The Gaming Den

interesting idea...not mine, but oh well...

Which D&D edition (not clone) would you pick for your favored of the core classes? (as you would hope these are what 5e uses as the base for class design.)

Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard?

Fighter: 1e
Rogue: 1e
Cleric: 2e w/specialty
Wizard: 2e w/specialty

those are mine.. probably not a shocker to many here...

Fighter: Not sure. Maybe something akin to a 3.5 Warblade?
Rogue: 3E rogue.
Cleric: 3E cleric, but with less ability to out-fight the fighter.
Wizard: Split into several classes like 3.5's Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer (as well as new classes to cover other specializations).

RobbyPants wrote: Cleric: 3E cleric, but with less ability to out-fight the fighter.

Just occurred to me: A lot of that could have been averted if a lot of Cleric buff spells had a line saying you could not cast them on yourself--they have to be used on others, unless you god happens to go into that.

And spin it saying it's the gods trying to advertise or something. "Yes, join Kord and you'll be this strong every day!"

The viability of that option depends on whether or not you're at peace with the possibility of allowing an entire party of circle-jerking clerics to clown everything.

I hope 5e doesn't have classes.

Then, maybe, I'd dish out the cash for yet another D&D edition.




My favs:

Fighter: AD&D. You got a free fortress and followers. For Fighter-likes, 3e Warblade.
Rogue: Pathfinder. I'm sorry.
Cleric: Pathfinder. I'm sorry again, Channel is cool.
Wizard: 4e. They get at-wills.

sigma999 wrote:I hope 5e doesn't have classes.

Then, maybe, I'd dish out the cash for yet another D&D edition.




My favs:

Fighter: AD&D. You got a free fortress and followers. For Fighter-likes, 3e Warblade.
Rogue: Pathfinder. I'm sorry.
Cleric: Pathfinder. I'm sorry again, Channel is cool.
Wizard: 4e. They get at-wills.

Your opinions are bad and you should feel bad.

I would sort of understand if you picked Ninja from Pathfinder and said the PF Cleric's stupid Domain tricks were cool, but the 4e thing is just inexcusable. Especially since PF Wizards get at-will cantrips and essentially at-will bullshit specialization powers. And 3.5 wizards has Reserve feats and shit.

Fighter: 3.5, Warblade or Battle Sorcerer. Possibly 4e Fighter. Just give them fucking abilities.
Rogue: Pathfinder Ninja.
Cleric: 3e, Fighter has equal, not lesser parity. Maybe PF Oracle
Wizard: 3.5, Beguiler and Dread Necro

If they have to have a Sorcerer or a Warlock, it should work like the Conduit or a hodgepodge of 3e and 4e, but not as shitty as either.

OMFG. 4E Wizards are just...neutered. They are nothing like actual Wizards.

Fighter- Monster Hunter+Godhand
Wizard- D&D: Shadow over Mystara+Psychic Force
Rogue- Metal Gear Solid+Shadow of the Colossus
everyone- +Demon's Souls



Though restricted to just D&D...

Fighter- AD&D's "move and you can still attack a bunch of times" (trailblazer's progression is easy to grasp) and bonus castle +4e abilities*
Wizard- Beguiler/Warmage/Dread specialization+4e at-will/rituals
Rogue- 4e rogue/assassin/thief

everyone- skill proficiencies instead of ranks, and themes.

*with a focus on combining moves to create new ones, don't like how bloated things got. I also think they feel better as riders to landing basic attacks rather than separately blocked maneuvers.

I don't like dailies much though, I'd rather have something like Action Points replace 'em. Wizards can stay vancian.

Schwarzkopf wrote:OMFG. 4E Wizards are just...neutered. They are nothing like actual Wizards.

.... but people don't bitch constantly about them breaking the game.

3e Wizard breaking threads are almost 30% of Den content.


And if we're adding out of D&D classes, my vote goes to the Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup roguelike class setup, which is essentially classless with templates. Ranks in skills determine damage output, spell access, armor wearing ability, and dodge.
You can start off as anything but the outcome is the same if you want to survive; a spell-using monster-summoning teleporting melee tank with massive evasion skills.
And you'll still die.

sigma999 wrote:

Schwarzkopf wrote:OMFG. 4E Wizards are just...neutered. They are nothing like actual Wizards.

.... but people don't bitch constantly about them breaking the game.

3e Wizard breaking threads are almost 30% of Den content.

The den wouldn't exist without 3e Wizards, if they're gone, where does the Den go :0?

OgreBattle wrote: The den wouldn't exist without 3e Wizards, if they're gone, where does the Den go :0?

Personally I'd go back to /tg/. I browse both at the same time, really.

sigma999 wrote:

Schwarzkopf wrote:OMFG. 4E Wizards are just...neutered. They are nothing like actual Wizards.

.... but people don't bitch constantly about them breaking the game.

