|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 7:15PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
What do you think is the best designed variant of each class from each edition of D&D? Please note this is not supposed to be an edition war so I would rather not have any declarations of XYZ being the best version. Best designed also does not have to be the most powerful as you can mention what edition captures the essence of the class or whatever. The question is subjective an there is no right and wrong answer. In the warlords case bear in mind that it was only in one edition so 4th ed wins by default there.
Barbarian.
Most people think of the barbarian as a rage based class probably due to 3rd ed. It was originally in Unearthed Arcana IIRC in 1st ed. Overall I liked the 2nd ed Barbarian the best as you were a barbarian using inferior weapons of stone and you had a lot of options via kits. Not a berzerker fan of 3rd ed and the ping pong version of 4th ed as they were both built around uber damage. A barbarian to me could also be a horselord or beastmaster.
Bard.
Another funny class as 1st through 4th ed have all had a different bard class. 1st ed it was a dual class, 2nd ed a wizard, 3rd ed a skill monkey with a few spells and in 4th ed is was a leader. Overall I thought the 3.5 version was the most interesting one and it was one of the better classes without being mind numbingly broken. The 4th ed one also stood out to e even though I did not like the AEDU power structure but I never got to play 4th ed just DM it but it looks like an interesting class.
Cleric.
Kind of a boring class in pre 3rd ed versions of D&D and often one you had to beg someone into playing. Specialty priests inn 2nd ed however, various non broken builds in 3rd ed and the 4th ed one whoever all offer interesting takes on the Cleric. I do not have a favorite one here but the D&DN ones look to be interesting without being borked like 3rd ed clerics.
Druid.
Broken as hell in core 3.5 the class was broken up in 4th ed and I am not a fan of that versions Druids. Probably also broken in 1st ed due to getting level 3 spells at level 3 and having very interesting abilities in a basic game. Overall I think the 2nd ed Druid was the best on in terms of balance and flavor and the 2nd ed Complete Druids Handbook was quite good.
Fighter.
Very boring class pre 2nd ed and it started to have interesting options in that editions cycle. 3rd ed added feats and 4th ed added powers. Overall I prefer the 3.5 fighter in design but it was overshadowed by spellcasters. The basic design of the Fighter was converted to Star Wars Saga which added talents and more skills to the class and it removed the spell casters. The 4th ed Fighter was interesting but was ultimately limited in styles compared to the 2nd and 3rd ed fighters. Adding talents and power type options via fighter feats helps the class out alot. The 3.5 concept and design was good, execution in that sytem was wonky however although it was a popular class it seemed.
Monk.
My most hated class. More or less sucked until 4th ed. The less said the better as I hate this class. 4th ed version wins.
Paladin.
One of the most controversial classes in the games history. The 4th ed Paladin was to different to the 1st to 3rd ed Paladins so it kind of failed to capture the essence of the class. The class also needed help from Divine Power source book. Hard to pick a winner but leaning toward the 3.5 version of the class as Pathfinder kind of borked the class up IMHO. A class less said about the better due to edition and alignment based wars. Next.
Ranger
This class was changed al ot in 4th ed and it strayed away form the "classic" ranger of 1st to 3rd ed although the class has actually changed in every edition. Probably overpowered in 1st in was the only way to dual wield in 2nd ed core books. Hard t pick a winner as it is purely a personal preference but the archetype of a woodlands warrior is a difficult one to ignore.
Rogue/Thief in pre 3rd ed.
Pre 3rd ed this was one of those classes that was similar to the cleric. It could be hard to get someone to play a thief and the class could be ignored in a non dungeon setting. 3.0 made some interesting changes and Pathfinder beefed the class up. I did like the changes 4th ed made to the class though such as sneak attack and the dagger thing. While it is difficult to translate the mechanics directly the D&DN one seems to have a 4th ed legacy about it. Overall I'll give this one to the 4th ed Rogue.
Sorcerer.
Usually used a a blaster in 3rd ed and as a striker in 4th ed and outclassed by the wizard in both. Pathfinder may have the best sorcerer yet but being brutally honest none of them are that good or interesting. Pathfinder or 4th ed wins this one take your pick. I give the class a big meh.
Warlock.
In 3rd and 4th ed. A lack of experience with either class makes it hard for me to judge. I do not really like either version YMMV.
Wizard.
