v3.5 core class characters

[loviatarfrostbringer]

This is just my opinion, but I feel the core classes ( real core classes i.e fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard) got a bit of the shaft in v3.5.

Fighters-
didn't change a spit except for Intimidate as a class skill. Oh, and it is now easier to 2w fight by one feat. They increased the number of bonus feats on the fighter list, but that just makes them less-specialized overall. How cool is greater weapon focus/spec?

Cleric-
not much at all, but then they were the hands-down most powerful non-broken class in the v3.0 game.

Rogue-
removing read lips and innuendo frees up a few skill points, but tumble got more difficult. I do like the restratification of uncanny dodge though, but I digress.

Wizard-
Decipher script....ok. However, the ranger getting Evasion is just one more class that can thumb their nose at the wizards main staple effect (monks and rogues being the others with evasion). Kudos on dropping spellbook costs though (digress again).

Does anyone else feel as I do?

 

[Olive]

Does anyone else feel as I do?

Not me!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Nope, sorry. They're all still great options IMO. The new feats and clarified special attacks give fighters a new range of possibilities that most people ignored before, for example.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm afraid I don't agree either!

 

[Technik4]

It seems like you pointed out the good changes to the core classes yourself. How do you overhaul a "core" class? I mean what changes were you visualizing for the fighter exactly? They did pretty much all you *could* do, because the class itself is so basic. Sure I wouldve liked a couple more combat maneuvers, but those take longer to playtest than a straight damage or to-hit feat.

And as you pointed out, clerics hardly need any improvement, in fact I'm glad various spells and such were reduced in power a little, as well as the Animal domain reduced to speak with animals.

Rogues, again cannot be changed much. The basic structure is 8 skill points/level and Sneak attack every other level. It wouldnt look like a "rogue" if you took that away, so inherently changes will be minor. I think some of the skill-folding really helps Rogues get more bang for their skill buck, not to mention the increasing costs of skill bonuses actually makes what the rogue has to offer better in terms of mechanics.

As for wizards, they received a nice economic boost with regards to reduction of spell-scribing, and they had intense changes to their specialist structure, tossing spells to different schools, changing the specialization mechanic itself, and tweaking spells. Really, what else *could* they change?

Technik

 

[Grazzt]

I see nothing really wrong with the new core classes either. Must just be you.

 

[Starman]

Does anyone else feel as I do?

Nope. I agree with and like almost all of the changes to the classes.

Starman

 

[David Argall]

speaking from ignorance

My 3.5 are still in the mail, but the 3.0 bard and druid were widely attacked as wimps, and the barbarian and ranger had obvious problems once past low levels. So these classes were the candidates for improvement.

 

[Li Shenron]

This is just my opinion, but I feel the core classes ( real core classes i.e fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard) got a bit of the shaft in v3.5.

...

Does anyone else feel as I do?

While it's true that the 4 cre classes are the least changed ones, I wouldn't say that they "got the shaft". Yes, everybody else received more attention and bigger improvements, sometimes in the form of brand new abilities. Ftr, Cle, Rog and Wiz (and Sor also, except for the new thing of swapping spells) were left basically untouched directly, and changes are only indirect: spells for Cle and Wiz, skills for Rog, feats for Ftr.

It's possible that the 4 core classes were solid and well-playable enough that didn't need any little boost to promote playing. After all, there are many people who thought that Rangers sucked, or Bards, or Sorcerers, or Druids, or Monks (but other people thought they rocked!). Almost nobody think the Cleric or Rogue sucked!

I had only some concern of mine about the Wizard, which is possibly my favourite class if there is any: I wanted something to make players wish to be straigth Wiz without taking PrCl, but this was not addressed at all, probably I am the only one who felt that way. I wanted better rules for specializing, because I never thought it made sense to have completely forbidden schools and that specialization was to be taken at 1st level, but again this is my taste, and probably it would have been too much a big change. I also don't like the spellbook rules when it comes to the fact that a Wiz without his spellbook is utter zero, and I would have liked Spell Mastery to become an automatic class feature OR a free feat every X levels to help this. But these are not needed in order to adjust the power or playability of a Wiz.

 

[glass]

Re: Re: v3.5 core class characters

I had only some concern of mine about the Wizard, which is possibly my favourite class if there is any: I wanted something to make players wish to be straigth Wiz without taking PrCl, but this was not addressed at all, probably I am the only one who felt that way. I wanted better rules for specializing, because I never thought it made sense to have completely forbidden schools and that specialization was to be taken at 1st level, but again this is my taste, and probably it would have been too much a big change. I also don't like the spellbook rules when it comes to the fact that a Wiz without his spellbook is utter zero, and I would have liked Spell Mastery to become an automatic class feature OR a free feat every X levels to help this. But these are not needed in order to adjust the power or playability of a Wiz.

I thought the Wizard could have used a little help too, but I haven't got the new books yet, so maybe the new spells are enough.

BTW, Li Shenron, your sig is from Coupling, is it not? I am surprised an obscure (if brilliant) BBC2 sit-com is shown in Finland and/or Italy!

glass.