Which class do you hate the most?

I should have voted ranger. I love the ranger, but detest what the ranger has become.

Vyvyan Basterd said:

I have no problem with assassins existing as characters in a D&D game. I just see no reason why Assassin should be a class instead of a profession that any class can choose.

Click to expand...

You could make the same argument for "fighters" and "rogues."

I think the Assassin has an archetypally specific assortment of abilities that can distinguish them from other classes: death attacks, spying abilities, impersonation, poisons, deciet, etc. Not that other characters can't have or dip into these, just that they make up a fairly unique archetype in a way that "dude what does the fightin'" or "lady what sneaks about in the shadows" does not.

I could honestly get on board with breaking up the fighter into several different classes (Skirmisher! Knight! Brute! Etc.!), but I'm not sure it's entirely necessrary...still, I can see the case.

I think Wizards avoid that because of their various trappings as scholars, sages, and lorekeepers, which gets a little more specific. I do think their magic should be scattered around a bit better, though -- one class doesn't need to do all the magic tricks in the game, dudes.

Ratskinner said:

Why not remove the baggage, or put it into the "themes" (whatever they are)?

I'm actually starting to wonder if the fighter's versatility/broadness isn't at the core of the "min/maxing" problem, the "feat tax" problem, . That is, in attempting to differentiate the fighters by giving them proficiencies or feats, you end up giving the other classes similar options. You also end up creating stacks of proficiencies/feats that are harder to balance or avoid broken combos. That leads you to invent feat taxes and penalty feats.

Maybe, just like a universal list was a bad idea for skills, a universal list of feats is a bad idea as well. Perhaps each class should have a limited set of swappable features for the advanced version, and a preselected list of features for the basic version. If you want your Swashbuckler to get a bit better at ranged weapons, maybe you should take a few levels of Ranger or Archer, instead of just grabbing a feat or two.

Click to expand...

Min-Maxing is a personal problem that can't be solved. Some people just enjoy that aspect of the game. Although you're right providing more moving parts to non-specific classes like the Fighter can create advantages for min-maxers that's potentially troublesome.

I think that'd be a good idea to rethink most of the core classes.* I would personally think about sticking Ranger and Paladin into themes. But what if you don't want any of the developed themes? That presents a problem. What if you want to further specialize into a Ranger who does two-weapon fighting? That's a lot of specificity, and that means a lot of moving parts into the game's class/theme structure. I also wonder whether it's a good idea to have Ranger and Paladin as themes when you might want say, a Ranger who's an exiled king, just as a for example. It's really hard for me to see how this would work out in a way that people would enjoy.

* The problem with doing so, assuming the goal was basically providing logical ways to develop a character from general to specific, what you'd end up with wouldn't be satisfying to people who are attached to the idiosyncracies of the D&D classes. "I'm want to play a Ranger!" carries a lot of weight with people, even though it's just nomenclature. And it kind of reveals how tied up into typical fantasy ideas D&D is (and... kind of has to be, for everyone at the table to be on the same page).

Vyvyan Basterd said:

I have no problem with assassins existing as characters in a D&D game. I just see no reason why Assassin should be a class instead of a profession that any class can choose.

Click to expand...

Ehhh. Let's not get caught up entirely on class names, since they may not even exist in-game.

The class is a stealthy stabby guy who has shadow and death magic.

What are your feelings about stealthy stabby guys with shadow and death magic?

Ratskinner said:

I'd support this idea, although I think I'd prefer "very capable" to "hyper capable."

Click to expand...

No, it has to be hyper capable, nothing less. At least, it has to become hypercapable by high levels. If you're going to have a game where the casters can fly around, teleport, create planes of existence, raise undead armies, bring back the dead, etc...

...The guy whose class feature is to swing his sword around better be able to create category 5 hurricanes from doing so and be able to parry spells with the ease of which a normal person bats away a fly.

Sorry, but anything less is simply unacceptable.

Recidivism said:

I think that'd be a good idea to rethink most of the core classes.* I would personally think about sticking Ranger and Paladin into themes. But what if you don't want any of the developed themes? That presents a problem. What if you want to further specialize into a Ranger who does two-weapon fighting? That's a lot of specificity, and that means a lot of moving parts into the game's class/theme structure. I also wonder whether it's a good idea to have Ranger and Paladin as themes when you might want say, a Ranger who's an exiled king, just as a for example. It's really hard for me to see how this would work out in a way that people would enjoy.

* The problem with doing so, assuming the goal was basically providing logical ways to develop a character from general to specific, what you'd end up with wouldn't be satisfying to people who are attached to the idiosyncracies of the D&D classes. "I'm want to play a Ranger!" carries a lot of weight with people, even though it's just nomenclature. And it kind of reveals how tied up into typical fantasy ideas D&D is (and... kind of has to be, for everyone at the table to be on the same page).

Click to expand...

I generally agree. I'd be willing to bet you could carve off the "woodsman" part of ranger into a theme without getting too much static. Then you could tack that onto any class and have a woodsy themed Rogue or whatever. Of course, at this point its hard to say what (if anything) they are aiming for with the themes mechanically.

StreamOfTheSky said:

No, it has to be hyper capable, nothing less. At least, it has to become hypercapable by high levels. If you're going to have a game where the casters can fly around, teleport, create planes of existence, raise undead armies, bring back the dead, etc...

...The guy whose class feature is to swing his sword around better be able to create category 5 hurricanes from doing so and be able to parry spells with the ease of which a normal person bats away a fly.

Sorry, but anything less is simply unacceptable.

Click to expand...

To you, maybe. Plenty of other folks are just fine without it, and even cringe at the thought of it. Myself, I don't usually play or run very high-level games, so if it happens there, it won't bother me. However, given the wide variety and extreme feelings that people seem to have about high-level play, I would humbly suggest that all high level play be optional modules. That way groups can pick their own flavor of goofy for their high-level dudes. Yes, I know that means published high-level adventures will be a rarity, but that's worth it for keeping in touch with one of their primary design goals.

Personally, I'd rather go the other way, and tone down wizards/magic a bit. And I certainly don't want low-level fighters pulling off the stuff you describe.

sorcerer-name doesnt fit,takes too much away from wizard-cant stand em'

Oni said:

I've never really understood how a class devoted to mental powers and mind over matter (both internally and externally) wasn't suitable for fantasy. Clearly a lot of people feel that it isn't, but I kind of have a hard time wrapping my mind around it.

Click to expand...

I think its mostly a flavor thing. I wouldn't mind it so much except that it started out and often continues to be the "I'm special-er" class. As some kind of specialist wizard, it would fit right in. As "magic that isn't"...well then, there's a potential issue. This is especially true when so many of the various abilities have been given somewhat modern scientific-ish name.

I know that different editions and takes on psionics have come at it in different ways. However, the arguments I've heard from psionics fans about why it must be so different all seem to fall back to the "I'm special-er".

If you think about it, though, psionics isn't the only idea relegated to the flavor doghouse. Plenty of 3e prestige classes were greeted with similar reactions, but didn't have the history of psionics.

My hat of psi know no limits. But monk gets a pretty close second.

Both are a flavor mismatch for me, and psionics gets a double mechanical mismatch.