Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="milotha" data-source="post: 1520177" data-attributes="member: 17122">I contend that the way certain of the core classes are written narrows their focus to the point of being stereotypes of certain of the other core classes. I think that these core classes currently more closely resemble prestige classes.   Does this mean that I "lack imagination"- No, It means that the designers lacked an ability to design some of the core classses with a good breadth of options.First, in 20 years of playing, I have seen far more fighters, clerics, rogues, and wizards/sorcerers (call them GENERAL classes) than barbarians, paladins, bards, monks, and druids (call them SPECIFIC classes).  Perhaps my experiences vary, but from what I've read on the boards, I don't think so.Next, when I design up a good character, I start with a concept and then choose the class or classes that best implememts the concept. I geneally find that I end up chosing GENERAL classes to implement my concepts.  Why?  Less of the aspects of the class are determined by the write up in the books.  Lets look at the Barbarian class.  What is the class really.  Well, its a fighter that is illiterate, has fast movement, has uncanny dodge and trap sense, rage a d12 hp, and mod skill points.  Let's look at the description of rage in the PHB.  "A barbarian can fly into a screaming blood frenzy... a barbarian gains phenomenal strength and durability but becomes reckless and less able to defend himself...cannot use any Charisma, Dexterity, or Intelligence based skills... cannot cast spells or use magic items..."  What if I want to play a wild type fighter, but I don't want one of my primary class abilities to involve a blood frenzy rage.  Am I going to choose to play a barbarian?  Why don't I just play a fighter with a good con and medium int, take the fast movement feat that gives me +10 to my base speed, take a couple of levels of rogue if I really want uncanny dodge and trapsense and skill points?  One can always choose to role play ones character as illiterate.  Now it's an option not predetermined.Example: Suppose that I want to design a Mongul - nomadic, barbaric, horseback riding, arrow proficient fighter.  You'd think based on the name that Barbarian should be the optimal choice.  But those extra fighter or ranger arrow feats are far too necessary if I want to be killer with the bow. Were the Monguls know for their rage or their bowmanship/horse skills?  Why, oh why, did the designers make the Barbarian so narrowed?  It's not that it's a bad class mechanistically.  It's not that its not useful.  It's not that you can't choose to role play it in the non Conan style (though even Conan didn't have this bad a temper).  Yes, you can role play anything against its type.  This doesn't make you a superior player, it does however, make you less useful.  Hell, I'm currently playing a Sorcerer as the front rank fighter, but I don't have to give up key class abilites just to do it.  When I say fighter in 3.X.  Do you know what my character can do?  Am I a strength fighter, a dex fighter, or a con fighter.  Do I fight with a melee or a ranged weapon.  Did I go the PowerAttack/Cleave route or did I go the Shield Bash/ Bull Rush/ Grapple route or any of the other multitudinous routes available.  It's a fairly general class.When I say Barbarian in 3.X.  Do you know what my character can do.  Yes, more than you would if I said I was a fighter.  This is why the Barbarian is a SPECIFIC class, the choices are mostly made by the write up in the book.</blockquote>

Verification