Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Build Discussion Paladin Class Implementation: Discussion & Feedback

Hi folks,

After the nth post talking (understandably) about issues specifically with paladin oathbreaking but struggling to find where it had been discussed before, I thought I'd try a new experiment to see if it helps us have and find constructive discussions about the class.

I'm creating this thread to talk about all things related to the way Larian have implemented paladins in BG3 including, but not limited to, oathbreaking, spells, progression, subclasses, problems and multiclassing paladins.

I'll make it a sticky for now, though obviously if it doesn't get much interest then I'll unsticky it and it can die a quiet death.

If it does work, then I can create similar stickies for other classes. Let me know if there's a specific class you want a thread for.

Cheers,
RQ

I haven't had any paladin issues at all in my lengthy play through. No falls at all, despite Astarion stealing 30k gold.

I am reposting here so the threads are consolidated.

The Paladin class is basically broke. The various Oaths have a generic description but no real guidance on in game options, so you end up being an Oath Breaker and seldom realize what you did wrong. I have an idea on how to fix this.

We get a warning if we are about to steal something from the game. How about a warning when an action or a dialog choice will break the chosen oath? If that is too complicated how about a little more resilience to our Oaths? Maybe you must do something that breaks the oath three or four times before you lose it.

On that note, get the crap rid of the "Oath Breaker" class. When a Paladin breaks his oath, he loses access to the "power" that gave him his special abilities. This does not transfer to another source; it just cuts him off. A Paladin that has fallen from grace is just a fighter. If people want the "evil" necromancy style Paladin there is an option, it was known as an Anti-Paladin. Even those could fall, doing too much good and they become, you guessed it a Fighter.

Finally please remove the option to buy your way back into your oath. If the righteousness of the oath could be bought, especially so cheaply, than it should not have the value and power it does. A BETTER method would be for a sub question that allows a fallen Paladin to redeem himself. He only gets one bite at that apple BTW, if he redeems himself and then breaks oath again he is forever after a fighter.

Paladins are one of the few classes that traditionally have real restrictions and consequences of actions. That was the balance of them being so powerful and something that made them a unique experience to play. The current watered down system just makes them a shadow of what they should be.

Seems like your issue is with 5E not BG3.

Some, but there are some BG3 related issues such as a clear definitions on what will cause an Oath to fail and the falling to the Fallen instead of dropping to fighter. Finally the buying back your Oath instead of earning back, these are BG3 issues.

True but if your main issue is with oathbreaking in general that's 5E. Everything bg3 related you mentioned arises out of that (oathbreaking).

The Oathbreaker subclass for Paladins is an official part of 5e (source: Dungeon Master's Guide). Since BG3 is based on 5e, I'm totally fine with the Oatherbreaker being part of BG3. There's no need to outright "ban" it from the game just because some players don't like it and prefer to handle oathbreaking in another way (with the paladin just losing all powers). Becoming an Oathbreaker is a heavy consequence in itself, and I personally love the concept of Oathbreakers being fallen Paladins who are slowly consumed by some mysterious darkness seeping out of the spiritual wound that breaking the oath has left on their very soul. However, I fully agree that BG3 should handle oathbreaking differently. That's why I'd like to see the following changes:

1. There should be some kind of warning when the player is about to make a decision that would break their character's oath. Make dialogue options that will lead to oathbreaking appear in a different colour, or put in a confirmation prompt such as "You feel your consience twitch and realise that you are about to break your sacred oath. Do you really want to continue on this path?"; if the player clicks "no", the action in question should be canceled. It's totally strange to assume that a Paladin has no idea what actions will break their oath.

2. If an Oathbreaker wishes to redeem themselves, make them do an "act of penance". There is so much content in BG3 that adding another small side quest or short cutscene just for Paladins doesn't seem excessive. If you want to make this a gold sink, let it require some expensive item (a special kind of incense that needs to be burned when the Paladin is swearing a new oath or something like this). But buying yourself back into an oath doesn't make any sense.

Just my two cents.

Edit: Typos.

In DnD 5e the Anti-Paladin appears to be gone (homebrue), seemingly replaced by Oathbreaker paladin.

I agree, currently $ 0.04.

The entire concept of Oath Breaker seems a bit of a stretch to be honest. So lets work with the current premise. A Paladin is someone with such a firm conviction about whatever they have given their oath to, that powers have resulted from this conviction. (The removal of the Holy Warrior makes no sense but this is what we have)

Now during the course of adventuring, your commitment to your Oath has waned and eventually you fall from that Oath. That means you lose those special abilities, right? Evidently not because somewhere the same level of crazy commitment has developed over night for now an evil commitment. This insane commitment has come on so hard and fast that you instantly transform into a new set of powers. But hey for a few thousand gold pieces the powers can be switched back.

