>The people most easily able to tear someone a new one (the
>zerkers) are effectively having the few restrictions on this
>power removed. I can see why you'd propose that, but I think
>the powers would need a major tone-down. I don't think being
>perma-lagged by zerkers is remotely balanced.

I suggested they be toned down, but I'm not a master of game balance so I left how much they're toned down as an exercise for the imms. The one thing I forgot to mention specifically are the specific goals and resulting limitations of each group. See below.

>
>Also, I really don't like the idea of one faction of battle
>being able to cut people off from mana sources. That means
>magi are potentially going to be without magic, as if
>assassins with tiger claw and dagger specs with hurl weren't
>enough. Not only that, but now the priest classes aren't as
>much danger because you can (a) gang them as a zerker, or (b)
>cut them off from their mana.


Berserkers, motivated as they are by hatred for magic, are meant to strike at magic's source which is mage PCs/NPCs. Zealots, as well, are meant to strike at magic's source but for a slightly different reason. These two groups would be limited by the fact that their powers ONLY work against mages. No deathblowing against priests or warriors, no cutting priests off from the mana source, etc. Essentially, when fighting non-magi these two groups would be uncaballed except that they would have the defensive powers (resistance, truesight, whatever the Zealots get, etc.) To offset that limitation somewhat they're welcome to travel in gank squads. Champions of Combat, however, are motivated by a strict belief in self-reliance. While they are certainly welcome to fight mages, and have a power (spell evasion) specifically designed for that purpose, their main goal is to rid the world of magic-using fighter classes by proving that people can go without.