The most powerful class in pre 3rd ed CoDzilla gave it a good run for the money in 3rd ed. The 4th ed one I found to be quite interesting but it lacked the traditional wizard feel or essence of the class and from what I hear the class was slightly overpowered out of combat and compared with other controllers. I liked the 2nd ed version of the class and the 4th ed venison. The basic 2nd ed class had the most interesting vancian options in the Tome of Magic and Spells and Powers with wild mages and shadow mages making an appearance. I liked the 4th ed one because it didn't wreck games.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 7:51PM
#2
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
First, let's remember to avoid edition wars in this thread. Favorite versions doesn't mean you need to bash other editions. Thanks.
Second, my favorites...
Assassin - I adore the flavor of the shadow-using assassin of 4th edition.
Barbarian - I actually prefer this to be a background and enjoyed the various barbarian kits for other classes in 2nd edition's "Complete" series of sourcebooks.
Bard - 1st Edition bard was sort of a proto-prestige class and I like the mystery and challenge of it because of that.
Cleric - 2nd Edition's specialty priests were a lot of fun.
Druid - Not really a fan of this class so I don't really have a favorite edition version of it.
Fighter - The BECMI fighter had some interesting options at 9th level, including becoming a paladin, knight, or avenger, or settling down and ruling a barony.
Monk - The 3.5 monk was an interesting combination of oddball features, though I reflavored the class for my homebrew world to be more based on Brazilian capoeira than Asian martal arts.
Paladin - I like the 3rd Edition paladin for one reason - the blackguard. I like the implied story of the corrupted paladin turning to evil.
Ranger - 2nd Edition's potential followers for high-level rangers were just nifty.
Rogue - 2nd Ediiton thieves had some nifty kits available to them. I particularly enjoyed the Fighter/Magic-User/Thief Collector kit from the Complete Book of Elves - Indiana Jones with pointy ears.
Sorcerer - Like the druid, not a fan of this class.
Warlock - 4th Edition's pacts were intriguing from a story perspective.
Warlord - Really only present in 4e. Still, an interesting addition to the game.
Wizard - I was a fan of 3.5's crafting rules and enjoyed, believe it or not, draining off my character's XP to make items.
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 9:08PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2006
|
First, let's remember to avoid edition wars in this thread. Favorite versions doesn't mean you need to bash other editions. Thanks.
Here is to hoping that this keeps up throughout the thread. I almost feel like this line should be quoted with every post so everybody posting sees it over and over again.
Bearing in mind that I am talking specifically about the class and what it did in various editions - not taking into account anything else from the edition mentioned:
Assassin (2e) - I liked when it was a character background in 2e.
Barbarian (2e) - I also liked when it was a background or kit from 2e.
Bard (4e) - The 4e bard with the ability to actually be good at everything - but no real mastery over any one thing - appealed to me greatly.
Cleric (none)- Mechanically, I liked that 4e has clerics that could do something other than heal (with the minor action heals). Fluff wise, I've never liked the Cleric as presented. Too little distinction from the Paladin in my mind.
Druid (none) - Never felt this class has reached its full potential.
Fighter (4e) - 4e, hands down. The ability to finally be the BA that it should be, with a pleuthora of different ways of fighting. The only downside to the 4e fighter was that you couldn't make a straight striker fighter (discounting essentials).
Monk (none) - Another class I've always felt was better expressed through a background.
Paladin (none) - Another class that I don't feel has ever found it's true potential (unless you combine the avenger, paladin, and cleric all from 4e and turn it into one class "holy man with a weapon").
Ranger (none) - Always felt "nature guy with a bow" was more of a background, myself.
Rogue (no one) - Moreso than any other class, this one has changed the least between every edition. I honestly can't pick out which does it best because of that.
Sorcerer (none) - Never felt it was a class seperated enough from Wizard, even in 4e. Kinda wanted to try the Chaos Sorcerer in 4e tho.
Warlock (none) - I think the 4e Warlock Pacts really made the class interesting, but I still have never seen enough difference between this and a wizard to be thrilled about it.
Warlord (4e) - I love everything about this class - arguably my favorite class of all time, every edition.
Wizard (no one)- Again, every edition has had such similar concepts and mechanics for the wizard, it's hard to pick out which edition did it best.
