Level Up (A5E) Adepts, Heralds, & Berserkers

[Morrus]

In Level Up, we've renamed three classes. We wanted to talk a little about why.

Each of those three classes -- the monk, paladin, and barbarian -- have names heavily linked to a particular cultural interpretation of that class' role in the game. The monk heavily implies an Eastern-themed character, or one with religious trappings; the paladin heavily implies a Charlemagne-esque mounted knight; and the barbarian heavily implies an outdoors warrior.

However, their roles are broader than those specific interpretations. A monk might instead be a giant, red-headed pit-fighter. A paladin might be a staff-wielding tiger-riding holy warrior. A barbarian might be an elven juggernaut clad in shining plate armor.

An adept​

So these classes are now the adept, the herald, and the berserker. You can still play an eastern-themed martial artist, a shining mounted knight, or a furious wilderness warrior -- but you can also play other takes on these classes. You could before, but we're just going right out and saying it with the name.

The reason we did it was because when we were writing Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters, we frequently had to give characters monk levels to represent their ability to punch people. But that came with a bunch of trappings which didn't suit those characters. So now, you get to choose your trappings. The class' role hasn't changed, but it fills a wider range of narrative niches.

 

[dave2008]

I am all for the name change to Adept and Herald; however, I am a bit lukewarm on the Berserker at the moment. Berserker seems more niche than barbarian to me, but maybe that is what your going for. I will berserker = rage makes more sense than barbarian = rage to me.

 

[Waller]

I am all for the name change to Adept and Herald; however, I am a bit lukewarm on the Berserker at the moment. Berserker seems more niche than barbarian to me, but maybe that is what your going for. I will berserker = rage makes more sense than barbarian = rage to me.

It’s a class defined by the rage feature not by its loincloth. Berserker makes more sense to me than barbarian. Barbarian is a culture not a class.

 

[dave2008]

It’s a class defined by the rage feature not by its loincloth. Berserker makes more sense to me than barbarian. Barbarian is a culture not a class.

Yes, I agree that berserker fits the rage mechanic better, I said that. My point was the Berserker concept is, IMO, more limited than the Barbarian. But class design is not my thing. If it was me I would at most: fighter, mage, cleric, & rogue and everything else be subclasses. Hmm, what I am trying say is that genially classes are fairly broad (fighter, cleric, rogue, etc.), with specialization of an archtype. But the berseker concept feels more narrow, like a subclass, not a class.

 

[Morrus]

Yes, I agree that berserker fits the rage mechanic better, I said that. My point was the Berserker concept is, IMO, more limited than the Barbarian. But class design is not my thing. If it was me I would at most: fighter, mage, cleric, & rogue and everything else be subclasses. Hmm, what I am trying say is that genially classes are fairly broad (fighter, cleric, rogue, etc.), with specialization of an archtype. But the berseker concept feels more narrow, like a subclass, not a class.

There's two schools of thought (if you take things to their logical extreme):

1) You only need 2 classes. Fighty and Magicy. Every class is a mix of those two with an archetype. Druid is Nature Magicy. Rogue is Sneaky Fighty. Ranger is Nature Fighty. Cleric is Holy Magicy. And so on.

2) Delve into every concept individually as a class with tons of detail, giving it the attention it deserves. There's a full class for every idea, exploring that idea with awesome options.

In the real world, we all hold a position somewhere along that scale.

 

[Faolyn]

Yes, I agree that berserker fits the rage mechanic better, I said that. My point was the Berserker concept is, IMO, more limited than the Barbarian. But class design is not my thing. If it was me I would at most: fighter, mage, cleric, & rogue and everything else be subclasses. Hmm, what I am trying say is that genially classes are fairly broad (fighter, cleric, rogue, etc.), with specialization of an archtype. But the berseker concept feels more narrow, like a subclass, not a class.

Well, think of it this way: the point of the class is you have a warrior who fuels their fighting ability with pure emotion. Not necessarily with skill, or with precision, or with righteousness, but with emotion. But while they're not necessarily skilled or precise or righteous, they can be. Maybe there's a better word than berserk to describe it, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. But barbarian means uncouth, uneducated, stupid, low-tech, and so forth. Which berserkers don't have to be.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I like the name changes. I've never played a barbarian because of the whole outdoor warrior thing* - but I remember reading the Berserker playtest and having something like 3 or 4 character ideas, just because that change of approach.

* with one powergaming exception for a high level game where we started high level; and even then it was more background than anything.

 

[Minigiant]

I dunno about Herard.
What message are they bringing?
"Some Body's Gonna Get It!"

JK name changes are okay.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, think of it this way: the point of the class is you have a warrior who fuels their fighting ability with pure emotion. Not necessarily with skill, or with precision, or with righteousness, but with emotion. But while they're not necessarily skilled or precise or righteous, they can be. Maybe there's a better word than berserk to describe it, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. But barbarian means uncouth, uneducated, stupid, low-tech, and so forth. Which berserkers don't have to be.

doesn't need to be emotion, Morgraves misc also suggests a warlock-esque connection with a fiend along with the fruits of arcane research not unlike cyborg & captain america but with some more setting specific fluff like being warforged or hailing from the demon wastes including about a page on civilized barbarians

 

[Faolyn]

doesn't need to be emotion, Morgraves misc also suggests a warlock-esque connection with a fiend along with the fruits of arcane research not unlike cyborg & captain america but with some more setting specific fluff like being warforged or hailing from the demon wastes including about a page on civilized barbarians

True, but you could consider them exceptions rather than the norm. Or a play on the norm by saying that being beholden to a fiend means the rage is coming from the fiend rather than yourself.