What Core Class was actually fun to play

[Nifft]

Seriously? I'm not being snarky here. Or, if I am, I totally don't mean to be. But, what's fun about "aid another"?

For some, the glory of the team kill is as fun as the solo kill.

I swing both ways.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

For some, the glory of the team kill is as fun as the solo kill.

I swing both ways.

Cheers, -- N

I like the team kill, too, which is why I might actually play a Bard again if the other classes are covered. Bards are fun.
But I don't think I'd want to use "Aid Another". Anyone can do that, it doesn't feel like something that's unique to my character. Inspire Courage (possibly tweaked by several non-core feats and items) is...

 

[Rechan]

Clerics can be frustrating for players who like their spellcasters to dish out damage by the handful. If a player is accustomed to being a fireball-slinging blaster, he will feel like a babysitter most of the time if he chooses a cleric.

Or if he just wants to do anything to the enemy. I'm playing a low level cleric, and the only options I really have to hamper the enemies, spell-wise, is "Bane", "Cause Fear" or "Hold Person" (Which is pretty limited).

I think debuffs are sexy. But debuff spells are much higher, and there's not a class that does debuffing at all. There's barely any PrCs!

Fighters can be frustrating for players who like to "deep roleplay," with lots of social interaction and story. If a player likes dynamic interaction, playing a fighter will feel very repetitive most of the time ("I swing my sword...I swing my sword...I swing my sword...").

Or that even in a combat, that is still their only option. Meanwhile, at least the rogue has to be tactical to do his thing, and the plethora of classes have some options. Meanwhile, I... swing my sword.

Rogues can be frustrating for players who try to exploit the Sneak Attack ability to make a superhero battlefield champion or a lightning-throwing mage. Players who want to deal out tons of damage will find the rogue very fragile and restricted most of the time, at least for the first 10 levels or so until sneak attack ramps up.

Or the rogue player doesn't want to be the trap-disarmer-on-a-stick.

As for the lack of options, I think the core classes are like potato chips...they are so good, nobody can have just one. It seems like today's players all want a fighter who can blast and heal and sneak as good as anyone else, and the rules haven't accomodated this yet. 4E sounds like it is getting close, though.

And I think that's a pretty gross generalization.

Why should my fighter character be useless outside of combat? "Oh, you want someone who isn't dead weight outside of killing something - play another class." Why can't you make it work for another class?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Or if he just wants to do anything to the enemy. I'm playing a low level cleric, and the only options I really have to hamper the enemies, spell-wise, is "Bane", "Cause Fear" or "Hold Person" (Which is pretty limited).

I think debuffs are sexy. But debuff spells are much higher, and there's not a class that does debuffing at all. There's barely any PrCs!


Or that even in a combat, that is still their only option. Meanwhile, at least the rogue has to be tactical to do his thing, and the plethora of classes have some options. Meanwhile, I... swing my sword.

I sometimes wonder if others underestimate the usefulness of the tactical options trip, disarm, sunder, bullrush or grapple. Maybe it's just because too many monsters are a lot larger then PCs (making these options less useful), but at least I was able to play an entertaining fighter this way.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I sometimes wonder if others underestimate the usefulness of the tactical options trip, disarm, sunder, bullrush or grapple. Maybe it's just because too many monsters are a lot larger then PCs (making these options less useful), but at least I was able to play an entertaining fighter this way.

I agree with this. Trip and grapple are very viable, even if you don't have the feats, so long as you have reach to avoid the AoO. Also fighting defensively, switching between sword and board and 2-hander, tanglefoot bags and use of combat expertise/power attack. 3e gives a lot more options for melee guys, and improves them significantly in comparison to casters, than 1e and 2e.

 

[Ragnar69]

I found clerics and wizards unfun because the high amount of pre-adventuring work. Selecting your spells from dozens of choices on each spell level, memorising the descriptions so you don't have to flip open one or more rulebooks with every spell cast, getting always stocked up on scrolls and wands...

 

[billd91]

I recognize that all these problems are minor and correctable with a bit of effort!
Here are my impressions of the core classes:

Clerics: this class looks good on paper with loads of attack and defense options, but in combat your actions are too often dictated by the needs of the party. That can be frustrating at times. Spontaneous healing, which was supposed to solve this problem, actually made it worse.

I have never agreed with this sentiment. The main difference spontaneous healing introduced was when the decision was made to be a walking band-aid or something else. Before spontaneous healing, the decision was made at spell memorization time. You prepped the spells you were going to prep and that determined whether you'd be a healer or not. Spontaneous healing pushed that decision point off until the healing was actually needed. I maintain this is an improvement even if the player makes the choice to cast the healing spells in the end.

Reacting to situations rather than initiating them can be frustrating, but all characters can get into that situation, regardless of class. I've played a sorcerer who, when the party has been ambushed on a city street, pretty much had to react with counterspelling to keep the fireballs, scorching rays, and magic missiles slung by the ambushing wizard from wasting the rest of the party. Sometimes, teamwork requires a member of the team to play fireman. It's more often the cleric than anyone else, true, but as long as the player knows that going in, I don't see it as much of a problem.

 

[Mort]

I found clerics and wizards unfun because the high amount of pre-adventuring work. Selecting your spells from dozens of choices on each spell level, memorising the descriptions so you don't have to flip open one or more rulebooks with every spell cast, getting always stocked up on scrolls and wands...

In 3x - spell sheets (heroforge had a good one) were your friend. But this illustrates how different people like different things, to some of the people in my group leafing through spells and stocking up on scrolls and wands was a huge amount of fun.

 

[billd91]

Rogue is a perfect example. Why should I, as DM, refrain from using large swaths of common monsters (undead and constructs) just because the rogue will be sidelined in EVERY encounter?

Why not change the rogue so that he is no longer sidelined? Doesn't that make a whole lot more sense? One of the most archtypal dungeons - a tomb raid - makes the rogue player cry because he gets to sit out every fight. And, yes, I do mean sit out because "Aid Another" is not fun. It's boring.

If it was one fight, or something that happened once in a very long while, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with having the occasional encounter that plays to the strengths of another character. But, we're talking four, five different monster types. A significant portion of the Monster Manual specifically nerfs the rogue. That's uncool.

There may be many monsters in the MMs that nerf the rogue's main combat ability, but how frequent are they really in the game world? I know that adventures tend to be build around "theme monsters" but how many undead can really be counted as being fairly common? Three? Four, maybe? How many constructs are really common? Is this really a significant problem with the rogue's powers or a problem with adventure design not including some kind of nod to appropriate frequency of opponents?

 

[Rechan]

There may be many monsters in the MMs that nerf the rogue's main combat ability, but how frequent are they really in the game world? I know that adventures tend to be build around "theme monsters" but how many undead can really be counted as being fairly common? Three? Four, maybe?

You're kidding, right? Take a stroll through the 5 MMs, and other monster books. Undead are the most popular. There's an undead for every type of death - I'd be surprised if there isn't "Slipped on a bar of soap in the shower" Undead.

Undead make the best sense as guardians of tombs and ancient places, as they're low maintenance and always retain. Liches and Vampires are some of the most common monster BBEGs outside of Fiends and Illithids.

And aside from rats and wolves, what do 1st level PCs fight? Skeletons and zombies.