Methinks, 'tis time for a "fun" post again. We've ALL got our favorite classes (or subclasses, depending on what edition you play), as well as our least faves, too. In this post, I'd like to know what your Top 3 classes are (in any order), and why. Toss in your least fave (keep it nice...), too, and why you don't care for it. I'll start the ball rolling:
1) Rangers, for sure, make this list. I love wildlife (had an internship at both a wildlife refuge and spent a whole summer in Yellowstone Nat'l Park the year the wolves were released in the park) and their overall philosophical bent towards preservation, respect, and defense. Having warrior skills is nice, too.
2) Wizards, usually generalists. The whole idea of magic is what drew me to D&D in the first place, so it makes sense that a mage is one of my top picks, always. I'm not usually tempted to play specialist mages given that you have to drop some other schools, but I have dabbled in them as a DM running NPCs (Necromancers always make excellent, if cliche', enemies).
3) Clerics, particulary nature-based ones (druids, clerics of Ehlonna) for the same reasons why I like rangers, but you can shape, control, and summon the very powers of Nature. If there's anything mankind should respect, perhaps fear, is the sheer majesty, power, and beauty of the natural world. Secondly to that, WoG has some great Powers to which I can relate; Trithereon is high on that list.
Of dual or multi-class options, fighter/mage is my pick. Merging fighting prowess with magical power has got to be the best of both worlds!
Least favorite: Hands' down, thieves. Now, I don't really consider bards in this category. I'm talking the stealing, lying, manipulating, pick pocketing kind. Sorry if I just named someone's favorite PC, but I just can't play that kind of character as a PC. NPC, maybe. The closest I'd come to playing a thief PC (these are all 2e kits) would be a scout, swashbuckler, or bounty hunter.
Ok, who's next?
-Lanthorn, not a Thief
p.s. the only thing I try to steal are the hearts and minds of those around me.
Ironic since wasn't it the old Greyhawk book that introduced thieves with Basic D&D?
My favorite 'classic' D&D class I think is the cleric or bard. I enjoy things in cities more than in the wilderness when it comes to D&D so I tend to play urbane characters more often than wilderness ones.
A third favorite would be a Wizard I think with a preference towards illusion.
Least favorite would be...Paladins I think. I don't really enjoy playing them too often.
Crystaltears is somewhat the opposite, she enjoys Druids among other things. Though she likes bards as well.
Last edited by Iressi on Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Oooh, I like this thread already. But to pick just three? Damn.
Alright.... Let's have a go at this.
1) Paladins - I've come to realize that my favorite class to play is most likely the Paladin. The reasons why? The traditional Lawful Good, held to rigid moral code types that I play have two things I admire: A passion for their faith whatever it may be and morals that they will not compromise. I enjoy passionate characters, and I really enjoy characters who have so much value in something that they will not tarnish it under any circumstances. I myself am agnostic, so I think that plays in too. It's nice to play someone who really does believe there's a god watching over them somewhere.
2) Druids - I love nature. I have a huge thing about the connection we form with our animals (dogs, cats, horses). I owned a horse, and over the years that I've worked with horses (both mine and others), I've seen trust built between myself and them, and the willingness to work with another. Reliance even. It's a beautiful and unconditional relationship, and I think that's awesome. The fact that Druids have bonds which exceed those I'm capable of having with their animal companions makes them alluring. As does their passionate beliefs of nature (see paladin above). One of my favorite things about playing druids is when one manages to bring enemies to keel in a way that makes her feel she's taught them a lesson about fearing and revering the awesome force of nature.
3) In no specific order, my third favorite class would come from this list: Bards, Rogues, Clerics (Healers). Bards for their social side and the fact that I enjoy performers. Rogues because I enjoy playing thieves with a soft spot or a reason to leave their thieving ways behind them and travel into dungeons. Clerics (and Healers) because I like supporting others.
Least favorite? I don't think I can say I have one anymore. For the longest it was arcane casters because I didn't feel I knew enough about their spells to pick the right sorts of things for them, and their spellcasting is more limited than a Cleric or Druids in that they don't get access to the whole list, but over time I've become fairly familiar with the various spells in D&D and I have played a number of specialist (and unspecialized) wizards I've enjoyed... As well as some sorcerers. _________________ Shadows and Dust; Just Another Soul.
Crystaltears, you are eloquent. I think you have the Oratory proficiency for sure (or would that be considered an Artistic skill instead?).
And, after reading your paragraph about Druids, I think now you should go by the nickname of the Horse-Whisperer. Just a thought.
i've never played a paladin as a main character, but have NPCed them (Heironeous, Pholtus, and St Cuthbert...but will soon add Pelor to that list in a campaign very soon). However, my main player/friend has a 7th lvl paladin (Heironeous) that he made as a 'test' character and has done a superb job with him (even though the poor fella's died once and lost various paladin Powers for minor transgressions...now even...). I guess it's the hero who overcomes adversity and keeps trucking, right?
It's hard for me to say that I like any specific classes better than others, but I can admit that I prefer to play fighter-types to spell-casting types. What I mostly try to do is come up with a character that is as unique as I can make him or her, or one that has a background related to one of my previous characters.
I don't particularly care to play Druids because they seem to be just weak fighters without good healing capability. But the class I really dislike are Sorcerors. It just galls me that they made up a class of Magic User that doesn't have to worry about keeping a spellbook.
With the Options rules (2e, or is it 2.5 technically), you can customize a Druid with decent fighting ability, hp, and the like. There is also the Avenger kit from the Druid's Guide, if you use them.
However, to each his/her own. That's the whole point of this forum, right?
until next time,
-Lanthorn
Last edited by Lanthorn on Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
1) Wizards - Just the general, non-specialized kind who knows a lot about a lot of things. I always envision these types of characters as the embodiment or personification of a creative persons imagination. Once you have the basics, there is really nothing a wizard shouldn't be able to come up, from a clever plan to a different way of solving a riddle. I do hate just starting out with the shrimpy hit points though...
