It looks like I did a bad job of stating what I meant, here. My point was the opposite. I don’t mind if people disagree, and i don’t really mind what people think of me. So, have whatever opinion you have and tell us. It’s really all good. I’m sorry if it came across the opposite, there.

I changed a single word in that post because Manos Ti commented. I didn’t mention anything about you personally, or your ability to contribute, yet you’ve insinuated as much in both your replies, so I’ll apologise for making you feel that way.

I appreciate all contributions to the site, i’ll keep my opinions to myself in the future. Thank you for taking time to explain your thought process.

So fly speed is weird. Some fly speed is “fly speed equal to walking speed” and some is simply “fly speed.” I purposefully stated walking speed, so “fly speed equal to walking speed” is impacted, here.

The stated 30 ft. range is only for the initial targeting. Once the creature is affected, it doesn’t matter if they move away. That’s part of the point. It’s a spectral chain, not a physical one, after all. Think of it akin to hex or hunter’s mark in that once the target is affected, moving doesn’t matter. It’s meant to be a partial tracking tool as long as the creature fails saves.

I disagree that a Channel Divinity needs to be as strong as any spell cast using a spell slot. Channel Divinity restores on short rest, and spell slots for paladins do not. I think this compares favorably to say, Nature’s Wrath from the Oath of the Ancients paladin. Both have similar save conditions, Chains has a better range, and Wrath imposes restrained. I purposefully did NOT want this to impose a condition so that this stacks or combos with everything else paladins and their party can bring to a table – similar in a way that spirit guardians lowers movement without creating difficult terrain.

What this brings to the table isn’t provided elsewhere, and when taken with the rest of the archetype I think it compares differently but favorable to the existing paladin archetypes. Is this more niche? Sure, but I don’t think that is a bad thing, and can be an incredibly useful tool in many campaigns and settings.

You are, of course welcome to disagree. I stated what I stated about insults as I read your original comment. I’m not offended or upset by it, and even if you believe I am terrible and the worst contributor here it is certainly your opinion.

Now, I actually house rule most spells and features that have an immediate save at the end of the turn the creature gets affects to last until the end of the next turn regardless, but the as-written materials don’t do that and following the way things are structured can be limiting at time. That’s neither here nor there.

Exactly, it isn’t polished enough and needs more thought in my opinion. Maybe STR vs Cha as it’s a magical affect, if they fail they are yanked back, if they succeed allow them to drag the paladin xfeet with them.

Those high mobility creatures tend to have a good Dex save, a lot of creatures have good STR too. It just seems underwhelming. It is more powerful in some respects, but weaker in more than simple level 1 spells like entangle. You only get one Channel per rest, so you waste a turn trying this with maybe (With high Cha modifier) get 60%, maybe 70% Chance of it landing ? The creature gets a save at the end of it’s turn too, makes it a little weak imo.

I appreciate the idea behind it, just seems a little situational compared to other Paladin Oath Channels.

Not here to insult, or call you a hack, calling it as I see it. I’ve lurked around the site for a while and appreciate the work Tribality does .

Thanks.

Well, I think that Colin could provide in depth response about the design decisions behind this build, but I’d say that all of this is flavored around a setting where planar travel (and thus hopping in and out of the Material Plane) is pretty common. So, Chains of the Binder does make sense. My only concern is that apart from that, it does not provide any other really useful condition (i.e. restrained etc) and the creature affected by this can still can move pretty freely. It does not specify what happens if the creature can fly (if it has a fly speed) and what happens if lets say the creature tries to move farther than the 30 ft. of the chain length. My ruling on this would be opposed Strengh checks, but Colin might think otherwise.

I see no harm in re-flavoring Turn Undead.

While I am sure this won’t change your opinion, I am happy to discuss my thought process.

Yes, the turn is similar to the Oath of Devotion AND the Oath of the Ancients archetypes. Why? It’s thematically appropriate and covers ground not covered by those two archetypes. There is a place for that in campaigns, and is in-theme with the rest of the work of a campaign with a lot of the aforementioned creatures – Underdark exploration, for example. So while it is a re-skin, it is a purposeful one.

Chains of the Binder is more useful that you imply. Fixing movement speed and denying the Dash action is extremely useful when encountering thinking, motivated people that are attempting to oppose you. For example, it is immediately useful against any monk or wood elf. The locking down of teleportation is also useful for more than just misty step, particularly when dealing with aberrations and monstrosities. Is it niche? It depends entirely on the game you are in. I would wager the movement speed fixing and action denial is extremely useful in many games. It’s also thematically appropriate for the archetype.

Anyway, you are certainly free to insult me and call me a hack all you want.

Edited for the young and/or easily offended by words.

Hey, language young man.