Zealot is Broken?

[username1]

Zealot is a primal path a barbarian can take at level 3. It is in xanathars. The problem is when a barbarian takes it at level three they gain the ability Warrior of the gods. This ability marks your soul for endless battle. Resurection spells can be cast on you without the material components. I feel this is game breaking. Sure res spells aren't gained until level 5 by clerics. But once there this subclass is so game breaking. I sometimes don't even allow res spells. Am I seeing this wrong?

[Unoriginal]

Zealot is a primal path a barbarian can take at level 3. It is in xanathars. The problem is when a barbarian takes it at level three they gain the ability Warrior of the gods. This ability marks your soul for endless battle. Resurection spells can be cast on you without the material components. I feel this is game breaking. Sure res spells aren't gained until level 5 by clerics. But once there this subclass is so game breaking. I sometimes don't even allow res spells. Am I seeing this wrong?

There is nothing broken about ressurection, and there is nothing game-breaking about a subclass that's slightly likely to die being able to come back without a material cost if they're teamed with a Cleric. It costs them a subclass feature, it's a fair price.

What are your arguments to declare it broken?

[ciarannihill]

Zealot is a primal path a barbarian can take at level 3. It is in xanathars. The problem is when a barbarian takes it at level three they gain the ability Warrior of the gods. This ability marks your soul for endless battle. Resurection spells can be cast on you without the material components. I feel this is game breaking. Sure res spells aren't gained until level 5 by clerics. But once there this subclass is so game breaking. I sometimes don't even allow res spells. Am I seeing this wrong?

Warrior of the Gods

At 3rd level, if a spell has the sole effect of restoring you to life (but not undeath), the caster doesn't need material components to cast the spell on you.


So you're reading this correctly, but I fail to see why this is super gamebreaking? Unless you're trying to be super adversarial towards your players this isn't that big a deal? Death shouldn't be so common that this comes up more than once or twice, if that, and by the time it comes up more than that the players should be at a level where death is an inconvenience anyway, and this ability at the point is just a matter of convenience than power.

I think you're putting more weight on it in theory than it has in terms of actual power.

[Willie the Duck]

You are not seeing this wrong. However, you are also not really explaining whey this, in particular, is that game breaking. You still need to have someone to cast the resurrection-type spell (and in the case of revivify, having it prepared and a 3rd level unspent slot and getting to them within a minute is a big deal). If you, the DM, outlaws resurrection magic, then this power becomes literally meaningless. My question to you is this, while the monetary expenditure required for resurrection is supposed to be something of a burden, has it ever... ever been the determining factor as to whether a character gets resurrected or not? If not, then why is this ability all that earth shaking?

Compared to previous editions where resurrection cost you a level or a point of Constitution or could literally fail, this edition is relatively free of consequences other than downtime and finding someone to do it. That's already the case, so this slight lightening of the burden doesn't actually change much.

[Ganymede]

I'd take more issue with the fact that, unlike the Storm Herald, Zealots don't need to use a bonus action to inflict their extra path damage.

[ciarannihill]

I'd take more issue with the fact that, unlike the Storm Herald, Zealots don't need to use a bonus action to inflict their extra path damage.
That is, IMO, an issue of Storm Herald being too weak -- not Zealot being overpowered. It also activates upon Raging, though, to be fair.

I really want a Storm Herald variant with the slight tweaks that it still feels like the flavor/fluff works, but it's power level is more in line with Zealot, Totem and Ancestral Guardian...

[KorvinStarmast]

Zealot is a primal path a barbarian can take at level 3. It is in xanathars. The problem is when a barbarian takes it at level three they gain the ability Warrior of the gods. This ability marks your soul for endless battle. Resurection spells can be cast on you without the material components. I feel this is game breaking. Sure res spells aren't gained until level 5 by clerics. But once there this subclass is so game breaking. I sometimes don't even allow res spells. Am I seeing this wrong?
They save a few gold pieces.
Not broken.

I sometimes don't even allow res spells.
You are free to do that.

Am I seeing this wrong?
Yes. It isn't broken. By 5th level when revivify comes on line, saving a few gp to buy the proper gem is a bookkeeping issue, unless you are playing a harsh/gritty mode where GP are very scarce, and gems also scarce.