2) Thieves - Not the sniveling, jump you and knife you in the alley kind. I'm thinking more of a medieval James Bond, suave and a total rake. Maybe posing as art collector in a city or something where he could be a fence for items... liberated from those more fortunate. Or maybe a guy great at forging documents and disguise.
3) Fighter - Guy and a sword - meh? Well, what if the character specialized in dual-fighting in hand axes, a spiked chain, or boomerang? Suddenly he's a lot more spicy and stands out. I always like them to live by some code of honor and be a little bit of a daredevil. _________________ For the last time... I'm not a vampire! I was bleached a bewitching shade of white by The Gem of Souls!
Crystaltears, you are eloquent. I think you have the Oratory proficiency for sure (or would that be considered an Artistic skill instead?).
And, after reading your paragraph about Druids, I think now you should go by the nickname of the Horse-Whisperer. Just a thought.
Aww, thank you. I could tell stories about my time working with horses, from abused animals to ones who were just hard to handle. I got my share of handling different temperaments on behalf of the Girl Scouts program in east Texas. They're really wonderful animals, but you can never forget that at a thousand pounds or more they can easily kill you on accident. Gives you a different sort of insight into and respect for nature.
Lanthorn wrote:
i've never played a paladin as a main character, but have NPCed them (Heironeous, Pholtus, and St Cuthbert...but will soon add Pelor to that list in a campaign very soon). However, my main player/friend has a 7th lvl paladin (Heironeous) that he made as a 'test' character and has done a superb job with him (even though the poor fella's died once and lost various paladin Powers for minor transgressions...now even...). I guess it's the hero who overcomes adversity and keeps trucking, right?
And this is why I love Arshea in my current campaign. She has every reason to want to settle down and live quietly, but chooses to go forth to protect the people she loves. It's inspiring.
I too look forward to reading more answers to this thread. Really good topic, Lanthorn. Thank you for that.
illustr8or wrote:
1) Wizards - Just the general, non-specialized kind who knows a lot about a lot of things. I always envision these types of characters as the embodiment or personification of a creative persons imagination. Once you have the basics, there is really nothing a wizard shouldn't be able to come up, from a clever plan to a different way of solving a riddle. I do hate just starting out with the shrimpy hit points though...
I never thought about wizards that way. Suppose I think of creativity in more an artistic bent than problem solving, but problem solving requires it too, so I'm glad I read this. New perspective.
illustr8or wrote:
2) Thieves - Not the sniveling, jump you and knife you in the alley kind. I'm thinking more of a medieval James Bond, suave and a total rake. Maybe posing as art collector in a city or something where he could be a fence for items... liberated from those more fortunate. Or maybe a guy great at forging documents and disguise.
I love these types of thieves. They always catch my eye when I come against them in a campaign (as enemies or allies). Just too much fun not to I suppose. _________________ Shadows and Dust; Just Another Soul.
Aww, thank you. I could tell stories about my time working with horses, from abused animals to ones who were just hard to handle. I got my share of handling different temperaments on behalf of the Girl Scouts program in east Texas. They're really wonderful animals, but you can never forget that at a thousand pounds or more they can easily kill you on accident. Gives you a different sort of insight into and respect for nature.
Crystaltears. Please don't take offense. This reminds me of trying to teach my younger sisters how to play D&D when I was in High School and they were in Jr. High.
I didn't want to, but my mother insisted because they wanted to learn. We made up characters, then played for about an hour. Fully half of that hour, at least, consisted of my sisters telling me exactly how they groomed and otherwise cared for their characters' horses. I kept telling them, "I've got it! It's okay, you don't have to do any more!" but they felt it was necessary to explain everything so that I didn't think their horses would be poorly treated. I was ready to pull my hair out. Afterward, my mother relented and told me I didn't have to DM for them any more. Whew!
Colleagues in Oerth, great entries and discussion.
"Horse-Whisperer," there's a nice entry in one of the Dragon Mag's (please don't ask which one right now) that fully details horses as NPCs of sorts, from physical characteristics to personality traits, tricks, and even flaws. Very awesome, and I frequently use it, as most of my characters are mounted, and I like to give a new dimension to travel, nature, and animals. FYI: there's also a great one for dogs, too!
Illust8or, I like your mage ideas, and whole-heartedly concur. With their magical repertoire, often the only thing that limits them is their imagination (esp. if they have illusions)...perhaps money too. It's a recession right now, right? You strike me as a guy who likes to give his PCs depth, and I can really appreciate that. I try to do the same.
SirXaris, your story about teaching younger sisters how to role-play is classic. I just cannot imagine having to do that. You surely gained a level as a benevolent brother on that one! I tried once with my brother (who is not much like me at all and chides me for gaming to this day) and he lost interest (he's definitely a hack and slash kinda guy), but BOY did I get his attention one time when a woman he rescued turned into a werewolf and attacked him... heheehheeh
Wizards: They are always the most popular and discussed class in Greyhawk or any setting. Arch mages are the yardstick for greatness in fantasy.
Rogues/Thieves: I like this class because it uses Dex and Charisma over Strength and Intelligence. Sometimes you need to fly by the seat of your pants and charm your way out of situations instead of bullying with swords and magic.
Well at one time it was Barbarians maybe because I was a big fan of Conan and Claw the Unconquered. But I loved it when such characters would slay a mage.
My favorite character was actually a Priest of an non GH gods and played in a non Greyhawk world. His name was Caranthes Solivion and as a priest you have a plethora of options on roleplaying its what makes the characters real.
Bards are be coming my new favorite well a bit bias considering I play a bard in the Spine Castle campaign posted on these boards.
