General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
View Poll Results: Which class do you want to vote off the list?
Sad that we are seeing the classes slowly wittled down to the classic Fighter, Rogue, Wizard ... only one missing is the cleric. I wondered what would have happened if you had included Elf and Dwarf as classes. I guess it takes all sorts of colours to make a rainbow... but its disappointing to see such a bland spread of classes heading to the final.
I noticed that. It seems to suggest that "more awesomeness" doesn't necessarily make a good character class. (Or at least that cool tricks and spiffy abilities aren't as important as having a logical premise and workable idiom.)
__________________ - CleverSignature
Last edited by CleverNickName; 17th October 2009 at 09:51 PM..
Nope. Never seen anyone play a Fighter or Fighter equivalent in *any* game that didn't dumpstat INT and CHA or the equivalent thereof and have a character personality less engaging than a slab of rotten meat. It has been, consistently, the bastion of people who don't want to RP or think.
Which in 3.5, the latter especially hurt, since fighters that weren't powergamed to hell sucked horrifically.
4e makes them suck less, but they're still boring concept-wise, and I'm sick of hearing about how they're the best Defender because omg damage there is nothing else in the game but damage.
Zzzzz.
Got a stereotype Dwarven Battlevigor Fighter in my current party. He does a nice job of portraying a dwarf that likes to fight. Anything but archers that is. The best fight was the one with all skeleton archers and he just ran away because he really hates getting shot at. The rest of the characters teased him about that for quite some time. He dumpstatted INT or CHA. I don't remember which one. He is kinda wise though.
Personally the character I would least like to play is the Ranger. I have seen the archer-ranger in play and I think I would have gotten really bored from just helping focus-fire on something. He can get shut down quite by the immobilized effect too, which I don't like. He is very strong mechanically, but I don't like him. Twin shot is too good to even ponder the other at-wills if not necessary.
I am playing a wizard and thinks he is a bit half-assed, but that is because I made him with just the PHB. If I had the current selection, I would have done some changes. Did you say Genasi?
The sorcerer would have been my second pick, so I guess I will kick his ass the next time.
Btw, we have come so far now that I would be happy to play them all.
Sad that we are seeing the classes slowly wittled down to the classic Fighter, Rogue, Wizard ... only one missing is the cleric. I wondered what would have happened if you had included Elf and Dwarf as classes. I guess it takes all sorts of colours to make a rainbow... but its disappointing to see such a bland spread of classes heading to the final.
Think ice cream - maybe it's just easier to change vanilla into what you like (add: choc chips, peanut butter cups, caramel, mint, cookies or something else etc) than strawberry marshmellow peanut toffee crunch, eh?
looks like its coming down to the wire with barb and ranger, which is ridiculous, because barbarians are 100x more interesting and fun to play than Rangers.
Think ice cream - maybe it's just easier to change vanilla into what you like (add: choc chips, peanut butter cups, caramel, mint, cookies or something else etc) than strawberry marshmellow peanut toffee crunch, eh?
I detest vanilla, because no matter what you add to it, it still tastes like vanilla with x added... And I don't like how vanilla tastes. (Or smells!)
I leave it out when I bake things, even.
Would much rather start with chocolate ice cream than add chocolate syrup to vanila. I either end up with vanilla with some chocolate flavour here and there, or a vanilla/chocolate milkshake since it melts halfway when I stir the syrup in. Neither is appealing to me.
Which proves nothing other than that no matter what analogy you use, there's always *some* wiseass who has to pipe up about how it totally doesn't apply to them, because...
I detest vanilla, because no matter what you add to it, it still tastes like vanilla with x added... And I don't like how vanilla tastes. (Or smells!)
I leave it out when I bake things, even.
Would much rather start with chocolate ice cream than add chocolate syrup to vanila. I either end up with vanilla with some chocolate flavour here and there, or a vanilla/chocolate milkshake since it melts halfway when I stir the syrup in. Neither is appealing to me.
Which proves nothing other than that no matter what analogy you use, there's always *some* wiseass who has to pipe up about how it totally doesn't apply to them, because...