[ad_hoc]

Zealot is a primal path a barbarian can take at level 3. It is in xanathars. The problem is when a barbarian takes it at level three they gain the ability Warrior of the gods. This ability marks your soul for endless battle. Resurection spells can be cast on you without the material components. I feel this is game breaking. Sure res spells aren't gained until level 5 by clerics. But once there this subclass is so game breaking. I sometimes don't even allow res spells. Am I seeing this wrong?

It's a Ribbon.

It is really just there for flavour. Not having raise dead spells in your campaign won't affect the balance of the Zealot.

[Pex]

Not implying anything sinister, but I think your issue is a knee-jerk reaction of a DM not liking a PC getting something for nothing. Anything a PC gets the player has to earn either through intense roleplay or spending the time and effort gaining levels, number of levels subjective to the DM. When something is too easy DMs react as if the game falls apart due to lack of control. The game or player is deciding he gets something, not the DM permitting it.

[Quoxis]

As others have said:
- you still need a cleric or something similar to cast the spell
- the cleric still needs to prepare the spell
- the cleric still needs to spend their (for a while) highest level spell slot
- you literally only save a diamond

Nothing you really gain there other than making the resurrection of your party‘s probably most death-resilient member cheaper. Did you maybe misread the feature somehow?

[Jerrykhor]

That's nothing compared to the level 14 feature to continue fighting while dead. Its nice for the cleric to save some gold pieces, but you're assuming your team has a cleric. If the party doesnt have a cleric, it equals to zero.

[jas61292]

It is not game breaking, but it might be setting breaking. Personally, I'm not a fan of easy resurrection. I'm not against it happening all together, but I don't like it basically being something expected to happen once you reach a certain level. As such, the way I limit it in my world is not by changing mechanics or anything, but by making diamonds very rare, only typically available to players as part of treasure hoards they find.

The Zealot barbarian explicitly gets around my limitation, making it far more powerful of an ability in my campaign than it would otherwise be. I am either forced to accept this radical change in expectations, or alter the mechanics. While I have not had anyone actually play one yet, if I did, I would likely change the ability to something like having it halve the cost of ther necessary component, letting them resurrect twice for what would normally only get you one.

[GlenSmash!]

Zealots aren't any trouble until the get to level 15, which makes them harder to knock out of Rage. even then I don't consider them broken.

[Willie the Duck]

even then I don't consider them broken.

And there's the rub. There's no technical definition to broken, but usually it is considered somewhere between 'strictly best <among a reasonable subcategory>' to 'sends your game off the rails of sanity, and/or makes it a completely different experience than it was before this addition was made.' Zealot barbarian is potentially, but not inarguably, the best choice of archetype when someone wants to play a barbarian. Even if this were inarguably so, I don't think Warrior of the Gods would be the reason. I think that's why people think maybe the OP saw a more 'off the rails' level of abuse somewhere that actually is not present.

[Quoxis]

It is not game breaking, but it might be setting breaking. Personally, I'm not a fan of easy resurrection. I'm not against it happening all together, but I don't like it basically being something expected to happen once you reach a certain level. As such, the way I limit it in my world is not by changing mechanics or anything, but by making diamonds very rare, only typically available to players as part of treasure hoards they find.

The Zealot barbarian explicitly gets around my limitation, making it far more powerful of an ability in my campaign than it would otherwise be. I am either forced to accept this radical change in expectations, or alter the mechanics. While I have not had anyone actually play one yet, if I did, I would likely change the ability to something like having it halve the cost of ther necessary component, letting them resurrect twice for what would normally only get you one.

The problem is that logically, if some material is rare but needed, its value rises - as you need 500(?)gp worth of diamonds to raise someone, in your world that’s a tiny pebble of 5 grams instead of a Koh-i-noor grade diamond. A more reasonable approach, especially if you want the zealot to still have to pay half price for resurrection, would be to add a zero to the required worth of the diamond(s), both in terms of ingame logic and making revivify and the likes more rare and valuable - and it makes it easier for you and more meaningful to them if they can still buy diamonds as an emergency revival pack instead of having to fight a dragon with one man down to get one from its hoard, just at a price that’ll make you reconsider if you really can afford to die.

[GlenSmash!]

And there's the rub. There's no technical definition to broken, but usually it is considered somewhere between 'strictly best <among a reasonable subcategory>' to 'sends your game off the rails of sanity, and/or makes it a completely different experience than it was before this addition was made.' Zealot barbarian is potentially, but not inarguably, the best choice of archetype when someone wants to play a barbarian. Even if this were inarguably so, I don't think Warrior of the Gods would be the reason. I think that's why people think maybe the OP saw a more 'off the rails' level of abuse somewhere that actually is not present.