Otherwise I can play any none are really dislikes just a preference.
I kind of like all of the classes, but I am particularly fond of multi-class mage/thieves. Lots of potential and versatility in that combination. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Argon, call me a telepath, but I had a feeling that barbarians would be high on your personal list.
Cebrion, I agree that mage/thieves are fairly versatile. What do you think of the elven spellfilcher kit? I had a player who really did an excellent job on one and kinda "defined" that character kit for me.
Wizards: They are always the most popular and discussed class in Greyhawk or any setting. Arch mages are the yardstick for greatness in fantasy.
Rogues/Thieves: I like this class because it uses Dex and Charisma over Strength and Intelligence. Sometimes you need to fly by the seat of your pants and charm your way out of situations instead of bullying with swords and magic.
I always hated playing wizards, and most other spell-users although I didn't mind multi-classing with a spell-using class, especially after I and the people I played 1/2e with started using a spell-point system. 4e opened me up to playing spell-users although I still prefer fighting classes. I just like mixing it up too much.
1) Paladins: Thanx Crystal for coming out of the closet before me I would say most of the characters I have played have been Paladins. I've always loved the fighter with a greater cause aspect of them. To me they seem to have a closer relationship with their God than a cleric does, being their champion. I played two human Paladins in 3.5, and when I was asked to play in a 4e campaign (keep the boo'ing to a minimum ;-)) I rolled up a Half-Orc Paladin of Torm (I know..I know FR.. boo me twice). Its been fun to play so far even with the stilted 4e rules.
2) Rangers: I know I should love these guys because they are close to nature but honestly I love them because if they are played right, they are one of the most kick butt classes, especially in Pathfinder. I deal in death at 30'.
3) Fighter: in D&D and AD&D 1, the dwarf fighter was my favorite. Maybe its because of my love of The Hobbit (My first fighter's name was Thorin) but I just loved the battle-axe wielding steadfast warrior. When our first campaign finished and I retired Thorin at level 13, I rolled another one, called him Balin and took him to 8th before stopped we stopped playing.
Least Favorite:
Casters.. Casters.. and Casters.. In that order. I just never found any interest in playing this type of class. I guess I'm a get in the middle of the scrap kinda guy (even my ranger can melee with the best of them) so the magic-user never appealed to me. _________________ Dymond
-My kingdom for a Shield Lands map!
Long reply ahead...and note: these opinions are more based off of "gaming experience" than any kind of personal like/dislike for any particular class/concept.....there are remarkably few class/concepts that I find not worth giving a whirl as a character....off the top of my head; only "Necromancer" and "Assassin" strike me as two concepts I'm almost positive I would never play...
Okay...for me; favorite and least favorite depend on edition (and I'm only talking 1st and 2nd here; I have a well documented dislike of 3rd and I pretty much consider 4th to be a miniature war-game with light role-playing elements...
First Edition:
Favorites: Ranger; Thief; Cleric
The Ranger: A class that is so good in 1st Edition; it's actually ridiculously over-powered and any sane DM should tone the class down IMMEDIATELY (in my opinion). With no Armor restrictions; 2d8 hit points at first level; a +1 PER LEVEL to damage to a list of humanoid monsters that numbers over 40 (if including the additions in Unearthed Arcana); and a host of other special abilities including BOTH Druid and Wizard Spells (Why on EARTH do they get MU spells?)....how can you NOT want to play a Ranger? :)
The Thief: First and foremost let me say this...I DESPISE when people call the Thief a "Rogue"...and the rationale is usually "Well, my Rogue doesn't steal"....I've played probably a dozen Thieves over the past 2 and a half decades and without question the Thief Skill I used the least was Pick Pockets. If a Fighter can be anything from a Knight to a Soldier to a Hunter to a Sailor to a Samurai to a Peasant with some solid "stones"....then a Thief can be any number of things as well; including someone that doesn't steal...but I digress, big-time! :)
I think the Thief is far-and-away the most versatile class of 1st Edition and one of 2 in 2nd Edition (along with the Bard)...their abilities allow them to do all sorts of tasks....though in 1st Edition; other than Picking Pockets and Climbing Walls; they won't be half-way decent at much until about 4th or 5th level!
The Cleric: I think a frequently over-looked class as many don't like the religious overtones of the class or tend to think of them as nerfed-combat medics. I think Clerics are extremely capable and have a much more diverse and versatile spell list than most ever think to use (particularly when the spells from UA are included). I will say I am somewhat biased as my personal favorite character I've ever played was a Cleric of Pelor that survived T1-4. :)
Least Favorite 1st Edition Classes: Bard, Barbarian, Cavalier
The Bard: Seriously....has ANYONE ever really played a Bard from 1st Edition...after spending that much time and effort as a Fighter and Thief...why would you bother?
Barbarian: Like many; as a kid, I got UA and saw the Barbarian and saw the d12 Hit Dice and thought AWESOME! After a few times playing it...you realize you have worse restrictions than a Paladin at low levels (can't even ASSOCIATE with an MU) and the freaking XP needed for the first few levels is INSANE for no real pay-off, in my opinon. (6,000 for 2nd....SERIOUSLY?) It gets better in the mid-levels; but a really, really high number of Hit Points and the ability to almost never get surprised or back-stabbed just isn't worth the XP when you're buddies are 3-5 levels higher than you; in my opinion.
