Talk:Oath of the Valorous (5e Subclass)

I'm not quite sure I understand the flagging for this Oath. It seems incredibly arbitrary and uses a rigid and archaic 'template' for balancing without actually taking any of the Oath's features into consideration.

Compared to some hilariously broken things I've seen in various other places across this website, this one seems rather tame. For starters, I do not see the problem of giving a Paladin full spellcasting capability. Yes, it is strong, but it is no different than a Cleric whose Domain has given them heavy armor and martial weapons proficiency. The only things I can really see that a Paladin really gains over a Cleric of a similar nature would be:

One step higher hit dice (which is like, what +2 hp per level on average?) Divine Smite (admittedly strong and I can see where the worry about Cleric spell slots and more uses of Divine Smite would come into play, but can just as easily be 'removed entirely' or replaced with a more limited variation as an Oath drawback instead of the rigid 'spellcasting bad, idiot' like the reason given is stated) Extra Attack (I guess strong? Really seems kind of 'meh' to me.)

The Oath itself does not provide any benefits or abilities after 3rd-level; no additional Channel Divinities, no modifiers to Divine Smite that other Oaths take up. It front loads all of its benefits and then afterwards the player is essentially playing a martial Cleric. So, based solely on the reasoning of "martial classes having full spellcasting being 'unacceptable' in any situation" I don't see any validity to that statement and it just seems like an arbritary template guideline rather than any based on the Oath itself.

I'm not the one who flagged the class, but in the way i see it, frontloading the the benefits is very unbalanced because it breaks the pacing of progression, needed to both avoiding stepping on other character toes and regulating encounter balance, specially when most games are played on lower levels, up to 11-13. Imagine how a cleric player would feel, when its only benefit from reaching the 5th level is two 3rd-level spell slots, when the paladin gain not only that but also Extra Attack, have more hit points, so on and so forth. The full casting is not really the problem, but the pacing.

The way i would fix it, while keeping the fullcasting aspect, would be giving the new spell slots levels in the levels a paladin is meant to gain new features. In that way, you would still have a full caster paladin, without detracting from other characters that forgo a sturdier character for magic power. For example, you could, instead of giving the exact same progression than cleric's one, make something like this (on top of the spells the paladin already gain):

• At 3rd level - 1 x 2nd-level slot, replaced by a 3rd-level slot at 7th, by a 4th level slot at 15th and by a 5th slot at 20th level; 2 cantrips.

(valorous 3/1 vs cleric 4/2)

• At 7th level - 1 x 4th-level slot, that is replaced by a 5th-level slot at 15th level and by a 6th level slot at 20th; 2 cantrips.

(valorous 4/3/1/1 vs cleric 4/3/3/1)

• At 15th level - 1 x 6th and 1 x 7th slot; 1 cantrip.

(valorous 4/3/3/3/1/1/1 vs cleric 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1)

• At 20th level - 1 x 9th level slot, 1 x 8th level slot and 1 x 7th level slot.

(valorous = cleric)

This is just an idea, but would spread out better and make a smoother and fairer progression, while keeping the benefit of becoming a full caster paladin. Thanks for watching my Ted talk.Anastacio (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2022 (MDT)

"Compared to some hilariously broken things I've seen in various other places across this website, this one seems rather tame."
That does not make this better, or in any way more acceptable. It means that those pages are broken as well, and ought to be tagged and edited accordingly, or, if they are egregious to the point where fixing them is not viable, deleted. It is not, and never has been an excuse. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2022 (MDT)