The classes you would actually want to play poll

[Yora]

Druid, Monk, and Cleric are really not much better in that regard.

 

[Remathilis]

Druid, Monk, and Cleric are really not much better in that regard.

Yeah, and "Conan the Fighter-with-the-beserker-theme" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

Neither does "Strider, one of them fighters-with-the-woodsman-background" when you think about it.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Hey, that's what a lot of people are posting about rangers and paladins...

But they're just silly, right?

No, the paladin and ranger are nothing like the swordmage, which has been in only one edition of the game, and is some sort of weird variant of the Githyanki Gish.

 

[Steely_Dan]

As much as your mind probably can't comprehend it the act of swinging a sword requires a lot of thought to it probably to the same point of a wizard casting a spell.

I don't agree, I think you're reaching to justify a class using Int for melee attacks.

 

[Shadus]

I voted for everything but Wizard and the Race based classes. Which is weird, becuase I voted for the specialist Arcane and Illusionist. Guess I just never liked the vanilla wizard concept enough to put thought into making one a character.

Chances are, if it exists, I will/have mold it into a character I'd want to play.

 

[Fifth Element]

No, the paladin and ranger are nothing like the swordmage, which has been in only one edition of the game, and is some sort of weird variant of the Githyanki Gish.

Bladesinger -> duskblade/others -> swordmage. Different classes, technically, but really the same thing: a fighter/mage. So that's 2E, 3E and 4E covered at least.

But that's not my point at all. My point is that there is no reason, other than personal opinion, that a ranger "should" be a class, but a swordmage or whatever "should" not. Some others have the same IMO about rangers that you have about swordmages and there's no real reason why we should listen to one over the other. When you try to add some justification to lend some weight to your opinion you run into trouble: you voted for sorcerers even though they didn't exist before 3E, and yet reject the swordmage for being too recent.

I suppose popularity is really the best way to decide what classes should be in. But we'd need more options than this poll provides, since it has some classes that were not in "PHB1"s (cavalier, psion) but not others.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't agree, I think you're reaching to justify a class using Int for melee attacks.

You can easily justify using Int for a melee attack if you use some imagination. You can justify any ability score for that if you try, though some are certainly more difficult than others. I think the only one I'd really struggle with would be Charisma.

I've always thought that Dexterity should be the most important ability score in melee attacks, with some exceptions of course. All the power in the world won't do you a lick of good if you can't point it in the right direction.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

You can easily justify using Int for a melee attack if you use some imagination. You can justify any ability score for that if you try, though some are certainly more difficult than others. I think the only one I'd really struggle with would be Charisma.

I've always thought that Dexterity should be the most important ability score in melee attacks, with some exceptions of course. All the power in the world won't do you a lick of good if you can't point it in the right direction.

Your points have merit and I think there should be some kind of Finesse Fighter in the game, but Dex is already over-modeled.

In the well-meaning race to simplicity, it is has been abstracted away the fact that combat is a full contact sport.

Those who have physical Str and know how to use it should consistently obliterate weaker opponents who do not give ground generously. And if the Str guy knows what he is doing, the Dex guy will be forced to retreat in a direction of the Str guy's choosing almost always. Armor and shield "should" further extend the advantage of strength.

 

[pemerton]

You can easily justify using Int for a melee attack if you use some imagination. You can justify any ability score for that if you try, though some are certainly more difficult than others. I think the only one I'd really struggle with would be Charisma.

I have a CHA-paladin in my 4e game. I think of the CHA-paladin as being like Galahad - his/her hand is guided by purity of spirit and divine intervention - whereas the STR-paladin is more like Lancelot or Gawain - a true master of the fighting arts.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

The model that I would prefer would be four classes, followed by dozens of different themes.

Fighter + Theme = Barbarian, Ranger, Monk, Cavalier, Paladin, etc.
Cleric + Theme = Druid, Priest, Paladin, etc.
Thief + Theme = Assassin, Monk, Bard, etc.
Mage + Theme = Psion, Illusionist, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc.

But this probably won't happen. *Sigh*

Gods I wish it was like this, would definitely do away with a lot of the problems I had with the previous versions of the game. And it would make a lot of sense. Great application of themes as well, customizing the four Classes.

My personal choice for classes like this would be Warrior, Sage, Sorcerer, Thief and for the social class, Courtier.