What Core Class was actually fun to play

[Rechan]

There's a quote in R&C that I really like.

When the game gets to the point where we know the holes and pitfalls of the rules well enough that we constrain our design in order to avoid them, it's time for a new set of rules.

I think that applies to the issue of classes and at least mechanical balance and the like.

 

[Cbas_10]

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?

Well, to clarify, I am not worried about avoiding hack-and-slash...I am worried about being stuck with only being able to play hack-and-slash. As far as why I am concerned about this...one good example is the issue of roles. Recently I started a thread with more clarification of "Roles", their importance, and their function. This seems to be a good answer to my question:

From what we've seen so far, a striker is a character who does lots of damage to a single target. They are high damage characters who rely on mobility to protect them from damage. The warlock, the ranger and the rogue have been mentioned as strikers. Controllers control the battlefield. A wizard who uses area effect spells to deal damage to large groups of a foes at once, or who uses spells to create obstacles (solid fog, cloud kill, wall of fire, etc...) is a controller. A leader is not necessarily the party leader, but the character whose abilities improve their allies abilities. In 4e, they also can heal others in the party. Clerics and warlords have been mentioned as leaders. Presumably bards (when they appear) will be arcane leaders. Defenders are those characters who are hard to take out of a fight. They protect the strikers and controllers, either through their large number of opportunity attacks (preventing foes from getting around them), or by charging foes and engaging them, making it very difficult for them to get past them.

The roles, functions of roles, where classes fall in this, and so many related concepts fall in the end....to how things work in combat. Nothing else is mentioned. Just combat. I know combat is part of D&D; how can heroic characters defeat the evil beast and save the day without combat? No problem; we need good rules, there.

But...to a number of us, there is more to D&D than just "fight, fight, fight, LOOT." I'm not jumping to conclusions and assuming that 4E will be such a 2-dimensional game...but...

...Where is the rest of the game? Why not let hints of non-combat stuff out to the blogs and message boards? Are the developers being tight-lipped for some uber-secret reason, or....*gasp*....is there nothing to be secretive about?

As far as how this relates to the original post and discussion, I think many of the "problems" cited by Imaro as theoretical reasons for the changes to classes and rules were, in my opinion, actually great to have in the game. When a character's usual schtick wouldn't cut it, it was time to improvise, think, and overcome challenges in new ways.

 

[Doug McCrae]

...Where is the rest of the game? Why not let hints of non-combat stuff out to the blogs and message boards? Are the developers being tight-lipped for some uber-secret reason, or....*gasp*....is there nothing to be secretive about?

From OD&D to 3e, the vast majority of the game text has been concerned with going down holes, killing the things that live there and taking their stuff. And rightly so, because that's what you need rules for. You don't need rules for talking in character, investigation and story. Some games do have rules for these things - Forge-y narrativist nonsense. Such games are very different from D&D.

Non-combat rules have been mentioned in the playtest reports. Rules for extended social challenges are touched on in one of Greg Bilsland's blog entries, I think its #1 or #2.

 

[The Little Raven]

The roles, functions of roles, where classes fall in this, and so many related concepts fall in the end....to how things work in combat.

Because the roles are "combat roles." Nothing more. They indicate that this class, when in combat, fills this role. Non-combat ability is completely separate from role.

But...to a number of us, there is more to D&D than just "fight, fight, fight, LOOT." I'm not jumping to conclusions and assuming that 4E will be such a 2-dimensional game...but...

Well, since they've openly stated that 4e will have a more robust social interaction system than any previous edition of D&D, I'd say you are jumping to conclusions. Hell, such a system would make 4e less a combat-only game than the previous editions, since they're providing more rules for non-combat systems.

 

[Ahglock]

I found it frustrating that you had to decide ahead of time what you were going to be good at, and then the DM throws stuff that your memorized spells don't do jack against.

Cleric: "We're going into the Swamp of Ickiness. Well, I'll memorize Delay Poison and Lesser Restoration, in case we get hit by wraiths or poisonous creatures."

DM: "Today you'll be facing trolls and lizardmen."

Cleric: "%$*#!"

For me I found situations like this to be awesome. You can't have highs without lows to compare them to. So every time I had a bad spell selection and it made my day harder it made it all the "cooler" when my spell selection made things easier. Also i found it fun to try and sometimes vainly find a way to use sub-optimal spells selection choices in ways to make them still useful.

 

[Ahglock]

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.

And I think that you are looking at the designers comments through some rose colored shades. They may not be saying it was totally unfun to play, but they do seem to be massively playing up some possible small flaws into be huge glaring flaws of epic proportions. Maybe not wreck the fun you could have with the class, but wreck entire evenings. I think he is misrepresenting the designers statements less than the designers are misrepresenting the "flaws".

 

[DSRilk]

All the core classes could be fun or horribly unfun. The problem was that it depended entirely upon the DM -- and imo, THIS is the problem that they're trying to solve in 4e.

Example: A DM loves undead and uses them as the main staple villains in the game. Well, your rogue is now a crippled fighter in combat.

Example: Your DM is an RP hound and loves the social skill checks. Your fighter is now worthless outside of combat with their 2 skill points a level and no class skill access to the social skills.