I am sorry but for a game that has good, solid lore and story lines does this not seem insane? I am not opposed to the concept of an anti-Paladin, there should be such a class and I am okay with it being a sub class. However to force the change on my character with no real way to know the change is coming until it happens seems insane. For someone to make a Paladin just to purposefully work to become Fallen seems insane, why not start that way?

We need highlighting options in the dialogue that can break the oath.

You can break the oath of the ancients with a terrible choice at the very beginning of the game, when you need to attack either Laezel or her jailers, it's not cool.

You also need a fix for the disappearance of the dark knight, he does not come to the second violation of the oath, and as a result, it is impossible to retrain, and you have to play with the debuff until the end of the game.

You have to agree to become an oathbreaker once your oath is broken.

Left with a vacuum of power you are offered an alternative means to accomplish your objectives.

Not so insane to me. Oathbreaker doesn't necessarily mean evil. It means you are unbound.

The two cases where my oath of ancients paladin ending up breaking their oath were:


The other case was more complicated, and I can see why it broke the oath but I still don't agree with it:


This is where the hard game mechanics run into the problem of having no actual DM; with a DM running the game they and the player can discuss the issue, and be more clear about the paladin's intent in what they're doing. A DM could also give more warning by threatening to change your alignment, or even just flat out say "this will break your vow".

I think short term the game needs to fix enemy groups that are misidentified as neutral when they're not, and it should really add dialogue tags to options that will immediately affect your vow, i.e- [Paladin] to the "correct" choice, or [Oathbreaker] for the "wrong" one.

Had my first fall, 200+ hours in at Act 3.


Regarding the Astarion plot:

My problem with their implementation of Oathbreaker's has nothing to do with Rules as Written - it relates to game content that gets broken when you accidentally or purposefully break your oath.

You basically, In my experience, lose ALL access to Withers functions. You can't resurrect any NPC's or yourself, you can't hire mercenaries, etc. He states he doesn't know you and you need to resume your original oath before accessing him. This happens whether you are an Oathbreaker before or after you encounter Withers in the temple.

Which ever way you want to play an Oathbreaker or get stuck with it as a consequence of your actions, the game shouldn't break for you for taking a legitimate game choice as offered by the devs.

I was honestly believing that Larian would implement Paladin last because they didnt like them.

Turns out its the most kickass implementation of Paladin I've ever seen anywhere.

So I'm very happy about that. Paladin is planned to be my second playthrough.

i agree with what was said above about the Paladin Oathbreaker not being able to just buy their way back in. Redemption shouldn't be a matter of coin, it should at the very least require effort and dedication on the part of the paladin to prove themselves worthy of redemption, i.e. a quest chain or some such.

To date, the paladin is by far my favorite class in any game, but here, it feels... hollow. Aside from spells and dialogue choices, there is nothing that makes the paladin "special". No communing with a chosen deity to reaffirm their faith and connection to the source of their power.

I know it's the same for the other classes (no meditation for the monk, etc.), but i feel it more keenly with the paladin. /shrug

I have a lot of focus on the Paladin as it was always one of my favorite classes. The role of the Holy Warrior, was something that was very appealing. The 5E rule changes have "diminished" the Paladin. It is no longer a special class that is hard to play due to stat restrictions and play limitations. Those were in place BTW to balance out the advantages of being a Paladin.

The whole concept of an "Oath" granting power to me seems a bit off. The Oath is not a higher power and thus has no power to grant, further the oath would not limit to specific powers if it is just unlocking hidden potential. The Paladin was always answerable to a higher call, the Oath was the commitment to a Higher Power that granted a boon to the person willing to do the work. A Paladin is in many ways a Warrior with a Cleric lite addition.

The same however can be said of Rangers which are the Paladin's of Nature, the Druid lite Warrior. Traditionally when a Paladin or a Ranger broke with their faith ( was not as simple as a mistake unless it was a pattern of bad mistakes) they lost that divine favor and became just a warrior. They could not buy their way back, they had to seek redemption and atone for their transgressions.

The oaths BTW fit with this approach as the Oaths can be attributed to specific Gods. The basic 5E rules leave them open because different game worlds handle Gods differently. In the Forgotten Realms the Gods are a major part of the lore and storylines, even the BG3 storyline. Yet instead of making the class fit within the lore as it always has the Devs basically neutered the class.

