What Core Class was actually fun to play

[Doug McCrae]

BUT... If the game has the "deck stacked" so that it is difficult to play in a style outside of hack-and-slash, I think that will be its largest failing.

What makes you think 4e will do this? Could any rpg make it difficult to avoid hack-and-slash? If so, how?

 

[Rechan]

Could any rpg make it difficult to avoid hack-and-slash? If so, how?

GURPs.

Simply because combat is deadly.

 

[Henry]

1. Do you agree with the above sentiments?

Heck, no! Under 3E I've played clerics, fighters, rogues, bards, druids, and wizards, and had a blast with all of them. I only rarely felt like I couldn't contribute, and mostly found ways that I contributed big-time to the group's success.

3. Shouldn't the different classes be geared towards different types of players and what they enjoy doing in the game? I guess a prime example is the fact that there was a noble class in SWSE...not the best in a fight but certainly geared to face other challenge a parrticular player may find more enjoyable than combat. (I get the impresion every class in 4th ed. will be what could best be summed up as...different types of damage dealers.)

Actually, the Noble in SWSE is a damage-dealer too, just not an obvious one. His wealth talent can buy the group bigger guns; his intimidations can take people out of the fight; He can even give other people extra actions if needed. He's still a damage dealer, but more in the "leader" role that the warlord keeps getting mentioned in.

4. What did you play that was actually fun for the 3 years of 3.0 and five years of 3.5?

The only thing I played that WASN'T fun, was the Binder from Tome of Magic. And the sad thing is, that was the class I most wanted to be fun, because of the flavor that I worked so hard to get use out of in the book. The class' abilites just weren't up to the challenge; they made him FAR too weak, in my opinion. But I've never felt that way with any of the core books' base classes in seven years of play.

 

[Li Shenron]

1. Do you agree with the above sentiments?

No.

3. Shouldn't the different classes be geared towards different types of players and what they enjoy doing in the game?

Not necessarily. The more options the better, but it doesn't have to satisfy every single type.

4. What did you play that was actually fun for the 3 years of 3.0 and five years of 3.5?

I have played Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer and Wizard characters, plus Samurai and Shugenja in Rokugan, plus the spontaneous versions of Cleric and Druid from UA (applied to 3.0 base classes). All of them were absolutely fun to play, even the 3.0 versions of the Bard and of the Paladin.

I think that if you only look at what your character doesn't have, or has in limited amount, then you're more likely to have less fun (whatever the character) than if you focus on what you do have.

 

[Zaruthustran]

What are "fair" disadvantages vs. "unfair" disadvantages. If you could create a disadvantage for the four core classes (fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric) what would they be.

I'm not a fan of disadvantages. Instead of adding a penalty or weakness a class in the name of balance, I'd prefer to instead withhold advantages.

So I think a "fair disadvantage" (to use your term) for a wizard would be that it does not start the game with the advantage of armor & weapon proficiencies. Disadvantage for a fighter, that class lacks the advantage of being able to deal damage with (essentially) a snap of the fingers--fighters need tools in order to do their job.

Clerics have the advantage of magic and the advantage of armor & weapons; they're a hybrid class. So the "disadvantage" is that their magic advantage is not quite as good as the wizard's, and their armor & weapons advantage is not quite as good as the fighter's.

The rogue is another hybrid: he can fight (but not as well as the fighter) and he can affect the world (though not with as much ease or flash as the wizard). Tangent alert: in 4e terms the rogue's skill list is, in a way, "magic" that draws power from a non-divine, non-arcane source. Whether you cast Charm Person or use Diplomacy, the challenge is resolved via getting the person to do what you want.

Anyway, the rogue's "disadvantage" is that he's not as good a fighter as the fighter, and his magic (meaning, his skills) is not as good as the wizard's.