Good points. I suppose my definition of broken is would I have to significantly change the way I DM if a player chooses this option.

As for Zealot itself, it is my favorite Barbarian. I find Raging beyond death to be a really defining feature. It my rule of cool it's very cool.

As far as the best, I think Ancestral Guardian, and some Totem options certainly give it a run for the money.

[MeeposFire]

It is not game breaking, but it might be setting breaking. Personally, I'm not a fan of easy resurrection. I'm not against it happening all together, but I don't like it basically being something expected to happen once you reach a certain level. As such, the way I limit it in my world is not by changing mechanics or anything, but by making diamonds very rare, only typically available to players as part of treasure hoards they find.

The Zealot barbarian explicitly gets around my limitation, making it far more powerful of an ability in my campaign than it would otherwise be. I am either forced to accept this radical change in expectations, or alter the mechanics. While I have not had anyone actually play one yet, if I did, I would likely change the ability to something like having it halve the cost of ther necessary component, letting them resurrect twice for what would normally only get you one.

Unless you are being very stingy with money or the ability to find diamonds of any sort this ability changes nothing about resurrection in the campaign. All this ability does is change how much money you need to perform the ability. If your setting is not supposed to have resurrection in it or it needs to be far more rare then then you probably need to change how resurrection type effects work in general. In your setting is the only thing stopping it is the money? That does not seem to be a great way to stop it since by the time you start getting those type of spells that level of money is not nothing but you certainly can afford it if you need it and if you need it you are going to use it.

If your setting needs to limit the ability to come back from the dead then you really should make changes that support that because if all you do is rely on money cost it will probably not mean much very quickly. This is why you are seeing people refer to it as a ribbon (it really probably shouldn't be since it does have a mechanical effect but since it is seen as being weak and very much a side benefit people call it a ribbon) rather than an important feature.

[jas61292]

Unless you are being very stingy with money or the ability to find diamonds of any sort this ability changes nothing about resurrection in the campaign. All this ability does is change how much money you need to perform the ability. If your setting is not supposed to have resurrection in it or it needs to be far more rare then then you probably need to change how resurrection type effects work in general. In your setting is the only thing stopping it is the money? That does not seem to be a great way to stop it since by the time you start getting those type of spells that level of money is not nothing but you certainly can afford it if you need it and if you need it you are going to use it.

If your setting needs to limit the ability to come back from the dead then you really should make changes that support that because if all you do is rely on money cost it will probably not mean much very quickly. This is why you are seeing people refer to it as a ribbon (it really probably shouldn't be since it does have a mechanical effect but since it is seen as being weak and very much a side benefit people call it a ribbon) rather than an important feature.

Nah, it's not about money at all. Diamonds cannot be bought. Period. Or at least not without an adventure leading to it. I treat them basically likea magic item. You can't just go top a store and buy one. They are a reward you can potentially get for going though a dungeon or whatnot. Whether you choose to user it for spell or trade it for cash is up to you, but they are ultra rare, and if someone is buying it from you, it is because they intend to use it themselves, so you can't just go buy it back later.

So in this model, ignoring that cost is huge. It is basically like having an unlimited supply of a very rare consumable magic item.

Yes, I know this does not accurately simulate an economy. That's why I'm using my D&D 5e books, and not my economics text books.

[Arial Black]

It seems like 'getting better after dying' is what bothers you, not that it's cheaper.

Of course it's more convenient and better! If it wasn't, then it wouldn't be a class feature! Class features give you an advantage that others don't; it's not a surprise!

"Oh, no! One of the zealot's 3rd level features gives them an ability other people don't have!"

Every class feature is an ability that other people don't have!

Actually, my first intended zealot was going to be for the TofA campaign. You know, the campaign where resurrection-type magic has already stopped working when the campaign starts! So that 3rd level ability is totally wasted, right?

So why would I choose to play that PC when it's allegedly 'broken' ability doesn't work?

First, it's an ability which relies on another party member having the right spell; not guaranteed.

Second, in order to be useful, I have to die! Who designs their PC to die? I make PCs why try not to die!

Third, I'm highly motivated to solve the mystery! My temple sent me on this mission because they are highly motivated to get their resurrection abilities working again, I am highly motivated because, well, I'm a 'zealot' so 'highly motivated' is my resting face, but I take it even more personally because they've taken one of my abilities away!