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 9:23PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
My memories of 2e are 15 years fuzzy, and I never played much 1e, but I'll give this a go... Barbarian - I might have to go with the 4e barbarian here. When it was released, it was the first striker to actually catch my interest (the PHB1 strikers all seemed rather samey and boring, although I eventually came round and had loads of fun with warlocks). 4e was the first time I felt compelled to play a barbarian, and did, with great fun. That may have had more to do with the concept I came up with than mechanics, but I think the Thaneborn option helped inspire me, and the ease-of-reflavoring that was a major boon of 4e may probably helped too. Bard - While my favorite 2e character was a bard, I think that again had more to do with character concept than mechanics. I enjoyed the Valorous Bard I played in 4e just as much, but it was very different experience, and I was never quite able to satisfactorily rebuild my 2e bard in 4e. So maybe that's a tie? Cleric - Oddly enough, I think I'm going to have to say 5e. It just... works for me. Druid - while I liked the druid concept, I never really cared for how it was implemented in any edition I played (albeit I don't remember much about the druid from pre-3e). Fighter - 4e, far and away. The 4e fighter felt like a class worthy of Beowulf and Gilgamesh. It was also one of the most versatile classes; while most classes had one secondary stat, maybe a choice between two secondary stats, the fighter could use a mixture of up to three secondary stats. I especially enjoyed polearm fighters. However, I did miss being able to use Dex as an attack stat, and appreciate the return of that option in D&DN. Monk - Not familiar with the class prior to 3e. I'd say the 4e monk worked the best mechanically, but didn't quite feel like a monk to me. Paladin - I think the 4e paladin is the only iteration that's ever interested me (or compelled me to make one), probably because in prior editions the range of character concepts was much more narrow by default. Ranger - My first long-running character in D&D was a 2e ranger, so that will always hold a soft spot in my heart. Rogue/Thief - Tough call. I'm more certain of what I didn't like about the rogue/thief in various editions, but I won't go into that. 4e was mechanically functional, but not that interesting. The Pathfinder rogue seemed cool; I built one, but never got to play him as the game fell through.  Sorcerer - Not that into the class, but the Pathfinder bloodlines were pretty dang cool. Warlock - I never had the 3e book that introduced warlocks, so my familiarity is only with the 4e iteration, which I loved, or at least I loved the Vestige pact, for both flavor and mechanics. Warlord - Loved this class a bit too much; played until I was almost sick of it.  Wizard - I know the wizard is possibly the most iconic of iconic D&D classes, but I don't think I have ever played one, in any edition. Nor have I ever had the desire to. Possibly because my tastes fall somewhere on the opposite end of the iconic-oddball spectrum.
I want "punch magic in the face" to be a maneuver
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 10:38PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2008
|
I'm a pretty strong 4e partisan, so it's tough to be objective. In general though, I think 4e did the martial classes better than anything before. Particularly the fighter and the rogue were both plain awesome in 4e, my two favorite classes of any edition ever. Both of those classes had a great deal of flexibility in 4e. The fighter could be a traditional knight, a berserker, an elegant master of swordplay, or even a drunken brawler. The rogue could be a thief, a swashbuckler, a sneaky thug, or a sniper. And both of these classes had mechanics that made you think. The rogue was always working to get CA, while the fighter wanted to spread his mark around as much as possible and use his stickiness to mess his enemies up.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
- Manwë, High King of the Valar
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 3:19AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
Barbarian - 4e.
It was the best class in the edition.
Bard -cant compare. 2e and 3e felt the same and didnt play with enough in 4e
Cleric - 2e specialties by a mile. Pure Clerics are terrible in every edition. Mix in AEDU and its perfect. So 2e specialty priest with 4e structure. As long as the A isnt too powerful its fine.
Druid - Tie 4e in structure, 3e for multiclassing
Fighter - 3e by far
Monk - 3e for the multiclassing
Paladin - 2e by far
Ranger - 2e since its build more ranged combat
Rogue/Thief - 3e for multiclassing
Sorcerer - 5e
Warlock - Here is the kicker we have 5e again the two classes that were pulled get my 5e votes
Wizard- 2e
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 3:39AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
I really liked the:
1st Edition Elf (Gish)
1st Edition Magic-User
1st Edition Thief
2nd Edition Monk
2nd Edition Barbarian
2nd Edition Ranger
3rd Edition Prestige Paladin (dips for multiclassing)
4th Edition Druid
4th Edition Sorcerer
5th Edition Fighter
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 5:10AM
#8
|
|
|
Barbarian.
None, really.
If the Barbarian were something more akin to a ranger I'd maybe like it better.
But as a supposed "norse berserker"-inspired class... it just fails completely.
This idea of norsemen/vikings being uncivilized savages swinging their axes with sheer anger and no technique is pure nonsense and an old stereotype. Those warriors would be very much Fighters, skilled, trained and competent.
And if that was not the supposed concept behind the Barbarian, but really just a "wild" warrior from a primitive culture, then as I said maybe it should be something more akin to a ranger.
Bard.
I like the bard in 3ed/3.5 as "the guys who does a little bit of everything."
Cleric.
