Class Idol Round II: 17 go in, 10 come out (Corrected!!)

[Nai_Calus]

Fighter has too much baggage for me to ever consider even looking at playing the class. Yes, even more so than Paladin, and I banned Paladins when I ran 3.5.

I just can't seem to get the godsawful suck of them in 3.5 or the 'hurrdurr' antisocial stupider-than-a-brick, can't-see-a-hand-in-front-of-my-face moronic lout devoid of background or roleplay of... Every fighter I ever saw... out of my mind. There's just a *taint* on the damned thing, man, and no matter how hard I try I can't get rid of it.

Does it make any logical sense? None at all, but there it is. And Swordmage and Paladin both satisfy my 'smacking things with a sword' itch AND my character-making itch so well...

 

[Dan'L]

in practice 4E Bard does little for me... They really needed to not have something as goofy as Wands as implements

Just flavor the wand as a conductor's baton, and have fun orchestrating the battle!

-Dan'L

 

[darjr]

I was in a group with only two players. Paragon tier. The Bard was very useful filling out the party of two so my kid could play what he wanted. Yea, when I play I like being 'support'.

 

[Nai_Calus]

Just flavor the wand as a conductor's baton, and have fun orchestrating the battle!

-Dan'L

ARGH *stab* That is EXACTLY the problem and why I hate it so much! *twitchtwitch*

My bards are, invariably, sword-wielding, spell-slinging, rousing battlesong-singing people who take it SERIOUSLY, damn it. Waving around a wand like it's a conductor's baton is exactly the kind of campy goofy crap that's why everyone I know who hates Bards hates Bards.

(FWIW, I can't take wand wizards seriously either. Too much stage magician/harry potter mental images.)

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Fighter has too much baggage for me to ever consider even looking at playing the class. Yes, even more so than Paladin, and I banned Paladins when I ran 3.5.

I just can't seem to get the godsawful suck of them in 3.5 or the 'hurrdurr' antisocial stupider-than-a-brick, can't-see-a-hand-in-front-of-my-face moronic lout devoid of background or roleplay of... Every fighter I ever saw... out of my mind. There's just a *taint* on the damned thing, man, and no matter how hard I try I can't get rid of it.

Does it make any logical sense? None at all, but there it is. And Swordmage and Paladin both satisfy my 'smacking things with a sword' itch AND my character-making itch so well...

Maybe you should play with more creative people. My bounty hunter Eladrin Greatspear Fighter had plenty of background and a ton of skills thanks to high DEX and WIS. I also play with someone that created a completely boring and one dimensional Wizard that did nothing but say "I roll Arcana" for everything (even things like, say, find traps).

It's not the class that makes the PC interesting, it's the player.

 

[Jack99]

Well, it's probably the most tactically interesting class and the best defender while having the best toys.

When they design the next edition they should spend a LOT of time looking at why the Fighter worked so well. It feels like a fully realized concept in a way that some of the others don't.

YMMV, etc. I may also have blinders on since my 4e experience is so limited, but that's how it felt to me.

Nah, I have a lot of experience with 4e, and you are 100% correct IMO. Although it certainly never hurts being one of the most powerful classes.

 

[Dan'L]

My bards are, invariably, sword-wielding, spell-slinging, rousing battlesong-singing people who take it SERIOUSLY, damn it.

*shrug* Well we've got ourselves a horse race, because it always seems goofy to me to build a bard that way. If I were to make a list of words to describe what "bard" meant to me (outside of D&D) "sword-wielding" and "tak(ing) it SERIOUSLY, damn it" would probably not be in the top 50.

I mean, I know it's kind of become the D&D standard that a bard is someone who gets in the middle of the donnybrook sword a-swinging, because at the end of the day it's a battle game and you don't want your player to feel left out. But there's still a big disconnect for me between the minstrel and the mercenary.

For me, a bard is like a frontline reporter, offering support and telling the world what is going on out there, and enjoying their job & finding fulfillment in it because if they didn't then they wouldn't be doing it. They report through performance, be it a song or a story-hour (because that's what it takes to get people to pay attention and hear) and consequently know how to manipulate an audience

While I can understand sometimes a reporter will roll up their sleeves and get involved with their story, and am happy enough that there's build options available to support that kind of character, I wouldn't expect that to be the rule for all builds.

But all this is just a long rambling way to say that it's all in the fluff that you bring to it. If you play your bard goofy, your friends will say "bards are goofy." If you play your bards as "sword-wielding, spell-slinging, rousing battlesong-singing people who take it SERIOUSLY, damn it" and your friends find that kickbutt cool and fun, then your friends should say "bards are kickbutt cool and fun."

-Dan'L

 

[TerraDave]

And the results are:

Top Ten

fighter _61.02%
wizard _44.07%
rogue _42.37%
warlord_42.37%
sorcerer _40.68%
bard _33.90%
cleric _29.66%
avenger_29.66%
swordmage_28.81%
barbarian _27.97%

Saying Goodbye

ranger _23.73%
warlock _21.19%
warden _19.49%
artificer _17.80%
paladin _16.95%
monk _13.56%
assassin_12.71%

Only two big surprises for me: the poor showing of the ranger, and how well leaders, especially the warlord, are holding up. Edit: also, the top four, or top five, or top six, would make a pretty good party.

On to the next round.