What Core Class was actually fun to play

[JLXC]

I'm truly amazed, no really. Core classes no fun to play in 3.5 and 3.0? Are you joking? Are you insane? Of course they were fun to play, and as customizable as a DM would allow. You want a Cleric who acts more like a Ranger? Easy to do core rules. You want a Wizard who uses weapons? You're a Feat away from doing so, and a few spells from doing it pretty well. Come on people, has imagination died?

3.5 will be in use for me for many many years to come. If you couldn't get any play from the "boring" core classes, I pity you in many ways. Why are you even playing D&D?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm truly amazed, no really. Core classes no fun to play in 3.5 and 3.0? Are you joking? Are you insane? Of course they were fun to play, and as customizable as a DM would allow. You want a Cleric who acts more like a Ranger? Easy to do core rules. You want a Wizard who uses weapons? You're a Feat away from doing so, and a few spells from doing it pretty well. Come on people, has imagination died?

3.5 will be in use for me for many many years to come. If you couldn't get any play from the "boring" core classes, I pity you in many ways. Why are you even playing D&D?

Despite the smiley at the end, I feel the urge to say this: I don't like it when people say that people lack imagination just because they find a restriction in something you don't feel restrictive.

If people had no imagination, they wouldn't be interested in the first place to play the game, that's true. But just because they can't fit their imagination of a character in the rules doesn't mean their imagination is lacking.

 

[Hussar]

I think you're misrepresenting the argument here. It's not so much that these classes (or any others) were not fun to play at all, but that they had elements which sometimes/often detracted from the potential fun of playing them.

*Ding!* Shilsen is wise.

The arguement is not that the core classes were never fun. That's a gross misrepresentation of the point. The point was always that certain classes, specifically the four you point to, have fundamental flaws in 3e that can be fixed.

Rogue is a perfect example. Why should I, as DM, refrain from using large swaths of common monsters (undead and constructs) just because the rogue will be sidelined in EVERY encounter?

Why not change the rogue so that he is no longer sidelined? Doesn't that make a whole lot more sense? One of the most archtypal dungeons - a tomb raid - makes the rogue player cry because he gets to sit out every fight. And, yes, I do mean sit out because "Aid Another" is not fun. It's boring.

If it was one fight, or something that happened once in a very long while, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with having the occasional encounter that plays to the strengths of another character. But, we're talking four, five different monster types. A significant portion of the Monster Manual specifically nerfs the rogue. That's uncool.

Or, move over to the Vancian Magic setup and the 15 minute adventuring day. While it may not occur in your campaign, there is more than enough evidence that it does happen in many campaigns. So, why not fix it? Vancian magic was originally intended as a balancing mechanic for casters. It failed miserably. At low levels, the caster was baggage and at high levels, king. Sweet spots exist for a reason.

We cannot extend the sweet spot using existing mechanics. It just doesn't work. Vancian casting means that you will have more than enough spells eventually that magic is essentially at will anyway. So, let's start from a different balancing point. We'll make the essentials, the bread and butter stuff at will or per encounter. So, now the low level wizard doesn't act like a peasant with a crossbow for the first three or four levels. Then, we'll take the funky stuff, the stuff that can really play havoc with a campaign, and make it ritual - per day. Poof, now you don't have wizards completely dominating the game.

Seems like a pretty good fix to me.

And, if you think that neither of these issues, the rogue or the wizard occured to people before the announcement of 4e, I suggest you start sifting through the general forum for a while and see what's there. Because you will see both these issues time and again.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I noticed alot of people thought I was being unfair with question #2 ...so let me remove that questiion and ask this...

What are "fair" disadvantages vs. "unfair" disadvantages. If you could create a disadvantage for the four core classes (fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric) what would they be.

Fair advantage to me are probably along the line of good offense with bad defense and vice versa.

An unfair disadvantage is an disadvantage that comes into play whenever you're in a specific, yet typical type of situation, leaving you with little to contribute, but in every other situation, the disadvantage is meaningless.

The fighters lack in social skills is an unfair advantage. It's meaningless in a hack & slash game, but it makes the fighter nearly worthless when running a city campaign with lots of information gathering and intrigue-spinning.
The Rogues disadvantage of being unable to sneak attack is unfair because it never enters play if he is fighting only living creatures, but he is nearly worthless once you run into an undead infested dungeon.

