What Core Class was actually fun to play

[Imaro]

I noticed alot of people thought I was being unfair with question #2 ...so let me remove that questiion and ask this...

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.

 

[Cadfan]

I consider Imaro's post borderline trolling, but what the heck.

1: The fact that a class has unfun aspects does not mean that the class itself is totally unfun. For example, a campaign heavily focusing on undead has significant "unfun" aspects for a sneak attacking rogue who hasn't got special noncore items available to let him sneak attack the undead. This doesn't make the rogue 100% unfun.

There are a lot of ways that the fun aspects of a class can be retained, while the crappy aspects removed or alleviated.

2: The fact that you interpret comments and criticism of the core classes as people claiming that their classes shouldn't have drawbacks says more about you than it does about the people making complaints, or about the content of their complaints. The dispute is, and has always been, about the nature of the drawbacks each class should face.

3: The "make everyone good at something, but not necessarily combat" style is one possible design style. I happen to think its a terrible, terrible, horrible awful design style.

There's two ways to diversify characters. The first is to make everyone good at a different type of scenario. You could have the melee specialist, the ranged specialist, the diplomat, and the skillful character. The problem is that you end up in this situation- if you're in a diplomatic situation, three characters are sitting on their hands. If you're in a skill situation, three characters are sitting on their hands. If you're in a melee situation, a couple characters might as well be sitting on their hands. Take this to extremes, and you get Shadowrun.

The other option is to give everyone something they can do in each type of situation, but make the something each person can do different from the next person. Each character has a combat role, a skill role, and a social role. Now everyone can be involved in every type of encounter.

I think that's a massive, massive improvement over the "Negotiations? I'll get the pizza while you handle it" situation. I also think its the approach that 4e is taking. I'm quite excited by this.

4: Nothing. I played D&D for years while hating it with the fires of a thousand suns. I would have quit, but my DM had chained me to my chair.

Seriously, a mature person is capable of enjoying 3e, recognizing its flaws, and hoping that they're improved upon in 4e.

This "you're either with us or against us" attitude is starting to really get to me. I'm a fan of what I'm seeing in 4e. I was, and am, a fan of 3e. I also was, and am, a fan of BECM. You don't have to pick just one.

 

[Will]

I also think some buffs are more fun than others, though this is a taste thing.

For example, giving everyone in my group flight, or invisibility, or waterwalking, haste? Those are fun buffs.

+1 to attack, +1 saves vs. fear?

Boring as dirt. And annoying to track, particularly once you have a few of them.

 

[Imaro]

I consider Imaro's post borderline trolling, but what the heck.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and if my questions are worded to cause offense I apologize...but I really am interested in understanding and discussing this line of development reasoning (and so far have found many of the responses entertaining and enlightening...which is why I haven't posted on the subject again...really trying to digest other views). I've already removed question 2, after seeing that it touched a nerve with people, so no I'm not trying to troll.

EDIT: I feel like you may be bringing the us against them attitude into the post, personally I'm on the fence about 4e, I don't post about things I like (well except the new racial diversity with demi-humans) because I don't need to better understand the reasoning for them...I already like them. However if I feel something seems off or doesn't sound right why not bring it up for discussion? Perhaps in the end I will get a better understanding of it. I'm already starting to feel that way about the class design.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1. Do you agree with the above sentiments?

Not at all.

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

IMHO, no. Classes with weaknesses encourage teamwork.

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

Its one way of doing things, but not neccessary to have a good RPG- see games like GURPS or my personal fave, HERO.

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

I've played all of the core classes, and had fun with each. I passed on most of the alternative core classes from the Complete books- I didn't like the mechanics of most of them. I wasn't allowed to play any of the psionics or incarnum classes, but thought several of them looked cool (and I've seen several of them in play by other players).

 

[Cbas_10]

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.

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.

Okay, I can kind of understand the fighter complaint (though I wonder how the fighter will fare in 4th ed. where everybody seems highly capable in what has traditionally been his/her role)...but the rest of these just seem like arguments along the lines of "my character should have no drawbacks." What I'm asking is...

1. Do you agree with the above sentiments?

Nope. Not even a little bit.

Hack, slash, loot, optimize for the next battle....hack, slash, loot, optimize some more is a style that is lots of fun within a mindless video/computer/console game. But it is more of a chore in a tabletop RPG. However, I do realize that I'm in the minority; I'm far more interested in playing an interesting character, interacting with intriguing NPCs, and participating in a rich storyline. 3.X was certainly designed for adventuring and killing stuff to be the core of the game, but it was also designed to be versatile enough to support other playing styles as well.

My decisions with clerics had nothing to do with deciding between hitting or healing; my decisions dealt with deciding the style of character it was going to be: should I play a totally selfless, generous cleric of Pelor...or should I play a hard-nosed, pull-your-own-weight cleric of Heironeous?

