Classes: Over/Under appreciated loved/hated. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Classes: Over/Under appreciated loved/hated. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Starchaserva
05-29-07, 01:23 PM A few days ago, I was gearing up for a new campaign, and I was thinking about what class I should start with, and it got me thinking, what are the classes that everyone loves, or the ones that everyone hates, and more importantly, why?

I've been RPing, for, well, let's say a long time, and I don't know if it's just the way people I game with behave, but there seems to be a definite trend when it comes to classes.

To me, the most underappreciated/hated core class is the Paladin. I have rarely ever met a player who likes them, let alone wants to play them. I think I've only ever had someone play a Paladin once, and every one ended up hating him because he played it stereotypically. And that's where the problem comes from, the fact that Paladin almost always seems to equal hard to get along with Zealot. Chances are, it may even deserve this connotation of being a class that only fools, or nuts adopt, since it will typically lead to trouble if played the way everyone expects them to be played.

On the other end of the spectrum, there's always been at least one person obsessed with the backstabbing Rogue in everyone of my games, and in some cases, two of them. They always play the same character, they always think they're auto-badass because "I can stab you when you sleep" (actual quote by the way) when in reality, a wizard can stab you when you sleep, they just don't get sneak attack. When it comes to being over-appreciated, I beleive Wizards fill that role perfectly especially at high levels. Not that it's not for good reason.

In the end, I beleive stereotypes play a huge role in this, such as fighters are great at low levels, but are meatbags at high level. I just wanted some feedback, if you think there's a class that should get more love, or, for that matter, less love, let's hear it
GothicDan
05-29-07, 02:24 PM I love Paladins and holy characters. I hate Rogues and usually bards.

And at higher levels, Fighters are largely negligible. This is evidenced in Realms canon, but statistically and from a literary standpoint.
CuttinCurt
05-29-07, 05:35 PM I love mutifunction wizards. Wizards that can get their hands dirty in melee or ranged combat with martial weapons. I am a sucker for the Eldrich Knight, spell sword, and havoc mage Prc's.

But back on track, I love Wizards, Wizard/fighters, and Barbarian/Sorcerers.

I am not a fan of rogues.

The other classes I have no prblem with.

I am also starting to like the Scout class alot. I have played two since it came out, and this second one is really making me rethink this class. It is wicked cool. Barbarian/Scout is nice...

CC
Traide
05-29-07, 05:54 PM I like the Rogue :eek: and any class that can craft and fight.
Steelwind
05-30-07, 04:08 AM I love playing clerics and fighter/mages(especially elven) with a side dish of full casting wizards. Clerics is because their almost like a fighter/mage wrapped into one neat package plus I've always liked being able to heal myself and my party or just the random person with a cold walking down the street. Usually I have to have some type of spellcasting in the mix, I've only had one character in recent years that wasnt a spellcaster and he was a dual scimitar wielding Dervish that ended up being truely a monster in combat.
Diffan
05-30-07, 04:51 PM I, for one, can honestly say I love the paladin. Since source books came out other than the PHB and Complete Warrior, I've found that a pally can be quite destructive (toward evil, naturally) and extreamly useful in any good-aligned party. The ability to detect evil at will is extreamly useful and since they've improved his spell list greatly in the Spell Compendium, it really make people want to stay in the class longer than 4 or 5 levels. The one problem with the class was, as Starchaserva said, the steriotype that goes along with playing one. My paladin I play goes out drinking and wenching, but never to excess and always with honor formost in his mind with the wenches (I don't think Torm has a problem with that). Needless to say, they're fun to play!

The class I most dislike is probably the Rogue. I've not good at making them, playing them, or dealing with them. It's just bad habit to get involved with them :yuck:!

As for fighters being meat bags at higher levels, I always thought a barbarian/fighter/frenzied berserker was the best path to go, considering if the build was done correctly, could do somewhere between 140-190 dmg a round.

-Diffan
GothicDan
05-30-07, 06:02 PM As for fighters being meat bags at higher levels, I always thought a barbarian/fighter/frenzied berserker was the best path to go, considering if the build was done correctly, could do somewhere between 140-190 dmg a round.

