What Core Class was actually fun to play

[simply not edible]

1. I think, of the examples given here, the rogue had the most to complain about. I've seen campaigns built around 110% undead encounters (at least they felt like it, but then again I have grown a disliking for undead and tend to exaggerate (a lot)), so imagine the fun running a simple, low-level rogue there, with your dagger and possibly negative Strength modifier... No fun and games.

2. Sure, there should be drawbacks. I don't think anybody besides a total munchkin would say otherwise, and even most munchkins would (hopefully) say that the drawback is part of the challenge when making a powerful build. Only, your drawbacks should not be so present that you have a serious chance of not participating for lengthy parts of the game (you know, like combat).

3. This is where I hope the roles come in - whereas first, yo needed a Cleric, if all goes well, you will now only need a Leader, leaving up to the player what kind of Leader they would prefer to play. Same for any other role. I hope to see a game where any 4-player party with all the Roles properly filled is considered balanced, regardless of what casses are used to fill those roles.

4. I have only played 3.5, but I have enjoyed most of the caracters I've played intensely. Mostly because I intend to just get at that table and enjoy myself - and mostly being surrounded by players with those same goals. And those classes where by no means limited to those usually considered "good" classes. I enjoyed m Bard for almost two years in the IK, slowly cracking under the pressure of having official command over the group, had great fun with my dwarf Monk/Zerth Cenobite and his overly acrobatic shenanigans ("I hit that guy" "But he's across the room, on te second floor balcony..." "So, tat would be how many Jumps, Tumbles, and Climbs?" -- all that and then miss the punch, d*mn it, but I enjoyed getting there!), and I absolutely love my little Necromancer with all my heart, twisted as he may be (casting blindness on party members is the logical thing to do, sometimes). I'm currently getting as much as I can out of a Dragon Shaman, and that's geat fun, too.

The only thing I don't think I'll end up playing anymore, though I wish I cold, is the Scout. Don't see a new opportunity come up short of a character dying, and I never plan for that.

Thankfully, 4th seems to be having some classes that sound interesting as well. Think I might end up trying a Paladin or Warlord - especially the latter sounds like much fun to me.

As long as the options are interesting and viable, I'd say i'm good to go. And "interesting and viable" does imply that they should not be total Gods from the get-go. I don't want to have to try and build sub-optimally just so the other players can join in on the fun.

 

[Mort]

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...

It's not a question of "fun" to play - all the classes could be very fun to play. It's a question of what would make the classes more fun to play - or shoring up the places where a class was "no fun" while still maintaining a challenging environment and ensuring a minimum of role infringement.

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

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

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

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

It's not a question of "fun" to play - all the classes could be very fun to play. It's a question of what would make the classes more fun to play - or shoring up the places where a class was "no fun" while still maintaining a challenging environment and ensuring a minimum of role infringement.

1. Do you agree with the above sentiments?

Mostly, yes I agree but there were many other factors. As above, there is nothing wrong with trying to make fun classes even more fun to play.

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

This question is overly leading and, more so, it's a strawman because it's stating that there are no drawbacks to character choice in 4th edition (even with the limited amount of info we have, this is blatantly untrue). "Different drawbacks" is not "no drawbacks." (I like the above analogy of "before it was -5 to 5 now it's 0 to 10" and hope it proves apt for 4e.

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.)

Love it or hate it - D&D has a lot to do with combat. When gearing toward rules balance, the great majority of effort is, and should be, focused here. My understanding is that 4e tries to balance this out and also has a social resolution mechanic which should reward charismatic characters (we'll see how this plays out but at least they seem to be trying).
I hate the notion that as long as you're good at something you're balanced. This falls apart when somebody is good at something applicable 90% of the time and the other person is good at something applicable 10% of the time. And yes a good DM can make this work, but a good DM can cover up many sins attributed to any game system and should not be the bar to judge by.

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

I DM'd almost exclusively for 3e and 3.5 but I did get to play some and had a blast with all the characters I did get to try (cleric, ranger, fighter/mage, warblade).
The most fun I had was with a fighter/mage (played levels 5-12) and a warblade (2 sessions at level 10) - they key to both of these characters - little to no item dependency[edit: to add: but still a large number of fun options]! A trend they seem to be advocating in 4e.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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

What makes you think there will be no drawbacks in 4e?

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

This is the wrong question. Ofc 3e was fun, otherwise no one would've played it. The question is, what changes would make it more fun.

 

[jdrakeh]

1. I think, of the examples given here, the rogue had the most to complain about. I've seen campaigns built around 110% undead encounters (at least they felt like it, but then again I have grown a disliking for undead and tend to exaggerate (a lot)), so imagine the fun running a siple, low-level rogue there, with your dagger and possibly negative Strength modifier... No fun and games.