3e Wizard breaking threads are almost 30% of Den content.

The fact that stupid people like you and other wannabe 4rries keep making threads where you complain about wizards does not mean all the people who argue against you and think they are mostly fine wish they would go away.

That's like Tzor posting that clearly the Den thinks that abortion should be outlawed, because so many threads are about arguing about it.

Kaelik wrote: The fact that stupid people like you and other wannabe 4rries keep making threads where you complain about wizards does not mean all the people who argue against you and think they are mostly fine wish they would go away.

That's like Tzor posting that clearly the Den thinks that abortion should be outlawed, because so many threads are about arguing about it.

I understand you're a douche about comparing a simple opinion to Tzor's anti-abortion tirades, that's fine and everyone makes mistakes, but you called me a 4rry.
Have you even read the other threads here or do you just pop in to troll?

sigma999 wrote:I understand you're a douche about comparing a simple opinion to Tzor's anti-abortion tirades,

Do you not understand the concept of analogy? When people say X is like Hitler, they don't actually mean that it is as bad as Hitler, they mean it is similar in a very specific way they are talking about.

So when I say that it's like Tzor claiming X, the point is not that your opinion about how Wizards are a problem is as bad as Tzor's opinion about abortion, it's that both you and Tzor manufacture the controversy in the first place by whining about X, even though most people don't really have any problem with X, and therefore when you say, "The Den must have a problem with X, because all these threads are arguing about it." You are being either a liar who is pretending that you speak for the Den and everyone who disagrees with you doesn't, or a retard that actually believes that.

sigma999 wrote:you called me a 4rry.
Have you even read the other threads here or do you just pop in to troll?

I called you a wannabe 4rry. Because you are an idiot who thinks that meaningful powers should go away, and the game should be about 1d8+Stat damage + minor effect. You aren't a true 4rry, because 4e even implemented their shitty ideas shittily, but if they had implemented their shitty ideas well, you would be it's biggest fan. As evidenced by thinking that the 4e Wizard is a good model for anything, because that's all about robbing them of any semblance of meaningful or useful powers.

Through the torrential downpour of shit, Kaelik's got a point. The Den complains about how D&D breaks down because a) nothing was playtested past 10 and b) shit isn't balanced from level 1. It's not "Wizards are broken and dumb", it's "If we don't scale back Wish, Gate, and crazy loops, the game falls apart" as well as "We need to uplift the fighty classes."

Seriously, most Den fantasy heartbreaker projects are about making everyone have useful abilities (and excising the conditions that lead to discrepancies). 4e Wizards don't really do that. They sniff around it (and still can do a Fighter's job as well or better on the lockdown and DPS fronts), but don't have it.

If you're poaching the power schedule like OgreBattle sort of is, then it's not so bad. But you're comparing them to another caster, who gets to stay 3e-esque and in a very real play sense, is worse for making people feel small in the pants. Frank's pet build wasn't the fucking Wizard Archer, now was it?

Kaelik's a dick, but your reasoning is confusing and wrong.

sigma999 wrote:And if we're adding out of D&D classes

we are not, because 5e cant be made form other games without being tanked and dying... it has to rely upon D&Ds past as a basis. so actual TSR/WotC products classes only.

Fighter: Complete Fighter's book of killing everything in one round, 2nd edition.
Thief: 2nd edition skill progression, Mentzer skills, 3e combat tricks, 4e movement.
Cleric: Zzzzzz. Basic? Maybe, lots of nasty undead they can destroy. 3e/PF cures.
Mage: Beguiler, Dread Necro, etc classes. 1st edition spells. AD&D spell failure.

Ranger: 1st edition, +10 vs everything with two legs. 3e Spells.
Paladin: Pathfinder.
Druid: 3e core, good at everything it does.
Barbarian: 3e Psi Warrior powers, slot-based mechanics.

Knight: 1st edition UA.
Monk: 3e Psi Warrior and Soulblade(fist) powers.
Psionic: 3e Sorcerer mechanics, Dragon-kings (late 2nd edition) powers.
Bard: 4e Warlord.
Assassin: Should be Bond, James Bond.

tussock wrote:Assassin: Should be Bond, James Bond.

Bond? not Leon?

shadzar wrote:

tussock wrote:Assassin: Should be Bond, James Bond.

Bond? not Leon?

Leon? Not Altair?

tussock wrote:Knight: 1st edition UA.

You've got to be joking. The 1E cavalier is by far the worst designed class in D&D history, and is a good candidate for the worst designed class in RPG history as well.

Paladin: The PF Paladin, one of the two classes I thought PF actually improved a lot.

Fighter: 3.5 Warblade or hell just letting the normal Fighter have access to the feats and endless magic item drops from the first Neverwinter Nights game would help a lot.

Rogue: combine the stock 3.5 Rogue with the Assassin Prc.