Cavalier: Much like the Barbarian; upon taking a look at UA as a tween and early teenager; the calls looks AWESOME...until a closer look and some in-play experience is gained....First; you have to level-up...just to make 1st level...odd; but okay; I can live with that. Then the abilities.....at first; the % for all physical stats seems FANTASTIC....until one of them actually cycles up and then its basically a boatload of level-ups before it happens again. Besides that; the vast bulk of the Cavalier's combat bonuses apply either when he's mounted and charging (and seriously..how often does THAT happen in most campaigns?) or with weapons that mostly suck when compared to their "footman's" counterparts. In my experience; pretty much only the sword bonus is used with any frequency....and it doesn't hold a candle to weapon specialization. The later bonuses vs. Fear is okay....but compared to a Ranger or Paladin; the Cavalier is DEFINITELY second fiddle...unless on a horse, charging....which in my experience in playing/DMing happens about as often as PCs buy the horseman versions of the Mace or Flail rather than the Footman's.
Second Edition:
Favorites: Bard; Ranger; Cleric
The Ranger and Cleric for pretty much all of the reasons mentioned above; and this time; I think the Ranger is done right; he's powerful; but not ridiculously so and the Cleric has even more spells and the Spheres and Powers of Specific Gods (which in my opinion should ABSOLUTELY be used for every Cleric) is a really cool touch.
The Bard: Now HERE's a class that actually makes sense to play as opposed to the bizarre multi-class mess that is the 1st Edition Bard. The Bard is part Thief; part Entertainer; part Wizard; part Historian; part Fighter and ALL fun! About the only thing I would change is allowing PCs to pick any 3 Thief Skills they like that fit their character's background to go along with Read Languages.
Least Favorite Classes: This is tough....but I guess I'd have to go with the Abjurer, the Necromancer and the Diviner. I would NEVER play a Necromancer; as mentioned above; and the Abjurer and Diviner would just seem to be not particularly well-suited for most adventures I can think of...unless perhaps the Abjurer is mid to high level and going to a demon-infested place and the Diviner is in a highly investigative kind of adventure.
Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts off the top of my head; and for the guy who said he thought the Druid was a weak fighter with weak healing abilities....I'm a bit confused by this statement. In 1st Edition; while the class tends to gain the Healing Spells at levels higher than regular Clerics; Druids also get 2nd level Spells at 2nd and 3rd level spells at 3rd. Also; they have the same THAC0 as Clerics and while Clerics get better armor options; it can be argued that Druids have better or at least equal weapon options (Spear, Scimitar). In 2nd Edition; the Druid has access to the Healing Sphere; so they have the same "Cure" Spells; but they lack the "Cure Blindness, Cure Disease, etc." spells of the Necromantic Sphere....so perhaps, this is what you meant?
Finally; as for Multi-Class options; like Cebrion; I have always enjoyed the Mage/Thief for the versatility and also; I really like the little-used Cleric/Thief...a VERY capable combo...if you ever to adventure alone; I think it's the best bet (even over Fighter/Mage) due to the decent combat; decent hit points, nice array of spells/abilities and fast leveling up! I absolutely despise 3 class multi-combos and would NEVER allow someone to play one...though, man...the leveling up must be a NIGHTMARE! :)
...and I pretty much consider 4th to be a miniature war-game with light role-playing elements...
Not trying to thread-jack, personally attack, or start a version war, but this is true only if people choose to play it with light role-playing elements. 4e can be just as role-play heavy as you want it to be, likewise a 1e game can be played about as exciting as playing fantasy football (apologies to fans of fantasy football, but it looks as exciting to me as doing your taxes.)
Back to the topic, Maxvale76, I totally agree with you about the Necromancer and Assassin thing. I flirted with the whole evil character thing as a teenager, but even then never really got the appeal of the Assassin class. It's the one class I've never really wanted to try running.
Hey smillian; I certainly mean no offense to anyone and I'm ALWAYS just throwing my own opinion out there...it's a free-country and to each their own...I wouldn't dream of ever telling anyone their opinions are "wrong".
I have limited experience with 4th; only seeing the basic PHB when the game first came out and playing a few sessions with a couple of friends. To me; it seemed like 75% or more of the rules (including spells) were all built around how many "squares" are affected; how many times a "power" can be used per encounter, etc. I.e.; to me; these are all "board game rules". I have the same problem with the otherwise excellent (to me) RPG: Savage Worlds. It really, really irks me how many stats are listed for usage of miniatures on a board.
Now to me; I love board games....I also love RPGs....for whatever reason; I have a MASSIVE AVERSION to combining the two. I have never used mini's in my RPGs for anything other than 'reference' (i.e. these guys are sorta here...you guys are sorta there...)....and I really dislike looking at RPGs with stats spelled out for a board/map.
Now this is JUST ME and I fully realize I'm pretty much one of very, very few on my little island of strange views. :) I also realize that D&D came directly from miniature gaming; so I really see 4th as going back to the roots of D&D and it certainly doesn't offend me anywhere near as much as 3rd does. I also am fully aware that all games are completely dependent upon the GM/DM and the players to truly make it a "fun" game. I was simply making a comment to the effect that it seems that most of the 1 4th Edition book I really looked thru seemed to spend the vast bulk of its time dealing with "board game" rules; in my opinion. To many; this might be a very good thing....I know lots of folks who want as few "rules" for the purely role-playing parts of the game as possible...I'm not quite in that camp; but I DO understand the appeal.
My apologies for any offense I may have caused.....if it's any consolation; I'm frequently called a heretic for really liking 2nd Edition and for my love of Carl Sargent's GH stuff. :)
My favorite class is the much maligned 'Thief'. Sure, I can pick open a lock, but isn't that the best way to surprise the critters on the other side, rather than just bash it down and alert everyone in quarter-mile radius that adventurers are on the way?
I don't play a thief - a common criminal who steals trinkets from whoever is vulnerable. I play a Thief. I play a specialist in bypassing security rather than smashing through it. I play a smooth character, for whom a thousand words can get my party things no amount of brute force can win. I play an sneaky intelligence gatherer, for no battle can suceed in ignorance of the enemy dispositions.
All I ask is for my fair share of the loot, and the chance to share in adventures far greater than those I could manage on my own. In return, I'll gather you greater treasures and take you on adventures you'd ne'er manage on your own either!