3ed's idea of Domains was great! Lots of fun.
For some reason, though, 2ed's cleric has some charm that appeals to me more.
Now, to dig a little deeper and be really honest...
THE BEST cleric concept I've seen in D&D (though it wouldn't fit in every setting) was Dark Sun's "elemental" cleric.
The whole concept was just awesome.
Druid.
**leans forward and vomits**
Sorry, I just hate D&D's concept of druids as "friends-of-nature priests" who are surrounded by beasts, live in the woods, and only wear stuff that comes from nature.
Maybe, and just maybe, that as a specific archetype inside the druid class would be OK, but without all the polymorphing, please.
OK, the reason for all my hate here is that I love the concept of druids in a game as something similar to traditional celtic priests. And a strong political figure in society, not a hermit in the woods.
I've always house-ruled them to something more like the wizard/sorcerer as a class (but with cleric-druid spells).
It always felt to me that D&D failed to grasp the concept of druids.
Again... I think that Dark Sun's druid was the best, maybe because it was something different, made for a setting with barely any paralel to our real world.
Fighter.
In my opinion, of all classes and editions, 3ed's Fighter is the best class design EVER in D&D.
Period.
So simple and so elegant.
You can build any type of warrior with it. It's all in the player's choices.
Rarely has a fighter in one of our 3ed games felt the same as another fighter. And it was by far the most played class.
Monk.
Just... just... NO!
From Rules Cyclopedia's Mystic to any monk version afterward... they're all just bad.
If you want something "oriental" in your game please make something that even remotelly resembles a character or class inspired by some oriental culture or mythology. D&D has always been very bad at tackling anything oriental. It's just not their thing.
Here I'm going to mention the Complete Ninjas Handbook in 2ed.
Technically it's not about monks... and the ninja class in it isn't so great either, but the Martial Arts system in this book is actually very good, and by far the best attempt D&D has ever made of implementing oriental-styled martial artists in the game!
Paladin.
I like both 2ed's and 3.5.
I'd say 3.5 wins because it actually gives you benefits for a high Charisma instead of making Cha 17 (!!!) a requisite for even taking the class.
Ranger
3.5 hit the sweet spot!
3.0 seemed a bit like a weird fighter, but the changes they made in 3.5 gave the Ranger a real identity as an independent class.
PF made some good adjustments in some of the ranger's class abilities, but it also included a whole lot of minor abilities that I felt unnecessary, kinda "flooded" the class. I like classes to have more of a general orientation for you to build your character upon. Instead of picking a bunch of specific minor abilities.
Rogue/Thief in pre 3rd ed.
3.5.
Because 3ed's skill system is absolutelly great! And the rogue is a great class for players who like to play lots of skills.
Also, Sneak Attack is better than the old Backstab from 2ed.
Sorcerer.
A "meh" class that they introduced just as a "partial" alternative to the Vancian Wizard.
It's not bad, but it's so similar to the wizard that it feels kinda unnecessary.
I'm going to stretch out a bit here and say 3.5's Warlock was the best sorcerer.
Just because I feel like the mechanics used for the class would have been great for the sorcerer, giving it a real differential from the wizard.
Warlock.
Well... see above in the Sorcerer section.
Let me just mention that although I like 3.5's sorcerer, that class didn't get as much love as the core classes, so it feels a bit lacking.
Wizard.
Mmmmmmmmm... not sure.
Wizards in all editions feel very similar to me (except 4ed's). They have small differences but all feel the same.
And I find them all good (except 4ed's).
I'll say 2ed is the best.
Just because the spells in 2ed were on overall less powerful than in 3ed, and yet somehow casting them in 2ed felt like you were doing something much more powerful and wondrous than in 3ed.
I don't really know why. Maybe it's just how I remember those times...
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 5:51AM
#9
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
First, let's remember to avoid edition wars in this thread. Favorite versions doesn't mean you need to bash other editions. Thanks.
Barbarian: 1e
Bard: 2e
Cleric: 2e
Druid: 1e
Fighter: 4e
Paladin: 4e
Ranger: 1e
Rogue: 4e
Warlock: 3e
Warlord: 4e (really no choice on this one)
Wizard: 2e/4e
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 6:05AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
Barbarian: 1e
Bard: 4e
Cleric: 2e
Druid: 1e
Fighter: 2e/4e
Monk: 1e/4e
Paladin: 2e
Ranger: 1e
Rogue: 4e
Warlock: 4e
Warlord: 4e
Wizard: 2e
Honorable mentions: Avenger 4e, Shaman 4e, Artificer 3e
|
|
|
