Least favorite classes

[8wGremlin]

So why do you dislike it?

Poor fluff, poor crunch, better class that does same thing, what?

[Telonius]

Standard Druid. If I'm carrying a notebook full of stat blocks with me each time I come to a gaming session, I might as well be the DM. Much prefer the PHB2 variant.

[Phelix-Mu]

Probably Dragon Shaman. Seems like they took a narrow role play concept (I love dragons!) and made a whole class for it (before later making another class on exactly the same concept). The auras are interesting, and can be quite helpful buff wise for a party, but they definitely don't carry the class. The breath weapon is not too bad, and I seem to recall that it can qualify you for the metabreath feats, which is nice.

But, mostly the class is just all over the place. Battlefield control, but tough enough for melee (not great melee), the touch of "heal THIS," or w/e it was, which also suggest a melee role (or at least close enough to be getting to touch people that are hurt, probably a range that make breath weapon less optimal (but you do have those breaks in between breathing...). Anyway, it just seemed a little underpowered and with some pretty niche fluff.

I'd like to see some kind of un-Dragon Shaman that strips away the dragon flavor and makes the fluff more flexible.

[Bhaakon]

Paladin.

It restricts player actions severely. It often seems to encourage/allow the player to fight with the group. I don't like alignment-detecting abilities, and particularly at-will ones.

As a person who likes a lot gray morality, a varied group, and not-what-they-seem NPCs, having a PC who 1) sees everything in black and white, 2) is likely to escalate an in-group disagreement into outright PvP combat, and 3) can stare into anyone's soul from level 1 and tell if they're probably up to no good is a big problem for me.

They can be played well and work out great, but that's been the exception in my experience.

[Namfuak]

Fighter. Beyond the fact that I hate playing characters whose turns are spent going "I attack him again," fighters are so dead that even taking a level or two for the feats feels more like trading a level for a feat than actually taking a real class level.

[ahenobarbi]

Paladins & Druids. I hate the fluff (at least as it worked in may games... both have a lot of potential I think).

Monk. For the crunch. Fluff is awesome but... it's really disappointing to play one.

[pbdr]

Bard. Because it's the bard.....

[Jon_Dahl]

Druid it is. Telonius nails it 100%.

[The Trickster]

Fighter. I barely consider it a class.

I would say paladin, but that mostly depends on how the DM interprets the code of conduct.

I'm not a huge fan of the rogue. I don't like the idea of having the main combat feature of the class (sneak attack) become useless against a relatively high amount of enemies.

[Ernir]

Of the core classes, I think the Ranger might be the most awkward. Tracking is a plot device rather than a class feature, the animal companion and casting come in late and underleveled, FE is a weak bonus damage source you have absolutely no control over, and the class is shoehorned into archery and... two-weapon fighting? Splatbooks patch some of this, but...

At least I can imagine what the Monk's intended theme was.

[Shining Wrath]

I've never felt the fluff for Bard. In fantasy literature there are well-done bards. In D&D the whole Elan "Try, try, try to not blow us all up" bit just sounds false.

IMNHO a bard should be a subset of rogue - a smarter, more charming, less dexterous one.

I will rise in defense of the lowly Fighter. Yes, the class is underpowered. Yes, they get boring. They are also so fundamental to fantasy literature as to render the genre unrecognizable if you remove them. That WotC did them wrong is not to say that the idea of the class is not something that dammit OUGHT TO BE fun and useful.

Now, if you ask me to roll one up, I'm going to ask if I can be a Warblade instead :smallsmile:

[Guizonde]

the omnipotent wizard does it for me.

the guy is meant to have spent a great part of his life mastering the arcane, sure. but unless the guy is pushing on 70 years old, i can't reconcile it with the fact that he knows pretty much every spell ever made.

then comes along a youngish wizard, who's let's say 35, and he goes and wipes out 3872 orcs in one fireball before teleporting to the princess' castle and disintegrating her chastity belt. why? because he was valedictorian at hogwarts?

i guess it just irks me that they're not specialists (like in warhammer fantasy, for example), but i do get that my point of view goes against the mainstream.

oddly enough, i don't mind sorcerors.
smashy-guy: dude! you wiped out that army! how'd you do it?!
sorceror: good question! i think i did this *repeats gesture approximately. the smashy-guy is turned into a newt* whoops.

regarding rangers: they're you're archetypal woodsman, fluffwise. no worries here.

[Curmudgeon]

Factotum. Nifty idea, but really sucky execution. The class author(s) left too much unexplained, and (the icing on the cake) didn't even know the basic game rules they were working under. :smallmad:

[elonin]

I have always felt meh about playing clerics. Their play-ability is up to the whim of the dm, who can allow stinky cheddar through or take away your best casting ability on a whim even though it isn't stated explicitly via a code of conduct your god can take away any of your class abilities. I find some problems even during mainstream play. They are understood to be about as flexible as wizards who pay a steep price for them, namely bab and saves. Add to that the fact that a cleric doesn't have the weakness of the spell book that could be taken away or worry about the expense of adding spells to that tome.

[Karnith]

I can never get into playing an artificier. They're so complex and so much of being an effective artificier is "Spreadsheets: the Game" that I can't stand it. I've tried rolling some up for games before, but I always get discouraged and play something else instead.

[WhatBigTeeth]

Factotum.

I find its entanglement of daily and encounter resources inelegant, the obscurity of resources used in its most basic optimization distasteful, its lack of variable class features dull, and its effectiveness in play to swing from monk-like (struggling with few IP and extreme daily limits on the actions facilitated by the class) to game-ruining (taking 15 minutes of the surprise round to get through all the factotum's standard actions, before other players act even once).

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Bard. Never could stomach the flavour.

Not that fond of druids, either. Some of their spells are nice, but of all the T1s, they strike me as being the clunkiest.

Blackguard. Because a Fallen Paladin should be an awesome and intimidating villain, and Blackguard just falls so very short.