Sorry you don't like vanilla..
Keep in mind that that I'm not modeling data for scientific analysis - I'm not trying to "prove" anything - just to throw out a possibility for why the 'plain' type classes wind up surviving the others in a random internet poll.
I noticed that. It seems to suggest that "more awesomeness" doesn't necessarily make a good character class. (Or at least that cool tricks and spiffy abilities aren't as important as having a logical premise and workable idiom.)
Yup, I think this sums it up. There's a reason why fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric are the "classic" classes.
__________________ Have you ever known a person who always behaved exactly the way you expected? Real people don't stay in character.
*shakes his head* - so much dps-envy going around here..
Yup.
I decided a day ago to not vote Barb just to save the Ranger, because there's nothing really wrong with the Barb. But wow...
I think voting for Fighter like I did this round is pointless. He doesn't deserve to be a top class, but it's hardly the first time the majority is wrong. I guess I'll go back to cracking away at Wizard. His role is actually useful, but he fails at it. It's sad Wizard's going to outlast Sorcerer, though.
My online gaming group, Torch of Spirit (Contains all information for the current game I'm co-DMing as well as lots of houserules I'm using or considering for the future. Feel free to check it out.)
looks like its coming down to the wire with barb and ranger, which is ridiculous, because barbarians are 100x more interesting and fun to play than Rangers.
First, as we can see taste vary. I find the barbarian to be a mess.
Also, a large percentage of those here are DMs and look at it from that POV. In my case, I found the rangers in my games to have been a lot more interesting that the barbarians that are typically played by min-max powergamers (which may vary from group to group, but that's my experience).
__________________ David A. Blizzard
"The only constant I am sure of is this accelerating rate of change" - Downside Up by Peter Gabriel
Keep in mind that that I'm not modeling data for scientific analysis - I'm not trying to "prove" anything - just to throw out a possibility for why the 'plain' type classes wind up surviving the others in a random internet poll.
I'm sorry too. It's in frickin' everything.
And oh, no, I wasn't saying that your analogy didn't prove anything, I was saying that *my* post and objection to the metaphor don't prove anything other than the fact that yeah, no matter what someone uses as an analogy, there's always some dweeb(me) who can't resist arguing.
I noticed that. It seems to suggest that "more awesomeness" doesn't necessarily make a good character class.
The fighter is now much much much much more awesome and interesting with cool distinct fighting styles and all... way more than he or she was back in AD&D and that is exactly why I like it.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
The fighter is now much much much much more awesome and interesting with cool distinct fighting styles and all... way more than he or she was back in AD&D and that is exactly why I like it.
Yeah I agree, this is the first edition I`ve played that I`ve actually wanted to play the fighter.
A couple of people have referred to dps and dpr? What are they?
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
DPS means damage per second (which comes directly from on line games and has no immediate bearing on D&D). DPR means damage per round (which is clearly derived from the abovementioned term). People who use such terms can be refering to maximum potential damage in a round, or average damage in a round.
__________________ Member of Grognards for 4th Edition.
Unfortunately a lot of those who are dpr ers around here too, including those who only value dpr.
Que? No comprendo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg K
A couple of people have referred to dps and dpr? What are they?
It's just a word for average damage per unit. Whether we are talking per second or per round hardly matters, it amounts to the same thing. So if you played 2e, it would be dpt - damage per turn.
__________________
360 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 22nd level Musings of an Epic Virgin
Well, that sucks. Looks like the ranger has overtaken the barbarian. Come on people,! Let us get the barbarian outta here!
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Yeah I agree, this is the first edition I`ve played that I`ve actually wanted to play the fighter.
Yes, beyond about 5th level. At about that level in other versions, the fighters starts to suck wind, pretty hard, and becomes a spectator in the game.
I also like that the rituals are just as available to the fighter. Yes, it would take an incredible amount of feats, but it could be done.
The rest of the characters teased him about that for quite some time. He dumpstatted INT or CHA. I don't remember which one. He is kinda wise though. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