Hey smillian; I certainly mean no offense to anyone and I'm ALWAYS just throwing my own opinion out there...it's a free-country and to each their own...I wouldn't dream of ever telling anyone their opinions are "wrong".
No offense taken, Max. The structure of the 4e rule-set can very easily give that perception, and it can be and to my knowledge is run that way by some DMs and players. To me it's a form of Monty-haulism, which hopefully gamers will grow out of. I would hate to see the game become just what you described, but thankfully there are still plenty of people at Wizards who are keeping the role-playing aspect of the game alive in 4e, and hopefully it's rubbing off on some the new players coming to the game. That and us old dinosaurs can keep it alive.
Cebrion, I agree that mage/thieves are fairly versatile. What do you think of the elven spellfilcher kit? I had a player who really did an excellent job on one and kinda "defined" that character kit for me.
I have a love/hate relationship with most of the character class kits. Some of them serve a purpose by allowing a certain character class to function in a variant way that is representative of the character background. Most of them are just a way to get something extra, and such is the case with the spellfilcher kit(detect magic 1/day per level; +5%, +5% per 4 levels bonus to detect/disarm magical traps). It is not like the mage/thief isn't useful enough as it is, and the spellfilcher kit fits no background of any kind that it hasn't been created within the kit itself to justify it.
As with many kits, the benefits really don't get counter balanced by the hindrances, as most DM's don't enforce them("Sorry dude. Your character has to miss the next adventure because hes' stealing something for the elves, so you don't get to play."). I would replace the whole spellfilcher "down side" with a real downside- an XP penalty representing the character's missed time due to other obligations, which won't involve the same level of hard core tasks(i.e. they are worth less XP) as do the tasks that the average adventuring party undertakes. We'll just say that the spellfilcher somehow manages to squeeze in some time for the elves in between the party's regular adventures. That's how I would handle(i.e. balance) that particular kit.
No free lunches in my campaign. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
The Witch class from Dragon #114 - part wizard, part druid, all awesome. My night hag NPC that has been in all of my online games since 1995 was created for a 1e game as a witch/dreamer (Dragon #132 for the Dreamer, add Dragon #125 for my take on hags). The lack of a proper witch class in 3.5e has always puzzled me, though I realize several third party publishers have published their take on the class. The witch class in Pathfinder is the closest I have seen, in a current product, to something I would enjoy running.
Bards - from the sheer lunacy of the 1e bard (fighter/thief/druid = bard?!?) to later incarnations, I have always enjoyed the magic of music (oh.. ever applied 1e UA to the bard? Start as a fighter, double-specialize in 2 weapons, switch to a thief and become a thief/acrobat, then become a bard under druidic tutelage, all the way to L23 with the expanded class). I have a handful of notes detailing a bard variant for my game, based on the games “Loom” and “Aquaria”. The BBEG in my current game is a bard... sorta
It’s a tough call, for a third favorite... but probably a spellcaster. Possibly a Nacremancer. ;)
A least favorite? Another difficult choice, there. Assassins seem like a somewhat superfluous class, since anyone can kill anyone anyway, so I might start with that. Though I did play an albino drow M-U/assassin for a time, after reading Elric.
And, as for the allure of horses, I have 12 (and donkeys, sheep, goats, etc etc). Most of my horses are minis and rescues, so I have a lot of “yard art”.
I think 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4.0 are all poop in book-form.
I happen to like some poop
Aeolius: In the Pathfinder campaign I am in, one of my fellow characters is a Half-Orc witch and he won't tell us what the other half is. We can't pronounce his name so we all call him 'cookie' and he plays this character magnificently! _________________ Dymond
-My kingdom for a Shield Lands map!
one of my fellow characters is a Half-Orc witch and he won't tell us what the other half is. We can't pronounce his name so we all call him 'cookie' and he plays this character magnificently!
To familiarize myself with 3e when it was first released, I rolled up Nok, a portly half-orc bard with skills as a chef and taxidermist. He wore a bloodied leather apron and attacked with meat cleavers.
one of my fellow characters is a Half-Orc witch and he won't tell us what the other half is. We can't pronounce his name so we all call him 'cookie' and he plays this character magnificently!
To familiarize myself with 3e when it was first released, I rolled up Nok, a portly half-orc bard with skills as a chef and taxidermist. He wore a bloodied leather apron and attacked with meat cleavers.
Ours is the party cook as well. He has a ton of skills in cooking so it usually comes out tasting great, we just found its better not to ask whats in it... _________________ Dymond
-My kingdom for a Shield Lands map!
I don't have a fav. class. To me it's how much fun you have with what ever character your running.
My best character was a hafling wizard (3.5 ) was Churro. I had some great rolls two 18's and a 17 with a 9. So of course I put one of the 18's in INT. and the other in Dex ( got to have that AC up their) but where to put the 17 at??? More hit points would be nice, so it went into Con. So after afew levels our DM gave out a Tome of Unaversal abilitys ( something our Dm made up). It gave you a d6 roll to see what ability went up and a d6 to see how much. We ( the players) were all drooling to have it. So we rolled for it. I ended up with the tome.
So my first roll was to see what stat went up. I rolled a 3, hey more con. never hurt's. Next was how much. HOLY COW!!!!! A 6!!!! My con just went from 17 to 23 at 5th level.
So after year of playing, my halfling wizard was 12th level with 102 HIT POINTS! I had a con of 25 with a +7 hit points per level. I had 1 more point than our 11th level fighter ( also had rolled four 4's when rolling hit points). It was fun playing a wizard with front line hit points and had one heck of a Fort save.
So in conclusion, it's not the class, too me it's how much fun you make out of it.
I think 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4.0 are all poop in book-form.