Healer. Definitely Healer. Devoting an entire class to a mechanic that is neither fun nor effective, and then failing to fix any of the problems with said mechanic...

Special Mention goes to Binder, despite the fact that I love both the fluff and the crunch, the fact that they actually have to remember the names of the god-damned vestiges frustrates me to no end.

[Amnestic]

Every single Psionic class.

I dunno what it is about the Psionics in d20, but they rub me weirdly. I can see why it's a "superior" system to Vancian casting. I can see why a lot of people love the flavour. And generally I like psychic powers.

But something about Psionics in 3.x just...rubs me the wrong way.

[Karnith]

Every single Psionic class.

I dunno what it is about the Psionics in d20, but they rub me weirdly. I can see why it's a "superior" system to Vancian casting. I can see why a lot of people love the flavour. And generally I like psychic powers.

But something about Psionics in 3.x just...rubs me the wrong way.
Did you look at 3.0 psionics? Because everything is much, much worse in the Psionics Handbook.

[Eldan]

Hm. In core, definitely the fighter. Looking at all of 3E, probably the CW Samurai.

[Amnestic]

Did you look at 3.0 psionics? Because everything is much, much worse in the Psionics Handbook.

I've seen both. I get the mechanics, I get the flavour, I understand exactly why people like it and love it...but there's still a niggling feeling that I can't get rid of when I look at it.

[Pesimismrocks]

Paladins. They are practically a prestige class. All base classes have some kind of variable theme, while prestige classes are made for a certain character idea. Prestige classes also have entry requirements. The paladin seems to fit a single character idea. They also have the entry requirements of the code if conduct. It seems to me that they just built a prestige class, said hey we need another divine base class; let's use this one.

Another class that irks me is the Truenamer. Truenamers seem so great an idea. But the mechanics are bizarre.

Spirit shamans also bug me. What's with their semi-spontaneous casting? Again just weird.

[Gildedragon]

Sorcerer: their spellcasting is too much like the wizard's, and far too organized. They don't feel like the channelers of raw magical talent they are supposed to be. Warlocks fit the bill better

[Person_Man]

Truenamer. Probably the most poorly written D&D class ever.

[weezul]

Bard. Because it's the bard.....
+1

Yep, in fact, see the opening comic of OOTS :smallwink:
strum strum strum hit him harder strum strum strum

[Callin]

for me its the Shadowcaster. the fluff is wonderful but i could not grasp the mechanics.

[Phelix-Mu]

Factotum. Nifty idea, but really sucky execution. The class author(s) left too much unexplained, and (the icing on the cake) didn't even know the basic game rules they were working under. :smallmad:

I actually feel quite similarly. It's a great concept, but it feels like Chameleon-lite for base class, and some of the abilities that they get use unusual mechanics. It's too bad that they didn't roll it out with Complete Scoundrel and a couple new martial disciplines that focused on maneuvers that had uses both in and out of combat (Scoundrel-themed disciplines but more rogue-ish than Shadow Hand, doing more stuff besides murder and movement...).

Ah well. I can always drown my sorrows in some homebrew.

[Krobar]

Wild Mage.

I hate them.

Always doing something stupid when you need them the most. That's not good gaming. That's just screwing the party at the worst possible times.

Oh look. We're being attacked by a white dragon. Good thing your fireball turned the cleric into a blancmange too. That will help.

[Tokuhara]

Wild Mage.

I hate them.

Always doing something stupid when you need them the most. That's not good gaming. That's just screwing the party at the worst possible times.

Oh look. We're being attacked by a white dragon. Good thing your fireball turned the cleric into a blancmange too. That will help.

I like Wild Mage, but a DM of mine once brought in a class called Chaos Mage.

Imagine a 1-20 class who's spells worked like a Rod of Wonder. Yea.



On the topic however, my least favorite is actually a Pathfinder class: Oracle. Something about Oracle just strikes me as not fun. "Wow, I crippled myself on purpose at level 1. Boy, I feel smart"

[Phelix-Mu]

Every single Psionic class.

I dunno what it is about the Psionics in d20, but they rub me weirdly. I can see why it's a "superior" system to Vancian casting. I can see why a lot of people love the flavour. And generally I like psychic powers.

But something about Psionics in 3.x just...rubs me the wrong way.


Did you look at 3.0 psionics? Because everything is much, much worse in the Psionics Handbook.

And, interestingly, they massively simplified the system from earlier editions. I was pretty smart back then (still am), but AD&D psionics was weirdly hard to understand (look at the old mechanic for generating your total Power Points). Nice pictures, though.

And why do I still get the impression that some of the cooler powers never made it over to 3e? Bizarro, just bizarro.

Did I mention pictures. And, zomg, DARK SUN psionics...*sigh*...oh, days of my youth, forever gone......

*ahem* On topic, I will mention swashbuckler. I love the first handful of levels, but the class is basically a certain flavor of melee with more skill points and fluff coolness. Their higher level abilities were cool, but too far between to make the class worth sticking with (something that can be said of almost all martial base classes).

[Eldariel]

3.5 Monk. 'cause it's deceptive and weak as hell crunch-wise. It seems cool and awesome and such but it's actually a worse grappler than a ****ing Fighter, let alone a Barbarian. And that's supposed to be its shtick!


I've had one in my party from level 1; I was playing a Paladin and I was not amused. He was like a frontliner but taking all the damage fell upon me 'cause he was low AC and squishy. He had terrible to hit and even when he hit, he was doing pitiful damage compared to my sword&board ass. Oh, and that one Stunning Fist per day that usually missed without even forcing a save and only stunned someone about half the time when it did hit! His greatest contribution was volunteering

I was looking at the class thinking it'd come onto its own later on but then we had a Monk in action in a level 16 game... Yeah, he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, had no AC and was doing stuff once a week and most enemies were immune one way or another anyways. Let alone actually keep up with anyone doing cool stuff.

