Talk:Oath of the Gun (5e Subclass)

— This article became a featured article! — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:27, 11 June 2019 (MDT)

Featured Article Nomination

— This article became a featured article! — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:27, 11 June 2019 (MDT)

I'm nominating this article as a Featured Article since it's a really fun twist on Paladins, turning them from tanky frontliners to supportive backliners with surprisingly little change. Plus, it's already been playtested in a campaign, so I can attest to it being fun and balanced! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Varkarrus (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Consensus seems to be in favor of this becoming a FA, so I have succeeded this nomination. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:27, 11 June 2019 (MDT)

• Comment. - I am conditionally supporting the nomination. Rephrase the Healing Ray feature to something better worded and less non-standard than "your Lay on Hands ability gains 30 range", and move the editor's note to the talk page, or on the top in the form of a {{Design Note}}, and I'll make a formal Support vote. Quincy (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2018 (MST)
  • Changes made! Varkarrus (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2018 (MST)

• Comment. I am skeptical if this wasn't premature? I like the idea of a paladin gun oath. (Espcially regarding the Dark Tower series. The dudes with guns are called paladins!) But...

I like the Hunter's Mark spell and a couple others but others don't give the vibe for a gun paladin to me.

I'm not keen to giving this class an extra divine smite. I wish all paladins had more but why should this one get more than the others? The options are cool enough.

This is why I ask if this is premature. What can this be compared to? Has anyone used its effect yet? I'm skeptical to support an article when it has a feature I really like because there's a chance I like it for being too good.

I keep looking at this feature and to me, at level 18 this might as well say "immune to CR1s", maybe even a CR 1 or 2 higher as well. If damage is 9 or less, it becomes zero. Part of 5e is that the lowliest of creatures can still have an effect (Bounded Accuracy article). Only d10 cantrips can deal damage and that's at max damage; fighters with greatswords might do something, and one-handers will struggle much more. A rogue has to hit sneak attack. There's a feat that gives damage reduction 3. I think I finally understand why vs always considering it a waste. (Still a waste but I at least understand why it doesn't scale or there's improvements)

Healing Ray and Bullet Time are pretty cool things. I'd prefer to see healing ray on a healing focused then gun class but I won't harp on that feature.

Minor issues, I'm not a fan of "vanilla" descriptor. Appears condescending to me. I play vanilla. Is the non-vanilla homebrew? Image is good, maybe some wording touch ups, and few more SRDs to be included. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2018 (MST)

• I've used this class fairly extensively (at least, the lower levels). The reason why they get two channel divinities (I assume that's what you meant when you say divine smite) is because, individually, their channel divinities are a bit lower power than other paladin channel divinities. After testing them I'd found they needed strengthening but decided it was more fun to give the more uses as opposed to more power, so they have more options.
• for Healing Ray; they have that because I didn't want the fact that they fight at range to weaken their lay on hands. Lay on hands is a pretty archetypical paladin ability, often used to heal other frontline fighters. Since they don't fight on the frontline, I gave them healing ray so they can do so anyways.
• I don't find vanilla condescending honestly? It's just a simple way of saying "not 3rd party or homebrew." which is a pretty apt warning to give for this subclass. I wouldn't want someone to play this class and then use the firearms mentioned in the DMG, which are renaissance tier (and as such, not exactly vanilla either) and straight up overpowered compared to vanilla weaponry. Plus, Quickdraw loses some of its strength if the GM doesn't give their oath of the gun paladins guns that are balanced around their Reload property.
• I'll see what I can do for the SRD links, but you may need to be more specific with what wording changes need to be made? Varkarrus (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2018 (MST)

I can dig that. More uses is more fun and you're correct about what I meant.

Maybe others can convince me ranged lay on hands is good. I don't think they need to do everything which this would provide. Making them enter the fray, which wouldn't hurt them with their d10 HD and good defenses, helps limit a class that could spec for tank, melee, ranged, and now pseudo-healer.

