Does Oathbreaker seem underwhelming to anyone else?

[Cruddy]

After breaking your Oath you still have the vast majority of your spells/abilities including all Smite skills(including Divine), whats the point? Oathbreaker is more like a subclass with extra steps rather than a failed Paladin and that's how they present it aswell, Oathbreaking should be a punishment/Alternate class path, not a reward for the player.

[0101Ghost0101]

I just wish they changed the smite to necrotic damage vs fey or celestials. Feels more thematic than the regular smite. Radiant damage just... Doesn't fit for an oathbreaker imho. both in BG3 and TT.

[Necro-Phoenix]

Thing is, Oathbreaker is a subclass. in RAW its meant for evil npc paladins iirc. its in the gamemaster handbook. The thing that feels weird to me is that you can buy your old oath back. Divine smite being replaced with necrotic damage instead of radiant damage is probably the only modification that I could really get behind here.

[Kain]

Escrito originalmente por Yojo0o:

The thing about "punishment" in games is... you gotta figure out a balanced way for it to not just make the experience suck. Enjoying difficult games is great, but that's different from enjoying games that actually "punish" you in a way that just tanks your available options for a long period of time.

Take BG1-2's Fallen Paladin and Fallen Ranger. These mechanics, in my humble opinion, were downright awful. The Fallen version of either class was simply that class stripped of all actual class features. The player was stuck playing a weaker, slower-leveling Fighter. Other than one specific quest in BG2, the condition was irreversible. It also happens so casually that you can even miss Falling, so if your Fireball executed an innocent bystander off-screen, it may be hours later in your gaming when you realize that you've Fallen.

In 5e, the "punishment" is that you don't get to be the noble oath-keeping knight you meant to be, and your original abilities are replaced, but I happen to appreciate that Oathbreaker is really its own subclass with its own strengths, and not an intentionally nerfed version of the class you're playing. The punishment is more of an RP thing, rather than a mechanical penalty.

I think it's kinda cheap to be fair. You don't reward players for failure, you punish them.

If you choose a class that completely centers around the fulfilment of his oath, and that is what gives him his strength, when he breaks such an oath he should be forced to play as a nerfed class.

I don't know. I guess I just like actual consequences. I see a lot of people playing as a Paladin so they can simply become an oath breaker, it completely devalues the paladin.

[Ommamar]

Escrito originalmente por Yojo0o:

The thing about "punishment" in games is... you gotta figure out a balanced way for it to not just make the experience suck. Enjoying difficult games is great, but that's different from enjoying games that actually "punish" you in a way that just tanks your available options for a long period of time.

Take BG1-2's Fallen Paladin and Fallen Ranger. These mechanics, in my humble opinion, were downright awful. The Fallen version of either class was simply that class stripped of all actual class features. The player was stuck playing a weaker, slower-leveling Fighter. Other than one specific quest in BG2, the condition was irreversible. It also happens so casually that you can even miss Falling, so if your Fireball executed an innocent bystander off-screen, it may be hours later in your gaming when you realize that you've Fallen.

In 5e, the "punishment" is that you don't get to be the noble oath-keeping knight you meant to be, and your original abilities are replaced, but I happen to appreciate that Oathbreaker is really its own subclass with its own strengths, and not an intentionally nerfed version of the class you're playing. The punishment is more of an RP thing, rather than a mechanical penalty.

I did play a fallen in BG2 but it has been so long I can't remember specifically how the game reacted. What you say about it happening so causally you don't even notice until hours later tells me it couldn't of been that bad.

As for BG3 I haven't gone down the Paladin route so far when I do I will try very hard to honor the oath as that is the whole reason I would personally play that class. As for the oahtbreaker is handled I could see some good role playing possibility of fiendish forces or divine forces counter to what the origin god was courting them trying to tempt them into an oath that serves the new fiend or god would be feasible. Wish the result being something similar to a blackguard with more necrotic or vampiric based skills.

[orthostatic]

Oathbreaker feels like a tame kitten compared to anti-paladins from earlier editions. Not even going to bother with the oathbreaker next run; what a laugh. Dunno if Larian is at fault there, or if the idiots writing 5E are the reason for this.