Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback So, about Oathbreakers.

So ...
I decided to play an Oathbreaker with my last Durge ... so i picked a paladin and broke my Oath as soon as humanely possible ...
Few moments later i noticed that i did an error in char creation, so i needed a respec, just to adjust things.

SURPRISE MF!

Oathbreakers are forbidden to change their class until they pay a 1000g fee to the other guy. :-/
And i have to question: Why? What is purpose of this bullshit?

The reason it exists is to prevent people from simply respeccing to fix their broken oath when trying to play one of the actual oaths.

P.s. The cost actually increases if you do it multiple times. It starts at 1000g then it goes up to 2000g then 10,000g where it remains for every subsequent oathbreak.

Of course, this is annoying af when you want to actually play Oathbreaker, since respecs are not only expensive but you have to rebreak your oath afterwards.

Which is why there are mods that exist to circumvent this mechanic.

Yeah ... that is quite obvious, maybe i should have worded my original post differently ...

What i meaned was:
What benefit does that brings? :-/

Didnt find any ...
Lots of unlocking from start, but no "allow respec" not - a - single - one. -_-

What do you mean by "What benefit does it bring"? It's a consequence for breaking your oath. I appreciate that you want to play an oathbreaker, which isn't really the intended play style and so it's not properly supported: perhaps it would be better if you could select that as a subclass when you create the character, so you've never had an oath (in game) and therefore don't have to pay to respec. But, in the system as designed, breaking your oath is supposed to be a penalty (disclaimer: I have never played Paladin myself, and I know there are plenty of complaints about the game declaring an oath broken when the player disagrees).

Asking what benefit the consequences have is like asking why vendors charge money for items, or why characters can die in combat. Sure, it's not fun when you have a TPK, or can't afford something you need, but the game overall would be less fun if there was no challenge in it.

To summarise, you're choosing to play in a way that's not in the design, but it's supposed to be a consequence of failing at another form of play. That's why there's a penalty built in.

If enforces the notion that you should be playing your Paladin according to its tenets. With significant consequences if you act in a way that goes against them.

It indicates that the Tenets of the Paladin are more than just RP Fluff like Cleric Deities are but an actual mechanic for Paladins (Really, Clerics should have a similar mechanic for acting in a way that is not liked by their deity, beyond the few scripted interactions with Shadowheart being punished by Shar)


https://www.nexusmods.com/baldursgate3/mods/2400

That's one I came across immediately just by searching for "Oathbreaker"

I know I've encountered several more when perusing "Paladin" mods looking for subclasses.

On mod.io there's: https://mod.io/g/baldursgate3/m/seluniteoathbreaker#description

Which doesn't outright state it enables respec, but does include the ability to toggle the "Oathbreaker" tag on and off, which should equate to being able to toggle it off and respec (With Oathbreaker being a selectable class so you can respec back into Oathbreaker)

Clerics cannot fall though.

If a Cleric works against the will of their deity, yes they lose their faith, but they can simply pick a different faith that supports their actions.

Yes they can.

Clerics get their abilities directly from their deity.

If they go against the will of their deity, they lose their powers full stop. Since their powers are a gift actively granted by the deity.

They can attempt to pray to a new deity, who *MAY* grant them powers, but it's not guaranteed. Nor will it necessarily be the same powers they receive (As each Deity will only provide specific domains to their followers - I.e. Shar will not provide Light or Life domains just as Selune won't provide Death or Trickery domains)

Please make clear distinction what you are referring to - BG3 or DnD rules.

BTW - I fully support Clerics being held up to same - or higher - standard than Paladins. In both BG3 and DnD
If you worship Shar/Gruumsh/Lolth/Vlaakit/etc. and give Scratch a scratch - instead of kicking the flea ridden mutt - then no spells for you today, HERETIC!

Realistically, Clerics would be held to a lower standard than Paladins.

Since acting outside of their Deities typical behaviour can be done to facilitate enacting their will.