So the role-playing hook is more valuable to me than the ability itself. Which should tell you that the ability really isn't all that powerful. After all, if the campaign took something that was actually powerful away, then there's no way I'd play a nerfed character. Oh, divine spellcasting no longer works because something is preventing the bestowal of magic by divine beings. Cool. Do I want to play the cleric? Hell no! I don't care how motivated I'd be, I'm not going to spend the whole campaign as a spell-less spellcaster thank you very much!

The fact that I am willing to play a zealot who cannot use that ability shows that it is not really a powerful ability, let alone a 'broken' ability.

It's a ribbon ability.

[Mellack]

Nah, it's not about money at all. Diamonds cannot be bought. Period. Or at least not without an adventure leading to it. I treat them basically likea magic item. You can't just go top a store and buy one. They are a reward you can potentially get for going though a dungeon or whatnot. Whether you choose to user it for spell or trade it for cash is up to you, but they are ultra rare, and if someone is buying it from you, it is because they intend to use it themselves, so you can't just go buy it back later.

So in this model, ignoring that cost is huge. It is basically like having an unlimited supply of a very rare consumable magic item.

Yes, I know this does not accurately simulate an economy. That's why I'm using my D&D 5e books, and not my economics text books.

How do casters cast chromatic orb/mighty fortress/glyph of warding/greater restoration/stoneskin in your game?

[KorvinStarmast]

How do casters cast chromatic orb/mighty fortress/glyph of warding/greater restoration/stoneskin in your game?
Apparently, they don't since that would break the game. :smallbiggrin:

[Glorthindel]

The solution is to make sure you kill them at level 2

[jas61292]

How do casters cast chromatic orb/mighty fortress/glyph of warding/greater restoration/stoneskin in your game?

To give a serious answer, my restriction is mostly just aimed at Raise Dead and Resurrection, so when I say that diamonds are very rare, I'm really referring to large diamonds, as those spells specify the component is "a diamond worth..." rather than, "diamonds worth..." or "diamond dust worth...". This obviously does nothing to restrict Revivify or True Resurrection, but I don't mind the former, as it is more restricted in the first place and see it as more of preventing real death than truly being the dead back to life, and I don't mind the latter as it is a 9th level spell, which not only are supposed to be world shatteringly powerful, but also have never actually come up in my games.

As for how those other works are effected, I doun't know about the fortress (don't have that book on me), but the others are all covered by dust, except Chromatic Orb, which I honestly forgot had such a component. That said, a diamond of that value is probably comparatively small enough to be more easily available. Even so, this restriction is not something sprung on players after character creation, so theystill know that getting said compliment may not be guaranteed, and can choose not to take it until the component is secured.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, I do similarly restrict the components for reincarnate, but that is much simpler to do as they are more vague and thus have less impact on the world by their rarity.

Edit: I am realizing now that my proposed Zealot change would not even work well for my world, as unless the party can accurately estimate diamond value and cut it in half, it works not help in the slightest. Perhaps the better change might be that they do not consume the components, but they still need them, meaning that finding a diamond of appropriate value does mean unlimited resurrections, but only until someone else other than the Zealot dies. I'll have to think about it more.

[Mellack]

If diamond dust or small diamonds are available, they can be made into a large diamond with fabricate.

[ciarannihill]

Edit: I am realizing now that my proposed Zealot change would not even work well for my world, as unless the party can accurately estimate diamond value and cut it in half, it works not help in the slightest. Perhaps the better change might be that they do not consume the components, but they still need them, meaning that finding a diamond of appropriate value does mean unlimited resurrections, but only until someone else other than the Zealot dies. I'll have to think about it more.

Or you could just allow them to have their feature that shouldn't come up frequently anyway. Like how often is the Zealot dying that you need to put that much thought into how to nerf it's nearly ribbon feature? Seems like a really aggressive stance to take towards a single party member to me. Just let them have the features of the archetype they selected, it's why they selected them.

[Arial Black]

I honestly think you should leave it alone.

After all, do PCs continually die left, right and centre, and the only thing preventing their 'getting better' is lack of money?

In my experience, PCs don't die that often, and if they do, access to the spell is crucial, not money.

Changing the ability from 'no component' to '500gp diamond' must seem to the player that a cool but ribbon ability has been taken away and nothing has been given in return. If you hate this ability so much (irrationally, it seems to us) just take it away completely BUT replace it with another ability.

