What Core Class was actually fun to play

[ThirdWizard]

I think its less that X class is "unfun" but that the paper-rock-scissors design leads to unfun because, unless you build specifically to avoid it, you won't be able to participate in all encounters. One of the leading goals of 4e, as far as I've been able to pick up, is that you'll always have something to do - you'll always be able to contribute. Personally, I think that's a fine goal.

EDIT: Think about it like this. How many people said in Age of Worms threads that it was basically worthless to make a rogue for that AP? Lots, and they were. This is a good example, I think, of how the paper-rock-scissors design backfired. It was a good AP, just not for rogues. It also led to "bypass" rules to make the game work. Feats for rogues sneak attacking undead. Spells so that wizards weren't crippled by SR. So, they decided to build the system from the ground up to avoid these issues. At least that's my take on it.

 

[shilsen]

Okay I've noticed a trend with the hype around 4th edition. Basically the fact that none of the four core classes were "fun" to play.

I think you're misrepresenting the argument here. It's not so much that these classes (or any others) were not fun to play at all, but that they had elements which sometimes/often detracted from the potential fun of playing them.

 

[Wolfspider]

3.5 was fun to play?

That's funny. I thought that it was completely broken and badwrongfun.

The things you learn on the internet....

 

[Creamsteak]

I don't know what you're talking about. I enjoyed all of the classes, a LOT.

Edit: To be more specific, every class I've played I loved every minute of playing. I'm a bit more role-play oriented, so I make my own fun when I play.

 

[Panamon Creel]

1. No, don't agree. Clerics and Wizards/Sorcerers are a blast to play; fighters also (though I haven't played one at high levels- same with rogue). If you want the classes that need fixing in 3.5, IMO that would be the bard, monk, and paladin.

2. Hard to answer based on our limited knowledge of 4E. But it seems the classes will still have "drawbacks" - wizards low hit points and AC; fighters lower will saves; clerics not as good in melee; etc. It is just that what they did well in 3E, they will now do better (ex. sneak attack, spell casting, healing).

3. No, if you trying to differentiate different player styles (roleplayers, power gamers, problem solvers). Because not every "roleplayer" will always want to play the "noble", and sometimes the power gamers will not want to play the wizard. Different players should be able to customize their character through feats and skills to suit their style.

4. I played a cleric for the majority of 3.0 and 3.5- it was a fun and powerful class. I used most of my spells in combat, and still had plenty of healing. Played a wizard and that would have been fun, except for the fact that I was a drow and was nerfed by the level adjustment rules

 

[perchy]

1.
Cleric: Depending on the encounter, fun or /sleep+autoheal, i spent a larger amount of time considering how to defeat the encounter and save the world, less focus'd on how much damage i was dealing

Rogue: Fun when sneak attackworks , fun to work out what to do if it doesn't, boring if that turns out to be "flank with the fighter".

Wizard/Sorcerer: So hard to choose which spells to memorise each day, i worried way too much

Fighter: Never played a pure fighter, but fighter/barbarian was fun, had a strong party to back me up, it is nice to cause them problems while i just killed stuff. I also enjoyed monsters having a hard time hitting me (when i tried to be hard to hit) i took pride in taking the least damage instead of dealing the most.

Ranger. Great fun till a monster has damage reduction 10/blunt or something, so often i was reduced to doing 1 or 2 damager per arrow where a fighter would power attack. But i should note, i worked on mobile damage to the point where i solo'd a CR 48 encounter at lvl 17, just waiting for arrows to crit and kill him with massive damage (DC 15 save, he rolled a one eventully, didn't get full xp) . Being trixy was fun


2. Odd that people havn't got this yet. They've removed draw-backs, but some character classes are still better at certain jobs. The scale is no longer -5 to 5 but 0 to 5. So theres still differences, but parties will be more consistant, letting DMs stat wilder encounters without fear of party death

3. Yes, character classes should be gear towards what people enjoy, and they will be. But the noble would still be bored during the combat part of the session if he couldn't use a pistol. The lack of weaknesses is to ensure no one will ever be left out, but certain characters will always be better at certain things.

