What edition had the ideal version of each class?
- Thread starter Dedekind
- Start date
If iterative attacks are a reason to dislike the 3e fighter, is THAC0 a reason to dislike the 2e one?
Yeah, answers depend a lot on how the question is interpreted.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Fighter: 4th (PHB)
Cleric: 2nd or 4e Essentials
Rogue: 4th (Essentials Thief)
Wizard: Pathfinder Beginners Box (i.e. vancian preparation with a small-ish possible spell list, and at wills. Opening the list to the whole of PF breaks it)
Ranger: 1st
Monk: 4th
Bard: 3.5 or 4 (Apples to Oranges but both are very bardish in their way)
Druid: Tell me what you want from a Druid. Not happy with any of them but emphaticaly not 3.X.
Assassin: 4e Executioner
Paladin: Pass
Illusionist: PF Beginners Box if any.
Warlock: 4th
Warlord: 4th (Duh!)
Cleric: 2nd or 4e Essentials
Rogue: 4th (Essentials Thief)
Wizard: Pathfinder Beginners Box (i.e. vancian preparation with a small-ish possible spell list, and at wills. Opening the list to the whole of PF breaks it)
Ranger: 1st
Monk: 4th
Bard: 3.5 or 4 (Apples to Oranges but both are very bardish in their way)
Druid: Tell me what you want from a Druid. Not happy with any of them but emphaticaly not 3.X.
Assassin: 4e Executioner
Paladin: Pass
Illusionist: PF Beginners Box if any.
Warlock: 4th
Warlord: 4th (Duh!)
Ok here we go:
Fighter: Tome of Battle (I like being able to do something besides hit)
Rogue: 4E
Cleric: 2E specialist.
Wizard: Pathfinder & 4E. Let me explain here: 4E made it fun to play a wizard at 1st level, and that was never done before. Just for that it gets part of my vote. For feel & flavor I say pathfinder (on the 6th-12th level zone).
Fighter: Tome of Battle (I like being able to do something besides hit)
Rogue: 4E
Cleric: 2E specialist.
Wizard: Pathfinder & 4E. Let me explain here: 4E made it fun to play a wizard at 1st level, and that was never done before. Just for that it gets part of my vote. For feel & flavor I say pathfinder (on the 6th-12th level zone).
Li Shenron
Legend
Fighter: 3e by far... all pre-3e versions are too bland to my tastes, and I cannot stand 4e limited-use powers for fighters. Tho the 3e version could have been made even better e.g. with making it less costly to get weapon-specific feats (maybe using UA weapon groups) and perhaps why not giving it more skill points and better saving throws.
Cleric: 2e because of the the better differentiation of clerics of different faiths. I think this should be brought even further.
Rogue: 3e (but I've never played the 4e version). Just plain more interesting and reliable than the older versions.
Wizard: all except 4e where it lost a lot of versatility.
Cleric: 2e because of the the better differentiation of clerics of different faiths. I think this should be brought even further.
Rogue: 3e (but I've never played the 4e version). Just plain more interesting and reliable than the older versions.
Wizard: all except 4e where it lost a lot of versatility.
Okay, someone has to explain the love for the 3e rogue for me given how functionally useless they were.
Between their 3/4 BAB which made them useless as melee fighters (despite the fact that this is what they were designed to do) and needing both high intelligence and high wisdom to be half-decent at their skill-based jobs... the 3e rogue was a huge waste of time. Whenever someone picked up the knock spell, we always joked that the party rogue was fired.
Now I can see not wanting one particular build of rogue from 4e back, that of the super-dextrous ninja dervish. That's intruding on territory that should be held by the monk, ranger or assassin. However, there is another build of rogue that 4e brought that should be the ideal rogue going forward. The one who won in a fight because he cheated. He threw sand in people's faces, cheap shotted someone and hid behind his friend with the armour, cut their hamstrings, and caused wounds that wouldn't stop bleeding.
So someone has to give me an explanation as to why I should give up that rogue in exchange for the one who misses his sneak attack and fails his search for traps check.
Between their 3/4 BAB which made them useless as melee fighters (despite the fact that this is what they were designed to do) and needing both high intelligence and high wisdom to be half-decent at their skill-based jobs... the 3e rogue was a huge waste of time. Whenever someone picked up the knock spell, we always joked that the party rogue was fired.
Now I can see not wanting one particular build of rogue from 4e back, that of the super-dextrous ninja dervish. That's intruding on territory that should be held by the monk, ranger or assassin. However, there is another build of rogue that 4e brought that should be the ideal rogue going forward. The one who won in a fight because he cheated. He threw sand in people's faces, cheap shotted someone and hid behind his friend with the armour, cut their hamstrings, and caused wounds that wouldn't stop bleeding.
So someone has to give me an explanation as to why I should give up that rogue in exchange for the one who misses his sneak attack and fails his search for traps check.
A 10th level rogue has an attack bonus three points lower than a fighter, all things equal. That hardly makes him useless - especially as he deals a whole lot more damage when flanking most enemies.
After mid levels many of the rogue's best skills are almost auto-successes. Failures also cost less due to trap sense and evasion. He can expand in versatility and no longer has to improve all the basic skills every level.
For example, the skill DC for magical traps in 25 + spell level. It increases significantly slower than the rate of the rogue's skills, if challenges are level based.
But experiences differ.
Last edited:
Ahnehnois
First Post
Skills. 3e has the best implementation of skills, and rogues are the king of skills. Also, doing tons of SA damage is fun. Personally, I thought it needed a lot of improvement, even though the PF one was better, but it's the best version out there.
The 2e thief was even more swingy; he couldn't do anything if an opponent could see him, but damage multipliers got to be crazy. This was also back when rogue skills were exclusive, and were represented in percentages, both of which were ridiculous and were fixed. The 4e rogue had to pick from a narrow list of powers, and has daily or other use limitations on many of them, which is nonsensical and completely antithetical to the improvisational and intuitive way the class is supposed to play. It was rebranded as a "striker" under 4e nomenclature despite the fact that combat function was classically a secondary aspect of the rogue/thief and many of them rarely "struck". So I think the 3.X rogue is miles ahead of the others, despite being a little weak. Power isn't everything.
)Similar Threads