You do want to be fair, right?

[jas61292]

If diamond dust or small diamonds are available, they can be made into a large diamond with fabricate.

Fabricate takes materials and turns them into a product of the same materials and the same quality. I personally avoid that "loophole" by ruling that the quality of a diamond is largely a factor of its size (which is relatively true, especially when talking about its user as a spell component), and thus such a transmutation is not legal with fabricate.

Not going to say this is necessarily the intent of the spell (though it seems somewhat in line with it), but I see it as a valid ruling that helps my world function better.

[Theodoxus]

As a player of a cleric who's been chomping at the bit for that free revivify on my zealot "friend", I was really sad when he refused to come back, preferring to reroll a new character.

I guess he only liked the free damage while raging (though the DM let him use it every attack, not just the first one per turn).

I found out after that he thought all resurrection spells had the Raise Dead -4 to basically everything, and didn't want to "be underpowered" for 4 days.

Once I explained that Revivify didn't have that detrimental aspect, he was not amused...

[jas61292]

Or you could just allow them to have their feature that shouldn't come up frequently anyway. Like how often is the Zealot dying that you need to put that much thought into how to nerf it's nearly ribbon feature? Seems like a really aggressive stance to take towards a single party member to me. Just let them have the features of the archetype they selected, it's why they selected them.


I honestly think you should leave it alone.

After all, do PCs continually die left, right and centre, and the only thing preventing their 'getting better' is lack of money?

In my experience, PCs don't die that often, and if they do, access to the spell is crucial, not money.

Changing the ability from 'no component' to '500gp diamond' must seem to the player that a cool but ribbon ability has been taken away and nothing has been given in return. If you hate this ability so much (irrationally, it seems to us) just take it away completely BUT replace it with another ability.

You do want to be fair, right?

Again, this is not a case of "I hate this feature." It is a case of "coming back from the dead is never supposed to be trivial in my world, and this ability clashes with that." I have no issues with it in other DMs worlds or if I am running an adventure in some other established world.

The ideas I have thrown around to "fix" it are just for my world and my world alone. I have yet to actually have anyone play one, but if someone wanted to, I would work worth them to finalize any changes. They would understand before choosing the character how this stuff worksin my world, and if they prefer to just have some other ability to a nerfed version of the existing one, It's be happy to accommodate.

Really though, my entire point is that it is presented as an ability that just exists to save you money, but it's existence, incidentally, has drastic effects on my world. It happens. But as such, I think it is always better to adjust the feature than allow the world's consistency and tone to suffer.

[Mellack]

Fabricate takes materials and turns them into a product of the same materials and the same quality. I personally avoid that "loophole" by ruling that the quality of a diamond is largely a factor of its size (which is relatively true, especially when talking about its user as a spell component), and thus such a transmutation is not legal with fabricate.

Not going to say this is necessarily the intent of the spell (though it seems somewhat in line with it), but I see it as a valid ruling that helps my world function better.

I believe all that requires is also having jewelry tool proficiency.

[Pex]

As a player of a cleric who's been chomping at the bit for that free revivify on my zealot "friend", I was really sad when he refused to come back, preferring to reroll a new character.

I guess he only liked the free damage while raging (though the DM let him use it every attack, not just the first one per turn).

I found out after that he thought all resurrection spells had the Raise Dead -4 to basically everything, and didn't want to "be underpowered" for 4 days.

Once I explained that Revivify didn't have that detrimental aspect, he was not amused...

The munchkin is strong in this one.

[ciarannihill]

Again, this is not a case of "I hate this feature." It is a case of "coming back from the dead is never supposed to be trivial in my world, and this ability clashes with that." I have no issues with it in other DMs worlds or if I am running an adventure in some other established world.

The ideas I have thrown around to "fix" it are just for my world and my world alone. I have yet to actually have anyone play one, but if someone wanted to, I would work worth them to finalize any changes. They would understand before choosing the character how this stuff worksin my world, and if they prefer to just have some other ability to a nerfed version of the existing one, It's be happy to accommodate.

Really though, my entire point is that it is presented as an ability that just exists to save you money, but it's existence, incidentally, has drastic effects on my world. It happens. But as such, I think it is always better to adjust the feature than allow the world's consistency and tone to suffer.

No it's not an ability that's meant to save you money... Like it's called "Warrior of the Gods" and it's on the Zealot Barbarian, the entire point is that rather than taking a price to resurrect the price is paid by the deity in question so that their champion can continue fighting for them on the material plane. The mechanic isn't about money, it's a huge flavor/fluff mechanic...

