D&D 3E/3.5 What was the original intended function of the 3rd edition phb classes?

[Greg K]

The paladin is the archetypical knight in shining armor, especially Arthur and his knights. The concept never really changed much. Unfortunately, paladin was the first serious hit to fighter, and very early in the game's history too being basically fighter+. But paladin was reigned in with very strict alignment and ability requirements.

Gygax stated here on ENWorld that he did not consider Arthur and his knights to be Paladins. Several people have stated that the source was Poul Anderson's Holger Carlsen from Three Hearts and Three Lions. I don't recall if Gary was one of those people. However, according to Tim Kask in a post at Dragonsfoot , "The inspiration came from several sources he read, 3H & 3L would certainly be one, as would all the Scott and Lamb stuff" (note: he being Gary)

Thief was probably inspired by characters like the Grey Mouser and other roguish fantasy characters.

"Gary Gygax wrote in issue #2 of The Excellent Prismatic Spray (2001) that Jack Vance’s Cugel the Clever and Zelazny’s Shadowjack were the greatest influences on the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons thief class as described in the The Players Handbook (1978)." appendixnbookclub.com

@talien in a post on Jack Vance's contributions cited Shannon Applecline who also stated that both Cudgel and Jack of Shadows were the influences for the Thief. However, Applecine and Jon Peterson both state that Gary's Thief was a "restructured version" of a thief class by Gary Switzer and influenced by Bilbo Baggins and Cudgel.

@talien's post also includes how Jack Vance's Dying Earth was the inspiration for the D&D Wizard.

The monk was inspired by a contemporary pop cultural interest in Eastern martial arts. Unfortunately, the class had a lot of abilities that didn't mesh well together.

The best source we have is the preface to Oriental Adventures 1e in which Gygax stated that Brian Blume based the original Monk class on The Destroyer series of novels.

Tim Kask noted, on Dragonfoot, that Blume, whom was a fan of the TV series, Kung Fu, learned about a Monk class in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign and became "infatuated" with it. However, he did not know how much the actual D&D class was influenced by Arneson or Blume.

 

[billd91]

The problem is there is almost zero guidance on this. There is no political intrigue, hack 'n' slash, diplomacy sections letting people know when to use them. It's just a large list of wildly variable options for people to choose.

That is, literally, the point of Monte's ivory tower blog post - that, in hindsight, they should have had more information about this sort of thing.

 

[Greg K]

wasn't it Monte Cook who said that 3e intentionally had bad options to "reward skilled play" (ie good players would take the good options).

I don't know if it was intentional, but the resulting power gulf between optimized and casual PCs was immense...

It has been a long time since I read the article when it was, orignally, posted. From what i recall, it was not intentional in that they designed good feats and bad feats (despite what circulates around the internet). From what I recall, he wrote that some feats were good under certain conditions (e.g. one shots or a specific race/class combination to improve survivability at first level), but the designers did not call this out in the book for the players.

edit: I see @billd91 beat me to it)

 

[Ancalagon]

I believe he did, but the impact of this has been exaggerated a bit. The immense power gap was more the result of the sheer volume of publications and plethora of options, which let folks dedicated to powergaming find and exploit a lot of synergies, including ones unforeseen by the designers. The pinnacle of powergaming often came from abusing Polymorph effects on oneself with relatively obscure race/monster combos.

like alter self into a troglodyte to gain +6 AC? I used that a lot

 

[Greg K]

That is, literally, the point of Monte's ivory tower blog post - that, in hindsight, they should have had more information about this sort of thing.

Exactly. I don't know how people went from Monte stating that some feats were good in specific circumstances (e.g. one-shots or to improve the survivability of a specific race/class combination) and, in hindsight, the should have provided more information to the designers, intentionally, placed trap options. The latter, to me, implies that the designers approached feats with malice to screw over players which is not the same as failing to provide guidance under which conditions to take specific feats.

 

[payn]

That is, literally, the point of Monte's ivory tower blog post - that, in hindsight, they should have had more information about this sort of thing.

It's interesting becasue I have long thought that background/skill stuff should be separated from combat stuff. Also, exploration stuff. I think the 3E/PF1 ranger is an example of great design. The ranger has class options that cover all three pillars of the game. That is before feat selection which can just bolster any particular area the player chooses.

PF2 kind of sort of tried to do this. What happened is they came up with skill feats which ended up with the same problem as combat feats. That is, some are really cool but likely to come up once a campaign, others less cool but likely to come up once a session, and then finally a totally uncool item that is useful in every single encounter. Guess which wins?

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

The latter, to me, suggests that the designers had did so with malice.

When I first read about it, I thought it sounded like they thought it was a fun idea and that people would enjoy figuring out what was good and what shouldn't ever be used.

Makes much more sense if he meant "in different circumstances".

 

[Mannahnin]

Right. I remember him specifically citing Toughness as an example of a feat which, for example, you'd never want for most characters in ongoing campaigns, but which could give a really nice survivability boost to a low-level character in a one shot.

 

[billd91]

Exactly. I don't know how people went from Monte stating that some feats were good in specific circumstances (e.g. one-shots or to improve the survivability of a specific race/class combination) and, in hindsight, the should have provided more information to the designers, intentionally, placed trap options. The latter, to me, implies that the designers approached feats with malice to screw over players which is not the same as failing to provide guidance under which conditions to take specific feats.

Yeah, "trap options" is a term that has connotations.

 

[billd91]

Right. I remember him specifically citing Toughness as an example of a feat which, for example, you'd never want for most characters in ongoing campaigns, but which could give a really nice survivability boost to a low-level character in a one shot.

Same with any of the skill booster feats - things that add directly to a value in the character's stats that a player never needs to worry about choosing to use. It's hard enough trying to understand the options available to a pre-gen PC in a convention game with a 4-5 hour time slot, piling on conditional feats largely guarantees they won't be used or maybe a small subset (like 1) will be used most of the time.