said this person giving the speech was a paladin or that paladins had some monopoly on morality? and if you've read Dresden Files then you full well that Harry Dresden himself is not morally clean, not by a longshot. the Knights of the Cross are pure yes, but I would not consider Harry himself evil, but I wouldn't consider him a saint or a paladin either- which is a perfectly acceptable hero to me. moral purity is again, overrated. worlds full of grey areas and complexities that doesn't allow a pure person to exist, and there are some matters of justice I'd rather trust to a rogue than to the paladin. Detectives are far closer to a rogue's skillset than a paladins and while a flexible mindset has danger of going down dark paths that a rigid code prevents, the rigid code is just another box and life is full of boxes that at times, require thinking outside of to truly do good. the process of doing good will always be bigger than a single method or way to achieve it, and while some areas can get way with using rigid tools like a paladin, some cannot.

as for Marcone- he was always a monster. A professional respectful monster with a standard, but a monster nonetheless, since his first appearance. a good cause never entered into it.

[jaappleton]

As someone that played CoS, and got charmed by Strahd (His charm is BULL****) for FOUR WHOLE SESSIONS, I have to conclude that Devotion Paladins are underrated. Damn DM waited until I was 30ft away from the Paladin before charming me....

[KorvinStarmast]

We've played 4 campaigns in 5e including CoS and had 4 paladins, none of them Devotion. I think your first few sentences hit the nail on the head: they are good, but most of the other subclasses have something(s) about them that are great. The 7th level aura is arguably great and situational, however anyone inside that aura is also inside the 6th level aura and less likely to fail the save anyway. Contrast that with the Ancients 7th level aura and it helps on a fail or successful save.
I agree with the other posts that Devotion has largely been 'done' and for our group of experienced players that may be a reason for opting out as much as mechanics. With CoS done I doubt any of us will play a 5e Devotion Paly. IMO, Sacred Weapon should be a bonus action.
That level 15 feature is pretty good but it seems to me that it ought to arrive at an earlier level.

{aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead} The protection grants several benefits. Creatures of those types have disadvantage on attack rolls against the target. The target also can’t be charmed, frightened, or possessed by them

@jaappleton: could not the Paladin cast Protection from evil and good on your PC to break the charm?

[jaappleton]

IMO, Sacred Weapon should be a bonus action.
That level 15 feature is pretty good but it seems to me that it ought to arrive at an earlier level.


@jaappleton: could not the Paladin cast Protection from evil and good on your PC to break the charm?

Strahd's charm works as follows:

Strahd targets one humanoid he can see within 30 feet of him. If the target can see Strahd, the target must succeed on a DC 17 Wisdom saving throw against this magic or be charmed. The charmed target regards Strahd as a trusted friend to be heeded and protected. The target isn’t under Strahd’s control, but it takes Strahd’s requests and actions in the most favorable way and lets Strahd bite it.

Each time Strahd or his companions do anything harmful to the target, it can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect on itself on a success. Otherwise, the effect lasts 24 hours or until Strahd is destroyed, is on a different plane of existence than the target, or takes a bonus action to end the effect.

Emphasis mine. That's the only way you get a save. I'd argue Dispel Magic has no effect on the charm, because it has no spell level. Protection from Evil & Good only provides Advantage on the next saving throw, which... You see what causes the charmed creature to make the saving throw.

[KorvinStarmast]

Strahd's charm works as follows:

Emphasis mine. That's the only way you get a save. I'd argue Dispel Magic has no effect on the charm, because it has no spell level. Protection from Evil & Good only provides Advantage on the next saving throw, which... You see what causes the charmed creature to make the saving throw. Now I see the problem. Unless that happens within ten minutes of the spell being cast, the spell doesn't help. Got it.

Original Vampire / Strahd / Ravenloft: charm effect came with a -2 to your save.

If it gazes into a person’s eyes, the vampire will have the effect of charming, with the victim subtracting 2 from the saving throw versus magic. Charmed persons behave as if they had been successfully struck with a charm person spell.

In those days, Charm Person lasted for days or weeks based on your PC's intelligence.