And this allows that character/player to be somewhat unique within your world, which can be a great way to introduce tension or drama into the campaign, maybe some people think they've clearly made a pact with devils or others can worship them as an embodiment of their god. There are more interesting ways to make the ability jell with your setting than to merely nerf it.


It's your table and your call, but for what it's worth this random internet person thinks it's a mistake. :/

[jas61292]

No it's not an ability that's meant to save you money... Like it's called "Warrior of the Gods" and it's on the Zealot Barbarian, the entire point is that rather than taking a price to resurrect the price is paid by the deity in question so that their champion can continue fighting for them on the material plane. The mechanic isn't about money, it's a huge flavor/fluff mechanic...

And this allows that character/player to be somewhat unique within your world, which can be a great way to introduce tension or drama into the campaign, maybe some people think they've clearly made a pact with devils or others can worship them as an embodiment of their god. There are more interesting ways to make the ability jell with your setting than to merely nerf it.


It's your table and your call, but for what it's worth this random internet person thinks it's a mistake. :/

I totally get that point of view, but I just don't personally share it.

When I talked about that feature being a money saving tool, I was referring to its mechanical effects. I do agree that it is a flavor first ability. That being said, I am not one to typically subscribe to the philosophy of "PCs are special because they are PCs." To me, PCs are special because of what they do, not because of who they are, and so a PC who is innately has a special ability that violates the settings normal rules is not attractive to me (though I fully understand and respect other DMs who feel differently).

Ultimately though, my goal as a DM is to provide an enjoyable game. While I believe the internal consistency of the world is important for some players enjoyment (including my own), I also want to do my best to allow players to play the concepts that they want. If a player really wanted to have the flavor of this class, including the rich flavor of this specific ability, I would work with them to finda suitable replacement feature that captures the spirit of the ability without clashing with the restraints of the world. I've thrown some ideas around, but I really won't know what that replacement would be until someone decides to play the class and thus have to have that conversation with them.

[MaxWilson]

Again, this is not a case of "I hate this feature." It is a case of "coming back from the dead is never supposed to be trivial in my world, and this ability clashes with that." I have no issues with it in other DMs worlds or if I am running an adventure in some other established world.

Honestly, if I wanted to make coming back from the dead non-trivial in a world, material component cost would not be the restriction I would use. I'd bring back resurrection survival rolls in a different form by declaring:


In order to come back from the dead you must first prove your worthiness by defeating the guardians of the Underworld. You find yourself, in the spirit, in a small clearing under the night sky in a foreign land, and you perceive that your wounds are healed and you feel terrific and completely free of pain, as if you'd just completed a full week of rest and relaxation. Behind you lies the Gate to the Underworld. Before you stands a dreadful monster [describe DM-chosen monster of CR approximately equal to your level]. Around its neck hangs the ornate Medallion of Life. Somehow you sense a voice calling to you, summoning you back to your body, and sense if you place that Medallion around your neck, you will be able to return. The monster speaks:

Turn back, mortal. Embrace thy death and return to the Underworld. He who seeks to prove himself worthy must answer me questions three, or I will rend the flesh from his bones and eat his soul.

What do you do?


In short, it's a solo mini-game and a second chance at life, with full HP/spells/abilities. If you beat the monster (by riddle game or trickery or straight-up combat) the resurrection spell works. Otherwise you're permanently dead.

For a low-level PC (levels 1-3) I'd maybe use a Centaur as the guardian. For a low-mid-level PC (levels 4-6) I might use a Spirit Naga or a Salamander. For a mid-level PC (levels 7-10ish) I'd probably use a Nycaloth or Glabrezu as the monster. For a highish-level PC I'd probably use a dragon of some sort. I wouldn't ever use a monster of CR more than 2 greater than the PC's level.

This would make coming back from the dead a relatively big deal. (I would document this policy beforehand also in my house rules so players can adjust expectations accordingly.)

Edit: and then I'd make Zealots get to just straight-up bypass the monster. Whenever a Zealot dies and is resurrected, the monster kneels at his feet and offers him up the Medallion of Life willingly, so he gets to feel awesome about his class choice.

[mephnick]

It's not broken, but it easily makes Berserker obsolete and is by far the best subclass if you want an offensive barbarian. It has amazing benefits with literally zero drawbacks and great flavour to boot.