Say it ain't so!! I've been playing since '81, and I prefer 3.5/PF.
The character that was the cat's meow for me was my 1ed F/T/B, it takes work to get one and a LOT of luck!
My favorite classes to play in no particular order
Paladin - the classic knight in shining armor to me, defender of the weak and destroyer of evil
Bard - The strong support they can play with their bardic abilities, with a few roguish skills too
Wizard - Generalist, specialized wizards are too confining for me
Least favorite, sorcerer, for the reason previously stated, no spell book! _________________ Servant of Azmekidom the Most Prudent Despot, The Unapproachable One
At risk of turning this into a "My version of D&S rules, yours SUX!" Thread, I'm going to chime in.
I've played redbox D&D, AD&D 1 and 2, and D&D 3.x/Pathfinder. Too a long hard look at 4, decided it wasn't for me - I don't like the idea that everyone has the same type and number of uses of abilities. Just me, if it works for you, that's nice.
I find that 3.x/Pathfinder suits me best. It allows for enormous flexibility (for a class-based system) in character creation without the need for a host of extra rules, like the 2E kits did.
WOW, people, you've been busy in my absence (I took a weekend vacation to the Oregon Coast with the family)! My eyes are stinging with all the amazing discourse. And here I thought my measly little post would fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. I am immensely impressed this took off.
There's way too much for me to address, point by point, but I will try to chime in a little.
Cebrion, thank you for your take on kits. I personally like most of them (though I really have little use for the Complete Priest's Guide and find it the most useless of them all), although my main fellow player doesn't much care for 'kitting' most of his PCs and NPCs. I agree with you that a DM should try to balance the pro's and con's of the kits to make it fair. In my campaigns, and those my good bud run, we keep that balance, bladesingers and spellfilchers included by having the Guild intervene. These become adventures unto themselves, and there's no reason to have fellows along to help assist with the 'mission' for the benefit of elfkind (whether they know the 'true' nature or not).
Max, your extensive diatribe on the various classes with respect to the various editions of the game was great, and it had me laughing b/c most of it is so TRUE...at least to me. Like you, I am an ardent "follower" of 2e and I think most of the character classes, including the ranger and bard, are well-balanced in the 2e rather than the 1e format. Your Unearthed Arcana rant was equally informative and amusing. At the risk of being roasted at the stake with you by some of the 3e and 4e players, I think you and I are cut of the same 2e cloth. I stand by your side on this one, but not sure how many others will die on that 2e sword with us...
Not really a minature's kinda guy, but like the use of props to describe a scene, whatever is at hand: dice, pencils, odds n ends, and if all else fails, will scrawl on a piece of paper to show placements, features, and the like.
I appreciate everyone who added to this growing post. I hope to read more.
I really like the little-used Cleric/Thief...a VERY capable combo...if you ever to adventure alone; I think it's the best bet (even over Fighter/Mage) due to the decent combat; decent hit points, nice array of spells/abilities and fast leveling up!
I have a gnome thief/priest of Baravar Cloakshadow who passes himself off as an illusionist (2E priests of Baravar can cast illusion/phantasm spells as priest spells). I don't normally play multiclass characters because they advance so slow, but thief/ priests gain levels nearly as fast as wizards.
I've also been playing through good old Eye of the Beholder with a thief/priest in the party, which works out well.
Tis true, Vestcoat (does it come in Stoneskinned forms? I could use one at times!), that multi-classed characters advance slowly. My bladesinger and fighter-priest of Trithereon are having a devil of a time ( ) leveling! However, sometimes the mixture of various powers and abilities are just too tempting to pass. I've never really liked how XP seems to be divvied up, so my main player and I have a 'house rule' that works for us. But that is for a different forum entirely.
-Lanthorn, multi-classed husband, dad, son, brother, teacher, and more (and probably not that proficient in any of them!)
WOW, people, you've been busy in my absence (I took a weekend vacation to the Oregon Coast with the family)! My eyes are stinging with all the amazing discourse. And here I thought my measly little post would fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. I am immensely impressed this took off.
Hey, just noticed we're in the same neighborhood! I live in Olympia. Hope you had a good time on the coast. It was a good weekend for it.
Cebrion, thank you for your take on kits. I personally like most of them (though I really have little use for the Complete Priest's Guide and find it the most useless of them all), although my main fellow player doesn't much care for 'kitting' most of his PCs and NPCs. I agree with you that a DM should try to balance the pro's and con's of the kits to make it fair. In my campaigns, and those my good bud run, we keep that balance, bladesingers and spellfilchers included by having the Guild intervene. These become adventures unto themselves, and there's no reason to have fellows along to help assist with the 'mission' for the benefit of elfkind (whether they know the 'true' nature or not).
The "downside" is that the character has to go on an adventure, with his adventuring companions? Oh darn. That is so messed up.
Do you at least say "All money and items of worth found on this adventure will be the property of the elf guild!", or something similar? I would hope so, otherwise having to go on an adventure with your buds isn't exactly much of a downside.
The most fun I have had with the downsides of kits were with the Witch, Berzerker, Swashbuckler, and Cavalier kits. The Witch alienated nearly everyone, so help for her was often hard to come by. The Berzerker was a wild card in battle, was noted for attacking allies at inopportune moments, and for turning even a simple bar fight into something that could be deadly serious. The Swashbuckler's "background adventures" gave him a reputation of sorts, and being a bard made that reputation an often positive one with the ladies...and a not so positive one with their husbands/fathers/brothers/cousins/uncles/ etc. The Cavalier, also being a paladin, got many benefits from that kit. He ended up not only being beholden to the superiors of this church, but also to a liege lord as well, and was called away at inopportune times to serve. His chivalric code was also put to the test quite often, which led to other difficulties(often in the midst of an adventure).