Well, in fairness, this is only an issue if the campaign is built largely (or purely) around combat. The Rogue that I mentioned earlier was of great use whenever the party needed to enter negotiations with NPCs. And, yes, he was pretty horrible in combat -- but so was Cugel (the fictional character that I modeled my Rogue on).

True to Cugel, in character, I often bragged about how great I was with my rapier (I had the bluff and intimidate skill ranks to make it seem legit) but then would conveniently find myself away from battles (not just with undead, but most battles period) much to the chagrin of my companions.

Said companions would typically be pretty upset about that until they realized that they needed somebody to lie their way into someplace they shouldn't be, pick somebody's pockets, or perform any other number of larcenous acts with competence. No other party member could even begin to approach my chraracter's level of competence in these areas, and I can't count how many times I saved their proverbial bacon.

Outside of combat.

This is where the 3x Rogue really shines.

I think 4e needs to retain this, while shoring up the combat aspects.

 

[The Little Raven]

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

As stated, you are completely misrepresenting the argument. It's never been stated "3.X isn't fun," it's been stated that "since we've had 8 years to mess with the innards of 3.X, we've discovered problem areas that need to be fixed, rough areas that need to be smoothed out, and things that work pretty well." New mechanics come out, new things get tried, and problems with the system become noticeable or new systems are good enough to be shifted to the core rules. It was the same with 2e, it's just going faster because the 3e mechanics were far more logical and refined, and WotC gathers way more player feedback than TSR did.

As for fun... I'd say I got roughly 5 years of fun out of 3.X from various campaigns.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ah.

1. Do you agree with the above sentiments?

In part. I agree these were things that would kill the buzz. That is to be avoided.

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

It's not about not having drawbacks. It's about having interesting drawbacks that are still fun to play. The problem with the cleric spending his actions buffing his teammates was that it isn't fun to just give people bonuses (most of the time). This is a psychological thing. It's not active, it doesn't change the world, it just helps others to change it, it's passive. The problem with the rogue sneak attacking undead is the whole "my abilities are entirely dependent on the DM's whim" problem. The issue with the wizard running out of spells is similar -- depending on the DM's adventure, this becomes a weakness. The fighter's issue is pretty endemic, related to the narrow focus of the class. It's not fun to be able to do just one thing.

This isn't about not having drawbacks. It's about making sure that the drawbacks are still fun to play. Active drawbacks, drawbacks that are about your choice and not the DM's, drawbacks that aren't just mistakes in design. Wizards still have the lowest hit points. That's a drawback. Fighters still can't dish out constant piles of damage. That's a drawback. Rogues still are paper tigers. That's a drawback. Clerics are still probably "second fiddle everythings." That's a drawback.

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.)

Well, yeah, I do think that's true about 4th ed classes that we've seen hints of, but I think that's because 4e is intensely focused around combat. I bet combat will kill social interaction and take it's stuff (which means that even social encounters will run under combat mechanics).

But I also think that the 4 big pillars of an adventuring party should be able to be filled by anyone. I shouldn't need to make friends with someone who enjoys being a support character in order to get someone to play a cleric. Any of my existing friends should be able to fill that role.

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

It's not about being fun, it's about being more fun for the effort put in.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

1. More or less. Having played a rogue under a DM that threw us into an adventure where everything was either construct or undead, not being able to use one of my big class abilities got really aggravating real fast. And I've heard plenty of cleric players gripping about being nothing more than a walking band-aid dispenser, as most of their spells wound up being spent on healing than doing other stuff. I've only seen one instance of CoDzilla, and it was a druid oddly enough.

2. Drawbacks should be there, but they shouldn't be arbritary nor should they be completely insurmountable. Just becuase the fighter isn't intended to dish out huge damage like a rogue shouldn't mean he can't have the chance to heavy damage if need be, or have to play second-fiddle/meatshield to the blaster casters. Nor should the blaster-caster always be forced to cower behind the meatshields for fear of getting clobbered.

3. I think it's still a little early to judge just what class is going to be what in 4e beyond the descriptors of "defender, striker, leader, and controller." If 4e does go the talent/feat combo that SWSE went, then it could very well be possible to mix-and-match according to taste. In Races&Classes, there is plenty of mention of feats that let one class pick-up aspects of another role (such as wizards gaining some fighter abilities as a specified example), so if somebody wants a warmage or a duskblade type of character, from the sounds of it they'd be able to get something like that from the word go.

4. Warblade. Tracking maneuvers used and actions was a lot more interesting than the fighter's "I full-attack the whatever it is we're fighting" without being as tedious or unforgiving as cleric/druid/wizard spells. Yeah, the focus was on beatsticking, but that's exactly what I was angling to play for that campaign.

 

[GlassJaw]

1. Do you agree with the above sentiments?

Nope. I can make playing any class fun.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

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

New option: Everyone can heal to some point, so now fighting will be less fun because there is less risk.