I suppose I am just use to seeing "core rules" or "1st party content" rather than "vanilla" so the deviation appeared/appears like a jab. I don't dispute the need for a design note; the wording is more informal(!) than what I am use to featuredness stuff.

I absolutely failed with examples and I knew this but only because of time. I need to eat some lunch but will clarify or make an edit that can be reverted if it isn't liked. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2018 (MST)

At first glance the wording seemed capable of being improved but I think its different writing styles.

A new "issue", can Quick Draw critical hit? and can you Divine Smite when you Quick Draw. The potential to insta-kill something within these parameters is there. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2018 (MST)

Quick Draw can critically hit, yeah. You can divine smite with it too but the damage from divine smite should definitely not factor in to the execution threshold; not sure how best to word that ("This threshold is checked before damage from divine smite is applied"?). Quickdraw was designed for instantly killing weak opponents or finishing off low health ones, but ultimately it can't deal more than twice your regular weapon damage, and only if you time it right. Sidenote but: even if they don't lose out on much durability while gaining range, I've found they still do worse in close range compared to other paladins simply because of the disadvantage on close-range attacks. Varkarrus (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2018 (MST)

I really like that disadvantage. There's more character involved vs standing back, with your good toughness (health/defenses), and throwing out some range Lay on Hands. Your design though, people like then so be it.

I am not sure but if it mentioned that "if they have less hp than the weapon damage done" or something along the lines identifying the weapon damage. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2018 (MST)

I nerfed Aura of Grit, you were right that it was probably too powerful. I made it proficiency bonus instead of half character level. Many creatures are capable of doing more than 5 damage in a hit, but it's still ultimately more effective against low CR monsters. Varkarrus (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2019 (MST)

I think that's a good compromise. Glad you got to test that out! ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2019 (MST)

• Support. - I really like the style and mechanics of this class. Not only does it allow a paladin to fulfill a niche the class is not designed for, but it does so elegantly, while also appealing to gun nuts such as myself. I wholeheartedly support this class becoming a Featured Article. Quincy (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2018 (MST)

• Support. - The changes to Aura of Grit greatly improves the "balance" of the class in my opinion and I also retract my concerns about a 15th level paladin using Lay on Hands at range. They're a bad mamma jamma at that point already so what does it hurt to use it up to 30' feet. I don't share concerns about the weaponry. This article is about a subclass, not weapons. Its features are good and fair. If there is a concern with the firearms that are used, then a DM should evaluate those. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2019 (MST)

• Oppose. I am opposing this nomination not because of the page itself, but because this subclass is dependent on a variant rule that either A) is plainly unbalanced, if we're talking about the rules for firearms from the DMG, as this page itself states, or B) is a homebrew rule that has not been vetted by the FA process. If the page Fantasy Firearms (5e Variant Rule) becomes a FA or QA, I will happily support this nomination, as this is really the only issue I have with the page. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:53, 9 January 2019 (MST)
  • That's valid. I'll nominate the Fantasy Firearms page for QA. Varkarrus (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2019 (MST)

The fantasy firearms succeeded QAN, has your opinion changed Geodude? ~ BigShotFancyMan 07:43, 15 May 2019 (MDT)

It has not; I just didn't see that it succeeded. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:59, 15 May 2019 (MDT)

Perfect! I hope nothing changes before the time is up. Thanks! ~ BigShotFancyMan 12:25, 15 May 2019 (MDT)

• Oppose. Why is the fluff on this page little more than the "wild west lone wolf", but the class features have basically nothing to do with a "lone wolf"? I want to see the fluff really explain why the player is healing allies with an aura, and altogether why they have group-based features. Other than that, with the firearms rule's nomination, this page looks pretty solid. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2019 (MST)

"With the aid of local townsfolk" doesn't make sense either. Do they work with NPCs or what? For a featured article this really needs to be deepened, because I would have to change my comment to oppose if this were to get nominated right now. Including leading paragraphs for players, and/or expanding the introductory text would be sufficient. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2019 (MST)

Changed to oppose like I said I would. No adequate changes have been made. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2019 (MDT)