Then there's the whole "mathematically they just don't hold up in melee", "they pretend to be mage killers but no", "they can't afford Int and have too few skillpoints to even cover the basics of what they're supposed to be doing", "their class features don't work together", "they have medium BAB while being designed for combat maneuvers which are BAB-based" & "once per day abilities when lucky" and "bad version of a first level spell as their level 20 ability". There's just so much wrong with the class there's even no place to start at.

I might hate other Core melees for being written so poorly too but no single class builds as many expectations and has as many misleading traits to fool as many people as the Monk does, while being terrible. And yeah, as I said, in a low level party it's literally the only class that is literally useless! Like, the best it can do is pick Martial Weapon Proficiency: Guisarme and go two-hand that thing waiting for Improved Trip from level 6 and maxing Strength hoping nobody ever attacks him.

[Threadnaught]

I dislike the religious classes, the Cleric (feed me your anger, your hatred) and Paladin.
Cleric because I'm not a huge fan of religion in general, most religions make really good villains, but that's about it.
Paladin, because they're hard to roleplay correctly (for most people) and even if you do, a DM must understand how they work and why it's being RPd in such a way. Otherwise you could lose all of your Paladin powers just because the DM doesn't understand how to handle a Fighter with class Abilities, alternatively there's bad RPing, which ends up giving the more reasonable DMs a headache because the Paladin's player would be constantly using Detect Evil on some guy who hates his boss and flashes evil for a second, before killing them... Okay, using Detect Evil on everyone and killing everyone who ever registers as evil.
Then there's the Fighter... Bleh, it's just so boring, at least the Commoner is an NPC class and is supposed to be bad/boring. In fact, there's a guide to using Commoners on this site, which turns every village into a Tucker's Kobolds style dungeon.

[Ravenica]

personally, wizard, I just hate the book keeping and being responsible for keeping the entire party alive when they do stupid things :smallfurious:

[Drake2009]

Least favorite class.. no idea probobly a monk though. I actually love the bard, rogue , wizard, and fighter. Bard is so much fun to play! It was my first character, a gnome bard, I stood in the back boosting everyone while my barbarian friend smashed people to bits. I havent played a rogue but my group would be lost without this one. Wizard is what i play. I love the magical power and having the party thank you for the haste and such. I think fighter is awesome cause if your human you have 3 FEATS! You are like a barbarian but better!

[Arcanist]

Truenamer. Probably the most poorly written D&D class ever.

This. Such good Fluff, however the crunch doesn't even COME CLOSE to fulfilling it's duty! :smallfurious:

[PlusSixPelican]

I never liked the Paladin. I mean, conceptually makes sense, but play-wise, gods forbid you're Chaotic, then you gotta deal with nonsense, such as having to self-nerf to avoid offending the Pallie, and/or constantly test the Paladin's ethics out of spite.

[dspeyer]

Crusader.

I feel that two manoeuvres just became readied: looks like we're in for an ambush! I have faith that my god grants me these manoeuvres in this order for his own reasons, but I plane-shifted up to ask him about that last fight, and he denied all involvement.

[limejuicepowder]

I think fighter is awesome cause if your human you have 3 FEATS! You are like a barbarian but better!

I know this thread is entirely subjective, but I can't help but OBject to this...yes as a fighter you get 3 feats, but a barb will still get 2. Is that least feat really worth d12 HD, +2 skills, better skill list, rage, fast movement, and access to the best melee ACF in the game?

I think bard is pretty wack. They're good and everything, but my first move when thinking about playing one is "how do I fluff the music to make sense?" The thought of playing an instrument in battle is just appalling. I really hope a secondary source of bardic music is their tears 'cause instruments aren't hardy things.

I'm not crazy about druids either. Their unreasonable ties to non-society make them a pain to DM.

Rogue, or more precisely sneak attack, is very underwhelming. Not only does it only work against some enemies, it's not nearly as devastating as it should be (most of time in fact, it only tickles). Scout and ninja could probably be thrown in to this category as well, though ninja redeems itself somewhat with ghost step.

[Curmudgeon]

Rogue, or more precisely sneak attack, is very underwhelming. Not only does it only work against some enemies, it's not nearly as devastating as it should be (most of time in fact, it only tickles).
I agree with you. And yet, the Rogue is my single favorite class. The thing is, almost all the class problems are fixable. You fix sneak attack with one ACF (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft's Lightbringer Penetrating Strike) and one feat (Champions of Ruin's Craven). There's just this one nagging, unmet need: the archetype for stealthy classes doesn't have Hide in Plain Sight. :smallfrown:

[Yael]

Sorcerer... I hate it because I've never had the chance to play him :smallfrown:

Also bard, same situation :smallfrown:

[Jeff the Green]

Monk. Yeah, the crunch is bad, but the fluff is worse. If you go into a fight against somebody with a spear while you're armed only with your fists, you should be skewered.

Ninja. Not only is it worse than rogue, it really just should have been a rogue ACF.

Mystic Theurge. It's almost unplayable in most games without early entry.

[white lancer]

Wizard's my least favorite. I hate that they can do basically everything and that their supposed weaknesses get completely overriden by other class abilities (e.g. Abrupt Jaunt). I suppose a lot of this is just an issue I have with certain spells, but at least the Sorcerer has to decide which spells it learns, making it a little less godlike. I have similar issues with other full spellcasters, but I like a lot of the Druid and Cleric fluff as well as the Druid's other class features (which I think would still be fun to play without the godlike spellcasting).

The Bard is a weird one for me--I love its abilities (the Jack-of-all-trades is one of my favorite types of character to play) and the fact that it gets spellcasting that's useful but not godlike, but it's kinda hard to take seriously fluff-wise. Playing my first Bard has me wondering how I'm going to justify just standing back and singing during combat.