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

New option: When my attack works with everything I'm really just a fighter in disguise. Eventually the universitality will get boring. [Just look how boredpeople got with the fighter in 3e]

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

New option: 4e wizards can now be what the 3.5e warlock was!

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

New option: Still will be outclasses by the other classes cool stuff that is more than swingsword and fight.



Now, I'll confess that I don't agree with anythig written above, even my own text. My pointis that itisa total frame of reference thing. Just look at WotC pre- and post- announcement of the new edition. Pre-announcement WotC was all "Look at these cool new books coming out like Bo9S and PHBII and ToM." From our place in history, we can now see the man behind the curtain who was also saying "because this is a good preview of the general direction of 4ebecause 3.5 is really irreparably broken."

It is a perspective thing. I found all the core classes fun to play mechanically. Thematically, I don't personally care for shapechanging, so I didn't likedruids or certain wizards/sorcerers. But that's just my thing. And it is totally a frame of reference thing. I enjoyed my timein 3.x.

 

[Zaruthustran]

1. Do you agree with the above sentiments?

No. I think what the 4e hypesters are trying to communicate is not that the core classes were UNfun, but that they have serious design flaws that--if solved--could make those four classes MORE fun.

One of the roles of the cleric, for example, is to heal. But since NO OTHER class could really fill that role at higher levels (a rogue, paladin, or ranger with wand is a poor substitute), clerics sometimes devolved into walking bandaid dispensers. Clerics have a phenomenal spell list, but too often they don't get to use those cool spells because they have to spend their actions (and spells per day) on the boring task of healing.

That's a design flaw. It's not "broken", but it's a flaw in design.

4e is proposing that the cleric can deliver the fun that comes from helping out your buddies while still allowing the cleric player the fun of kicking butt and doing cool divine magic.

Same goes for wizards. Wizards are terribly flawed--the entire party's activity cycle is determined by one player of one class. Once the wizard is out of spells the whole party has to stop, because it's just not fun to play a wizard who has "run out" of magic. It's not fun to even be in a party where you everyone else is doing cool things, but the wizard player just has his guy plink away with a crossbow every turn. Again, consumables are a poor patch for this design flaw.

Rogues, same thing: design flaw. They fill the role of skill guy, social guy, traps guy, big-damage-from-striking-from-position-of-advantage guy. Every single one of those roles--everything that defines the class and makes it cool--can be taken totally obviated. If the campaign happens to go in a direction where the only foes are golems and mindless undead, the rogue is going to be sad.

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

That's not a question; it's a statement. And I think it's incorrect. 4e is not all about "having no drawbacks".

It seems to me that 4e class design is all about making sure each class is able to fulfill its role, all the time. In 3e, every time a fighter swings his weapon and hits, he gets to roll damage. I think that inherent dependability and reliability of fulfilling class role will be extended to all classes. That seems like a good thing. If my 4E rogue is able to get the drop on a foe, I want him to be able to get extra damage. I don't care if the target is a plant, animal, or elemental. He's a clever rogue, he's striking from a position of advantage, and he should get his Sneak Attack dice.

That doesn't mean that the rogue doesn't have disadvantages, or that all classes are equally good at all roles.

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

In a word, no.

A more elegant design would be for ALL classes to be enjoyable by ALL types of players. I hope 4E's approach to basic class design, feats, and multiclassing enable this.

Enjoy managing resources and planning ahead? In 3e you're limited to the wizard, and to a lesser degree the other primary casting classes. If you'd like to exercise those skills but have your guy swing a sword, you're out of luck. There's only one type of fighter: Big Dumb. You run up, you roll a d20, and you hope their HP total drops faster than yours. Your in-combat choices are limited to field position, how much to spend on Power Attack, and maybe whether or not you're going to attempt a Disarm, Trip, Sunder, or Grapple (but that's not really a choice, because the only time you'd want to attempt those tricks is if your character is specifically built for it--and if it is, that's ALL you'll want to do).

I think 4E is going to put interesting choices into every class, and also extend core reliability of being able to basically fill a roll into every class.

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

For me, the "fun" of the game is determined by the quality of the other players at the table--not by the quality of the mechanics. I've played really awfully-designed games and had a blast, and I've played decent games (like 3E) with crummy players and had a terrible time.

That said, my favorite 3E (whether .0 or .5; it's the same edition and same core game) characters were characters that could do their thing all day long, and still had interesting choices and opportunities. I now realize that every single one of my 3E characters were multiclassed (which itself raises a suspicion that 3E classes are flawed), usually a bit of rogue with a bit of a spellcasting class with a bit of a +1 BAB/level class (ideally a class with a spell list, what for to be able to use wands). My favorite character was a rogue/ranger/fighter/scout/wildrunner/shadowdancer. Second favorite was a fighter 1/wizard 12.