Now, take three of those characters and put them in one adventuring party. Yes, the "highjinks" did very much then ensue. The benefits of those kits are obvious enough, so the downsides were played up greatly, which in turn greatly influenced events regarding the characters with those kits in the campaign. Now, a downside need not screw a character over badly, just limit their choice/autonomy to some degree. Sometimes the best way of doing that is to put the character in a position of authority, where they have responsibilities which cannot be ignored. Yeah, you like that position of authority, don'tcha? Well, here is the list of responsibilities that MUST be taken care of. Failure to take care of those responsibilities will result in...consequences. Depending on the character, that can mean all sorts of things. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Yeah, my players have gotten to the point where they're respectable and serving a lord, and are now holding an old keep they cleared out for him. It's nice not to have to come up with a plot hook longer than "You need to go do this because that's what your lord wants you to do" when it's convenient. Everybody's role is pretty clear except for the Halfling rogue, although I'm thinking she might be called upon to gather up some of the more likely Halfling lads in the neighborhood to form a group of scouts. Civil war is brewing in Sterich
1. Wizards. For the very reason I don't like 4th ed. Previous edition magic systems allow for a great variety of results especially in the enchantment/charms, illusions, and polymorph/transmutations. It is the completely off the wall results these can produce with some imagination on the part of the players or DM's that make the game for me. The bestow curse/curse spell, along with the varieties of curses possible remains one of my favorites. Some will complain about how one spell can radically change an encounter or adventure. But to me that is the difference between a game that is attempting to replicate the "magical" versus merely being "magic using" (i.e. replace with tech for other genres).
2. Clerics. This is a close second and almost a tie with wizards for the same magic-using reason. In 3rd ed., it is my opinion the cleric can be a bit over-powered, especially as developed in the supplemental books.
OF COURSE this means that 1st edition half-elf fighter/magic-user/clerics were among my favorites. There was also a ranger/cleric multi-class option. I still keep trying to replicate these in 3rd ed., to the extent possible.
3. Thief. This is a bit more specific to an edition and that is 3rd ed. (where it has been slandered with the term "rogue"). I always thought that in previous editions the thief suffered. With more specific rules for sneaking around, and for sneak attack, the 3rd ed. brought the thief up to the rest of the classes.
Least Favorite. Monk. I always had some trouble picturing this class in the midst of a quasi - medieval environment. The elimination of the monk for 2nd ed. got me to create a psionic variant with the players in my group, which seemed to make more sense. My "psymidon" worked pretty well and I now hijack a feat from an Eberron source book to have monks advance as psionic warriors to replicate my 2nd ed. solution. I realize the Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook reintroduced a monk for 2nd ed., but by then my players and I were satisfied with our fix.
Lanthorn - I make all my players come up with a background so they are not only invested in whether they live or die, and it's so helpful for me as a DM to tailor the adventures to what their characters wishes are so they get maximum fun out of it.
Aeolius - Thanks for the pointers on the Witch class. I'll have to check that out! _________________ For the last time... I'm not a vampire! I was bleached a bewitching shade of white by The Gem of Souls!
In 2ed D&D my fav was Wizard. Started off really weak but once you could start casting your power just exploded.
In 3.5 D&D in GreyHawk I played a Bard/Marshall. That was awesome. At 6th level I had a Diplomacy check of +24! 9 Ranks +5 Cha +2 Syng. +5 marshall aura +3 skill focus. Same with bluff. Could not fight myself but between bard song and auras well... anyone near be could do all kinds of crazy stuff.
I can definitely concede that people who really like to run Wizards/Magic Users from previous editions would probably not be happy with how they've been handled in 4e. But then for people like me the 4e rules actually make the Wizard and other heavy spell-casters playable classes. It's the universal law, no matter what, somewhere, somebody ain't gonna be happy.
Backgrounds are always helpful when creating PCs. I see it as a joint process, with both DM and player co-constructing the backstory. I've done whole diagrams and charts of family members, given basic personality concepts, names, and character classes, as needed. In fact, adventures have revolved around family members, especially those with classes (my fighter-priest of Trithereon mainly), and these become interested games unto themselves. And the Gods forbid if you have a nasty, vile-hearted enemy who finds out about where you live and your family...now I see why some 'heroes' try to distance themselves from close ties with others. It's lonely, but at least you don't have to worry about retribution to your family and friends. Who said being a hero was easy and fair.
Welcome to the boards! Are you a long time fan or new to Grey Hawk?
Later
Argon
Very happy to be here. I've been a fan of GreyHawk since my first LG Mod back in year 3. Before that I played homebrew with the sometimes oneshots in Dragon Lance and Ravenloft. While GreyHawk is my favorate Ravenloft is not far behind. All homebrews have a speical place for me.
Just reflected again on classes, and I remember how much I enjoyed the specialty priests in the 2nd edition. Essentially a class for each deity. It made more sense than any of the other solutions. Iuz priests capable of inflict but not cure spells, Boccob priests with extensive access to wizard spells. To some extent preserved in 3rd through prestige classes, but not so thoroughly. Anyone else have opinions on the 2nd ed. specialty priests?
Baneful, I love them and wish that a book came out for ALL the Powers (Demi-, too) that detailed their aspects, special abilities, religious duties, and the like much like what Bastion of Faith did for Heironeous. The Scarlet Brotherhood booklet fleshed out some of the Suel Powers, and it was good (especially the few upon which they focused like Wee Jas, Bralm, Llerg, etc). I never understood why WotC didn't jump on that financial market and produce a book that delineated the same kind of format for ALL of Greyhawk's Powers. Although I don't mind cobbling something together from my own creativity and cross-referencing with various articles, it would be nice to have that product offered.
Ravenloft is probably second because it grew out of Grey Hawk hence the many GH personalties which reside or once resided there.
