Why do people dislike the Zealot

[Harzel]

I know that this idea is not had by everyone but it seems to me that the Zealot is not liked by the community.

According to http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Subclasses-(Non-Magic)-THERE-CAN-BE-ONLY-ONE! Out of 25 subclasses it was the second one removed.

Voting in the Survivor threads is done for a very wide variety of reasons. I wouldn't put too much stock in what you see there.

(Waits for @lowkey13 to exile me from Survivor threads.)

Haha, whom are we kidding? Survivor threads determine most of the D&D product roadmap. The whole D&D team read them daily and have a mandatory mid-morning meeting to discuss.

(Hopes to be reinstated.)

 

[Olrox17]

Since the Berserker is poorly implemented, I see it as a good thing that they decided to stealth-fix the concept.

Yes, it's the same thing they're doing with the UA Brute, which is supposed to stealth-fix the champion concept. I get why they're doing it, but ideally I'd prefer they fixed the already existing subclasses, somehow, rather than making them obsolete garbage.

 

[CapnZapp]

But now we have two incompatible sentiments:

That the old class is obsolete garbage.

That the new class is redundant garbage.

WotC truly cannot win.

 

[Olrox17]

I'm not sure I follow. Just fix the berserker, and the champion, and the PHB ranger, and make sure new subclasses have their own identities.
I get why WOTC won't do it, it's because they don't want to use errata for balancing purposes in 5e (they did that a lot in earlier editions). However, the natural consequence of this approach is that, over time, some old options become obsolete. Trap options, even.

 

[CapnZapp]

However, the natural consequence of this approach is that, over time, some old options become obsolete. Trap options, even.

Not if you don't buy or use the new content. Not unless the option was a trap even originally, and that's not the case even for the weakest subclass (perhaps the Beastmaster).

If you do add the new content, how would you not agree to not use the old subclasses?

About the only reason I can see to turn a wilful blind eye towards the natural succession order of subclasses... is in order to claim the right to complain online about how my character is, while ignoring the obvious solution "but play the new subclass then, you did buy the new book".

 

[steeldragons]

I am probably going to regret this but...What's wrong with the Berserker that allegedly makes the Zealot a necessary or welcomed change?

My problem with it is multifold.

1. The name Zealot is terrible. As someone else mentioned, it is immediately evocative of a religious type of person...not a raging barbarian.

2. Whether it is intended to "mean" this or not, words have meaning. Whether they are trying to "repurpose/reinvent" a new "D&D" meaning for it or not, "I'm going to be a Zealot!" is not a phrase -in any context- anyone should utter... ever.

3. I have an issue with the fact that Barbarian -the class- has become soooo freaking narrow that there is only "Rager" or "Shamanic Spirits-related guy." If the archetype is so pigeon-holed that all you can do with it is give 3 flavors of "berserker rage": Berserker, "Battlerager"<eyeroll>, "Zealot"<angry eyeroll> and 3 flavors of "spirits guy" then maybe it's time to acknowledge the Barbarian is a One-trick Pony deserving of simply being consumed as a subclass of Fighter.

4. All of that said, it is of little surprise [however unfortunate] and in keeping with long-time D&D tradition as a (sometimes less subtle than more) reflection of the culture of its day, the original editions modeled classes and concepts after Aragorn (ranger), Elric (fighter/magic-user), Conan/Red sonja (barbarian)...the Kung-fu Saturday afternoon series giving us the "Monk"...the gymnastics craze/fame of the early 80's, culminating in the 1984 Olympics gymnastics team, giving us the "Acrobat," etc..., etc... through the decades... that in 2018 in this country, D&D would give us the "Zealot." Can't really go more into it than that (thank the gods), given forum rules inre: real world politics, but really shouldn't have to.

Again, it's not ok. But it's not a surprise.

So, yeah, what's the deal with the Berserker that a "Zealot" is more desirable?

 

[Dausuul]

Those Survivor threads are a fun game, not a scientific survey. It only takes a few haters to kill something (particularly since downvotes are twice the value of upvotes), and people's votes are often whimsical and spur-of-the-moment. I mean, the first person to downvote the zealot said outright that s/he had no idea what the zealot was.

And once something drops into the single digits, it starts attracting pile-on downvotes. People like to see things die, and they also like to clear away threats to their preferred winner.

None of that is a criticism of the Survivor threads. Like I said, it's a game; the whimsy, the pile-ons, and the tactical downvotes are part of the fun. But it does mean you can't draw any meaningful conclusions from the outcome. If you want to know what the community actually thinks of the zealot, do a poll. It still won't be very good data, but it will mean something.

 

[Salamandyr]

As an archetype, the religious zealot is pretty much the opposite of what I consider, "a good time". That sort of archetype is the kind of thing I come up with as madman cultists...not jolly, fun loving adventurers. Not only do I not want to play it...I don't want to play in a game where somebody else is playing one.

As a mechanical patch on the Berserker it's fine, but instead of selling it to us that way, they chose to introduce it wrapped up in RP poison.

 

[Olrox17]

Not if you don't buy or use the new content. Not unless the option was a trap even originally, and that's not the case even for the weakest subclass (perhaps the Beastmaster).

If you do add the new content, how would you not agree to not use the old subclasses?

About the only reason I can see to turn a wilful blind eye towards the natural succession order of subclasses... is in order to claim the right to complain online about how my character is, while ignoring the obvious solution "but play the new subclass then, you did buy the new book".

A trap option is an option that is strictly worse than another. If Wotc decides to release a feat that works exactly like Great Weapon Master, but also gives you +1 Str, then Great Weapon Master becomes a trap option. A bad, average or even a good option can become traps as the game is expanded.

Again, I would like to point out that I like the zealot, and I (kinda) like the brute. I could see myself playing them.
I would've never played a champion or a berserker, even before the new, superior options came out. They never looked fun to play, to me.

What I'm saying here, is that i like the old way of using errata to fix bad options.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you do add the new content, how would you not agree to not use the old subclasses?

If you don't buy or use the supplements, then any sort of official acknowledgement that an old option is bad and needs to be officially replaced, is actually an official endorsement that the one existing option is broken and should not be used.

I'm not going to keep playing a game if I have no confidence in it as a ruleset, and I'm not going to maintain confidence in a game if the designers acknowledge that it's broken.