|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 8:43PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2007
|
And why?
My short list:
Warlock (3.5) for crunch. A caster with nothing but at-will spells and a scaling attack that you can apply all sorts of modifiers to is hella fun to play.
Warlock (4th) for fluff. I love the ability to make different pacts, each with its own flavor and mechanical benefits.
Bard (3.5) because Inspire Courage and its ilk are so much fun.
Fighter (4th/Essentials) because you actually get abilities that make you sticky in combat, along with a plethora of fun and mechanically distinct combat styles. I prefer the Essentials-style progression, but would prefer it to be coupled with more freedom to choose different powers (instead of just Power Strike x/encounter). I really like the idea of having a number of at-will stances combined with a variety of encounter powers.
Swordmage (4th) because it's a gish class from level 1 that's actually really good, unlike some previous attempts at same (coughhexbladeandduskbladecough).
Hunter Ranger (Essentials) because it is, AFAIK, the only martial controller-type concept that's ever been published in an official D&D product. It might come up short mechanically, but it's actually very well-done flavor-wise.
Wishlist:
-Alternate ability bonuses for pre-PHB3 races
-Lots more superior implements or an official customization rule
-Monk multiclass feat that grants Unarmed Combatant
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 8:49PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
I agree on the Warlocks in both editions, good flavor and fun to play around with.
Fighter, Barbarian, and Swordmage from 4th were excellent. Fun to play and provided me with melee classes I actually wanted to play.
My favorite classes were the Martial Adepts in Tome of Battle though. I never really fiddled with the Crusader, but the Warblade and Swordmage were the most fun classes I ever played.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 9:06PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
Hello, Basic Elf – Bow, Long Sword, Finding doors, and some magic. Not bad. 1e Cavalier – Introduced in Dragon and made official in Unearthed Arcana Just a lot of fun to be immune to fear, have great armor, and have superior skill at lance/bow (elvish) 2e Paladin – Same as Cavalier 3e Sorcerer - No need to memorize spells giving great flexibility 4e Cleric – I have not played very much, but I always seem to play the cleric on the board game and in the one adventure. Very approachable, and can really help out the party. Thanks for reading
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 9:14PM
#4
|
|
|
AD&D: Gnome Thief/Illusionist. I like sneakmages.
AD&D 2e: T/M. More sneakmages!
My reason for sneakmages in earlier editions was simply because it was one of the only ways to customize your character. Fighters all got the same abilities down the line and specialization made for very, very little varience. That leaves a spellcaster, but I really dislike standard D&D caster tropes, so I perfered to make more trickster style characters.
3e: Tome of Battle classes, Factotum. The first for making martial classes fun, the later for, well, sneakmage reasons.
4e: Auuuuugh so many. I suppose if I really had to choose I'd go with bard, but it's a hard choice to make. Most of the non-e-classes are a blast to make and play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 9:34PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2012
|
i only know 4e but i do enjoy the fighters. they are tough, deal out good damage, and the powers are pretty exciting. i love a good 2[W] solid hit with power strike.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 9:55PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2009
|
Ranger (3.x & 4E) - I don't really remember what it was that first drew me to rangers, but when my friends and I picked up 3E, the ranger caught my eye and I invested in a woodland warrior, deadly with a bow and right nasty when left to his own devices (not that our DM was ever that kind). My fondness continued on in 4E, where rangers became even more vicious with bow or blade. I actually started our 4E games with a rogue, but one of my friends picked a ranger, and I remember paying close attention to her turns, as I was still very curious as to how my beloved ranger had fared the transition. Suffice it to say, I was not at all disappointed.
Warlord (4E) - One of my favorite features introduced in 4E (yeah, I know the Marshal or whatever it was called existed before, but it couldn't hold a candle to this one). I loved the emphasis on military tactics and adaptable strategy, and I was quite fond of being able to keep the party on their feet and fighting the good fight without magic or prayers, but through inspiration and discipline. The more I saw of the warlord, the more I came to love it; easily my favorite 4E class.
Swordmage (4E) - Again, this one was great fun from the get-go. I remember when the FRPG came out, I was eager to see what this guy had to offer, and sure enough, it reeled me in. Spells + swordplay = success. It was a simple concept, but they made it work above and beyond expectations. I imagine this one will be rolled into a theme in 5E (I read in a transcript the idea that the avenger could be reformed as a paladin theme, so I expect the swordmage is going to go the same way, but we'll see).
My Sig
Show
Reality is but the sum total of all illusions.