[ProseBeforeHos]

It's not broken, but it easily makes Berserker obsolete and is by far the best subclass if you want an offensive barbarian. It has amazing benefits with literally zero drawbacks and great flavour to boot.

Second this. Berserker just looks worse and worse with every additional book they publish. Especially egregious for what I consider to be the "default" (i.e. Conan-esk) barbarian.

[MaxWilson]

It's not broken, but it easily makes Berserker obsolete and is by far the best subclass if you want an offensive barbarian. It has amazing benefits with literally zero drawbacks and great flavour to boot.

Opportunity cost is a form of drawback. You said it yourself: if you're a Zealot, you're an offensive Barbarian, so you're missing out on defensive benefits. And even the best offensive Barbarian has a relatively low ceiling on effectiveness due to only getting one Extra Attack.


Second this. Berserker just looks worse and worse with every additional book they publish. Especially egregious for what I consider to be the "default" (i.e. Conan-esk) barbarian.

Just fix the exhaustion rules and it will be fine. Let a short rest fix one level of exhaustion (as long as you have nourishment), once per day, and a long rest fix two more, and now not only does exhaustion align better with physiological realities but as a side effect Berserker is now a reasonable PC choice.

They're still ultimately just a melee Barbarian with all the limits that entails, but at least they'll be able to do what it says on the tin: whip themselves into a frenzy fairly effectively.

[GlenSmash!]

I think Mindless Rage still shores up a big Barbarian weakness. I'm still tempted to play a Berserker from time to time. Especially in a featless game.

Mearls has pretty much said the Exhaustion part of Frenzy is not something they would do if designing it today.

[MeeposFire]

I think Mindless Rage still shores up a big Barbarian weakness. I'm still tempted to play a Berserker from time to time. Especially in a featless game.

Mearls has pretty much said the Exhaustion part of Frenzy is not something they would do if designing it today.

Which goes to show one thing you will find all the time what some call power creep today may be more what the system shoud be designed at because what they did at the start could have been under tuned (the reverse can be true too).

[jas61292]

I think Mindless Rage still shores up a big Barbarian weakness. I'm still tempted to play a Berserker from time to time. Especially in a featless game.

I personally love the berserker, largely because of mindless rage. It's probably the strongest level 6 barbarian feature, in my opinion. I think people focus far too much on the level three features, and not enough on the rest.

[GlenSmash!]

Which goes to show one thing you will find all the time what some call power creep today may be more what the system shoud be designed at because what they did at the start could have been under tuned (the reverse can be true too).

I've found some a little things power creepy, but I agree with you.

Even if it was balanced I have always hated exhaustion from Frenzy. I can't think of any other class that is so punished for using its level 3 features. And given how many ways you can get a bonus action attack in 5e, such a harsh punishment always seemed unjustified to me.

Still I've played it as written and I had fun. Which is something.

I think the failing was largely based on thinking bonus action attacks would be rarer.

[Arial Black]

As a player of a cleric who's been chomping at the bit for that free revivify on my zealot "friend", I was really sad when he refused to come back, preferring to reroll a new character.

I guess he only liked the free damage while raging (though the DM let him use it every attack, not just the first one per turn).

I found out after that he thought all resurrection spells had the Raise Dead -4 to basically everything, and didn't want to "be underpowered" for 4 days.

Once I explained that Revivify didn't have that detrimental aspect, he was not amused...

Cleric: Good news! I'm going to bring you back to life!

Barbarian: Yay!

Cleric: You'll feel lousy for a few days, though.

Barbarian: What! Oh, forget the whole thing, then. I'd rather be dead than feel slightly lousy for four days!

....said no-one, ever!

[GlenSmash!]

I personally love the berserker, largely because of mindless rage. It's probably the strongest level 6 barbarian feature, in my opinion. I think people focus far too much on the level three features, and not enough on the rest.

Level 6 is typically a ribbon, at least for Totem Warriors (which is still the lions bears share of barbarian options).

I love the level 14 Berserker ability Retaliation, but I'm pretty indifferent towards Intimidating presence at ten. The best use of it seems to be while frenzying you can scare one guy and attack too, but that usually seems to be a poor trade for losing on two attacks in most scenarios.

[jas61292]

I think the failing was largely based on thinking bonus action attacks would be rarer.

