D&D General Which of these should be core classes for D&D?

[Lanefan]

But then as always the game lived loved loved having just entire adventures dedicated to undead, so I spent a lot of time working on my setting during combat instead of engaging because all I was there fore was flanking buddy.

Makingundead immune to crits and sneak attacks etc. was IMO a poor choice, and not even backed up by the fiction.

Aaaand we're back to design where a player can play their character's concept all the time instead of just special times the game decides to deign allowing it.

Well, that's a different (and IMO open) question: should a character's mechanical concept be front and center every moment that character is in play, or not?

For me, "not" is good enough. As long as the mechanical concept can be or become relevant when it matters, that's all I need.

For example, if my character is a backstrike-y Thief/Assassin type, I'd like to think I'll get a target now and then and be able to show off my stuff. That said, if the current adventure happens to be a talky-talk diplomacy mission where violence is clearly not the answer then as player I just have to accept that when it comes to mechanics maybe this time I'm playing the wrong man for the job, and find other ways to contribute instead.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, you'd be telling other people how to play the game and how to play their characters?
Do you tell that to the wizard casting Haste on you? (That spell had some nasty side effects in certain editions, too, but I'm betting you didn't, you just expected to be asked about whether you wanted to age or risk losing a turn if the caster's concentration was broken.)

That would be entirely on you, Lanefan. Why are you picking hypothetical fights?

TBF, the extreme 'Lazy' form of the build was fairly worthless on it's own, it would invest in all action granting and effect-line exploits, and high INT to maximize them, and ignore STR thus would melee attack as well as, well, a wizard.

A legit Tactical Warlord would often attack on it's own, possibly granting an ally an action in addition to that, but did have an at-will to just grant an attack (with a damage bonus), if that seemed the best use of an action.


It kinda goes all the way back to the og Thief's Backstab

No, it goes back to WotC ignoring the class's purpose and not even trying to make thief skills work in the system, and instead going the lazier route of enhancing the more straightforward backstab.

 

[Micah Sweet]

TBF, classes and many other D&Disms have their downsides, and there's every reason to avoid moving D&D away from those, too.

I mean, secondary in the usual context of genre with a lone hero and supporting cast. The cleric (if it exists at all), magic-user (if not a villain), halfling gardener rogue, and so forth would be supporting cast in genre, but ensemble in a TTRPG. But that virtually always meant making them powerful in some overt way, so they could contribute and take spotlight turns.

And, yes, it was a bit rare for a player to want to play a non-contributing-in-combat character (early Thief aside) in a game as combat-heavy as D&D has always been, and it was basically impossible for them to play a fully-contributing non-combatant under the class system until pacifist clerics (still magically powerful, of course, just non-violent) and lazy warlords.
4e did inadvertently open that up by giving the warlord action grants and separating fluff from crunch in the presentation of powers.
It's just cool to be able to play a broader range of character concepts.

Classic play was and is as combat-light or heavy as the party wanted it to be (with the occasional exception).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like I said, understandable to expect permission before receiving a spell with a serious drawback. (But, the wizard could still lay it on you, and (b) party conflict, yet you have no objection to the wizard existing.)
There's no drawback to an action grant, tho, and they generally take a free action on your part, so they're voluntary.

... and, remember, that's focusing on one kinda out-there build in the prior edition, with 7 builds that don't have the issue.

So old-school henchmen and hirelings are right out? (I'll grant, it's not very heroic to hire mercs or conjure up minions and send them forth to die for you. But, y'know, it's nothing new.)

Interestingly, genre often does contain secondary characters who are valued by the heroes and/or contribute something important (perhaps only once at the culmination of a quest or something), but are not capable in combat, often needing to be protected. Though it clearly wasn't intended - the Warlord was presented as a front-line warrior, and it's fluff text & exploit names are generally in line with that - the "lazylord" that fans cobbled together from a few tactical exploits and a perverse willingness to dump STR for INT on a melee character, could readily be used to model such characters, while still contributing, mechanically. It helped that 4e did separate fluff & crunch and let you mod the former.


"all multiplier, no force" was a joke back then, yeah ... for leaders, in general, even.

Henchmen fight with you, not instead of you. You're a higher level than they are anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Y

making every caster a bard subclass makes it an even worse wizard and the jokes from it will be so horrible I would rather have an Eldrich horror grudge match happen in every area of mid or above-scale habitation as a palet cleanser.

one can't ever have the past back only move forward we just got to make it better than what is behind us.

elegance is a long-term refinement it is better to make it work properly first the first of every breed of thing tends to be odd around the edges.

Incorrect. You can have whatever you want if you work for it. You certainly don't have to "move forward" from where WotC is.

 

[Lanefan]

Henchmen fight with you, not instead of you. You're a higher level than they are anyway.

Ideally, yes; but there were certainly players and-or tables who saw henches as nothing more than pure cannon fodder, to be sent in first to soften up the enemy before the real adventurers came in and finished the foes off.

 

[Lanefan]

Incorrect. You can have whatever you want if you work for it. You certainly don't have to "move forward" from where WotC is.

I sure wouldn't want to move backward from where WotC is. They've already done enough backing up on their own, making the game worse with each edition while at the same time not doing enough with the few good ideas they have come up with.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Makingundead immune to crits and sneak attacks etc. was IMO a poor choice, and not even backed up by the fiction.

I guess it depends on a fiction.

"Remove the head/Destroy the brain..."

Well, that's a different (and IMO open) question: should a character's mechanical concept be front and center every moment that character is in play, or not?

The character is the role you're playing, and the concept should define the role. "has Sneak Attack" is not a concept, it may be modeling part of one, even most of the combat-pillar part of one...

 

[Lanefan]

I guess it depends on a fiction.

"Remove the head/Destroy the brain..."

I'm thinking more that an undead - even a "wafty" one - has a few key bits that hold it together, and hitting one of those (in game terms, a crit) is going to cause more harm to it than hitting it somewhere else.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Makingundead immune to crits and sneak attacks etc. was IMO a poor choice, and not even backed up by the fiction.

Well, that's a different (and IMO open) question: should a character's mechanical concept be front and center every moment that character is in play, or not?

For me, "not" is good enough. As long as the mechanical concept can be or become relevant when it matters, that's all I need.

For example, if my character is a backstrike-y Thief/Assassin type, I'd like to think I'll get a target now and then and be able to show off my stuff. That said, if the current adventure happens to be a talky-talk diplomacy mission where violence is clearly not the answer then as player I just have to accept that when it comes to mechanics maybe this time I'm playing the wrong man for the job, and find other ways to contribute instead.

so broadly it should mostly be relevant outside of clearly defined areas such as diplomacy and those two-hour shopping sessions some people have.

Y

Incorrect. You can have whatever you want if you work for it. You certainly don't have to "move forward" from where WotC is.

true but one can't go all the way either as no one completely shapes the fantasy zeitgeist we can't really make orcs as pure evil monsters any more even a Warhammer setting moved them to merely deeply violent but cable of some level of negotiation.
the most pure evil most orc thing I have seen recently was the dragon age Darkspawn and those would be like giving mutating breed zombies the ability to make weapons and armour or cast magic with a hive mind to make everything worse.