And a Wizard casting an Epic Reflect-Seed Spell would do terrible damage to him.

Epic Spells really break the game for non-Spellcasters, even without any abuse of their mechanics.
Diffan
05-30-07, 06:11 PM And a Wizard casting an Epic Reflect-Seed Spell would do terrible damage to him.

Epic Spells really break the game for non-Spellcasters, even without any abuse of their mechanics.

True, though I always thought that at the higher levels it usually came down to Initiative, which the Wiz would probably win more times than naught (espically with Nerveskitter). Hence why Martial characters have to put SOOO much $$ into their magical items to be some-what competitive.
GothicDan
05-30-07, 09:08 PM I severely dislike the idea of being able to freely buy more powerful magical items.

If the Wizards know they are far superior, magical items aside, why would they give them items with which mere Fighters could challenge and maybe even possibly defeat them?

A few wands, rings, potions, scrolls, an enchanted blade or shield, etc., I can all see as rarities, but available in Enclaves and at Magefairs.. But anything more than that, I would never allow PCs to buy, unless in super-dangerous Black Market situations, at probably significantly more than the price listed, to reflect the danger incurred by vendors who cater to such powerful items.

The amusing thing - if I remember correctly - is that this is the sort of stuff that the Red Wizards deal with, catering to very much lower-level magical items. They're currently the magic item-selling powerhouse in much of Faerun, so if PCs can't buy powerful items from them, who CAN they buy them from?

I was always a fan of DMs who placed magical treasure logically. Not necessarily based on "what was best for who," but rather items that were decent overall or could be arguably used by several members of a given party. Thus, there's no guarantee that you could just spend your gold to get exactly what you want. This would mean that the PCs would have to cooperate in choosing where and how to spend their adventuring time - certainly a Wizard would wish to explore a fallen Netherese Enclave, while a Fighter might want to explore the Tomb of Swords.

The frivolent use of magic items in 3E is actually one of my personal biggest gripes with it. I really don't see much of a need in it, except to create an artificial balance for non-spellcasting classes.
Dark Wizard
05-30-07, 10:30 PM Paladins get a bad reputation due to their code, which in most cases is too specific where it doesn't need to be and too vague when it should be clear. I like them all the same. I'm actually surprised by the number of times I've played paladins.

I agree that having Fighters balanced by items, something entirely out of their control, isn't much of a balancing point. The company doesn't seem to know what to do with them. While Fighters and other martial classes don't rule the game at higher levels, neither do they contribute much when the spellcasters can summon beings like Solars and Balors to act as their martial aid.
MerrikCale
05-30-07, 11:03 PM I always liked playing rangers, druids, rogues and clerics-probably in that order. I would probably enjoy scous and favored souls. Never liked playing monks or wizards
Khaelieth
05-31-07, 09:21 AM I don't like sorcerers.

I love wizards with the odd prestige class.

What I hate is the RoF High Mage and Bladesinger (underpowered). Pluss the classes in Heroes of Battle.
The_Shaman
05-31-07, 09:56 AM from the core classes, I like sorcerers, bards, and rangers. I appreciate well-played paladins the way I appreciate an artist at work - I wish I could play one the way it's meant to be played, but I'm not sure I can do it yet. I am ambivalent towards barbarians, rogues and divinists. What tends to irk me off is classes that are - mechanically or even more so, fluffwise - clones of other classes. Yes, sorcerer is more than a little too similar to wizard. However, read the entry of warlock - anything in it - and tell me how much of it is not 100% spot on for a fiendish or fey sorcerer. I refer to the Warmage, true necro and to a degree beguiler as the spontaneous version of specialist wizards, and simply can't appreciate them at present. Finally, there's the scout. I like rangers, I like the mechanics of rogues, and I think this class steps on their toes something awful.