Example: Your DM enjoys back to back combats, so all your special abilities are either used up right away or are never used for fear that something worse is coming. Or your DM is forced into a one-real-encounter-per-day scenario.

There are many more, but I think I make my point. The solution is to eliminate as many of the scenario-dependent powers as possible (such as eliminating that majority of sneak attack immunity), making skills more accessible to all classes (level based skills plus merged skills), and encounter-based powers instead of everything being daily powers.

Do these things make the characters "more powerful?" Not if your DM ran a mostly sneak-attackable game with no undead (there's that whole problem of turn and the combat's over or miss the turn and the combat is now much more deadly) that only really had one combat encounter a day with most RP being based on real roleplaying and less on dice rolls. Under that kind of game construction, the character's will have the same level of power they used to. However, the main changes we're talking about here simply eliminate a DM's ability to (hopefully) accidentally maim a character's ability to fulfill the player's vision and get involved in all aspects of the game.

In the end, each of the 4e classes as they have been described will not be all powerful, but will be strong in certain areas, weak in others (though not crippled), and broadened in areas that restricted either the DM or other players.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Grapple is a headache and a half. If you don't have the Imp Grapple feat, try grappling that heavy hitting armor guy and see how quickly you're splattered.

Sunder = "Thanks Bill, there goes the magical weapon we could've used or sold." Also useless against monsters that don't bother to wield weapons.

Bullrush - "Oooh, he moved back 5'! He... takes a 5' step this round and is back where he started." Unless you're fighting on somewhere with narrow ledges, it's... not a fantastic option. When you're just in the middle of the forest or road, or in a dungeon with no hazards, which is most of the time, meh.

Disarm - Requires 2 feats to get to, rather than 1. Also is useless against monsters without weapons.

Grapple: It's best used against enemies like Rogues and Spellcasters. Against Giants or Dragons - forget it. If you use it often enough, you begin to understand the rules well enough. The important part of grappling though is not to damage your foe, but to keep him unable to act. Your parties Rogue or Cleric will have the honor of killing the foe, probably. (Which makes it a less useful tactic if you lack other "melees" in your party)

Sunder: If the enemy is using weapon,they aren't always that expensive. Think of it as using a scroll or potion - or if the weapon _was_ expensive, think of it as avoiding to pay for Raise Dead.

Bullrush: Best used in close quarters or near pits or keep your enemy away from your weaker friends. But the result often seems a bit too random (the d20 is still the bigger part of the roll)

Disarm: You really need a fighter for this route. But I think it can pay off often enough.

The mistake is to attempt to be good at only one of these options. Which makes it hard for any non-Fighter, and Fighters will have to sacrifice the "plain" but effective feats like Weapon Focus & co.

And sometimes (maybe too often in 3.x), the only thing you can do is use regular attack.
---

And I think that you are looking at the designers comments through some rose colored shades. They may not be saying it was totally unfun to play, but they do seem to be massively playing up some possible small flaws into be huge glaring flaws of epic proportions. Maybe not wreck the fun you could have with the class, but wreck entire evenings. I think he is misrepresenting the designers statements less than the designers are misrepresenting the "flaws".

It might be them misrepresenting them, but it might also just be their personal perception. They are game designers. They play the game a lot (maybe more often then most of us!). Any flaw they detect is in their face, all the time. I think that makes the flaws a lot more annoying to them then they are experienced by us. But that is probably not bad, because it makes them aim to avoid these flaws in the next edition. It might just be bad that it comes off as badmouthing 3.x.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

3.0 and 3.5, no matter how badass you are, there's always something that nullifies your abilities.

IMHO, that's a good thing- it lets others in the party shine while you're eclipsed. It also lets you explore what you can do to help your party when you can't affect the foe in question...IOW, teamwork.

Fun is where you find it. I think its great that the party Wizard got in a kill shot on a (young) dragon with Ray of Frost. I think its awesome that our gnome Monk finished off an Umber Hulk while my PC was unconscious (he didn't, but my PC didn't know any better, and that's the story that got told to the rest of the party when they showed up).

I found it frustrating that you had to decide ahead of time what you were going to be good at, and then the DM throws stuff that your memorized spells don't do jack against.

Cleric: "We're going into the Swamp of Ickiness. Well, I'll memorize Delay Poison and Lesser Restoration, in case we get hit by wraiths or poisonous creatures."

DM: "Today you'll be facing trolls and lizardmen."

Cleric: "%$*#!"

That is just one of those "$hi+ happens" things- just like happens in real life. Something very much like that caused me to have to retake the Texas Bar Exam.

Suxxors? Sure, but it can make for great roleplay in the Indiana Jones, "Why did it have to be snakes" trope of heroic character building events...

Cleric: We were surrounded, outnumbered, and virtually out of ammo & spells. Trolls & lizardmen working together? Who would have thought such an alliance could work, much less last? It was going to be the end of us...then I managed to light the swamp gas with my domain spell, Burning Hands! It set off a chain reaction of firey explosions that scattered them and gave us a path through them big enough to get to a more defensible position, which turned the tide permenantly in our favor...

Heh...Burning Hands: the only effective spell I cast that day except the healing after the melee.

 

[Steely Dan]

I think the best designed core classes (and most fun) of 3.5 were the barbarian and rogue (except for that worthless 20th level).