What Core Class was actually fun to play

[Evilhalfling]

We're not talking about glory, we're talking about fun. If I'm spending a game session and the only thing I can do during the entire game session is make someone else get a +2 bonus on a roll, that is seriously lame.

its not just a +2 and its not the only thing he could do, frequently it was accompanied by inspire courage (+1 or +2 with inspirational boost spell) and flanking. Seeing the artificer or cleric hit and kill due to the +5 that you provided, and still getting to roll dice yourself? It was a lot of fun. If the battle went long he would have to go stop someone from bleeding out, close a door, or in one case move a table around the battlefield. (using cover to stop AoO, prevent enemies from 5' stepping, etc.)

I think I played the bard from 1st-3rd it was the constant thinking and mauvering in combat that was fun, seizing the moment rather than just attack/ or 5' step and cast next spell on list.
At higher levels the little bonuses could become less worthwhile, and the chances of getting killed out of irritation higher. But this type of support is one my favorite parts of low level play.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

its not just a +2 and its not the only thing he could do, frequently it was accompanied by inspire courage (+1 or +2 with inspirational boost spell) and flanking. Seeing the artificer or cleric hit and kill due to the +5 that you provided, and still getting to roll dice yourself? It was a lot of fun. If the battle went long he would have to go stop someone from bleeding out, close a door, or in one case move a table around the battlefield. (using cover to stop AoO, prevent enemies from 5' stepping, etc.)

I think I played the bard from 1st-3rd it was the constant thinking and mauvering in combat that was fun, seizing the moment rather than just attack/ or 5' step and cast next spell on list.
At higher levels the little bonuses could become less worthwhile, and the chances of getting killed out of irritation higher. But this type of support is one my favorite parts of low level play.

I think the bonuses will always be useful - at some point, they might get channeled into power attack or combat expertise, but they are useful all the way. The real problem is that your d6 HD and bad AC and the lack of Evasion will make working at the front-lines too dangerous at higher levels. There's a point where you have to switch to use magic devices and hope your spells can make a difference.

Ah, but this is leading a bit off-topic. One problem of the Bard is that even while he is useful, many other character classes will turn out more effective than the help he provides. Which is mainly a balance/development issue. Whether you like playing a supporter or not is not really a design issue. It is a issue if the support you can grant is not part of your character class, but purely there because you provide an additional character. That's the issue I have with Rogues vs. Undead/Unsneakables - the support you bring to bear is not part of your unique abilities, it's something everyone could do (possible even a 1st level Commoner!). That's okay occassionally, but not as a general rule in common situations.

 

[TerraDave]

The inevitable poll is here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215583

 

[Evilhalfling]

I think the bonuses will always be useful - The real problem is that your d6 HD and bad AC and the lack of Evasion will make working at the front-lines too dangerous at higher levels. .

I agree, thats what I ment when said getting killed out of irritation becomes more likely, especially if you run into a enemy like the fighter in my current party who targets weaker foes, for the sole purpose of using cleave.

Ah, but this is leading a bit off-topic. One problem of the Bard is that even while he is useful, many other character classes will turn out more effective than the help he provides. Which is mainly a balance/development issue. Whether you like playing a supporter or not is not really a design issue. It is a issue if the support you can grant is not part of your character class, but purely there because you provide an additional character. That's the issue I have with Rogues vs. Undead/Unsneakables - the support you bring to bear is not part of your unique abilities, it's something everyone could do (possible even a 1st level Commoner!). That's okay occassionally, but not as a general rule in common situations.

It may not be specific to the bard or rogue, but its connected to being less then usefull in straight combat. You don't behave this way as a Barbarian, whacking stuff yourself is far more useful. Its practically a class feature not to help others.

I will seperate that having your abilities completely nullifed is irritating. Rogue players often do not think of the character as a supporting role, and get tetchy when nothing they are used to doing works. It happens so rarely too others that they can have a lot of fun, the wizard loved trying to get something done in a town with nulled magic.

As a DM I have to temper graveyard visits, elemental nodes/planes or hostile fungal grotto's with "things for the thief to do" I am happier designing adventures without this. Although in my regular group straight rogues are rare.

 

[TerraDave]

Poll results:

The poll: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3973406#post3973406

has had some votes.

Who was not fun: Paladin was not fun. By the gods of lawfull good, not fun. The Paladin had the highest "never played" and lowest ratio of liked to play vs. dislike to play. More voters liked the monk then the paladin.

The "four core" (including wizard but not sorcerer): hands down most popular to play. Most liked? Mostly, Rogue is the top, Wizard and Cleric also do well, and fighter is middle of the pack. Druid stands out for being less played, but liked when played.

But the Paladin....unfun!

 

[Will]

The problems with paladin:
Healing, but not a lot.
Spellcasting, but not much.
A really cool mount, but not enough feats or abilities to do much with it.
Good BAB, but no special combat abilities.
High saves, but no special save effects (like Evasion or Mettle)


Only time I'd ever play a paladin is in a gestalt game (I'm doing so now). And even so, unless you are a cavalier of some stripe, there's no point to take more than a few levels.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It may not be specific to the bard or rogue, but its connected to being less then usefull in straight combat. You don't behave this way as a Barbarian, whacking stuff yourself is far more useful. Its practically a class feature not to help others.

And that's really the point. If you don't feel that you are useful in straight combat than the game is no fun for a lot of people.

I admit I like playing support characters, but I once played a bard for about 10 sessions before I got tired of being the brunt of all of the jokes of the party because I was the most useless member of the party in the dungeon crawl we were on.

I was constantly being told "I did 30 damage in ONE hit, what did you do last round?"
And I'd be forced to answer "Well, I did 2 of your damage..."
To which I'd get "Ok, sorry, I did 28 damage and you did 2. Seems it would be better if you were a barbarian as well and did 28 damage instead of 2."

 

[Wolfspider]

And that's really the point. If you don't feel that you are useful in straight combat than the game is no fun for a lot of people.

I admit I like playing support characters, but I once played a bard for about 10 sessions before I got tired of being the brunt of all of the jokes of the party because I was the most useless member of the party in the dungeon crawl we were on.

I was constantly being told "I did 30 damage in ONE hit, what did you do last round?"
And I'd be forced to answer "Well, I did 2 of your damage..."
To which I'd get "Ok, sorry, I did 28 damage and you did 2. Seems it would be better if you were a barbarian as well and did 28 damage instead of 2."

Sounds like the problem here has nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with the twits you were gaming with.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sounds like the problem here has nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with the twits you were gaming with.

Possible, especially since they don't see the big picture - aside from the +2 to damage, the +2 to attack might have been responsible for even 100 % of the damage!

(On average, it would have been ~11 % of the barbarians base damage. Which is nice, but on the other hand - a second Barbarian would grant 100 % bonus to the damage. With more allies using melee or ranged attacks the Bards contribution to the parties damage becomes closer to that of another primary fighter ...)

 

[Doug McCrae]

Sounds like the problem here has nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with the twits you were gaming with.

I agree with the twits.