More generally, I hate most alignment restrictions, especially on core classes. The one on the Cleric (that they can only be one step away from their deity) is the only one that I actually like. I feel like a lot of them don't make sense and are legislating something that should be a roleplaying concern (and shouldn't be all that strict, since the alignment system isn't exactly realistic).

[OREO]

Wizard... taking "the fifth" on the reason.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Wizard. This is a class with no innate flavor, tables of spells organized by type and utility, and can devastate games if the player wants. Boring to play as, boring to play with.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I have to admit, the only Wizards I've really wanted to play were PrCs.

[Gnome Alone]

I get mutable-fluff classes: brd, fgtr, rogue, the mages- all of 'em are a fun chassis. I also get super-precise ones (mnk,pld,drd.)

I get a bit irked by the weirdly specific bits like all clerics wearing armor, or the jumbled mess that is the ranger.

[erikun]

The Sorcerer always bugged me. It's a wizard with variant casting, turned into a class with worse skills, worse abilities, and a nonsensical spellcasting stat. The concept is even worse: a person who naturally came into spellcasting potential by rolling sulfur into batdoo until they accidentally caused it to explode.

[Sith_Happens]

Fighter just doesn't seem like a real class to me. Probably on account of there being these newfangled things called class features that classes are generally expected to have.

[MirddinEmris]

Monk, most definitely. Not because his class design suck, but mostly because i just can't imagine Shaolin Monk in the middle of Western Fantasy story. He is a white crow (AND he is a trap class, which doesn't give points in his favor)

In defense of the Bard: concept of music = magic is much more ancient than classic wizard concept and if you look on cultures like Celts or Scandinavian cultures, you'll see many examples of Bards (skalds), who can curse or bless you with a song and much more. So, it's all depend on the point of view, i guess

P.S. (rant) no, Elan is not a good example of the Bard. Despite my respect for Rich, i don't like his portrayal of a bard class (actually it's more that i don't like how people always react: "Oh, bard, yeah...ha-ha. Try, try, try to sing this song while your party do the actual job")

[GoatBoy]

Shugenja and wu jen.

Cleric and wizard, except... Asian. It's like they didn't even try.

The lack of promised web support for Spell Compendium didn't help, either.

[Socratov]

I don't like any prepared caster for the bookkeeping. I just never felt the need to be a wizard, I'd much rather like to be a sorcerer or bard where you only need to pick the things you know and strike out uswed slot categories. But the whole preparing jsut doesn't do it for me. Most notably the druid (whose fluff I like) where you don't only have your own bookkeeping to do, but your companion's as well...

I'd like to stand up for the bards. If you do it OotS style, then yes, it's lame. But damn me if I didn't speech my heart out when I used Perform(oratory). Inspired by great speakers in hisotry and films/books I actually delivered. Not only IC, but OoC as well. it gives such a rush when done right. Also when you go splat diving the bard has many goodies and makes for a fearsome character and I still want to play an all bard party.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Out of the ~50 base classes in the game, the only one that I can't look at without wondering "WTF?" is the divine mind. I haven't had the opportunity to play all of the classes as of yet but that one alone gives me pause when trying to figure out what the heck to do with it on both the fluff and the crunch.

Monk: I can dig it.
Soulknife: sure, why not.
Soulborn: um... eh, what the hell.
Fighter: one of my favorites, actually.
Paladin: another fav'.

Divine mind: who are you and what have you done to yourself? Divine casters draw power from the outside, psionicists draw power from within. You're a freakin' schizoid, man. Somehow this results in power anyway?

[Eldan]

Oh man, the divine mind. I must hvae forced (autohypnotized?) myself to forget that one. The only class that manages to annoy me with just its fluff.

[Gwendol]

I never play wizard, the book-keeping, the fluff, it's just not appealing.

Bards on the other hand are awesome! My favorite part of The Return of the King (book) is the charge of the Rohirrim.

Arise now, arise, Riders of Théoden!
Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter!
spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,
a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!
Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!
Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!

Vikings were known to sing fighting, and I just love the image of a blood-covered bearded, burly fellow hewing down enemies while reciting poetry (made up on the go) or singing praise to heroes of old.

[Eldariel]

Vikings were known to sing fighting, and I just love the image of a blood-covered bearded, burly fellow hewing down enemies while reciting poetry (made up on the go) or singing praise to heroes of old.

There's also way older tradition than traditional fantasy, which ties magic to singing or, indeed, flat-out calls magic "song" (Kalevala, for instance). Hell, Tom Bombadil is an example of that too.

[tadkins]

Factotum. The class just bothers me. Not a fan of the idea that a character can be a better spy than James Bond, a better musician than Jimi Hendrix, a better writer than Shakespeare, a better chef than Gordon Ramsay, a better swimmer than Michael Phelps, a better...you get the idea. All of that pretty much whenever a whim strikes the character.

Not to mention that with all of the skills as class skills, a typical factotum will have skills that likely won't match the game setting (Iaijutsu Focus comes to mind).

Plus, if I ever decided to play a rogue, I'd probably be pressured eventually into picking a factotum anyway.

Yeah, don't like this class too much.

[Equilibria]

Yeah i´m on wizard to.

It just doesn´t sit right with me that one class can step on all other classes toes and is a potential game breaker... The same can be said for the druid.

[TuggyNE]

Factotum. The class just bothers me. Not a fan of the idea that a character can be a better spy than James Bond, a better musician than Jimi Hendrix, a better writer than Shakespeare, a better chef than Gordon Ramsay, a better swimmer than Michael Phelps, a better...you get the idea. All of that pretty much whenever a whim strikes the character.

Wait. Wait wait wait. Factota are Alot: The Class?? :smalleek:

:smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

There's alot of truth in that.