Proud Hand of Karsus, now and forever
Mess with one Hand, mess with 'em all
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
"just do what LM the lord of magical might does, and you'll be fine" - sfdragon, 10/12/09
My Ravnican Loyalties
Show
Board Snippets
Show
"I don't like X, they should remove it."
"I like X, they should keep it."
"They should replace X with Y."
"Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better."
"Why don't they include both X and Y."
"Yeah, everybody can be happy then!"
"But I don't like X, they should remove it."
"X really needs to be replaced with Y."
"But they can include both X and Y."
"But I don't like X, they need to remove it."
"Remove X, I don't like it."
Repeat.
Obstinance?
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived.
You haven't lived.
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up!
We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and....
One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War
Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to 
Go!
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison...
MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development.
TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment.
You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
Adding options at the system level is good.
Adding options at the table level is hard.
Removing options at the system level is bad.
Removing options at the table level is easy.
This is not complicated.
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :|
I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 9:55PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 11, 2011
|
My favorites by role are as follows:
2e: Defender: Paladin because I liked the fluff, and ,y first RPG concept was the White Knight in shinning armor, I know it's lame now but when I was 11 it was really cool. Striker/Controller: Wizard because it had the coolest features(magic). Always liked the idea of the Fighter, but the class simply didn't deliver on the promises, IMHO. As a kid a was very goodie two shoes, so all those sneaky roguey stuff was big no-no for me.
3.X: Defender: Paladin, way cooler than before, and CHA was actually a key score instead of a nonsensical requirement. Striker: Monk, love the fluff of the Kung Fu Master, also a tie with the Psychic Warrior, but I am partial to psionics in general. Controller: Psion, love the psionic power source, and didn't much care for vancian magic, so the Psion was a shoe in for me. Fighter was better, but still it was like it was for grunts, you could always play the same concept better as a Psychic Warrior, Paladin, Ranger or Barbarian, among others. Some feat trees where worth it, but require extensive and careful planning from score requirements to feat taxes. I like the Rogue better this time, and had some fun with scoundrel types, but my style is more 'armored knight' than 'sneaky scoundrel'.
4th: Leader: Warlord, by a landslide. I also like the Ardent a lot, I dare say I would love it just as much as the Warlord had it been introduced at the same time. Defender: Figther, finally I can play my Master of Armed Combat described in the entry of the class, yes please. Paladin is very cool this time around as well, and also like the Battlemind very much. Striker: Monk, Avenger and Rogue. Yes, I like the Rogue better now because it's not just a skill monkey, he's a skill monkey that can kill you before you see it coming. Controller: Psion, Invoker and Druid(Protector) introduced in Heroes of the Feywild is exactly what I wanted out of the class.
I liked a lot more classes from 3.X and 4th, but those above are the ones that strike my fancy the best, I guess. Overall I like to be the frontliner in Heavy Armor, sometimes shield bearing sometimes two handing. I also very much enjoyed the Cavalier from the Essentials line, as well as the Illusionist Mage.
Also, I know the psionic power source existed before 3.X but I didn't knew it until the Psionic Handbook of 3e.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 9:59PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
3.5
Scout - move-n-shoot Skirmish was fun.
Archivist - first, it was a divine wizard. second, it was based on knowledge. third, it was awesome
Dragon Shaman - don't remember much about the class, but the theme is awesome
Fighter - by late game, we had enough books that it felt like a template where "anything could happen"
4E
Sorcerer - being able to pick a type, and have powers of that type get an extra "oomph" is awesome.
Seeker - basically a "magic bow man". You get archery, and abilities a ranger just can't have. That's good enough for me all by itself.
Fighter - just liked that they showed how "anything could happen" without it being a Feat Foundation class
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 10:06PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
3.5
Binder: Awesome flavour and interesting mechanics.
Shadowcaster: Awesome flavour, mechanics were okay, I liked them more than other 'pure' casters at the very least.
4e
I love pretty much everything pre-essentials, but here are the highlights.
Invoker: Fluff, some of the mechanics are pretty nice too.
Warlord: Oddly never played one for more than a session, but always loved seeing one in play.
Fighter: I'm still making different and capable builds for this class.
Original Assassin: I loved the concept, just wish the mechanics had delivered.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 10:12PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
1e/2e fighter/M-U/thief and cleric/Assassin
although levels were limited you could do anything. Reaching the requred levels for bard was impossible the way the experience rules were.
3e bard
Multiclassing in 3e was just stupid. The best alternative was the bard. or bard with a level or three of rogue.
|
|
|
