D&D General What is your favorite class(es), and what about makes them so fun?

[Lanefan]

The Illusionist (as far as I can remember, and I'm talking over 40 years ago...) had its own spell list, albeit with overlap from wizards, and the spells literally allowed you to change reality to suit your aims. They were almost unlimited in scope and allowed for immense creativity. Things like Programmed Illusion and Permanent Illusion were so flexible, and Phantasmal Killer was terrifying in the days of save or die.

Even at low level, what you can do with Phantasmal Force (1st level spell), Improved PF (2nd level) and Spectral Force (3rd level) can get quite metal. The differences:

PF only affects vision
IPF affects vision and hearing
Spectral affects all five senses, including touch - which means it can do damage if the recipient believes it.

With these spells 1e Illusionists also pioneered what we now know as the concentration mechanic, as those illusion spells lasted as long as you could maintain concentration (plus an extra round or two for the higher ones).

And even a simple PF can produce fun results. Our ship had just docked in a new town, and a snooty customs official had come on board with orders that nobody was to access or leave the ship until he was done. So, guessing (and hoping!) from that order that he'd be the next to use the gangplank, while the official talked to the captain my chaotic* Illusionist quietly cast PF and spent the next 15 minutes ve-ery slowly moving that gangplank three feet to the right; such that when he went to disembark - splash.

Result: official's snootiness greatly reduced for a while due to embarrassment as he's unceremoniously fished out of the harbour.

* - I've always felt a certain degree of chaos in one's outlook (both as player and character) is vital to playing an Illusionist well.

IIRC there was also a thing about gnomes being illusionists a lot.

Yes, I think they and Humans were the only species that could be effective Illusionists.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I'm a Forever DM^TM, and have been since 1994 or so. My go-to concept when I have managed to NOT be DM been has been "competent person who can cast a few spells" for basically ages. The character concept is typically patterned off characters like Harry D'Amour and John Constantine, so there's a specific way I need the whole thing to work. In 2e it meant a bard (ignoring the music/performance aspect of the class) or multiclass mage/thief. In Basic D&D and DCC it means an elf, really. In the WotC D&D era it's been trickier, since there hasn't been an option for a 1st level mage/thief since the 3.0 DMG had a sidebar on the subject.

In 5th Edition it basically means a Rogue/Thief with the Magic Initiate feat plus convincing the DM to allow me to take Magic Circle as a ritual (which for some reason it isn't one already).

 

[Lanefan]

I'm a Forever DM^TM, and have been since 1994 or so. My go-to concept when I have managed to NOT be DM been has been "competent person who can cast a few spells" for basically ages. The character concept is typically patterned off characters like Harry D'Amour and John Constantine, so there's a specific way I need the whole thing to work. In 2e it meant a bard (ignoring the music/performance aspect of the class) or multiclass mage/thief. In Basic D&D and DCC it means an elf, really. In the WotC D&D era it's been trickier, since there hasn't been an option for a 1st level mage/thief since the 3.0 DMG had a sidebar on the subject.

In 5th Edition it basically means a Rogue/Thief with the Magic Initiate feat plus convincing the DM to allow me to take Magic Circle as a ritual (which for some reason it isn't one already).

Isn't that niche what Arcane Trickster is there to fill?

 

[Ath-kethin]

Isn't that niche what Arcane Trickster is there to fill?

If so, it does a real sh*t job at it, and similar classes (like the 3.5 Beguiler) have been just as bad.

Firstly (and least importantly), I don't like the name. I don't want my character to be a "trickster."

Secondly, limiting a character to the "spells known" mechanic kneecaps it to an untenable degree IMO. One of the major advantages of the mage/thief and even the bard in 2e was access to many useful low-power spells thanks to having a spellbook. As I mentioned there's a specific flavor I'm going for - a kind of crafty academic if you will. Part of that concept is the ability to access an every-expanding array of low power magic, and limiting the character to a handful of spells and/or only certain spell schools just doesn't fit the bill.

 

[cbwjm]

If so, it does a real sh*t job at it, and similar classes (like the 3.5 Beguiler) have been just as bad.

Firstly (and least importantly), I don't like the name. I don't want my character to be a "trickster."

Secondly, limiting a character to the "spells known" mechanic kneecaps it to an untenable degree IMO. One of the major advantages of the mage/thief and even the bard in 2e was access to many useful low-power spells thanks to having a spellbook. As I mentioned there's a specific flavor I'm going for - a kind of crafty academic if you will. Part of that concept is the ability to access an every-expanding array of low power magic, and limiting the character to a handful of spells and/or only certain spell schools just doesn't fit the bill.

I agree with this, I've been thinking of providing eldritch knights and arcane tricksters the spellbook feature from the wizard and allowing any spell school.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I agree with this, I've been thinking of providing eldritch knights and arcane tricksters the spellbook feature from the wizard and allowing any spell school.

It's amazing how a minor change makes such a huge difference, isn't it?

 

[Corinnguard]

ah, mechanics I see where you coming from, the mechanics are not the bit I feel is lacking.

Okay. I spend more time trying to figure what I can get out of a particular class/subclass feature. I am a bit of a min-maxer. While I find the description and role of the Magus somewhat interesting, I don't think too much about it. It's mostly there to give you ideas for your character's backstory.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Okay. I spend more time trying to figure what I can get out of a particular class/subclass feature. I am a bit of a min-maxer. While I find the description and role of the Magus somewhat interesting, I don't think too much about it. It's mostly there to give you ideas for your character's backstory.

I have nothing aginst optimisation but role play is the bit no one can get to work hence why it has not crystallised into a thing yet.

 

[pogre]

I don't participate as a player often, (I usually DM), but when I do I usually run clerics. I can built an ethos for my PC centered on their chosen deity and also create all kinds of moral quandaries and story hooks for the DM to use if they so choose.

 

[cwallach]

Warlocks are fun because with Eldritch Blast handling combat there is room for a lot of specialized spells. And those add variety.

Barbarians are fun when in hulk smash mode.