4. Maybe i just have fun more easily than others. I have played in about 15 campains maybe 20 one off sessions, and i've found that everyone doesn't enjoy everything. Out of a party of 6 at least one person would be bored on average per session, and once you lost them it was hard to drag them back in, even it did turn into their sort of encounters

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Okay I've noticed a trend with the hype around 4th edition. Basically the fact that none of the four core classes were "fun" to play. The arguments basically go something like this...

Cleric: Not fun because I have to choose between healing or hitting something.

I found that to be the case.

Rogue: Not fun because my sneak attack doesn't work on everything.

Didn't bother me.

Wizard/Sorcerer: Not fun because my spells eventually run out.

Only bothered me at very low levels.

Fighter: Not fun because I get outclassed in damage at higher levels and my core feats suck.

True at higher levels.

Note that there's a sweet spot when mages are cool and fun ... and so are fighters.

 

[Arkhandus]

1. Do you agree with the above sentiments?

2. In 4th ed. as a player is it really desirable to have no drawbacks in a game about overcoming challenges?

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.)

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

1. Nope. I'm fine with needing to make choices and think my way around stuff, or letting other folks handle some situations.

2. No, but that's certainly the kind of mindset WotC is trying to cater to with 4e.

3. Yup.

4. Cleric, druid, wizard. Haven't played any other kinds of character in long-running games, since most of the games I played in have ended abruptly when the DM lost interest, got too busy, or the group ran into scheduling problems.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Clerics are fun because I have get to heal, arepretty effective in combat, totally kick undead-butt, have a good AC and great access to a ton of spells.

Rogues are fun because they sneak attack and have a ton of skill points so they can stay involoved in alot of the game and remain important to the party.

Wizard/Sorcerer are whoot because i get some awesome spells.

Fighter are awesome because they have a wide range of tactics and strategies open to them which make them far mor ethen a one-trick pony.


The different classes be geared towards different types of play in different situations . No one should be able to do everything as the game has been about party cooperation and finding ones role in the campaign since the beginning.

 

[Set]

1. Do you agree with the above sentiments?

Hell no. I loved playing a Cleric, and rarely bothered to heal during combat (being more of an Inflict-monkey with the Death domain and a Wand of Cure Light Wounds to patch people up after the fact). I loved playing particular Fighter builds (trip/AoO specialists were particularly effective and fun, sort of like playing a blue 'denial' deck in Magic the Gathering). And I loved playing a Sorcerer or Wizard able to stack up metamagics and Scorching Ray the crap out of stuff. Rogue? Not so much, but it was never the Sneak Attack that mattered, I just don't care for that playstyle.

2. In 4th ed. as a player is it really desirable to have no drawbacks in a game about overcoming challenges?

So long as the classes are relatively balanced, and have actual strategic decisions to make, it should be fine. (And, from the sounds of it, there will still be limited use or 'per day' abilities.) It's easy enough to challenge a group without them having actual 'weaknesses' to exploit.

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.)

Different classes should definitely appeal to different people. I'd never want to play a game of D&D geared to only appeal to the people who enjoy to play Bards, for instance, or only Book of Nine Swords fans.

It definitely doesn't look like all of the 4th ed classes will be different types of damage dealers, in fact, they sound a lot more like MMORPG party makeups, with 'support' classes and 'crowd controllers' and the like. I'm not sure I like that notion as much as the idea of just plain classes that can then be customized as desired. (For instance, I can play a Fighter or a Sorcerer as a battlefield-controller *or* a damage dealer. I don't have a niche handed to me, but I can sure as heck carve one out for myself.)

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

Clerics, Druids, Fighters, Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Barbarians. I even played a Ranger / Rogue and a Bard that were fun, and those are two of my least favorite options!