Rogues have so much going for them, depending on sneak attack for the only path to success means that the versatility of their skills (and, thus, variety of character concepts) is being ignored. *yawn*

Of course, wizards run out of spells. Wizards are a more strategic character than other classes. That is part of the challenge and appeal for me. They also have a number of skills that few other characters possess. Knowledges, research, and being a channel for arcane lore certainly has a place in the game...and there really are interesting things to do in the game outside of combat!

Outclassed in damage at higher levels? I've never even thought of that concept...I've never seen this possibility. I've played a couple of mid-high level fighters and got bored pretty quickly when I started flinging multiple attacks, landing near-common critical hits, cleaving, laying waste, and more. Fighters can be very effective AND versatile with the HUGE number of feats they get.

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

Well, as much as I have been paranoid about classes losing weaknesses (Duh! what do you think is going to happen when the bookworm wizard that has never spent time on a battlefield encounters and ogre in a dark alleyway? Ding! Wizard becomes a greasy puddle in the cobblestone if he can't get out of there fast.) in 4e, I doub't if it will be as bad as initially feared. Plus, having weaknesses and drawbacks is part of what draws a group together. We (characters in a party) not only work together, but we compliment each other's strengths and weaknesses. It's called "working together and cooperating."

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.)

I totally agree with you, and this has become my main hesitation about messing around with 4E. Some players like all hack-and-slash; some players like micromanaged sheets of 256 types of spell components, some players like near-diceless games of social intrigue. It's all good; I'm not of the camp of people that say everyone should play "my style." 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.

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

D&D 3.x was pretty fun for the last 8 years (and will continue to be fun in the future...). Hmm...I get the impression that you are asking about more specific examples. I had the most fun as a dungeon master. A subtle combination of creating storylines, using the rules to come up with original and interesting adversaries, being able to emphasize or ignore various rules in order to give the game "just the right mood and theme" (and without breaking the other rules in the process!). As a player, the most fun I had was with my Privateer Captain (looked like a rogue and swashbuckler, but was a simple fighter with interesting choices of feats and skills, including Leadership).

 

[Moon-Lancer]

the funnest class I ever played was the druid. Its lots of work maintaining, but it was well worth it.

 

[Remathilis]

To answer your question

I did have fun playing 3.5. However, I saw each of those complaints appear during my time as a player and DM. The rogue (often me) who couldn't hit (or deal any meaningful damage) to save his soul often becoming a wizard-in-a-stick UMD+Wand mage or be otherwise useless trap-detection kit at higher level. I saw cleric players frustrated that their only choice in the round was "who is getting healed THIS round" and unable to use any of the evocative spells on their list. I saw wizards using crossbows to save that last "magic missile" or having to rest every 3 rooms of the dungeon. I saw fighters who wanted more options OUT of combat and other things to do IN combat than role 3-4 attacks in a round.

In all honesty though, these are just extensions of what high-level play in ANY previous edition of D&D looked like. 2e's versions of these problems were even WORSE.

It seems 4e is fixing all of those moments when we would complain. Good for them. If they succeed, I'll have a lot less to complain about.

 

[Conjurer]

1. Do you agree with the above sentiments?

Not in the slightest.

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.)

Given that combat is such an important part of D&D, all the classes should be usefull to combat situations. Out of combat situations take care of themselves.

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

Except for Bards, I played all the core classes and the only one I disliked was the Sorceror.
I played all the core races, and only disliked the Half-Elf.
I played FR, a homebrewed version of Grayhawk and Eberron.
I DMd (and still DM) a Generic Homebrew.
I've played with 4 diferent groups (about 30 people total), most of which have been really fun (and those who weren't, only two were really upsetting)

I'm particularly fond of the following characters that I've played:

Aurim d'Callais (NG) Human Generalist Wizard with delussions of grandeur.
Athor Ryke (LG) Human Fighter/Paladin a mercenary that later on found faith.
Decimus Meridius (CN) Human Fighter/Rogue/Duelist who was a duplicitous, backstabing spy.
Rynn (LN) Dwarf Fighter/Wizard/Spellsword, an aprentice weaponsmith who was exiled. He wanted to show up the old nay sayers from his old clan by making the ultimate magic weapon.
Bellario Locris (N) Changeling Conjurer/Master Specialist who was an elitist and wannabe armchair general, with poor grasp of martial tactics (and blames the dumb barbarian everytime a plan misfares). Still playing this guy.

 

[Will]

Hack, slash, loot, optimize for the next battle....hack, slash, loot, optimize some more is a style that is lots of fun within a mindless video/computer/console game. But it is more of a chore in a tabletop RPG. However, I do realize that I'm in the minority; I'm far more interested in playing an interesting character, interacting with intriguing NPCs, and participating in a rich storyline.

See, this is why I'm hugely in favor of combat balance being bolted into the system at the outset; I never have to worry about being 'useless' in combat, if that's what the group is in the mood for, and can devote my focus to making an entertaining, interesting character.

On the other hand, finding out that I've inadvertantly painted my character into 'really good at haggling but nothing else,' I get really annoyed.

I want 'everyone has cool stuff to do in combat' BECAUSE I don't want to focus on combat, as contrary as that sounds.