What edition had the ideal version of each class?

[DEFCON 1]

If iterative attacks are a reason to dislike the 3e fighter, is THAC0 a reason to dislike the 2e one?

Yeah, answers depend a lot on how the question is interpreted.

It's not even a matter of "disliking" them... just that other editions were more preferable overall.

For me, the downwards AC and THAC0 are enough to have me not vote for any class prior to 3E. Although truth be told, I prefer the fighter's 2E multiple attacks of 3/2, 2/1, 5/2 etc. over the degrading BAB of 3E (although I think the Close burst functionality of 4E trumps them both, even if you can only do it a couple times an encounter if you're lucky.)

At the end of the day... many of us would love to cobble together Frankenstein classes with bits of mechanics from each of the editions if there was a way to actually get them to work. Instead, we have to just choose an edition overall for what we think works the best of what is there.

 

[billd91]

Fighter: PF
Rogue: PF
Wizard: PF
Cleric: PF

(PF counts, right?)

I mostly agree.
Fighter: PF
Rogue: PF
Wizard: 2e
Cleric: PF/2e

Of the others, 1e versions still have some good mojo to them:
Barbarian: PF/1e
Bard: 3.5/Dragon magazine
Druid: PF/1e
Monk: PF/1e OA
Paladin: PF
Ranger: PF/1e
Sorcerer: PF

 

[Dedekind]

A 10th level rogue has an attack bonus three points lower than a fighter, all things equal. That hardly makes him useless - especially as he deals a whole lot more damage when flanking most enemies.

...<snip>...

But experiences differ.

Absolutely. In fact, the most effective spell for a wizard to cast was improved invisibility on the rogue. Bonuses to hit, always sneak attack damage, and impossible to hit. Two rogues with II absolutely murderized the final boss in my first 3e campaign.

More pointedly, I thought the 3e rogue's abilities were the ideal presentation of the class. I guess I don't see balance as important in determining "ideal", but [MENTION=55966]ferratus[/MENTION] and others are certainly welcome to.

 

[Harlekin]

Interesting responses. The only clear trend I see is towards the 2e specialty priest cleric. I thought I would see more people favoring the 4e fighter.

Though it could be the vagueness of what "ideal" means...

It may also be that enough people here haven't played 4ed enough to have a well-founded opinion, so they vote among the games they actually know.

 

[Harlekin]

Fighter 4ed
Rogue 4ed
Cleric 2ed with minor action healing
Wizard 4ed

 

[ferratus]

A 10th level rogue has an attack bonus three points lower than a fighter, all things equal. That hardly makes him useless - especially as he deals a whole lot more damage when flanking most enemies.

After awhile he does more damage, but he is crippled by the fact that he sneak attacks with light weapons, which means if he is doing x2 or x3 sneak attack, he's just getting parity with the fighter or barbarian's greataxe or two-hander and they can do that damage every round. Even at higher levels fighters have many feats which can also match the damage output of a rogue, without all the inconveniences of sneak attack.

There are four ways to get off your sneak attack in 3e. 1) Flanking, which is difficult to pull off sometimes. 2) Feinting, which can be done once per encounter on a successful bluff check and 3) being hidden or invisible and 4) catching the opponents flat-footed with an initiative roll.

In contrast in 4e, you can get bonus damage for doing a cheap shot when you have combat advantage, plus several combat maneuvers that allow you to gain combat advantage (ie. throwing dirt in their eyes).

The 4e version seems both better from a balance standpoint, and matches the flavour of how a rogue would actually fight better as far as I can tell.

After mid levels many of the rogue's best skills are almost auto-successes. Failures also cost less due to trap sense and evasion. He can expand in versatility and no longer has to improve all the basic skills every level.

For example, the skill DC for magical traps in 25 + spell level. It increases significantly slower than the rate of the rogue's skills, if challenges are level based.

Yes, but if we're going by that, the 1e/2e thief is better for skills. By mid levels they are getting a 95% chance of succeeding at pretty much all of their basic dungeon crawling skills.

In contrast, the 3e thief is only really good at the skills he has hyper-specialized in, which is never quite enough skill points to do all the tasks. I also know I needed a feat tax of skill focus (spot) check in order to make my checks, so I guess I never played to high enough level to escape the level-based challenge horizon.

 

[Dedekind]

It may also be that enough people here haven't played 4ed enough to have a well-founded opinion, so they vote among the games they actually know.

True, but I doubt it. I suspect most responders have at least tried 4e. Using the same argument, I bet several haven't played much 1e, either. (Like myself.)

