D&D 5E Survivor Core Classes- Fighter Wins!

[JonnyP71]

Barbarian 22gp
Bard 21gp
Cleric 21gp
Druid 22gp
Fighter 21gp
Monk 21gp
Paladin broke
Ranger 21gp
Rogue 21gp
Sorcerer 21gp
Warlock 19gp
Wizard 19gp

Sir Windbag, the Paladin of Abstinence strode into the bar, announced his presence, and insisted that everyone else stop drinking as it was sinful.

Everyone in the bar beat him up, took his money, and kicked him out onto the street. They proceeded to have much more fun without him.

 

[BoldItalic]

Er ... that's not ...

 

[Redthistle]

Barbarian 22gp
Bard 21gp
Cleric 21gp
Druid 22gp
Fighter 21gp
Monk 21gp
Paladin broke
Ranger 21gp
Rogue 21gp
Sorcerer 21gp
Warlock 19gp
Wizard 19gp

Sir Windbag, the Paladin of Abstinence strode into the bar, announced his presence, and insisted that everyone else stop drinking as it was sinful.

Everyone in the bar beat him up, took his money, and kicked him out onto the street. They proceeded to have much more fun without him.

I see what you did there. Puts a different spin on the concept of a "PC Party".

Well, eventually, the revelry ended and the bar-tabs paid ...

Barbarian 20gp
Bard 22gp
Cleric 19gp
Druid 19gp
Fighter 19gp
Monk 19gp
Ranger 19gp
Rogue 21gp
Sorcerer 19gp
Tavernkeeper 17gp
Warlock 17gp
Wizard 17gp

For Ronni the Rogue, who charmed a number of the other patrons into buying her drinks, her purse neither gained nor lost, although, like her budget, she herself could also be said to be "awash".

Balustrade, the Bard, got free drinks and tips, the cost of which was a modest expense to the tavernkeeper* who would later take a hit from the duke's tax collector. But, that's a tale for another day.

*NPC classes were mysteriously excluded from the original game in the thread. Tsk, tsk.

 

[Redthistle]

Er ... that's not ...

Every DM's dilemma - what to do when the party makes a choice you've got no plans for.

 

[BoldItalic]

Every DM's dilemma - what to do when the party makes a choice you've got no plans for.

Oh, I do have plans. But I've made my move for today, you'll all have to wait until tomorrow ...
*evil cackle*

 

[Redthistle]

Oh, I do have plans. But I've made my move for today, you'll all have to wait until tomorrow ...
*evil cackle*

Uh-oh.

 

[Leatherhead]

I can't say that I agree with that assertion. The rogue archetype is more credible and rooted than the cleric.

That's a low bar to set.

However, I do consider Rogues to be a bigger problem from a design standpoint than Clerics are. Clerics may be a hack-job of a patch to solve problems, but Rogues create problems by their very existence: By giving rules and/or special bonuses to perform mundane tasks to the Rogue, you also prevent anyone who isn't a Rogue from being good at, or sometimes even attempting, said mundane tasks.

 

[Aldarc]

That's a low bar to set.

However, I do consider Rogues to be a bigger problem from a design standpoint than Clerics are. Clerics may be a hack-job of a patch to solve problems, but Rogues create problems by their very existence: By giving rules and/or special bonuses to perform mundane tasks to the Rogue, you also prevent anyone who isn't a Rogue from being good at, or sometimes even attempting, said mundane tasks.

Isn't that like complaining that the wizard prevents others from performing magical tasks by their very existence? Or that the fighter prevents others from fighting from by their very existence? Unless you go to a class-less system, then classes by their very nature will have niches that exclude roles, abilities, and tasks. As I said before, I do believe that the rogue has an extremely strong pre-existing archetype that stands apart from both the fighting-man and magic-user.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Isn't that like complaining that the wizard prevents others from performing magical tasks by their very existence? Or that the fighter prevents others from fighting from by their very existence?

No, nothing like that. In 0D&D, you searched for traps by prodding the dungeon floor ahead of you with a 10' pole and the like. Then the Thief comes along and finding traps is his exclusive 'special' ability, so it would be just wrong to let you find a trap. In contrast spellcasting is supernatural, not everyone can do it. Fighting is something everyone can do, and everyone /could/ do it, 'swing weapon' did not become a 'fighter special ability.' Magic-users didn't take away the ability to cast spells, since no one has such abilities normally. Fighters didn't take away the ability to fight, because everyone could fight. Thieves stole the ability to watch out for traps, sneak around, even climb, because everyone could, then they couldn't, because of the Thieves' ill-conceived mechanics and niche protection.

The other reason the thief was such a bad idea was that it was so /bad/ at everything. It was the only one who could do a range of fairly mundane dungeon-crawling tasks, but it wasn't that good at them, and it barely fought better than the magic-user, had poor hps, etc.

So the thief took away from the other classes (but especially the fighter, because it couldn't just up and cast Knock or TK or Find the Path or whatever when something other than hitting monsters was called for) but still didn't have enough to stand on its own. Sure, early D&D needed more resolution than just hitting things and casting spells, but it should have gotten there by expanding universal options and fighter abilities, rather than by creating the Thief.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*