Those are broad strokes. I think you can further refine (give the fighter an exclusive advantage of more hp) but that's the basic idea.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What I enjoyed playing so far:
Fighter. So far, it was always fun to play a fighter, though I think there are a few weaknesses:
- Difficult terrain proves difficult to handle. Climb, Jump and Swim are great (and you can really show off if these become relevant), but the lack of Balance can be noteable. (But I actually played a Fighter with that skill, and it proved a good idea.)
- Outside of combat, the Fighter feels nearly useless (unless involving, climb, jump, swim).
- Flying opponents suck.
- Large Opponents suck if you didn't waste your feats on the Weapon Focus chain.
Oh, and PHB II rocked.

Warlocks. Even if a bit "boring" (yet another sneak attack), the "always on" spells are really nice and make your character stick out.

Sorcerors. Blasting people is fun. The lack in versatility has to be compensated by other characters, but the core is great.

Wizards -> Loremasters. I just like going this route. The knowledgeable wizard archetype plays well.

Rogues. The only class that can participate nearly everywhere - except dungeons infested with undeads, I guess. Luckily, my Rogue could avoid this. The biggest problem is there are too many good skills.

Druid -> Shifter. Becoming any type of creature, any time, that's something I really enjoyed. Sometimes it's just fun turning into an Elephant or Delver.

Classes I don't really like, but still managed to enjoy for some time:
Cleric: I think buffing as a Bard is more fun. Clerics tend to buff before combat (with the long-lasting spells), and thus in combat, you're either buffing yourself to get into melee later, or you go around healing. I think my best experience so far has been focusing everything I got on healing (Radiant Servant of Pelor), and not care much about melee combat.

Classes that I wanted to like:
Monk. They die too fast, and don't do enough in combat.

Other classes didn't stick out particularly for me, though I think I enjoyed them all.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Overall I think I disagree with the premise.

I've played clerics, druids and sorcerers who have been a complete blast to play. I've got lots of choices about what to do, fun choices within combat. (a or b or z)

I've played a paladin, a ranger and a soulknife, and these have typically been much less fun, simply because my range of options in combat have been so limited. (a(i), a(ii) or a(iii)).

This is one of the main reasons that I'm looking forward to 4e, the possibility of giving martial classes the same kind of real activity choices in combat as the caster classes have.

(the paladin and ranger PCs were fun to play because of the RP opportunities in those campaigns, it was just the limited options in combat that made them less fun).

Cheers

 

[Stogoe]

Cadfan seems to have hit the nail on the head - the original post is deliberately misrepresenting the people it disagrees with. In the series of tubes outside ENWorld, we call that a strawman.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Cadfan seems to have hit the nail on the head - the original post is deliberately misrepresenting the people it disagrees with. In the series of tubes outside ENWorld, we call that a strawman.

If you disagree with the original poster you have three valid options:

a) write a thoughtful piece expressing your view (as per Cadfan)
b) just pass on by
c) if you think it is really trolling, report it to the mods.

A drive-by-shooting like the post you made isn't acceptable though. Please don't do it again.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I can't agree with that at all. Fighter's all-day bashing vs. mages' limited resources has always been a fundamental dichotomy of D&D (with clerics in the middle). The limitations of each class are certainly real, but there should be such limitations. Facing undead? Back off, rogues. Facing swarms? Quick where's the spellcaster?!

I think the most valid complaint is the shoehorning of the cleric into being a healer. I think clerics should not get access to all spells, thus forcing them to choose during character creation whether or not to be healers. I also think healing spells should be weaker. Personally, my PCs have never objected to clerics. They had a party once with no cleric, then one with two clerics but no true healers, and now one with a cleric optimized for healing and turning undead.

I've played and liked a sorcerer, fighter, rogue, druid/shifter, cleric, wizard, barbarian, and various others, albeit only briefly. If I get the chance I'll play every archetype over again.

The only classes I found "unfun" have been the bard and paladin. The notion of a jack of all trades class I dislike-every class but the bard seems to have something to really hang their hat on. The paladin is too restrictive with The Code and puts too much pressure on the other PCs to conform to his standards. Needless to say I've never played either.