Monk: Replaced by Psychic Warrior

Barbarian: I'd really rather see this class made into a set of alt class features for the fighter

Bard: A Final Fantasy style Red Mage made into a DnD class with various alt class features that cover all the Bard class crap, as well as Duskblades, Hexblades, Swordmages, and Bladesingers.

Cleric: Ugh... this class just needs a full out overhaul and rebuild at this point Heavy Armor, Medium BAB, Medium HP and Full casting is too fucking much for one damn class. And that even without going into crap like the stupidly broken self-buffs, divine metamagic, and such.

Druid: See Cleric

Wizard: I don't know, the base line wizard needs work too for sure, but I'm not crazy about replacing it with the Specialist classes either because you end up with worthless piles of shit like the Warmage and still have might-as-well-be-full-wizards-do-everything-godlings like what ever the hypothetical Conjuration class would be called. Perhaps borrow something from the 3.5 Psion where every wizard must chose a school to specialize in (but no longer baring any) and the class has both a general spell list of spells from all the schools that any wizard can learn, as well as an 'advanced' spell list for each school that's only available to a wizard specialized in it.

Sorcerer: PF Sorcerer the other class PF actually managed to greatly improve And throw in the Warlock stuff in as an alt class feature maybe.

Psion: 3.5 Psion with access to the old 3E Psionic feats. Psionic Focus was a failed experiment that sucked big floppy donkey dick.

Psychic Warrior: 3.5 Psychic Warrior with access to the old 3E Psionic feats. No really, Psionic Focus sucked because nearly everything, no matter how minor, required expending focus and only like two damn feats actually required just holding focus.

Soulblade/Lurk/Wilder/Ardent/Monk: These should be folded into the Psy Warrior and Psion as alt class features.

Warlord: Perhaps a Medium BAB ToB Class with some refluffed versions of the Crusader's maneuvers (without the WoF crap though). I'm not really sure what a more D20 style Warlord would be like (no, not the Marshal, the Marshal was horrible) but one thing 4E did show was that there's a pretty big demand for a non magical healer/buffing type class so yeah, it needs to be there.

Maxus wrote:Just occurred to me: A lot of that could have been averted if a lot of Cleric buff spells had a line saying you could not cast them on yourself--they have to be used on others, unless you god happens to go into that.

4E D&D tried that, it fucked up the game worse than self-buffs. A 3E D&D cleric archer is unbalanced compared to fighter archers, but a 4E Warlord is unbalanced compared to every other melee class that has ever been invented or will be invented precisely because of this misguided thinking and churlish desire to 'punish' people for selfishness.

After the massive failure of the 2E cleric and (its flip side) the 4E leader class in general no one should be advocating a buffing paradigm where the initiator does not get to somehow enjoy their own buff if they so choose ever again. Meaning that you can have personal buffs, buffs that are personal or can be applied to other people. or buffs that can apply to you and one or more people at the same time. Implementing buffs that can't benefit the initiator is a recipe for failure.

Well what the hell, I'll weigh in.

Fighter: yeah I guess the 2E fighter. Failing that, 3.5's Warblade - maybe the "variety of options and action types" of the latter with the "becomes a leader" and "can move and shoot" of the former.

Wizard: yeah, I'm with the Beguiler+Dread Necro+Warmage crowd, or even the various Specialists and crap from PF/Unearthed Arcana. Although the reverse-casting from whatever old edition it was would be kind of cool to bring back. Fewer spells that each do more things. I would also suggest keeping something Warlock-ish in there to fill the former role of the Sorcerer: a very simple, basic "caster" for people who like spellslinging but don't like resource management or complexity.

Rogue: 3.5 Rogue or the Pathfinder one, I don't really care either way. The former can flask people to death and works fine, the latter gets some special abilities that may or may not be relevant. Alternatively the Scout perhaps?

Cleric: I'm going to have to say the 3.5 or PF one by default, even if no-one is really perfectly happy with how they work.

Druid: Totemist. Except a little bit simpler and actually working in a balanced way. No I'm serious.

Paladong: if one of the editions had them work just fine, then that one. Whatever.

Monk: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
(Maybe the Unarmed Swordsage if I had to pick?)

Bard: I neither know nor care about this one

Ranger: not sure. Maybe one of the UA variants of the 3.5 one?

Some of those probably don't need to be there due to being added in more recent editions. There are possibly others that should be added in because they're classics or whatever. I don't know. My experience with AD&D was all bad, and I'm blissfully ignorant of OD&D. And I still don't know if AD&D == 2E == what I played.

Anyway, the core four in the original post are covered.

Koumei wrote:And I still don't know if AD&D == 2E == what I played.

if you ever saw any of the books you used, can you identify them here?

Actually, I asked some vague questions online, and the main source of my confusion is you have OD&D, then AD&D, and then you have 2nd edition AD&D. The one I played was 2E AD&D.