I haven't tried ToB, but it seems each of their classes is a new-and-improved version of a PHB class (swordsage to monk). I wish classical concepts like fighter or paladin (or monk, although it wasn't present officially in 2.0) would get remade into more powerful versions rather than be marginalized by newer and newer base classes.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Starchaserva 05-29-07, 01:23 PM	A few days ago, I was gearing up for a new campaign, and I was thinking about what class I should start with, and it got me thinking, what are the classes that everyone loves, or the ones that everyone hates, and more importantly, why? I've been RPing, for, well, let's say a long time, and I don't know if it's just the way people I game with behave, but there seems to be a definite trend when it comes to classes. To me, the most underappreciated/hated core class is the Paladin. I have rarely ever met a player who likes them, let alone wants to play them. I think I've only ever had someone play a Paladin once, and every one ended up hating him because he played it stereotypically. And that's where the problem comes from, the fact that Paladin almost always seems to equal hard to get along with Zealot. Chances are, it may even deserve this connotation of being a class that only fools, or nuts adopt, since it will typically lead to trouble if played the way everyone expects them to be played. On the other end of the spectrum, there's always been at least one person obsessed with the backstabbing Rogue in everyone of my games, and in some cases, two of them. They always play the same character, they always think they're auto-badass because "I can stab you when you sleep" (actual quote by the way) when in reality, a wizard can stab you when you sleep, they just don't get sneak attack. When it comes to being over-appreciated, I beleive Wizards fill that role perfectly especially at high levels. Not that it's not for good reason. In the end, I beleive stereotypes play a huge role in this, such as fighters are great at low levels, but are meatbags at high level. I just wanted some feedback, if you think there's a class that should get more love, or, for that matter, less love, let's hear it
GothicDan 05-29-07, 02:24 PM	I love Paladins and holy characters. I hate Rogues and usually bards. And at higher levels, Fighters are largely negligible. This is evidenced in Realms canon, but statistically and from a literary standpoint.
CuttinCurt 05-29-07, 05:35 PM	I love mutifunction wizards. Wizards that can get their hands dirty in melee or ranged combat with martial weapons. I am a sucker for the Eldrich Knight, spell sword, and havoc mage Prc's. But back on track, I love Wizards, Wizard/fighters, and Barbarian/Sorcerers. I am not a fan of rogues. The other classes I have no prblem with. I am also starting to like the Scout class alot. I have played two since it came out, and this second one is really making me rethink this class. It is wicked cool. Barbarian/Scout is nice... CC
Traide 05-29-07, 05:54 PM	I like the Rogue :eek: and any class that can craft and fight.
Steelwind 05-30-07, 04:08 AM	I love playing clerics and fighter/mages(especially elven) with a side dish of full casting wizards. Clerics is because their almost like a fighter/mage wrapped into one neat package plus I've always liked being able to heal myself and my party or just the random person with a cold walking down the street. Usually I have to have some type of spellcasting in the mix, I've only had one character in recent years that wasnt a spellcaster and he was a dual scimitar wielding Dervish that ended up being truely a monster in combat.
Diffan 05-30-07, 04:51 PM	I, for one, can honestly say I love the paladin. Since source books came out other than the PHB and Complete Warrior, I've found that a pally can be quite destructive (toward evil, naturally) and extreamly useful in any good-aligned party. The ability to detect evil at will is extreamly useful and since they've improved his spell list greatly in the Spell Compendium, it really make people want to stay in the class longer than 4 or 5 levels. The one problem with the class was, as Starchaserva said, the steriotype that goes along with playing one. My paladin I play goes out drinking and wenching, but never to excess and always with honor formost in his mind with the wenches (I don't think Torm has a problem with that). Needless to say, they're fun to play! The class I most dislike is probably the Rogue. I've not good at making them, playing them, or dealing with them. It's just bad habit to get involved with them :yuck:! As for fighters being meat bags at higher levels, I always thought a barbarian/fighter/frenzied berserker was the best path to go, considering if the build was done correctly, could do somewhere between 140-190 dmg a round. -Diffan