Varkarrus, have you had a chance to consider GD's comments/concern above and whether to edit the page or answer here? ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2019 (MST)

To be honest, I'm stumped. I was going for a bit of a Mad Max or a Sundown Kid (from Live-a-Live) sort of angle for the fluff. If that doesn't work, I'm not sure where else I could take it. Varkarrus (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2019 (MST)

• Comment. This nomination currently has until roughly the end of February; we might want to extend it until the QAN for the variant rule is decided since a couple users seem interested in that. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2019 (MST)
  • That sounds fair, though it looks like it has enough support to qualify even if Geodude remains in opposition; especially considering his opposition is a conditional support. Varkarrus (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (MST)

I would agree since there aren't issues with the article itself. My hesitation is if the variant rule doesn't succeed and that impacts GD's and Geo's opinions. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2019 (MST)

• Support. I said I would support this FAN if/when Fantasy Firearms (5e Variant Rule) became a FA or QA. It has become a QA, and so I now support this nomination. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:59, 15 May 2019 (MDT)

Editor's Note

The "extra class feature" the Oath of the Gun Paladin gets at level 3 is meant less of an extra power boost, and more to help transition the Paladin from a melee class to a ranged one.

Featured Article Review

I don't find that this page has enough fluff for a Featured Article. I expect more here. I use the weapon a gun, wow, is that it? Maybe this could be a quality article, but not a Featured Article. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2019 (MDT)

If this is not addressed in a short period of time, this article will no longer be a Featured Article. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2019 (MDT)

The page has about as much fluff as the other paladin oaths. If you don't feel that level of fluff is sufficient for a featured article, would you be willing to downgrade this to a quality article without making it go through the normal QA process? — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:09, 13 June 2019 (MDT)

This page already passed its FA, with only one opposing vote. Whatever happened to consensus? Varkarrus (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2019 (MDT)

Gee, sir, I would help but... Turns out the page is protected from edits... Because it's a Featured Article. --Max7238 (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2019 (MDT)

I have unlocked the page temporarily so that improvements can be made to the article. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:33, 13 June 2019 (MDT)

Neato. I'm on the train to work. When I get there, if it's slow like I expect, I can get to work on it. Won't take long.--Max7238 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2019 (MDT)

Done! Out of curiosity, Green Dragon, why suddenly revoke FA instead of just adding the fluff you wanted to see? It seems a bit rude to level so much sarcasm at a generally-liked page such as this one. It's a good thing Varkarrus' ban ended in time for this to be addressed! --Max7238 (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2019 (MDT)

I didn't revoke anything. I am reviewing this featured article. Here is the criteria from the Featured Articles page which I don't see on this page:

"Thus, pages that are in effect "options", (equipment, feats, skills, etc) of DMs and player characters cannot normally become featured articles, as they are typically lacking in total content. A rule of thumb for a bare minimum from any page is 3 paragraphs containing three complete sentences apiece, plus listed mechanical properties, (Weight, price, prerequisites, etc.) containing both mechanics/rules and descriptive/flavor text." --Green Dragon (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2019 (MDT)

That still doesn't answer the other part of the question, but I appreciate the guidelines. Personally, I'd like to move the design note on the page to help its overall aesthetic some more, but I'll settle for adding some extra fluff based on your provided guidelines. I love doing stuff like this. --Max7238 (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2019 (MDT)

If your asking about my motives (or what other question?), it's because I didn't want to add fluff for this subclass. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2019 (MDT)

Comment. I feel this page was rather preemptively succeeded in its FAN, it had several issues that needed to be corrected that should have been caught. Please carefully look through and fix these issues before succeeding a page. I'd support this article as a FA if as GD said it had more fluff, ideally twice of what it currently has and the image is sorted out. In that regard, it needs to be sourced and give the original copyright holder credits (so "XXX by Y Z"). Also, featured articles are required to upload images to the wiki. —ConcealedLight (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2019 (MDT)

If the fluff I've added isn't enough, what else would you like to see? A quoted bedtime story about the lone ranger or something (no sarcasm intended)? I'm not sure what else to add, since it's already got about three to five times the fluff of almost any subclass I've ever seen on the wiki so far. --Max7238 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2019 (MDT)