[navar100]

Rogue

While playing the class doesn't auto-make you a thief, inevitably that is how everyone plays it. They're not necessarily doing stuff against the party, but still, they're a thief of NPCs. However, there is one player I know who even when playing a rogue I can trust implicitly in and out of character. His loyalty to the party makes paladins envious.

As for the class itself, I can't play one. I tried, but I haven't been satisfied with the play. It's too fragile for my taste in combat. I've seen people play rogues well, but I can't duplicate it.

Swordsage

Not what I want in a class dedicate to being a warrior - 2/3 BAB, d8 HD, atrocious maneuver recovery method, light armor. It's good for a dip to become a Master of Nine or just to gets lots of a maneuvers, but I wouldn't want to play it single class to 20.

Monk

Way too MAD. Wisdom bonus to AC is a joke. No armor sucks. 2/3 BAB and d8 HD are also an issue.

Truenamer

Just doesn't work.

Wilder

I don't like psychic enervation. I don't like having a random chance of screwing myself over for the audacity of doing what I'm supposed to be doing.

[Rejusu]

From core it's probably Monk followed by Paladin. Monk is nice fluff with awful crunch that's a trap for inexperienced players. Most of its abilities are once per day wonders that are worse versions of spells and gained at later levels. I mean abundant step requires a feat to make it viable as an offensive ability and is still once per day. Their defensive options are alright but defences are so easy to bypass in 3.5 that it doesn't really cut it. And their offensive capabilities are pitiful. Flurry is reliant on full attack, unarmed damage doesn't scale well enough, and only three quarters BAB!

I will never understand why Wizards decided to give classes whose primary focus is supposed to be melee combat less than full BAB. Clerics have three quarters BAB and they're full divine casters!

Incidentally this is one of my main issues with Paladins other than the code. Clerics are just better at fulfilling the whole holy warrior brief. Yes they get lower BAB and hit die, but they can wear heavy armour, use shields, and their divine casting more than makes up for it. The Cleric should have been the divine analogue to the Wizard, a fragile magic user. Instead they're armoured juggernauts capable of buffing themselves to be highly effective warriors.

Meanwhile the poor Paladin is sat there with a crippling inferiority complex. Heck you'd think that a holy warrior would be great at fighting undead. Except the Paladin can't even do it until three levels after the Cleric and on top of that is worse at it than a cleric half his level at the time. This is before we even bring the horrendous code and multi class restrictions into it.

Also Soulknife, for the above reasons about BAB. I don't know how this class ended up getting printed in the XPH. It's a class whose ONLY purpose is melee combat and yet doesn't have full BAB and whose only class feature is generally worse than what WBL can get you. I mean what were they thinking!? At least the issues with the Monk and Paladin aren't as glaringly obvious. Soulknife should have never escaped play testing.

[Shining Wrath]

... SNIP ...

Swordsage

Not what I want in a class dedicate to being a warrior - 2/3 BAB, d8 HD, atrocious maneuver recovery method, light armor. It's good for a dip to become a Master of Nine or just to gets lots of a maneuvers, but I wouldn't want to play it single class to 20.

... SNIP ...



Quibble: I think you mean 3/4 BAB.
I view the Swordsage as being what Monk should have been - the mystic warrior who defeats you not so much with his weapon as with his wisdom. Especially an unarmed SS.

I'd still much rather be a Warblade and dip two levels of SS, though. Doubles your number of maneuvers at lower levels, lets you get some of that Shadow Hand goodness, and no one is going to complain about +1 to initiative, weapon focus on a family of weapons, and +WIS to AC. Those latter are just bonuses; the real reason to sacrifice 1 BAB and ~4 HP is the maneuvers.

[Guizonde]

i just realized something regarding bards: a lot of times i've seen my friends play bards, they're parodies of glam metal dress-wise (yeah, spandex in fantasy), parodies of troubadours instrument-wise (a lyre? in a dungeon?! think of the humidity!) and base their songs off of interesting effects. what i'd really like to see is a full on friggin' viking in light armor belting out insults to lower the morale of the enemy while laying it on thick with an axe (be it guitar or the sharp thing). once the deed is done, they will then compose the verse of the ensuing battle, thus earning them more songs.

i've only seen soprano or tenor singers. why don't we ever think of a bard that sings baritone? heck, you could even fluff them out as a woodsman-scout, give them a horn, and proceed to be slightly more "manly", although i dislike the term, since i could also imagine a banshee filling that role.
i don't mean to go the opposite way and have a johann hegg expy en lieu of a bard, but seriously: why high-pitched voices when you've got a plethora of famous baritones and basses? dwarves sing deep and gruff, why not some humans? (i'll pass on the elves...)

... what of gotrek and felix? felix is a proficient swordsman, and he's expected to chronicle in the most glorious details the death of a suicidal maddwarf!

rant over, i like that class (but never played it), but it might be because i'm a musician before being a roleplayer.

one class i don't get though: magus. as i read the page on the pfsrd, it's an unprestiged eldritch knight. what. if anyone can explain it, thanks.

[Shining Wrath]

i just realized something regarding bards: a lot of times i've seen my friends play bards, they're parodies of glam metal dress-wise (yeah, spandex in fantasy), parodies of troubadours instrument-wise (a lyre? in a dungeon?! think of the humidity!) and base their songs off of interesting effects. what i'd really like to see is a full on friggin' viking in light armor belting out insults to lower the morale of the enemy while laying it on thick with an axe (be it guitar or the sharp thing). once the deed is done, they will then compose the verse of the ensuing battle, thus earning them more songs.

i've only seen soprano or tenor singers. why don't we ever think of a bard that sings baritone? heck, you could even fluff them out as a woodsman-scout, give them a horn, and proceed to be slightly more "manly", although i dislike the term, since i could also imagine a banshee filling that role.
i don't mean to go the opposite way and have a johann hegg expy en lieu of a bard, but seriously: why high-pitched voices when you've got a plethora of famous baritones and basses? dwarves sing deep and gruff, why not some humans? (i'll pass on the elves...)

... what of gotrek and felix? felix is a proficient swordsman, and he's expected to chronicle in the most glorious details the death of a suicidal maddwarf!

rant over, i like that class (but never played it), but it might be because i'm a musician before being a roleplayer.

one class i don't get though: magus. as i read the page on the pfsrd, it's an unprestiged eldritch knight. what. if anyone can explain it, thanks.

Any skald should be a baritone or bass. So let it be decreed.

[Eldariel]

one class i don't get though: magus. as i read the page on the pfsrd, it's an unprestiged eldritch knight. what. if anyone can explain it, thanks.

About the same as Duskblade. Basically, Magus is worse than a solid Eldritch Knight, but simpler and good enough to let people feel they're a decent combination of spellcaster and warrior. Slightly worse early on (Duskblade has full BAB somehow) but they get some cute abilities.

[sambouchah]

It restricts player actions severely..


Quintessential Paladin gives suggestions for moral codes of conduct. I once had a paladin who's only moral bindings were "Don't slay the innocent, never leave a friend."

A more up to date solution is the three paladin variants from UA. Slaughter(CE), Tyranny(LE) and Freedom(CG).





On the topic of the thread I dislike Sorcerers. Not because they aren't good or because of the fluff or anything like that. It's because I feel like they should know more spells. But I'm used to playing wizards who can know an unlimited amount(essentially) and clerics who have a good amount of spells known.

[Reathin]

Rangers: I hate "nature" based classes, and they don't even have the redeaming factor of Elemental Shape.

Druids: Same thing as rangers. I like primary casters, but I hate the natural focus. My opinion of them dropped a bit when I created a cleric who despised them and I sort of internalized her arguments against them.

Bards: Not all bards! While mechanically they're occasionally "meh", it's only the flute/poetry/lyre style bards I don't like. One of my favorite characters I ever designed was a lich who, after becoming a bard, schemed to turn the entire Material Plane into one giant musical via epic magic (not all at once, mind, but still).

Fighter: Too plain. More effective than I tend to give them credit for though, at least in my games.

Monks: I actually LOVE monks. I just hate how they aren't very powerful! :smalltongue:

I try to avoid the problems with Paladins by playing one with a sense of humor and being big on forgiveness and NOT being preachy. Sure, I can't associate with Evil, but I'm not doing anyone any favors, least of all the Universal Forces of Good by alienating my more flexible allies.

[Curmudgeon]

Rogue

While playing the class doesn't auto-make you a thief, inevitably that is how everyone plays it.
You're not making advantage of the full range of available skills, then. For instance, add Education (all Knowledges are class skills) and Knowledge Devotion (bonuses to hit & damage based on Knowledge checks) and you'll make your Rogue focused on combat rather than theft. Just because you have Open Lock and Sleight of Hand available doesn't mean you have to spend skill points there. Maxing out the 6 Knowledge skills related to D&D creature types won't leave a lot for thievery.

I believe the Rogue is the single most versatile class in the game. That also makes it the most difficult to build and play. Perhaps your "everyone" sample just represents the lazier players. :smallwink:

[Calimehter]

Tome of Battle classes, because they are too anime

*ducks and runs*

:smalltongue:

[Shining Wrath]

Tome of Battle classes, because they are too anime

*ducks and runs*

:smalltongue:

Uses "Shadow Blink" to cut off Calimehter's escape, initiates "Time Stand Still".

[Deepbluediver]

Poor fluff,

Oh yeah, I definitely got one for this: Archivist

You're a divine caster, except that you don't have a link to any diety, or even a cause really, so apparently the gods aren't all that picky about who starts drawing on their power for no apparent reason.

And then you can use this same energy to cast arcane spells? It's basically a wizard with access to the cleric's spell list (balunce? wut R dat?) and no good explanation.

Also, it's in a book called "Heroes of Horror", so except for the capability to channel positive energy, it really doesn't seem to fit the theme at all; there's at least 4 splatbooks I can think of off the top of my head where it would have fit in better.

[Snowbluff]

Monks are the worst thing ever.

The fluff is awful. You lose the game the moment the western medieval setting most games are played in is penetrated against its will by this... thing.

The crunch is awful. It's just bad. It's 2 levels long at best.

The class is obsolete. So many alternatives for unarmed fighters exist, no one should look at monk twice.

If I hate something, it usually has no redeemable qualities, like the monk. :smallsigh:

[Kazyan]

Shadowcaster. The fluff is absolutely awful. It's so non-self-aware and has its head so far up its own rear that it's basically a comatose Ouroboros, worse than even Tome of Battle's fluff. The mechanics are too complicated and criss-crossy (and this is coming from a guy whose favorite system is Incarnum), and to top it off, its stupefyingly weak abilities are too limited per-day to contribute to more than one encounter.

And because I missed the other thread: My favorite is Barbarian. It claims to fill a balanced party role, then does exactly that without overreaching. The simple mechanics match the fluff of a simple character, and you can twiddle the class with enough ACFs to have a side-specialty besides smashin'. So muhc love for what I see as one of the best-designed classes in the game.

[navar100]

Quibble: I think you mean 3/4 BAB.

Ok


I view the Swordsage as being what Monk should have been - the mystic warrior who defeats you not so much with his weapon as with his wisdom. Especially an unarmed SS.

I'd still much rather be a Warblade and dip two levels of SS, though. Doubles your number of maneuvers at lower levels, lets you get some of that Shadow Hand goodness, and no one is going to complain about +1 to initiative, weapon focus on a family of weapons, and +WIS to AC. Those latter are just bonuses; the real reason to sacrifice 1 BAB and ~4 HP is the maneuvers.

I agree swordsage makes for a better monk, but I'm still not enamored with it.

[Stormageddon]

Bards: Not all bards! While mechanically they're occasionally "meh", it's only the flute/poetry/lyre style bards I don't like. One of my favorite characters I ever designed was a lich who, after becoming a bard, schemed to turn the entire Material Plane into one giant musical via epic magic (not all at once, mind, but still).

I think they did that on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.:smallamused:

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Tome of Battle classes, because they are too anime

*ducks and runs*

:smalltongue:

...so, I hate the Japanese as much as the next dolphin-loving American, but I still love Tome of Battle, and it frustrates me how many DMs seem to treat it as the one thing they won't allow.

First, it isn't like the rest of the D&D classes hole a consistent cultural style, anyway. Once you move past core, the average party already looks like something out of a Salvador Dali painting anyway.

Second, 2/3 of the Tome of Battle classes don't meet that description anyway - the Crusader, in particular, has almost exactly the same fluff as a Paladin. For that matter, the Swordsage - the one class that is sort-of guilty as charged - has very similar flavor to the Monk, just with working mechanics.

Third, while I'm not usually one to put mechanics over fluff, this is one of the few examples where you really just should. Possibly the #1 complaint about core is the disparity between martial and magic-using classes, and how the martial classes don't have anything to do. Tome of Battle fixes that beautifully - to me, a DM banning Tome of Battle is about on par with a doctor banning Penicillin.

[Stormageddon]

I never play wizard, the book-keeping, the fluff, it's just not appealing.

Bards on the other hand are awesome! My favorite part of The Return of the King (book) is the charge of the Rohirrim.

Arise now, arise, Riders of Théoden!
Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter!
spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,
a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!
Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!
Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!

Vikings were known to sing fighting, and I just love the image of a blood-covered bearded, burly fellow hewing down enemies while reciting poetry (made up on the go) or singing praise to heroes of old.

DEATH!!!!!!!!

[Deepbluediver]

Tome of Battle classes, because they are too anime.

Ok, I've heard this before, but some one is going to have to explain to me what this actually means.

I thought we had kind of abandoned any sense of realism about the time wizards started flying around shooting fireballs out of their elbows at giant insects. Plus, core has spells like Fire Shield and Flame Blade.

Yes it gives melee-heavy characters psuedo-magic powers, but I don't really see how that is anime-ish any more than it is just standard generic fantasy. There are tons of anime that aren't like that, and I'm sure at least a few heroic-fantasy novels that are.


When you say something is "like anime", what do you mean? Like how?

[Gnome Alone]

a DM banning Tome of Battle is about on par with a doctor banning Penicillin.

Well yeah, it's made from mold. I don't like mold and I don't want it in my clinic. Gross! Next!

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Ok, I've heard this before, but some one is going to have to explain to me what this actually means.

I thought we had kind of abandoned any sense of realism about the time wizards started flying around shooting fireballs out of their elbows at giant insects. Plus, core has spells like Fire Shield and Flame Blade.

Yes it gives melee-heavy characters psuedo-magic powers, but I don't really see how that is anime-ish any more than it is just standard generic fantasy. There are tons of anime that aren't like that, and I'm sure at least a few heroic-fantasy novels that are.


When you say something is "like anime", what do you mean? Like how?

Devils Advocate here, but two things.

First, the names. "White Raven Tactics." Stone Dragon. Diamond Mind. All has sort of a martial-artsy flavor to it.

Secondly, Tome of Battle has a lot of the concept of an inner, mystical power expressed through martial arts; "Power" as some intrinsic inner quality that can be...

You know what, watch this video. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-myth-of-the-gun) It's gonna seem unrelated (It's about why FPSs are so much more common in the West than in other gaming cultures), but it describes it really, really, well, and it's very interesting and well-done on its own. Also, short.

[Amnestic]

Devils Advocate here, but two things.

First, the names. "White Raven Tactics." Stone Dragon. Diamond Mind. All has sort of a martial-artsy flavor to it.

Secondly, Tome of Battle has a lot of the concept of an inner, mystical power expressed through martial arts; "Power" as some intrinsic inner quality that can be...

The problem with that is that martial arts, while eastern/oriental, aren't necessarily 'anime'. As I understand it, when people say 'anime' to describe Tome of Battle they mean relating to shounen stuff like DBZ, Bleach, One Piece and Naruto.

In the case of some (or even all) of said animes, I'd argue that spellcasting or psionics is a much better emulator for the effects that you see in those shows. Flying, giant blasts of (elemental) energy, summoning weird effects (or even entire creatures), summoning copies of yourself.

I mean, think of some of the most notable attacks/abilities from those shows. Which is easier to emulate them with: Spellcasting or ToB? 9 times out of 10, it seems that the answer is the former. I thus posit that it is not ToB that is "too anime", it is Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids and Psions! :smalltongue:

[FreakyCheeseMan]

The problem with that is that martial arts, while eastern/oriental, aren't necessarily 'anime'. As I understand it, when people say 'anime' to describe Tome of Battle they mean relating to shounen stuff like DBZ, Bleach, One Piece and Naruto.

In the case of some (or even all) of said animes, I'd argue that spellcasting or psionics is a much better emulator for the effects that you see in those shows. Flying, giant blasts of (elemental) energy, summoning weird effects (or even entire creatures), summoning copies of yourself.

I mean, think of some of the most notable attacks/abilities from those shows. Which is easier to emulate them with: Spellcasting or ToB? 9 times out of 10, it seems that the answer is the former. I thus posit that it is not ToB that is "too anime", it is Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids and Psions! :smalltongue:

In terms of the powers manifested... sure. (The only thing of those that I've actually watched is DBZ Abridged.)

However, Wizards, Sorcerers, etc., don't do any of that through martial arts, and (your setting may vary) only scions do it by raw inner power; both wizard and sorcerers are channelling the power of the Weave.

Mind, there's only so far I can argue this point, because I love Tome of Battle and am confused by DMs that don't allow it.