 

[ferratus]

Skills. 3e has the best implementation of skills, and rogues are the king of skills. Also, doing tons of SA damage is fun. Personally, I thought it needed a lot of improvement, even though the PF one was better, but it's the best version out there.

I dislike the 3e skills system the most. A lot of book-keeping without the advantage of having unique skills like you could with 2e's proficiencies system. With level-based DC's for skills as well, there was no point in putting less than full points in any DC system, so why not just do what 4e did and just have them considered maxed out with training?

In the end though, I think 1e did skills the best. By not worrying what skills you have and just interacting with the dungeon the way you think your class should... and letting ability checks take care of the rest. Hopefully in 5e, skills are an optional module.

The 4e rogue had to pick from a narrow list of powers, and has daily or other use limitations on many of them, which is nonsensical and completely antithetical to the improvisational and intuitive way the class is supposed to play.

The 3e rogue has an even narrower list of offensive combat powers. Power 1: Win initiative and sneak attack. Power 2: Strike from hiding and sneak attack. Power 3: Flank and sneak attack.

Where are the rules for fighting like a dirty bastard? Sure you could maybe do something with a called shot (if your DM was nice) or you could trip or disarm them, but generally any special combat maneuvers aside from those three were more trouble than they were worth.

It was rebranded as a "striker" under 4e nomenclature despite the fact that combat function was classically a secondary aspect of the rogue/thief and many of them rarely "struck". So I think the 3.X rogue is miles ahead of the others, despite being a little weak. Power isn't everything.

I don't mind combat function being a secondary function of the rogue. I hate the dextrous combat rogue too, as I feel he should be called an assassin or ranger. Heck, I don't even like doing tons of SA damage as a rogue, because I think that intrudes on to the assassin's turf as well.

But dang nabbit, I want to fight like a dirty rat, in ways that make my opponents writhe around on the ground at my mercy. In a fair fight, any fighter should be able to beat the holy living hell out of my rogue. But my rogue never fights fair, so if I get the drop on you I kick you over and over again while you're down and crying for your mother.

 

[cavalier973]

Fighter: 4e Essentials
~The fighters didn't have a/e/d powers, but relied rather on stances that improved attack or damage, or allowed some other action (One slayer power allowed the fighter to attack and move, one gave him a +2 to speed when charging. The knight had a stance that allowed him to push an enemy back and then follow it)

Cleric: 4e Essentials
~It's too bad they didn't add more domains to the two in the book: Storm and Sun (there was a "Shadow" domain, I think, presented in another book). The "Storm" Domain was the damage-dealer, and the "Sun" Domain was the healer/undead hunter (because of the radiant keyword in many of the attacks). Still, the time I played in a D&D Encounters session, I played a half-elf cleric (Sun Domain), and had a lot of fun. Attacking and healing or attacking and buffing in the same turn, being able to pull team mates from the brink of death, etc.

Rogue: 4e Essentials
~The Thief does quite a bit of damage, and, like the Essentials fighters, doesn't rely on a/e/d attacks. The thief has "tricks", which are based on movement, after which the thief can attack. It's difficult for the Essentials thief to NOT get combat advantage (depending on the tricks chosen), so she does heaps of damage every turn.

Wizard: 4e Essentials
~The Mage devotes his efforts into a primary and a secondary school of magic, which add elements to his attacks beyond damage and damage type (the illusion apprentice penalizes the attack roll of an enemy against whom he casts an illusion spell; the illusion expert gets a bonus to bluff and stealth checks, the illusion master forces an enemy to grant combat advantage).

As an aside: I prefer the 4e method of skills, with broad categories and a five-point bump to trained skills. The broadness of the skill categories allows a certain creativity to accomplishing tasks, in my opinion. For example, third edition had "craft armor", "craft weapons", "craft wands", "craft items". There is no "craft" skill in 4e, so one must improvise, perhaps using two or more different skills. For example, creating armor might take both Athletics (to beat the metal into shape) and Endurance (to be able to continue beating). One might throw in History (acting as a sort of a catch-all knowledge check) to show that the character actually knows how to turn tiny pieces of iron into chainmail. The Nature skill allows the character to know the proper type of metals to use. Make it a skill challenge!

There is a ritual for creating magic items and armor (which any character that has taken the "ritual caster" feat can follow), OR one could add in an Arcane check, along with the DM-required components.

 

[TwoSix]

Fighter: 4e. Marking plus cool powers = win.
Rogue: 3e, except they called it "Scout". Skirmish > Sneak Attack.
Cleric: 2e specialty priests. Heavily armored divine combatants already have a name, it's called "Paladin".
Wizard: 3e, because they split it up and called it Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage.