Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
What D&D 3e/3.5e classes do you wish had become core in later editions?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 7958802" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>And almost none of those heroes gets to take their tutors with them. They drink the same booze as the rest of the party, eat the same food, and get stabbed by the same swords. And in parties they hold up their share, not doing things outside the normal range of the rest of the PCs.</p><p></p><p>Give me these "heroes of fantasy" in mainstream fantasy novels please. Because, other than for cases where being a noble either makes the character an obvious NPC, I can't think of any where there isn't a class that fits.</p><p></p><p>And as mentioned above I listed a set of Game of Thrones nobles, all of whom have noble as a background - but even Cersei and Jaime Lannister do not belong in the same class despite being brother and sister. Neither do Jon, Arya, and Sansa despite being siblings (ish). But giving them all the same background makes sense.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't think of much that goes beyond the level of a background except in the cases where the reason nobles are nobles is because they are powerful spellcasters and have a near monopoly on magic.</p><p></p><p>Could you name these precedents please? There are plenty where a noble background is relevant - but could you name some where the class is?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Indeed. That's why more sensible editions don't force NPCs into the mold of adventurers, using the same classes that professional adventurers have. Taking a Game of Thrones example, Margaery Tyrell is a great character - but is entirely unsuited as a player character for most D&D games.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First <em>all</em> versions of dungeons and dragons have a very limited skill sytem. 3.0 and 3.5 have the magic user/muggle divide meaning that their skills aren't that useful unless they are absolutely broken. 4e and 5e have more or less the same skill system. And Non-Weapon Proficiencies are a subordinate bodge-job tacked on to the side of D&D. And the only later editions after 3.5 are 4e and 5e.</p><p></p><p>I cut my roleplaying teeth on GURPS and WFRP. I use Fate fairly regularly, and am currently in a campaign using World of Darkness rules. The idea that there is any edition of D&D with a focal skill system is to me frankly risible. 4e and 5e have the two best skill systems in D&D because at least they are doing light skill systems pretty well rather than creating arbitrary and haphazard messes that serve to restrict rather than enable DMs and PCs alike.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is a huge difference fluff wise between "I get my powers from random stuff that only impacts how I act by giving me powers" and "I literally made a bargain with an overwhelming force for my powers". If you think that the fluff there is the same between having made bargains for your powers and getting them by inheriting them I wonder what you think that fluff actually is. And which mechanics are you calling counter-intuitive?</p><p></p><p>Indeed "something other than study"? There's a huge range there and that you lock them all into one box is something I find confusing. Maybe they're born with it, maybe they literally sold their soul for it. I find these two on opposite sides of study.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Noble and Artificer don't belong in any core edition because they have a cripplingly strong effect on the world building. This doesn't make the artificer a bad class - it makes it a very much setting specific class.</p><p></p><p>Sorcerer , Mystic, and Favoured Soul are patches in D&D 3.5 for how much of a straightjacket Gygaxo-Vancian casting is and how much some people hate it. Seriously, the fluff for favoured soul is "chosen by their God to wield divine power" - literally the same as a cleric. However 5e doesn't actually use Gygaxo-Vancian casting so all three of these classes should be utterly redundant. The sorcerer goes in by virtue of being in the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB - but few would notice if you pulled the sorcerer out entirely and replaced it with a Metamagic Arcane Tradition.</p><p></p><p>The Marshal isn't in there because the Warlord is a much better version of the same concept and the anti-4e edition hated it. And the knight should be a fighter.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah yes. That famous rule that more or less prevents professional concert pianists from being bards. And that 4e and 5e both wisely dumped for being utterly ridiculous. Citing a bad rule that is only present in older editions to justify creating an entire class is ... odd.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 7958802, member: 87792"] And almost none of those heroes gets to take their tutors with them. They drink the same booze as the rest of the party, eat the same food, and get stabbed by the same swords. And in parties they hold up their share, not doing things outside the normal range of the rest of the PCs. Give me these "heroes of fantasy" in mainstream fantasy novels please. Because, other than for cases where being a noble either makes the character an obvious NPC, I can't think of any where there isn't a class that fits. And as mentioned above I listed a set of Game of Thrones nobles, all of whom have noble as a background - but even Cersei and Jaime Lannister do not belong in the same class despite being brother and sister. Neither do Jon, Arya, and Sansa despite being siblings (ish). But giving them all the same background makes sense. I can't think of much that goes beyond the level of a background except in the cases where the reason nobles are nobles is because they are powerful spellcasters and have a near monopoly on magic. Could you name these precedents please? There are plenty where a noble background is relevant - but could you name some where the class is? Indeed. That's why more sensible editions don't force NPCs into the mold of adventurers, using the same classes that professional adventurers have. Taking a Game of Thrones example, Margaery Tyrell is a great character - but is entirely unsuited as a player character for most D&D games. First [I]all[/I] versions of dungeons and dragons have a very limited skill sytem. 3.0 and 3.5 have the magic user/muggle divide meaning that their skills aren't that useful unless they are absolutely broken. 4e and 5e have more or less the same skill system. And Non-Weapon Proficiencies are a subordinate bodge-job tacked on to the side of D&D. And the only later editions after 3.5 are 4e and 5e. I cut my roleplaying teeth on GURPS and WFRP. I use Fate fairly regularly, and am currently in a campaign using World of Darkness rules. The idea that there is any edition of D&D with a focal skill system is to me frankly risible. 4e and 5e have the two best skill systems in D&D because at least they are doing light skill systems pretty well rather than creating arbitrary and haphazard messes that serve to restrict rather than enable DMs and PCs alike. There is a huge difference fluff wise between "I get my powers from random stuff that only impacts how I act by giving me powers" and "I literally made a bargain with an overwhelming force for my powers". If you think that the fluff there is the same between having made bargains for your powers and getting them by inheriting them I wonder what you think that fluff actually is. And which mechanics are you calling counter-intuitive? Indeed "something other than study"? There's a huge range there and that you lock them all into one box is something I find confusing. Maybe they're born with it, maybe they literally sold their soul for it. I find these two on opposite sides of study. Noble and Artificer don't belong in any core edition because they have a cripplingly strong effect on the world building. This doesn't make the artificer a bad class - it makes it a very much setting specific class. Sorcerer , Mystic, and Favoured Soul are patches in D&D 3.5 for how much of a straightjacket Gygaxo-Vancian casting is and how much some people hate it. Seriously, the fluff for favoured soul is "chosen by their God to wield divine power" - literally the same as a cleric. However 5e doesn't actually use Gygaxo-Vancian casting so all three of these classes should be utterly redundant. The sorcerer goes in by virtue of being in the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB - but few would notice if you pulled the sorcerer out entirely and replaced it with a Metamagic Arcane Tradition. The Marshal isn't in there because the Warlord is a much better version of the same concept and the anti-4e edition hated it. And the knight should be a fighter. Ah yes. That famous rule that more or less prevents professional concert pianists from being bards. And that 4e and 5e both wisely dumped for being utterly ridiculous. Citing a bad rule that is only present in older editions to justify creating an entire class is ... odd. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
What D&D 3e/3.5e classes do you wish had become core in later editions?
Top