And they probably should be. Play a featless game and it's obvious how good the berserkers extra attack really is. I believe that the proliferation of bonus action attacks was one of the biggest design mistakes in ther game, with regard to martial combat, second only to the proliferation of mechanical ways for players to give themselves advantage.

Features with downsides are fine. But only if you cannot easily replicate the ability without the downsides.

[GlenSmash!]

And they probably should be. Play a featless game and it's obvious how good the berserkers extra attack really is. I believe that the proliferation of bonus action attacks was one of the biggest design mistakes in ther game, with regard to martial combat, second only to the proliferation of mechanical ways for players to give themselves advantage.

Features with downsides are fine. But only if you cannot easily replicate the ability without the downsides.

It sounds like these days Mearls regrets having bonus actions in the first place.

[Arial Black]

I am not one to typically subscribe to the philosophy of "PCs are special because they are PCs."

Every PC is special because they are a PC!


If a player really wanted to have the flavor of this class, including the rich flavor of this specific ability, I would work with them to finda suitable replacement feature that captures the spirit of the ability without clashing with the restraints of the world

How about this:-

Warrior of the Gods: At 3rd level, instead of dying, zealots fall into a death-like coma. They can be brought out of that coma by being the target of any spell that would raise a creature from the dead. This ability allows the zealot to be a target of such a spell despite not being actually dead, and the spell functions as if the target were dead.

There you go! Instead of cheating death by dying and coming back more often than is polite for your world, your zealots cheat death by not really dying. Problem solved!

If, for some reason, this still offends you, then take the ability away completely and just allow the extra zealot damage on every hit while raging, rather than just the first hit.

Which one do you prefer! Which would your player prefer!

[Boci]

Cleric: Good news! I'm going to bring you back to life!

Barbarian: Yay!

Cleric: You'll feel lousy for a few days, though.

Barbarian: What! Oh, forget the whole thing, then. I'd rather be dead than feel slightly lousy for four days!

....said no-one, ever!

Yeah, its almost like players make choices characters wouldn't to make the game go smoother/be more fun. Another example:

"Hey stranger I just met. You look like the trustworthy sort, would you like to accompany us on a life and death adventure? I for one have a good feeling about placing my life in the hands of someone I just met and know absolutly nothing about,"

[ReaperChaos]

I personally don't consider that ability broken, as a lot of people also said. By the time spells like Revivify are up, players should be capable of wasting the gold for a ressurection. And it's not like at the time Revivify is something cheap. It's still a 3rd level spell slot, which has many uses. As time flies by, the players will have more chances to cast ressurection spells and a lot more materials for it. It is certainly a neat ability for a few levels, but afterwards it will stop feeling as powerful as it once did and it will just be a neat ability.


Outside of the combat perspectives, it also fits thematically. So it gets more points for that :smallsmile:

[tonberrian]

If you can't buy a diamond worth 500 gp (the component for Raise Dead) for 500 gp, then that diamond is inherently not worth 500 gp to begin with. You want to limit resurrection, change its material component to a plot coupon.

[Boci]

If you can't buy a diamond worth 500 gp (the component for Raise Dead) for 500 gp, then that diamond is inherently not worth 500 gp to begin with. You want to limit resurrection, change its material component to a plot coupon.

Diamonds are more organic than plot coupons. It can make sense that they are hard to come by, especially if rich people stock pile them in case they need ressurecting, which drives up the price, though this does need the tweak to the component being a single diamond rather than any amount of lesser diamons. Ofcourse by RAW all that matters is the diamond if worth 500gp, so the DM also needs to come up with another way of measuring that, or the increased cost doesn't matter.

[Ganymede]

dead[/i] than feel slightly lousy for four days!

....said no-one, ever!

Ask me that when I have a migraine.

[Kane0]

To have a free rez first you need to die, and another character has to use up the time and slots to bring you back up. Seems like a pretty big counterbalance to me.
Also, laughing in the face of death is hardly unique. Take a look at the Long Death Monk, Celestial Warlock, etc.

[Theodoxus]

Cleric: Good news! I'm going to bring you back to life!

Barbarian: Yay!

Cleric: You'll feel lousy for a few days, though.

Barbarian: What! Oh, forget the whole thing, then. I'd rather be dead than feel slightly lousy for four days!

....said no-one, ever!

Well, he had rolled up a new character and was feeling a little suicide-y about the whole thing (Totes understandable to me, I do the same thing from time to time.) I was just sad because it was the first time I'd had a zealot in the party... not having to pay to play was an exciting prospect.