GothicDan 05-30-07, 06:02 PM	As for fighters being meat bags at higher levels, I always thought a barbarian/fighter/frenzied berserker was the best path to go, considering if the build was done correctly, could do somewhere between 140-190 dmg a round. And a Wizard casting an Epic Reflect-Seed Spell would do terrible damage to him. Epic Spells really break the game for non-Spellcasters, even without any abuse of their mechanics.
Diffan 05-30-07, 06:11 PM	And a Wizard casting an Epic Reflect-Seed Spell would do terrible damage to him. Epic Spells really break the game for non-Spellcasters, even without any abuse of their mechanics. True, though I always thought that at the higher levels it usually came down to Initiative, which the Wiz would probably win more times than naught (espically with Nerveskitter). Hence why Martial characters have to put SOOO much $$ into their magical items to be some-what competitive.
GothicDan 05-30-07, 09:08 PM	I severely dislike the idea of being able to freely buy more powerful magical items. If the Wizards know they are far superior, magical items aside, why would they give them items with which mere Fighters could challenge and maybe even possibly defeat them? A few wands, rings, potions, scrolls, an enchanted blade or shield, etc., I can all see as rarities, but available in Enclaves and at Magefairs.. But anything more than that, I would never allow PCs to buy, unless in super-dangerous Black Market situations, at probably significantly more than the price listed, to reflect the danger incurred by vendors who cater to such powerful items. The amusing thing - if I remember correctly - is that this is the sort of stuff that the Red Wizards deal with, catering to very much lower-level magical items. They're currently the magic item-selling powerhouse in much of Faerun, so if PCs can't buy powerful items from them, who CAN they buy them from? I was always a fan of DMs who placed magical treasure logically. Not necessarily based on "what was best for who," but rather items that were decent overall or could be arguably used by several members of a given party. Thus, there's no guarantee that you could just spend your gold to get exactly what you want. This would mean that the PCs would have to cooperate in choosing where and how to spend their adventuring time - certainly a Wizard would wish to explore a fallen Netherese Enclave, while a Fighter might want to explore the Tomb of Swords. The frivolent use of magic items in 3E is actually one of my personal biggest gripes with it. I really don't see much of a need in it, except to create an artificial balance for non-spellcasting classes.
Dark Wizard 05-30-07, 10:30 PM	Paladins get a bad reputation due to their code, which in most cases is too specific where it doesn't need to be and too vague when it should be clear. I like them all the same. I'm actually surprised by the number of times I've played paladins. I agree that having Fighters balanced by items, something entirely out of their control, isn't much of a balancing point. The company doesn't seem to know what to do with them. While Fighters and other martial classes don't rule the game at higher levels, neither do they contribute much when the spellcasters can summon beings like Solars and Balors to act as their martial aid.
MerrikCale 05-30-07, 11:03 PM	I always liked playing rangers, druids, rogues and clerics-probably in that order. I would probably enjoy scous and favored souls. Never liked playing monks or wizards
Khaelieth 05-31-07, 09:21 AM	I don't like sorcerers. I love wizards with the odd prestige class. What I hate is the RoF High Mage and Bladesinger (underpowered). Pluss the classes in Heroes of Battle.
The_Shaman 05-31-07, 09:56 AM	from the core classes, I like sorcerers, bards, and rangers. I appreciate well-played paladins the way I appreciate an artist at work - I wish I could play one the way it's meant to be played, but I'm not sure I can do it yet. I am ambivalent towards barbarians, rogues and divinists. What tends to irk me off is classes that are - mechanically or even more so, fluffwise - clones of other classes. Yes, sorcerer is more than a little too similar to wizard. However, read the entry of warlock - anything in it - and tell me how much of it is not 100% spot on for a fiendish or fey sorcerer. I refer to the Warmage, true necro and to a degree beguiler as the spontaneous version of specialist wizards, and simply can't appreciate them at present. Finally, there's the scout. I like rangers, I like the mechanics of rogues, and I think this class steps on their toes something awful. I haven't tried ToB, but it seems each of their classes is a new-and-improved version of a PHB class (swordsage to monk). I wish classical concepts like fighter or paladin (or monk, although it wasn't present officially in 2.0) would get remade into more powerful versions rather than be marginalized by newer and newer base classes.