Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 6761960" data-attributes="member: 5038">In my opinion, this brings up a few issuesFirst is  an issue dating back to 3e with the game defining Barbarian as raging wilderness warrior.  A better name would have been Berserker. Also defining a berserker class around wilderness warrior ignores examples of fictional characters from urban, noble, and religious backgrounds that rage/fury.  The game would benefit from an official wilderness/urban skill swap variant similar to your 3e Cityscape enhancement or having left off certain skills and left them to be filled in by an appropriate background.A second issue is a campaign specific question- What defines a priest in the setting? Are all priests divine casters serving a deity and with specific abilities from serving that deity?  In such an instance, an acolyte might be a person that did not finish their priestly training. Maybe all priests are sorcerers or warlocks with the Arcane background better represent a campaign and divine casting priests don't exist? Or perhaps priests of a given deity or even all deities don't cast spells and are better represented by a non-spell casting class with the Acolyte.  The existence of a warrior monk-priest and what it means to be one is going to be a campaign specific thing.  If all priests cast divine spells, maybe the cleric or paladin are the basis.  The character be required to take a Martial Arts feat created by the DM and lose all armor proficiency for the Monk or Barbarian's AC bonus.  If they don't cast spells, a non-caster class can serve as the basis depending upon the abilities associated with a warrior-monk priest in the setting.  Of course, this all assumes that the campaign has such unarmored fighting priests serving one or more deities.</blockquote>

Verification