Why do people dislike the Zealot

[epithet]

That is a description of the feature, yes.

And it requires some other character with revivify. That is only found on the Cleric and Paladin's lists, and Paladins don't get it until later.

So either it requires that someone else play a Cleric so they are available within the 1 minute revivify can work. Or it requires a playstyle where NPCs with the higher level spells to bring people back are available and will do it at need.

I believe that covers both of my critiques about it.

Or, your wizard casts gentle repose and you drag the zealot back to his temple for a freebie rez.

 

[Blue]

Or, your wizard casts gentle repose and you drag the zealot back to his temple for a freebie rez.

Great example proving my point. It both assumes that there is another character with specific abilities, and a specific playstyle, that they can get easy access to NPC resurrection magic.

Perfect example supporting my points, thanks.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

All barbarian subclasses include highly situational abilities. Carry double weight anyone?

 

[FrogReaver]

Great example proving my point. It both assumes that there is another character with specific abilities, and a specific playstyle, that they can get easy access to NPC resurrection magic.

Perfect example supporting my points, thanks.

#1 It's fine for some subclass abilities to assume a specific playstyle. You aren't required to be that subclass when you choose barbarian. Heck you aren't even required to choose to be a barbarian. I'm sorry that not everything will always 100% suite your playstyle but such is not realistic.

#2 It's still a cool ability that adds a lot of flavor to the subclass even if it never comes up or would matter in actual play.

 

[Blue]

#1 It's fine for some subclass abilities to assume a specific playstyle. You aren't required to be that subclass when you choose barbarian. Heck you aren't even required to choose to be a barbarian. I'm sorry that not everything will always 100% suite your playstyle but such is not realistic.

#2 It's still a cool ability that adds a lot of flavor to the subclass even if it never comes up or would matter in actual play.

Picturing subclass abilities that rarely come up and require others to play specific classes.

Now picture subclass abilities you get when you first join that help define your character as part of that subclass. Not ribbon abilities, but ones expected to do heavy lifting mechanically in defining your feel.

Really, the Venn diagram overlap those isn't what I'd call great design space.

BTW, we're many levels deep in comments and I think that people are taking my remark that I really don't like the subclass. Just to level set, here's my opening remarks about the Zealot:

I don't hate the zealot, but I also don't think it's perfect.

If you think Warrior of the Gods is perfect, I don't think I'll be able to persuade you. If you think it's not perfect, I feel my two critiques of why it's not perfect are on point. Not perfect doesn't mean irredeemable, it means that it has some room to improve.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't see a problem with abilities, like Warrior of the Gods, that offer little mechanical advantage, but help to define the feel of the (sub)class. (Radiant damage on hit is already a very significant mechanical advantage). It's really a matter of finding a character concept that fits the abilities. To me it suggests a character who has already come back from the dead at least once - sent back by the gods. It puts me in mind of the Conan the Barbarian movie, where Valeria returns as a Valkyrie.

Another alternative concept to the "religious fanatic" fluff would be to play as an aasimar - that way the zealot abilities could be explained as a natural extension of your nature.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Another alternative concept to the "religious fanatic" fluff would be to play as an aasimar - that way the zealot abilities could be explained as a natural extension of your nature.

This is a great way to make a Zealot. Mechanically it's very sound too.