The duration of the spell is a function of the charmed creature's intelligence, and it is tied to the saving throw. The spell may be broken if a saving throw is made, and this saving throw is checked on a periodic basis
according to the creature's intelligence:

Intelligence score___period between checks
3 or less__________3 months
4 to 6____________2 months
7 to 9____________1 month
10 to 12__________3 weeks
13 to 14__________2 weeks
15 to 16__________1 week
17_______________3 days
18_______________2 days
19 or more________1 day

This CoS feature may have been a clumsy way to reach back to how charmy vampires were in the original Ravenloft AD&D 1e framework.

[J-H]

Strahd's charm works the same as the standard CR 13 Vampire charm. It can wreck a mid-level party if they chat beforehand and fail their Perception checks vs. the vampire's deception checks to conceal that it's using its Charm.

Been there, done that...as the DM. It was really tense and a lot of fun. One party member hit on the vampire so badly that she slapped him, breaking the charm effect she'd landed on him.

Also, everyone at the table forgot about half-elves having advantage on saves vs. charm.

[MaxWilson]

Strahd's charm works as follows:

Strahd targets one humanoid he can see within 30 feet of him. If the target can see Strahd, the target must succeed on a DC 17 Wisdom saving throw against this magic or be charmed. The charmed target regards Strahd as a trusted friend to be heeded and protected. The target isn’t under Strahd’s control, but it takes Strahd’s requests and actions in the most favorable way and lets Strahd bite it.

Each time Strahd or his companions do anything harmful to the target, it can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect on itself on a success. Otherwise, the effect lasts 24 hours or until Strahd is destroyed, is on a different plane of existence than the target, or takes a bonus action to end the effect.

Emphasis mine. That's the only way you get a save. I'd argue Dispel Magic has no effect on the charm, because it has no spell level. Protection from Evil & Good only provides Advantage on the next saving throw, which... You see what causes the charmed creature to make the saving throw.

Time for a wizard to step out of sight, Disguise Self as a Strahd companion like Ravadin and then walk out and punch the Charmed guy in the nose! :)

It's not 100% clear if this works, but logically it should since the renewed save is apparently driven by psychology/cognitive dissonance and not directly by magic. DM ruling needed, but it's worth a try!

[kazaryu]

Not sure how useful it is overall, but imo its worth pointing out that devotion channel divinity isnt just a worse version of the clerics. It can also turn fiends, which clerics cant. And that gets more and more useful as you level imo

[kbob]

Not sure how useful it is overall, but imo its worth pointing out that devotion channel divinity isnt just a worse version of the clerics. It can also turn fiends, which clerics cant. And that gets more and more useful as you level imo

Wow. I can’t believe I’ve never noticed that before. I may be the only one on here that didn’t notice that but thanks! Good spot!

[KorvinStarmast]

Not sure how useful it is overall, but imo its worth pointing out that devotion channel divinity isnt just a worse version of the clerics. It can also turn fiends, which clerics cant. And that gets more and more useful as you level imo
And hilariously, my brother's devotion paladin didn't recall that when the party fought a bearded devil at level 3 ...

[MaxWilson]

And hilariously, my brother's devotion paladin didn't recall that when the party fought a bearded devil at level 3 ...

If there was only one then it probably wouldn't matter anyway--turning ends if you damage the turned creature. Is best for dividing and conquering groups of fiends/undead one at a time.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is best for dividing and conquering groups of fiends/undead one at a time. If he had made the devil run away, then the party would have had less trouble with the Chuul it was riding. :smallsmile: So yeah, that would have been a nice divide thing ...

[MaxWilson]

If he had made the devil run away, then the party would have had less trouble with the Chuul it was riding. :smallsmile: So yeah, that would have been a nice divide thing ...

Oh yeah, in that case yes.

Internet threads on theorycrafting are great at uncovering abilities we overlook in actual play. (Hopefully so that we DON'T overlook them in actual play next time.) @da newt had a tactical challenge recently about Vengeance Paladin plus two more PCs against Yuan-ti Abominations, and I completely forgot that Abjure Enemy was even a thing (and one that doesn't require concentration too). I totally should have gone for Shield of Faith + Abjure Enemy instead of Vow of Enmity, but at least now I won't make that mistake for real next time I run a Vengeance paladin (probably never).