It's literally the basis of the "Trickery" domain, to use subterfuge. Which might involve acting nice in order to infiltrate.

In fact, it's a similar notion to what "Evil" actually should be, rather than how it's often depicted in D&D related games where it's all about being a "Chaotic Stupid Jerk".

For example, an Evil character in BG3 would likely still save the Tieflings because it's mentioned that Halsin knows information about the parasites, while the Absolutists aren't even aware they exist. Thus saving Halsin furthers an evil character's personal gain by allowing them to better understand their parasite and potentially figure out how to remove it. While an evil character would have nothing to do with the Absolute because they don't provide any benefit at all besides "You can go murder a group of civilians for fun"

Thus being "Nice" furthers the ability for "Evil" due to the increased power gained through knowledge. To say nothing about the allies you gain as a result of these "Nice" actions (Notably, Karlach and Wyll. But also Halsin too) which provides more combat strength than even a camp full of stupid goblins.

Meanwhile, Paladins oaths are very obtuse. It's literally "Act this exact way no matter what" with no regard to consequences only your specific actions (Which can often lead to accidental oathbreaks when people take into consideration consequences instead of blindly following their tenets to the letter)

Well i thank you for your opinion ...
But you are wrong.

"Intended" is irellevant, even if it would be true ... its official part of the game, no mod or anything ... and pure obstacle on purely mechanical level ...

Look, there are smart people in Larian ... im quite sure that they should be able to make some variable "Paladin subclass aviable 0/1 where 1 is sustained oath and 0 is broken oath" ... so you are just as restricted as you are logicaly supposed to be without adding more obstacles that genuinely serve no real purpose.
> If i want to play as a pure Paladin ... i allready payed for restoring my oath ...
> If i dont ... i have to anyway ... and then i have to break it again ...

Thanks

Actually a highlevel Cleric offers a lot for a deity, too, to strengthen the respective faith. So I'm not sure why you would think that a deity wouldnt love to get a new highlevel Cleric for their faith, as long as that Cleric aligns well to the respective faith.

Either way its not the same as a fallen Paladin. Because Clerics dont have to follow a specific code and dont have to maintain a lawful good alignment. They only have to maintain a thinking aligned to their deity and serve their deity and faith in general.

Anyway, all that stuff would be a hell of a lot of work to implement, thus Larian (and for that matter, previously also Bioware) opted out.





Yeah I hated this especially in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. You either play a goody two shoes or you kick every puppy you come across.

Would Darth Vader kick every puppy he comes across ? No. He would consider such a thing a waste of time.

Which is the crux of the problem. The deity will be well aware of how you completely didn't align with them for so long and only suddenly shifted alignment. How likely are you to remain true to their faith? Will you slip back into your old ways?

Heck, "Being a high level cleric" also means little when it's often that switching deity means starting back at level 1 (Based on prior editions of DnD this has been the case).

Which is why switching deity requires a test of faith to prove commitment to the new deity. Which is often some sort of trial or quest designed to promote the values of the deity in question.


It is very much the same. Both have some sort of guidelines to follow, if they don't they lose all their powers until they can regain them. Either through returning to ones code for Paladins or Clerics can either re-align to their Deity or opt to gain favour of a new Deity.

Just because Clerics don't have to maintain specifically lawful good alignment doesn't mean they're immune to falling. It just means that whatever alignment they must maintain is related to their chosen deity.

The only real difference is that fallen Paladins in 5e default into the Oathbreaker subclass and get to keep all their powers (Just with subclass specific ability changes) rather than losing all powers like they used to (With the "Oathbreaker" style Paladin instead being Blackguard or Antipaladin class as an alternative Paladin aligned to evil)


Ironically, Bioware had an easier time with it due to being able to rely on the alignment wheel (Which Owlcat does in their Pathfinder games).

Larian would have more work to do with 5e removing alignment so it would be more based off actual decisions, meaning they'd have to do Oath-like triggers for each of the dozen or so deities a Cleric has a choice for.