As GD said it just needs more content to meet the FAN process, perhaps dipping into Xanathar's Guide to Everything and referencing the supplement tables will help spark your imagination. —ConcealedLight (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2019 (MDT)

It may very well be the case that subclasses do not meet the FA criteria, and thus can only become Quality Articles. In any case there needs to be at least adequate fluff to make this remain a FA. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2019 (MDT)

It seems like there's an adequate amount of fluff to me... Varkarrus (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2019 (MDT)

If not before, how 'bout now? --Max7238 (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2019 (MDT)

Comment. I am sorry but how does it make sense that an article we feature needs to surpass official content doubly? Maybe the discussion needs to take place on the FA/QA page but I feel like if the article is comparable to first party content that it is fine for FA.
Further, even though it is not a vote, it is 3-1 in favor of support with the issue being about fluff. Frankly, the issue about fluff feels more like the user, GD, requesting the page create a character ready to be played. Any reasonable user capable of passing a FAN could assess consensus for this to succeed. Plenty of first party class features are not explained on how they do what they do or why they even do it but rather hey here is a cool feature to make you better i.e. Unarmored Defense (why are you better without armor?), Extra Attack! (why/how can you attack twice now??), Fast Movement (so you're just faster now?), etc., etc., etc.
Please consider comparing like items with like items before downing something. This article exceeds first party material in regards to fluff and we could only be so lucky if WotC were to put as much flavor into a subclass as this one has. ~ BigShotFancyMan 06:40, 18 June 2019 (MDT)

The problem was that this page did not even have three paragraphs, a requirement for an FA. As I said, otherwise subclasses would be QA's. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2019 (MDT)

• Comment. My remaining concern with this page is it's stability. Can I get reassurance that it's stable, or rather not? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2019 (MDT)

I'd consider it stable. Nothing that was already there was changed all that much, and Max simply added fluff to the page. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:22, 18 June 2019 (MDT)

The only issue I see at the moment is that it grants two homebrew spells, which should probably be reviewed and protected. The spells are Sealing Strike (5e Spell) and Light Beam (5e Spell), one of which has maintenance templates on it. Quickest and probably the prefered way to solve this issue is to replace them with a first party spells. First spells that come to mind are lightning arrow and ensnaring strike. I'll see what I can do about this. —ConcealedLight (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2019 (MDT)

Assuming people are fine with the spell selection, I ending up picking lightning arrow and faithful hound, I would say the page is now stable. —ConcealedLight (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2019 (MDT)

Looks great to me, yeah. The heck's "notoc" though? Oh! I see! That looks much better, too! I didn't know we could do that to pages! --Max7238 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2019 (MDT)

Stands for No Table of Contents. It just removes the automatic ToC from a page. —ConcealedLight (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2019 (MDT)

• Conclusion. After several edits, I believe this page now meets the standards outlined for a Featured Article. Green Dragon as the one that proposed this review could you validate if this is correct and conclude the review process? —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2019 (MDT)

As it has been a few days and Green Dragon has not responded, I have decided to go ahead and succeed this review. This page will remain a featured article, as was originally decided by the community. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:01, 23 June 2019 (MDT)

Light Balancing

• Protection: When you use your reaction to protect an ally, you may also make a ranged attack against the attacker using a firearm as part of that same reaction.

I would suggest changing this to allow firearms to execute AOOs in 5ft in place of a melee weapon.

• Combat Roll: As a reaction to being targeted with a ranged attack, or an effect that requires you to make a dexterity save, you can force the attack to miss or negate the effect. When doing so, you must move at least 15 feet, up to a distance equal to your speed. The distance you move comes out of your movement speed on your next turn. You cannot use this if you cannot move more than 15 feet.

I would argue to remove the last two sentences. The ability already has limited use, and other feats and class features exist that allow up to half movement speed as a reaction, such as Oath of Vengeance.

