Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are You Happy with the Selection of Subclasses?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9131365" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>Religious ecstasy does work conceptually. Indeed the best-done Paladins I've ever seen in a novel were religious berserkers and absolutely incredibly written. However, they weren't "Barbarians", they were Paladins (literally so).</p><p></p><p>And it is a ridiculous idea to have them as Barbarians - which D&D describes thusly:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To have a Paladin subclass which was Berserker-like? That'd be cool and with bolder designers, might even be a thing 5E might see. Further, as you point out, the abilities of the Zealot are just bizarre and don't align particularly well with the concept. They almost feel like someone came up with the mechanics and then tried to justify them with some dubious lore.</p><p></p><p>As for "niche", well, Battlerager is, but only because WotC chose a lunatic course of trying to make it some kind of weird underpowered Dwarf-specific thing. Battleragers already existed in D&D and were way cool in 4E (actually a Fighter subclass IIRC, but that's fine), but that's just another example of bad design terrified of revealing 4E roots. Storm Herald and World Tree thematically work a lot better than Zealot and mechanically make more sense, albeit World Tree has a couple of bad design choices - at least they're significantly nature/primal connected. Being niche isn't really the problem - making no sense is as a Barbarian subclass is - and that's the problem for Zealot. Wild Magic Barb I have a pretty low opinion of. I have no idea who came up with that, but's illustrative of how WotC has struggled with Barb subclass, because Barb, by their own design, is perhaps narrower than a full-on class should be.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because it's a specific, singularly 1970s archetype, basically just all the legends of the Shaolin monks crammed together (apparently possibly by way of Remo Williams?), and it's thus terrible at its job of being the "martial artist" class. I mean, we've got three different classes to represent what are broadly "wizards" (Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock), but instead of even one broad magical martial artist class (an incredibly common archetype in fantasy), we have an ultra-narrow and specific Monk class, just because it's an intentional throw-back for the sake of an apology edition.</p><p></p><p>You say there's lots of fiction and character ideas it makes possible - I disagree - there's a ton of fiction and character ideas it completely blocks by existing and being so hyper-specific and weird. Countless players want to play magical martial artists, but are completely put off by the Monk's name and vibe and general approach - and D&D 5E offers zero other support for them because Crawford has consistent treated the ability to make unarmed attacks that do more than 1 damage as dangerously powerful for the whole of 5E.</p><p></p><p>Exactly - I get why they did it for Theros, but it absolutely should not be a PHB subclass ahead of any other Paladin subclass.</p><p></p><p>Absolutely - that's a fine idea. A Witcher-esque Ranger subclass, given they seem to want to go hard on the magical ranger would make huge sense and probably work decently mechanically.</p><p></p><p>Certainly the Gloom Stalker Ranger is a much better "assassin" than the Assassin Rogue. But WotC leaves out tons of archetypes, or supports them poorly, so I'd suggest just leaving it out of the PHB entirely given 5E makes assassinations that aren't DM fiat or of such low-HP NPCs that anyone could do it (and any Full Caster or a Warlock could likely do it much, much, much, much better than an Assassin Rogue) just flatly not possible.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9131365, member: 18"] Religious ecstasy does work conceptually. Indeed the best-done Paladins I've ever seen in a novel were religious berserkers and absolutely incredibly written. However, they weren't "Barbarians", they were Paladins (literally so). And it is a ridiculous idea to have them as Barbarians - which D&D describes thusly: To have a Paladin subclass which was Berserker-like? That'd be cool and with bolder designers, might even be a thing 5E might see. Further, as you point out, the abilities of the Zealot are just bizarre and don't align particularly well with the concept. They almost feel like someone came up with the mechanics and then tried to justify them with some dubious lore. As for "niche", well, Battlerager is, but only because WotC chose a lunatic course of trying to make it some kind of weird underpowered Dwarf-specific thing. Battleragers already existed in D&D and were way cool in 4E (actually a Fighter subclass IIRC, but that's fine), but that's just another example of bad design terrified of revealing 4E roots. Storm Herald and World Tree thematically work a lot better than Zealot and mechanically make more sense, albeit World Tree has a couple of bad design choices - at least they're significantly nature/primal connected. Being niche isn't really the problem - making no sense is as a Barbarian subclass is - and that's the problem for Zealot. Wild Magic Barb I have a pretty low opinion of. I have no idea who came up with that, but's illustrative of how WotC has struggled with Barb subclass, because Barb, by their own design, is perhaps narrower than a full-on class should be. Because it's a specific, singularly 1970s archetype, basically just all the legends of the Shaolin monks crammed together (apparently possibly by way of Remo Williams?), and it's thus terrible at its job of being the "martial artist" class. I mean, we've got three different classes to represent what are broadly "wizards" (Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock), but instead of even one broad magical martial artist class (an incredibly common archetype in fantasy), we have an ultra-narrow and specific Monk class, just because it's an intentional throw-back for the sake of an apology edition. You say there's lots of fiction and character ideas it makes possible - I disagree - there's a ton of fiction and character ideas it completely blocks by existing and being so hyper-specific and weird. Countless players want to play magical martial artists, but are completely put off by the Monk's name and vibe and general approach - and D&D 5E offers zero other support for them because Crawford has consistent treated the ability to make unarmed attacks that do more than 1 damage as dangerously powerful for the whole of 5E. Exactly - I get why they did it for Theros, but it absolutely should not be a PHB subclass ahead of any other Paladin subclass. Absolutely - that's a fine idea. A Witcher-esque Ranger subclass, given they seem to want to go hard on the magical ranger would make huge sense and probably work decently mechanically. Certainly the Gloom Stalker Ranger is a much better "assassin" than the Assassin Rogue. But WotC leaves out tons of archetypes, or supports them poorly, so I'd suggest just leaving it out of the PHB entirely given 5E makes assassinations that aren't DM fiat or of such low-HP NPCs that anyone could do it (and any Full Caster or a Warlock could likely do it much, much, much, much better than an Assassin Rogue) just flatly not possible. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are You Happy with the Selection of Subclasses?
Top