Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nyaricus" data-source="post: 2807037" data-attributes="member: 35678">Quoted for Truth.I think this is one of the biggest issues here -&nbsp; D&amp;D is terrible for sticking names with very niche roles and characteristics. This is why i like AD&amp;D's approach with Character Kits - they help customise a base class to get the theme you want. IMO, it is unfortunate that these were replaced with PrC's for 3e. And that is coming from a guy with zero experience in Character Kits and limited experience with AD&amp;D - i became a player just before 3e came out, so we went for the new edition immediately. Now, lets go through the classes, just for fun:Bard - IRL they were singers, storytellers and poets. In D&amp;D, they are a rogue/sorcerer combo with some &quot;song&quot; powersBarbarian - this is one of the worst classes for giving a bad name to. This class should be called Berserker, and cultural conentations should be thrown out the dorr, jumped on, burned and then sent to the nearest river to be thrown in with cinder-block wrapping paper <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />Cleric - this class is a more effective &quot;holy-warrior&quot; then the paladin ever will be, and nothing in the class suggests a person who stays around the church and hels with office work and stuff. The power boost from AD&amp;D bto 3e was WAY too much, IMO.Druid - a class that fails at being anything close to a nature priest. Then WotC throws us a &quot;shaman&quot; class in Complete Divine which is mechanically closer to a Celtic Druid that the D&amp;D druid ever will be. UGH.Fighter - the only problem i have is the clunky name - call him a &quot;warrior&quot; and be done with it already!Paladin - i think that generic Crusader class should replace the sickenly &quot;goody-two-shoes&quot; of a &quot;holy-warrior&quot; class that WotC spit out.Monk - see above. They shoud be in OARanger - This should be a PrC, and be replaced with a more generic &quot;Woodsman&quot; class (assuming enviroments come into play, you could make varients depending on them)Rogue - I think that D&amp;D needs to have both a theif class (dex/int/cha) based rogue type and an assassin-type base class - IMC i call the former the same and the latter a &quot;Cut-throat.&quot; Irons Heroes does it well for a low magic system, but transfering it over to standard D&amp;D would be tricky.Sorcerer &amp; Wizard - they use two names which nail into place certain conentations of certain &quot;spellcasters&quot;. This is badAll in all, D&amp;D should put less focus on class names, and have lists of alternative names for the classes. IMC's that i play in, i always at least call myself a warrior rather than a fighter, if not somethng a bit more specific.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nyaricus, post: 2807037, member: 35678"] Quoted for Truth. I think this is one of the biggest issues here - D&D is terrible for sticking names with very niche roles and characteristics. This is why i like AD&D's approach with Character Kits - they help customise a base class to get the theme you want. IMO, it is unfortunate that these were replaced with PrC's for 3e. And that is coming from a guy with zero experience in Character Kits and limited experience with AD&D - i became a player just before 3e came out, so we went for the new edition immediately. Now, lets go through the classes, just for fun: Bard - IRL they were singers, storytellers and poets. In D&D, they are a rogue/sorcerer combo with some "song" powers Barbarian - this is one of the worst classes for giving a bad name to. This class should be called Berserker, and cultural conentations should be thrown out the dorr, jumped on, burned and then sent to the nearest river to be thrown in with cinder-block wrapping paper :lol: Cleric - this class is a more effective "holy-warrior" then the paladin ever will be, and nothing in the class suggests a person who stays around the church and hels with office work and stuff. The power boost from AD&D bto 3e was WAY too much, IMO. Druid - a class that fails at being anything close to a nature priest. Then WotC throws us a "shaman" class in Complete Divine which is mechanically closer to a Celtic Druid that the D&D druid ever will be. UGH. Fighter - the only problem i have is the clunky name - call him a "warrior" and be done with it already! Paladin - i think that generic Crusader class should replace the sickenly "goody-two-shoes" of a "holy-warrior" class that WotC spit out. Monk - see above. They shoud be in OA Ranger - This should be a PrC, and be replaced with a more generic "Woodsman" class (assuming enviroments come into play, you could make varients depending on them) Rogue - I think that D&D needs to have both a theif class (dex/int/cha) based rogue type and an assassin-type base class - IMC i call the former the same and the latter a "Cut-throat." Irons Heroes does it well for a low magic system, but transfering it over to standard D&D would be tricky. Sorcerer & Wizard - they use two names which nail into place certain conentations of certain "spellcasters". This is bad All in all, D&D should put less focus on class names, and have lists of alternative names for the classes. IMC's that i play in, i always at least call myself a warrior rather than a fighter, if not somethng a bit more specific. [/QUOTE]

Verification