[kazaryu]

Oh yeah, in that case yes.

Internet threads on theorycrafting are great at uncovering abilities we overlook in actual play. (Hopefully so that we DON'T overlook them in actual play next time.) @da newt had a tactical challenge recently about Vengeance Paladin plus two more PCs against Yuan-ti Abominations, and I completely forgot that Abjure Enemy was even a thing (and one that doesn't require concentration too). I totally should have gone for Shield of Faith + Abjure Enemy instead of Vow of Enmity, but at least now I won't make that mistake for real next time I run a Vengeance paladin (probably never).
A couple ifrelatively niche situations where itd be useful even if theres just one fiend:


if theres only one. And they fail the save, the encounter could just..
Be over. The effect doesnt list how *far* they run. They just run. Directly away from you, with all of their movement, for a whole minute. Not great if you wanna kill the fiend, but awesome if you want to end the encouter ASAP.


Or, if it gets trapped in a corner, it gives the party time to use readied actions to drop a single turn burst on it, similar to banish.


But most forms of cc lose some (if not all) of their potency whsn there isnt a crowd that needs controlling, so its not really a mark against the ability, its inherent to its role.

Edit: i quoted the wrong post when i replied, and as im on my phone, i dont feel like going through the trouble of fixing it. I think by context it should be easy to see what id intended to reply to (still for maxwilson, just the wrongnone of their posts)

[MaxWilson]

A couple ifrelatively niche situations where itd be useful even if theres just one fiend:


if theres only one. And they fail the save, the encounter could just..
Be over. The effect doesnt list how *far* they run. They just run. Directly away from you, with all of their movement, for a whole minute. Not great if you wanna kill the fiend, but awesome if you want to end the encouter ASAP.


Or, if it gets trapped in a corner, it gives the party time to use readied actions to drop a single turn burst on it, similar to banish.


But most forms of cc lose some (if not all) of their potency whsn there isnt a crowd that needs controlling, so its not really a mark against the ability, its inherent to its role.

Edit: i quoted the wrong post when i replied, and as im on my phone, i dont feel like going through the trouble of fixing it. I think by context it should be easy to see what id intended to reply to (still for maxwilson, just the wrongnone of their posts)

Yeah, technically you can not only ready actions, you can also grapple it and knock it prone and restrain it in a net and handcuff it and THEN ready actions to all hit it together. I overlooked that.

[Guy Lombard-O]

A couple ifrelatively niche situations where itd be useful even if theres just one fiend:


if theres only one. And they fail the save, the encounter could just..
Be over.

While that's certainly true, it's not horribly likely to happen. Maybe likely enough to give it a shot if things are going badly...maybe. But the bearded devil gets a +2 to Wis saves and magic resistance's advantage on saves, against the paladin 3's 13 save DC. So, I'm no math guy, but that's something like only a 30% chance of failing (I think). Not something to hang your hat on.

[kazaryu]

While that's certainly true, it's not horribly likely to happen. Maybe likely enough to give it a shot if things are going badly...maybe. But the bearded devil gets a +2 to Wis saves and magic resistance's advantage on saves, against the paladin 3's 13 save DC. So, I'm no math guy, but that's something like only a 30% chance of failing (I think). Not something to hang your hat on.

I mean, its rarely a good idea to rely on any save based magical effect against a target with magical resistance. Similar to the limitations i talked about on cc in general, thats just the nature of magic/bounded accuracy. Its nof a specific problem with this one ability. And no, its not exacerbated by being a paladin, because as a paladin you have the option of focusing on cha over str. And thats not always a bad idea. Youre trading some damage for improved spell accuracy and versatility, and improved defenses (once you hit 5). And devotion paladins can also overcome the loss of damage somewhat if they need to.

Edit: plz note, im not trying to say that tjeir ability to turn fiends is overpowered or anything like that. Id just not seen anyone mention it, so i decided to point it out so that devotion can get all the credit its deserved.