So what's your favorite revised class?

[DonAdam]

Monk, for how much cleaner it works with multiclassing, earlier ki strike, and the grappling and disarm options. Note that the sai disarms like a medium weapon, so that's how they're supposed to do it, which I really like: a sai for disarming and unarmed attacks for damaging people, which is very cool.

I would have voted ranger, but they left the spells in. I think in 4e "woodsman" or "wildlander" would be a better core class to have and make ranger a prestige class.

 

[randomninja]

I couldn't resist voting Monk, but I'm happy with most of the revised classes. I like the fact that they mostly stuck to making classes better at what they were supposed to be doing in the first place. Barbarians are better brutes, Bards are more versatile, Monks can fight, Rangers don't Bite, ect...

 

[Psiblade]

I am also extremely happy with the changes to the bard, druid, and monk. I voted bard because now I might finally see one in a living campaign.


-Psiblade

 

[Technik4]

Have to say monk. I think the option is there now, so DMs that thought giving monks choice of feats from OA at 1,2,6th levels was too powerful will see that it is a core way of doing things now.

Similarly expect to see other "Combat Paths" for rangers, its idea is supported in a Core Book. It takes little imagination to expand on the idea, and individual DMs feel like they were clever for improving an existing mechanic (not to mention no balance worries - as long as its a feats worth of power).

Those changes put the monk and ranger running side by side for my pick, but in the end I think the ranger class has been overcompensated for (slightly) whereas the new monk looks damn near perfect. Its streamlined, balanced, and 3.5 in its best light, imo.

Technik

 

[Hikaru]

I am also extremely happy with the changes to the bard, druid, and monk. I voted bard because now I might finally see one in a living campaign.

A few more, not many. Not when people will great them with: "A what? A bard? Uh, if you want to be good at surporting the party, why not playing a cleric? You'll be a better fighter AND a better spellcaster, too."

 

[John Crichton]

A few more, not many. Not when people will great them with: "A what? A bard? Uh, if you want to be good at surporting the party, why not playing a cleric? You'll be a better fighter AND a better spellcaster, too."

But then you have all those pesky things like adherance to religion to worry about.

 

[Hikaru]

But then you have all those pesky things like adherance to religion to worry about.

1) It was many times stated that roleplaying reasons should not be used to balance rules.

2) I've never seen that roleplaying "restriction" come into play in a living campaign (since that's what we were talking about).

3) Some gods are not very demanding: Olidammarra, notably.

 

[EarthsShadow]

I like the new Paladin, but out of curiosity, did they even change the Fighter besides adding in a new skill as a class skill?

 

[Hikaru]

I like the new Paladin, but out of curiosity, did they even change the Fighter besides adding in a new skill as a class skill?

Feats have been added to the list of those they can choose every two levels.

 

[RigaMortus]

I voted Ranger. For me, the Ranger went from "worst class in the PHB" to "best class in the PHB". Of course, my favorite looking class from 3.0 was the Monk, but when it came time to play one, I wasn't every impressed. So who knows? As it looks now, I'm liking the Ranger a LOT. When I actually get to play it, who knows?