• Aura of Grit: At 7th level, if you or an allied creature within 10 spaces would take damage less than or equal to your proficiency bonus, the damage is reduced to 0. At 18th level, the range is increased to 30.

Despite the focus on ranged attacks, I would still suggest changing "spaces" to feet, like other paladins. With proper positioning, it can still be just as effective. --Max7238 (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2019 (MDT)

As an added thought, if your table uses Close Quarters Shooter from Unearthed Arcana, I would argue it should have the effect Protection does above - that it should allow you to make an AOO with a ranged attack within 5ft. --Max7238 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2019 (MDT)

• I still think the channel divinities should be given two uses instead of one, as before. The channel divinity options are less impactful than other Paladin channel divinities, but at the same time I feel it's more thematically fitting to grant additional uses rather than make them more powerful. Varkarrus (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2019 (MDT)

Disagree, causing an attack to automatically miss against you or the ability to automatically avoid an effect is definitely not weaker than other first party examples. —ConcealedLight (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2019 (MDT)

I am confused why an article that passed FAN was suddenly edited for "balance" without a talk page being used. It went 7 months without a concern. Can we revert ConcealedLight's mechanical changes that weren't explained or discussed or brought up during the 7 months of nomination. All the clean up was nice and appreciated except for changing Healing Ray to Healing Discharge. Now it sounds like...I'll save details and say dirty/gross. (discharge, not something I associate in a positive way with anything).
I don't think firearms need to work for AOO; exceptions have been made for this class already. I don't think the last sentences requested to be removed is necessary. It is clunky and I don't like it but I also don't see it swinging balance either way. ~ BigShotFancyMan 11:52, 20 June 2019 (MDT)

I agree that the Channel Divinity could do with an additional use. I think changing the Aura to paladin level is way too strong. And, yes, please keep Healing Ray instead of "discharge." The sentences I suggested to be removed were the penalty to speed after using Channel Divinity - an ability with limited numbers of uses anyway - to help promote its use and remove the penalty for resorting to it as an option. --Max7238 (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2019 (MDT)

Odd associations you have... I'd prefer something more dramatic than "ray" such as blast or burst. BSFM, I am also confused why an article that passed FAN had all the issues it did but these things happen, if you have specific comments to make please make them so the page can continue to be improved upon during this review period. Max as for Aura of Grit I was considering making it match the oath of redemptions aura of the guardian by making it a reaction to do which I feel brings it more in line with the other 7th level features. —ConcealedLight (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2019 (MDT)

Healing Burst works. I'd personally leave the Aura where it was, equal to proficiency, or where it began, as half level. Negating minor damage is helpful, a reaction would probably be best if the damage can be equal to paladin level, but I think just letting it work on minor damage as a passive would make it a more distinct feature, and therefore a more respectable expansion of the original grid. --Max7238 (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2019 (MDT)

Thinking about how it meshes with the rest of the class I think your right in a passive benefit being more beneficial, however, I'm not a fan of doing half proficiency as I believe there is less precedent in 5e for such things by comparison to half of paladin level. I'm not sure what you mean by "expansion of the original grid" but I've made the edits described above. —ConcealedLight (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2019 (MDT)

I can agree that half proficiency would be too little - but that's why I said just proficiency - and half paladin level is where it began, I believe, which is also fine. When I say "expansion of the grid" I mean that the official WotC content is the original "grid" and homebrew is expanding on that. If the official content is to set the stage, the creation of new props and backgrounds and stories are what makes homebrew so great. To me, anyway. A subclass like this fits that description perfectly. --Max7238 (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2019 (MDT)

Quickdraw and initiative

This class should definitely be able to get some kind of initiative bonus. How about:

Quickdraw. When rolling initiative, you may reroll any 10 or less on the d20. You must take the new roll. If you did not have to reroll in this manner, then 1 time during the combat that ensues, as a bonus action, you can expend a use of "channel divinity" to make a weapon attack with a firearm against a creature within range and immediately reload (in either order). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 73.61.15.237 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Maybe you could just take the Alert feat? — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:12, 8 August 2019 (MDT)