Fair disadvantages mean that nobody can do everything in a given situation, but everyone can still do something significant. Teamwork - to me at least - means everbody has his speciality, and the team needs his speciality most of the time. Nobody should feel like baggage for a significant part of the time.
In different situations, you might have a different speciality (in combat, the Rogue in taking out individual enemies but bad in taking the heat. In a social situation, he is great at conning people and getting information. But the Fighter is a lot better in "persuading" people, and the Paladin is better in reading people. The Wizard and the Warlord might be best at analyzing the information and coordinating people)

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm a DM, so I can't answer the question effectively. But I can say that my gaming group consists of a rogue, a cleric, a wizard, and a fighter, and nobody has ever complained that they weren't having fun.

That said,

Clerics can be frustrating for players who like their spellcasters to dish out damage by the handful. If a player is accustomed to being a fireball-slinging blaster, he will feel like a babysitter most of the time if he chooses a cleric.

Fighters can be frustrating for players who like to "deep roleplay," with lots of social interaction and story. If a player likes dynamic interaction, playing a fighter will feel very repetitive most of the time ("I swing my sword...I swing my sword...I swing my sword...").

Rogues can be frustrating for players who try to exploit the Sneak Attack ability to make a superhero battlefield champion or a lightning-throwing mage. Players who want to deal out tons of damage will find the rogue very fragile and restricted most of the time, at least for the first 10 levels or so until sneak attack ramps up.

Same for wizards. Players who want to be able to do non-magical combat would find the wizard to be a poor starting point, thanks to the severe limitations on armor, weapons, feats, and hit points. Gandalf-with-a-sword has always been hard to pull off, balance-wise, but everyone wants to play one.

So maybe a lot of these "this is not fun" complaints come from players who want to play a certain type of character, and choose a class that is a poor fit for the concept they have in mind?

As for the lack of options, I think the core classes are like potato chips...they are so good, nobody can have just one. It seems like today's players all want a fighter who can blast and heal and sneak as good as anyone else, and the rules haven't accomodated this yet. 4E sounds like it is getting close, though.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Although mostly a DM I have enjoyed:

Sorcerer - how many different ways can I use Grease? how bout mount?
I also take personal pride that I have used and abandoned 3 longspears. I am currently egging the DM for a magic one that I can also discard.

Wizard - fun, even running out of spells was fine, until someone brought in his 20 str 1/2 orc barbarian. Then me (after 1 sleep spell) and the rest of the party was pretty much window dressing in fights.

Bard - I enjoyed buffing, archery and using aid another.

Players have appreciated rules when playing:
wizards, druids, fighters, psion, warlock/wizard, duskblade, barbarian/spirit shaman

Players have disliked for rule reasons:
Fighters, cloistred cleric, 1/2 fey sorcerer, goblin ranger, monk, high level bard, an elven Ftr/Wizard/Rogue & bard/rogue/shadowdancer

 

[Hussar]

Bard - I enjoyed buffing, archery and using aid another.

Seriously? I'm not being snarky here. Or, if I am, I totally don't mean to be. But, what's fun about "aid another"?

 

[fuindordm]

I have had fun with most of the classes (when I get a chance to play), but that has been thanks to the group rather than the mechanics.

I recognize that all these problems are minor and correctable with a bit of effort!
Here are my impressions of the core classes:

Clerics: this class looks good on paper with loads of attack and defense options, but in combat your actions are too often dictated by the needs of the party. That can be frustrating at times. Spontaneous healing, which was supposed to solve this problem, actually made it worse.

Fighters: the only thing that's really frustrating about this class is the enormous cost of movement-related skills. You don't expect a fighter to be versatile in non-combat situations; it's part of the charm.

Rogues: Oddly, I always felt like this class still had too few skill points. Very enjoyable, but frustration sets in when the wizard trumps your skills with his Everfull Bag of Scrolls.

Wizards: With the addition of scribe scroll for everyone and item creation feats in general, I never found the spells per day limitation to be a problem. Still, I'm looking forward to trying out the new magic system. The worst thing about 3E wizards was the horrible kluge of specialization that they inherited from second edition.

It sounds to me like 4e will do an admirable job of fixing all these problems.

 

[Mort]

I think there needs to be an additional dimension to the "did you have fun with the class" question.

Namely,

If you had fun with the class was it:

a) because, or at least with the aid, of the system; or
b) inspite of the system (because you had a great DM, great group etc. even though the class itself was problematic)?

separating a and b is what good system design and tweeking is about.

 

[3d6]

I think the most fun class I played was crusader. The card-drawing mechanic during combat was pretty enjoyable (oh man, I really need a crusader's strike!, Come on, come on, yeah!). I also found the warlock class to be pretty fun, and could produce surprisingly mechanically diverse characters.

My favorite character, however, was a half-orc cleric. The character was loads of fun to play.