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: 7958851" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>First, on the subject of the Noble, you'll note that Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionheart are fighters. This is an absolutely sensible choice - but e.g. Elanor of Aquitaine was definitely not a fighter.</p><p></p><p>Second one of the things 3.0 noticed was that D&D 2e (well, any edition) was awful at actually modelling history or even fantasy fiction. There's the notorious early Dragon letter pointing out that Gandalf was fifth level.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And this quite frequently made them absolutely hilarious. You can not add magic being handed out without doing things to the social order. And D&D's grasp of what Medieval Europe actually was was ... interesting to say the least. Even the armour types are incredibly odd. D&D's grasp of history would make the average SCAdian consider their own court to be realistic by contrast.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It was hardly an alien one - it was just a failed one and one people were laughing at at the time.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You asked about the core rules <em>in later editions</em>. It's right there in the thread title. It's right there in the tags. If you meant which classes should have been core in a hypothetical 3.5 greatest hits edition (or Pathfinder) then say that. Because as you phrased it you are asking about what would have been good to take going forward rather than which classes were good for 3.5 because they did something to fix the straightjacketed nature of that game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And most of them were there because 3.X locked down so much.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>When you talked about later editions</strong>. Later editions where the magic system wasn't as straightjacketed as it had been in 3.5 and therefore classes that existed as escape attempts to hard Vancian casting (notably the sorcerer, favoured soul, and mystic) didn't have half the interest.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I explicitly talked about that and pointed out that your "character concept" was hard-coded into the mechanics of D&D 3.5. Unless you have something to say why your "character concept" was not something tightly tied to the 3.5 rules and what doesn't fit the core class with 5e spellcasting I can't see a single reason what you wanted wasn't what the 5e cleric actually did. It wasn't a character concept you wanted. It was, so far as I can tell, a specific 3.5 mechanical patch - a patch that is not present because there is no leak for it to cover.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But to talk about that you need to talk about the actual later editions and to understand how the magic system works in them. Because it isn't the same way as it works in 3.5. You have continued to ignore this point and continually failed to say what other than a more improvised form of casting you wanted out of them.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand you could talk about what you would have wanted extra in 3.5 and which the best base classes were.</p><p></p><p>Now I don't care about 3.5. I do care about classes and about character concepts which is why the thread drew me in. I strongly disagree with the idea of a noble as a class because of this but found the idea that there must be at least some gold in that plethora of character classes to be interesting and was really hoping for someone to come out and sell me on why e.g. the Dread Necromancer was an awesome class because that would give me something to loot and homebrew. So far I've been disappointed but entirely unsurprised.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 7958851, member: 87792"] First, on the subject of the Noble, you'll note that Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionheart are fighters. This is an absolutely sensible choice - but e.g. Elanor of Aquitaine was definitely not a fighter. Second one of the things 3.0 noticed was that D&D 2e (well, any edition) was awful at actually modelling history or even fantasy fiction. There's the notorious early Dragon letter pointing out that Gandalf was fifth level. And this quite frequently made them absolutely hilarious. You can not add magic being handed out without doing things to the social order. And D&D's grasp of what Medieval Europe actually was was ... interesting to say the least. Even the armour types are incredibly odd. D&D's grasp of history would make the average SCAdian consider their own court to be realistic by contrast. It was hardly an alien one - it was just a failed one and one people were laughing at at the time. You asked about the core rules [I]in later editions[/I].[I] [/I]It's right there in the thread title. It's right there in the tags. If you meant which classes should have been core in a hypothetical 3.5 greatest hits edition (or Pathfinder) then say that. Because as you phrased it you are asking about what would have been good to take going forward rather than which classes were good for 3.5 because they did something to fix the straightjacketed nature of that game. And most of them were there because 3.X locked down so much. [B]When you talked about later editions[/B]. Later editions where the magic system wasn't as straightjacketed as it had been in 3.5 and therefore classes that existed as escape attempts to hard Vancian casting (notably the sorcerer, favoured soul, and mystic) didn't have half the interest. And I explicitly talked about that and pointed out that your "character concept" was hard-coded into the mechanics of D&D 3.5. Unless you have something to say why your "character concept" was not something tightly tied to the 3.5 rules and what doesn't fit the core class with 5e spellcasting I can't see a single reason what you wanted wasn't what the 5e cleric actually did. It wasn't a character concept you wanted. It was, so far as I can tell, a specific 3.5 mechanical patch - a patch that is not present because there is no leak for it to cover. But to talk about that you need to talk about the actual later editions and to understand how the magic system works in them. Because it isn't the same way as it works in 3.5. You have continued to ignore this point and continually failed to say what other than a more improvised form of casting you wanted out of them. On the other hand you could talk about what you would have wanted extra in 3.5 and which the best base classes were. Now I don't care about 3.5. I do care about classes and about character concepts which is why the thread drew me in. I strongly disagree with the idea of a noble as a class because of this but found the idea that there must be at least some gold in that plethora of character classes to be interesting and was really hoping for someone to come out and sell me on why e.g. the Dread Necromancer was an awesome class because that would give me something to loot and homebrew. So far I've been disappointed but entirely unsurprised. [/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