The new paths are
- Path of the Ancestral Guardian
- Path of the Storm Herald
- Path of the Zealot
Perception varies.It sure looks like something is being 'forced.'
That's what backgrounds are for. Acolyte background and Barbarian class lets you pick Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Religion. If you want a brute you can switch any for Athletics. I'm not seeing the problem.
It's usually quite easy to engage the same foe as your ally while remaining more than 5 feet away from your ally.Another issue with the Zealot: it does damage to EVERY creature within 5 feet, including allies. That's bound to step on some toes, and it encourages groan-inducing solo play. "Everyone stand back while I deal with these monsters!"
It's not a problem in the sense that it would be the end of the world or some horrible abomination of game design or anything. It's just a question of using the best tools for the job.
I guess I think that if the only reason you want to use a barbarian to model this archetype is because barbarians have rage and so does this archetype, that's kind of a weak reason.
Ignore the rage mechanic for a second. Pretend the barbarian had no rage. Maybe they're rangers, whatever. If you wanted to make a character that was inspired with a holy lust for violence against the enemies of the faithful, would you still make it a barbarian?
I'd be inclined to go Cleric, or maybe Paladin. Give them a mechanic similar to rage (maybe Channel Divinity! Maybe a holy fury spell! An Oath of Zeal? A Zeal domain?), and you've got what you need.
It's not that using barbarian for this is wrong, it just doesn't fit very well. It's a square peg in the barbarian's round hole. Cram it in and shave the edges down and it'll fit well enough, but the two aren't clearly made for each other.
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.
It's not a problem in the sense that it would be the end of the world or some horrible abomination of game design or anything. It's just a question of using the best tools for the job.
I guess I think that if the only reason you want to use a barbarian to model this archetype is because barbarians have rage and so does this archetype, that's kind of a weak reason.
Ignore the rage mechanic for a second. Pretend the barbarian had no rage. Maybe they're rangers, whatever. If you wanted to make a character that was inspired with a holy lust for violence against the enemies of the faithful, would you still make it a barbarian?
I'd be inclined to go Cleric, or maybe Paladin. Give them a mechanic similar to rage (maybe Channel Divinity! Maybe a holy fury spell! An Oath of Zeal? A Zeal domain?), and you've got what you need.
It's not that using barbarian for this is wrong, it just doesn't fit very well. It's a square peg in the barbarian's round hole. Cram it in and shave the edges down and it'll fit well enough, but the two aren't clearly made for each other.