The first thing to say about paladins is, as always, that no, they should not need any connection to any god or religion.
They are absolutely better as a power born of the conviction born with an oath made, regardless of what to.
Someone could obviously make that oath to a god, but even then it still would not be that god giving them power. Just their conviction, same as any other paladin.
If you actually get your power from a god, you're a cleric. Said and done. Unless you made a deal for it, then you're a warlock. (But those don't generally go with full gods, only comparatively lesser entities.)
A particular paladin being devoted to a god, in terms of their power, is incidental. It's still the same power they'd get if devoted to anything else.
And there's nothing out of place with that conviction forming power in the world of DnD. We've already got Kuo-Toa literally creating gods via belief ffs.

Someone said something earlier about paladins being unique in their capacity to lose their power, and/or restrictions on it?
In BG3 that seems to be the case, but in DnD in general that's very much not true.
It's worth remembering that Clerics and Warlocks are both highly liable to lose their power too. Clerics are the most at risk, if any class is.
A cleric is granted use of a gods power. That only lasts as long as the god wants. It could stop on a whim, let alone after the cleric doing something the god doesn't like. Warlocks could do something that violates the pact, and have the power they were given taken away.
...if you factor in amnesia you could also suggest wizards can lose their power, since they have to actually know what they're doing. But that's pushing it.

5e, at least according to the subclass page on dndbeyond.com, makes the mistake of stating an oath-breaker should be evil. Which also at least somewhat implies any non oath-breaker paladin is good.
Which would be a ridiculous restriction on both counts.
Most of the subclasses could be formed with an evil person making an evil oath. In which case, that paladin would become an oath-breaker by becoming a better person, chances are. There should be good oath breakers, both in BG3 and 5e.
The oath-breaker npc in game seems like an example of this, from what little I saw of them. [My friend wanted to be a breaker in a multiplayer run, so I got to spectate conversations with the npc about why they broke their oath, and it sure sounds like "I stopped the evil man from doing evil things, and refused to do them myself". Making him an oath breaker by being a hero. Go figure. For my part I've only played paladin without breaking my oath so far, barring a few moments where I saved and reset just to test if an action would break it, to make sure I understood the oath text the game provides.

Focusing more on the game now:
The text on the oaths we get in that book and subclass choice is a level of understanding I can reasonably expect from a player. But from the character?
I would expect the character who's actually living that life to have a much better and deeper understanding of their oath than a player would. To be far more capable of realizing that some action or choice would violate their oath.
And since anything the character knows, the player should be told, that means that in most if not all cases, the game should simply indicate that an option would break the oath. It would be obvious to the character, so it should be obvious to the player.
Would you really expect paladins to violate their oaths accidentally? No, they'd make that choice knowing exactly what they're doing, at least most of the time.
Also it's a bit too easy to steal an item entirely by accident, not having meant to pick it up at all. A player unintentionally looting when they were just trying a movement command is hardly equatable to an oathbreaking action.

I'm not sure how to feel about using a companion to do an action that would have been oath-breaking, in order to not break the oath.
On one hand, it is technically true that they did it, not you. On the other hand, they only did it because you made them.
When you order someone to do something, that doesn't pawn all blame off on them. You're both responsible. So logically, if my Oath of "never kill anybody ever" Tav sits there while I control Astarion to assassinate somebody, it's still really Tav that killed them, so it would be reasonable for the Oath to break. Astarian only acts as an extention of Tav.
In multiplayer, of course, the character and companions controlled by other players are not to be considered under your control, not extensions of you. So they could do something without it affecting your oath. We don't need players fighting over that.

But without a doubt, the most ridiculous thing about paladins in this game is:
Respeccing out of paladin, doing the oath breaking act, then respeccing back into paladin, so that the oath never breaks.
Just no. That absolutely should not work.
An oath, especially one with the conviction necessary to power a whole class, is not something you can just make and unmake willy nilly.
Once a player (character) takes the Paladin class, they should be subject to the oath of the chosen subclass for the rest of the game.
Respeccing out of paladin should not and can not be considered freedom from the oath, just an oathbound person who's not currently actively using the associated power.
Committing an oath breaking act while respecced out of paladin should still engage the oath breaking story. If not immediately, then as soon as the player ever tries to spec back into paladin. That plotflag needs to trigger regardless of what classes are currently active.
I have no comments on the redemption process available in game, I haven't seen it.

That certainly sounds like a problem.

I see can why they might want to prevent people from respecing around the consequences, but no reason not to allow everything else.