The new paths are
- Path of the Ancestral Guardian
- Path of the Storm Herald
- Path of the Zealot
It's usually quite easy to engage the same foe as your ally while remaining more than 5 feet away from your ally.
There's a lot of things that the Barbarian has that don't make a lot of sense for a character like that. While stuff like Fast Movement/Bonuses vs. Traps and the like can be handwaved away, it's a pretty clear handwave, and it weakens the archetype overall to handwave it.I think the reason they want to use this archetype is that it works better for what they are going for. I think "Zealot" is a misnomer. Paladins are Zealots, filled with holy fury, like you describe. This is not supposed to be righteous fury. It is more like being possessed by Mars, Ares, or Tempus. Maybe Hextor. They rage because they are human avatars of battle, which, in many D&D cosmos, is a divine characteristic. I think it is a little bit of a twist on the normal Barbarian fluff but in the end it works perfectly.
Well, we fundamentally disagree about what the Barbarian is, I guess! To me, a class is not simply a package of mechanics, it's an archetype to play, a story to tell. The Barbarian story is not simply the story of rage.Parmandur said:But...the Barbarian is just the Rage mechanic; that's like their entire thing, that and not wearing armor. There is actually shockingly little flavor, outdoorsy or bot: it's Rage and the ability to rock the AC without a shirt on.
Mouseferatu said:There is a tendency among some players--an unfortunate and unnecessarily narrow one, IMO, but that's me--to treat the flavor text and archetypal view of the classes as inviolable writ, rather than as a general starting point. For such players, anything that falls outside of those lines is viewed with suspicion at best.
Woof. Leaving to one side the paternalistic normativism of the talking point that these organizations don't really understand the religion they profess to follow, I don't think D&D is interested in depicting modern terrorist organizations as PC options - and even if they WERE, I'd want to pick up the Religion skill.Sorcerers Apprentice said:I can't say I see any problem with this. Historically religious zealots have often only had a rudimentary understanding of their faith, and that also applies to modern examples like Boko Haram and Islamic State fighters. If you want to play a zealot who actually knows his theology then simply pick the acolyte background, or customize any other background you like to have Religion proficiency. No need to force the skill on every zealot.
Rage is not the point of the Barbarian class, and if that's all you're really interested in, just loot some version of it and stick it in whatever class makes more sense for you.
Well, we fundamentally disagree about what the Barbarian is, I guess! To me, a class is not simply a package of mechanics, it's an archetype to play, a story to tell. The Barbarian story is not simply the story of rage.
Order of Operations (7th-Grade math) dictates that, as written, it has to be the second. You multiply/divide before you add/subtract.
While you aren't neccesarily wrong, what is so hard to swallow about a Barbarian that believes in and follows a god?
And then, if it is a god of war, them blessing the barbarian with power?
I get clerics derive their power from the gods, but that is spellcasting. Paladins more draw their power from their oaths and convictions, they don't neccesarily need a god in 5e.
There is plenty of room their for a Barbarian blessed by the Rage of Kord to fight alongside his brothers-in-arms. And making something like this a paladin sub-class instead would not only break the style of the oaths, but be much more mechanically difficult to pull of. Barbarian fits better.
I might just as well say that there's an unfortunate and unnecessarily narrow tendency among some players to treat the mechanics of a class as inviolable writ, rather than as support for certain archetypes. For such players, anything that uses a Rage mechanic that isn't a Barbarian is viewed with suspicion at best.
Parentheses is done before division.
When you are using natural langauge to "Talk" the formula instead of writing it, you can confuse people as to whether or not you intended parentheses to be included or not.
But, I also think it is the second now, as the math for the first is just really weird and pointless.