Go to the welcome to Greyhawk thread and introduce yourself. Also you can join the chats notice the shiny feature known as greytalk chat now (with java). Then you can join in on the insanity or anti-lurker aura I exude.
BW, thanks for adding your 2 cents. I woulda guessed a caster...
In the past, when I first started, I avoided using components for mages and clerics. Now, though, I enjoy them. It adds a whole new dimension to the mystique of these classes, and also provides a balance to the game, I think, esp. when they get to higher levels. It is much more paperwork, but I think it's worth it. I am oftentimes rather meticulous, so it likely is a function of my personality, and I figure if I'm gonna do something, I need to do it "right." That's me, though.
I purchased all the splatbooks but after the intial excitement of the various kits wore off, I returned too the core classes.
Call me old fashioned, but the kits seem to restrict role-playing. With a little imagination, thieves can be either the urban pickpocket or rural bandit but each remain thieves - enviroment not kits should determine. I realise it made business sense for setting but in the end, more books were not needed when imagination easily filled in the blanks.
IMHO; simplify and be creative rather then drag along a bunch of splatbooks.
Replying to Lanthorn's post: That's why I said I like wizards as NPCs. I do the paperwork (electronically, but what's in a name) for the material components and all that fun stuff, but being the DM, I don't need to make those annoying phone calls "I need (component) to cast (spell), but I can't find a price for it in any of my lists" Of course, I do tend to get on the receiving end of them when a player runs a wizard.
My tendency to avoid casters when I'm a player in a game is probably because of what I said about having to make phone calls for some piddly question, and also because I enjoy doing the DM work a lot more than I can endure working on a player character. It's just easier to get the job done when I don't need to consult someone else on the rules.
Replying to Crag's post now: I can't entirely agree with your assertion. However, your example of the thief class is a good example. In 2nd edition, and 3rd, the rules allow for more customization there, so the kits tend to mean a bit less. One kit may give a penalty to a given thief skill, so the player just throws more points into it if needed.
Now I'm thinking of last Thursday's chat. People in there may recall I mentioned I can't remember the last time a PC thief used Pick Pockets in a game. In my experience with 2nd edition, the most popular skills are Find/Remove Traps, and Open Locks, followed closely by Move Silently and Hide In Shadows.
Now, some of the other class kits seem a bit more useful in the right setting. For example, the Swashbuckler kit for fighters. In a setting where people might not be running around in plate mail, that +2 to AC can come in handy. If your swashbuckling fighter is lucky enough to have an 18 Dex, he's already AC 4 in his underwear. Many kits also give bonus proficiencies; that can be nice also.
So, I don't see kits as a straitjacket to role playing. Used right, they can even be a bit helpful (though the examples I gave were on the numbers) I should also point out, don't forget the kit restrictions. They can be useful as well.
I won't force a player to take or not take a kit. I believe that decision should be for the player, except of course, if a given kit just has no place in the setting of the game.
BW, I guess I misunderstood your intentions on the component thing. My bad.
I agree with you on the kits but know that may not be a common sentiment. My main player/DM doesn't "kit" nearly as much as I do. I like them. Like you mentioned, I see them offering possibilities to 'flesh out' characters and can add neat dimensions. If nothing else, I think they aid in giving guidance and ideas to general character classes. But, as we can all see, it doesn't work for everyone.
For me, I'll keep and use them whenever they seem appropriate (which, is often).
Imagination rules for me, not books -- splat or otherwise.
Your playing in my game? What's the cost of a particular spell component?
Whatever I say it is. Know what a DM is?
I play a more medieval Greyhawk. In the real world, in those times, thieves and assassins were pretty much one and the same -- you sent to the same 'place' to get either job done.
All the kits just makes the game 'rules heavy,' which I don't care for. This, of course, provides the opening for 'Rules Lawyers.'
WotC does not run MY game. And neither do the players, 'Rules Lawyers' or not. So all of that stuff just makes the game 'cumbersome' for me. Just don't need it.
Just never liked the power they wield ,but if i had to guess Conan comes to mind.
But i've been around awhile i just don't post alot til i get the bug.
Hope to read more from you on our discussions, Prymus.
If you don't like the 'power' of casters, try using spell components, if you don't already. It can balance the game, especially for some that require costly, or rare, items.
I like a lot of classes, so it's really hard fr me to pick a favorite or three...
Fighter. My first character was a fighter and I love the whole warrior thing.
Magic-User/Mage/Wizard. One of my favorite characters was a 2e mage. I'm also playing a 3.5 wizard (which is a conversion of a different mage character I played in 2e) in a conversion of Return to the Tomb of Horrors.
Paladin. Fun class, and I like surprising other players when they see my character isn't Lawful Stupid. I may end up playing a paladin of Pelor in an upcoming campaign.
Thief-Acrobat. It was the only class in UA that I ever cared for, and it was a lot of fun to play.
Psychic Warrior. Just fun.
Duskblade. Not perfect, but fills that warrior-mage archetype that I love.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
But to pick just three? Damn.
But the class I really dislike are Sorcerors. It just galls me that they made up a class of Magic User that doesn't have to worry about keeping a spellbook. 
) was Churro. I had some great rolls two 18's and a 17 with a 9. So of course I put one of the 18's in INT. and the other in Dex ( got to have that AC up their) but where to put the 17 at??? More hit points would be nice, so it went into Con. So after afew levels our DM gave out a Tome of Unaversal abilitys ( something our Dm made up). It gave you a d6 roll to see what ability went up and a d6 to see how much. We ( the players) were all drooling to have it. So we rolled for it. I ended up with the tome.
Say it ain't so!! I've been playing since '81, and I prefer 3.5/PF.
) leveling! However, sometimes the mixture of various powers and abilities are just too tempting to pass. I've never really liked how XP seems to be divvied up, so my main player and I have a 'house rule' that works for us. But that is for a 