[Dr.Epic]

Druid, cleric, and wizard. Those classes are all WAY too weak! Seriously, can someone tweak them to make them good? Not like monks, the best class in D&D.

[Hunter Noventa]

I personally love the ToB classes, but I can see how they might turn others off.

Personally I dislike the Warmage. it's not a bad concept, excepting that it's executed badly and direct damage isn't the most effective thing to do with spells. It's good for Rainbow Warmage and little else. Beguiler got the narrow-focus arcane caster a lot more right I think.

I'm also constantly annoyed at the Fighter only having 2 skill points. It just doesn't make any sense for any class to have that few (except wizards, since they'll have a major intellect). Pathfinder didn't even fix it, though they made it less atrocious by combining some skills. But in 3.5 it's a nightmare to do anything outside of combat as a fighter.

[Rejusu]

The fluff is awful. You lose the game the moment the western medieval setting most games are played in is penetrated against its will by this... thing.

I agree with the awful crunch. But frankly it doesn't have to be played as an eastern Monk. The crunch may style it as one but there's nothing in the fluff that makes it that way. You could just as easily play this guy:

http://media.sbs.com.au/news/thm/articlemain/site_1_rand_1667169876_monk_catholic_getty_b_10110 9.jpg

And you wouldn't be out of place at all in a western medieval setting. Plus there's no reason why you couldn't have an eastern style monk without breaking the setting. After all it's not like the east was non-existent in medieval times. And finally it's important to remember that D&D != real life. Just because we wouldn't associate eastern Monks with a western medieval setting doesn't make them out of place in D&D. While at it's core western themes may form the basis of the setting it's also a world of high fantasy with plenty of things that don't fit with the western medieval world. Like Beholders for example.

Fluff is flexible, and so are settings. Whether something fits or doesn't fit comes down to how you build the world and the characters that inhabit it.

[GreenETC]

I for one have a dislike of the Dragonfire Adept. They just seem to be so bland to me whenever I see anyone play them. Instead of being, "I hit it again!" it seems to just be "I breath weapon again!" I feel like it drags away the fun of repetitiveness by removing any amount of randomness or customization. At least with a Fighter I can choose between a Spike Chain or a Greatsword.

Though my opinion may be tainted by one of my PCs who decided that having an At-Will breath of fire meant he had to use it At-Will. All the time. To burn everything.

[Eldariel]

However, Wizards, Sorcerers, etc., don't do any of that through martial arts, and (your setting may vary) only scions do it by raw inner power; both wizard and sorcerers are channelling the power of the Weave.

The Weave only exists in one settings (FR). That's not even the default 3.5 settings. This certainly isn't the general description of the Arcane though it does apply to the Forgotten Realms.

[navar100]

Hexblade - an attempt to make an arcane paladin-like class but shows their bias in being afraid of combining combat with magic. They admitted it and made the Duskblade, a fine choice for those who are interested in a warrior/magic user from level 1.

Knight - I disagree it's dishonorable to flank. It gets nice abilities, but it has to gimp itself to get them.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

The Weave only exists in one settings (FR). That's not even the default 3.5 settings. This certainly isn't the general description of the Arcane though it does apply to the Forgotten Realms.

Alright, my mistake. Still, I'd say that the flavor of such certainly doesn't have a lot to do with the Anime-style magic people are describing.

[Shining Wrath]

Hexblade - an attempt to make an arcane paladin-like class but shows their bias in being afraid of combining combat with magic. They admitted it and made the Duskblade, a fine choice for those who are interested in a warrior/magic user from level 1.

Knight - I disagree it's dishonorable to flank. It gets nice abilities, but it has to gimp itself to get them.

Knight code is explicit regarding flanking.

[Deepbluediver]

@ FreakyCM, Amnestic, Rejusu, anyone else I missed

Still waiting to see if I get a reply directly from Calimehter, but for now it seems what people are saying is that ToB classes get magic power from physical training instead of mental training (arcane magic) or a connection to a diety (divine magic). And that physical training is like martial arts which is like anime and Asian flavored and therefore doesn't fit D&D's medieval-Europe archetype.

If I've misunderstood, then please correct me.


I would disagree with the conclusions from that chain of logic, but I can sort of see where it's coming from, at least.
Plus, I still feel that the flavor and fluff is entirebly mutable, and if it makes the game mechanically better shouldn't be an issue, but oh well.


Knight - I disagree it's dishonorable to flank. It gets nice abilities, but it has to gimp itself to get them.

Now, to keep from getting off-track: I dislike that they tried to make the Knight and the Samurai two entirely different classes, and managed to fail badly on both of them.

They fill virtually identical niches in terms of RL-history, cultural significance, and game-mechanics, but they've got entirely seperate sets of rules (two for the samurai, in fact) and none of it is any good!

IMO, the Knight/Samurai should be a Prestige class, and maybe we can salvage SOMETHING decent from 60 levels of classes (1 Knight and both versions of the Samurai) for one 10-level PrC.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

@ FreakyCM, Amnestic, Rejusu, anyone else I missed

Still waiting to see if I get a reply directly from Calimehter, but for now it seems what people are saying is that ToB classes get magic power from physical training instead of mental training (arcane magic) or a connection to a diety (divine magic). And that physical training is like martial arts which is like anime and Asian flavored and therefore doesn't fit D&D's medieval-Europe archetype.

If I've misunderstood, then please correct me.


I would disagree with the conclusions from that chain of logic, but I can sort of see where it's coming from, at least.
Plus, I still feel that the flavor and fluff is entirebly mutable, and if it makes the game mechanically better shouldn't be an issue, but oh well.

Just to be clear, I agree with you on that point - I love ToB, and think it belongs's one of the best things that ever happened to 3.5. I'm just playing devil's advocate/trying to explain the opposing position as best I understand it.



Now, to keep from getting off-track: I dislike that they tried to make the Knight and the Samurai two entirely different classes, and managed to fail badly on both of them.

They fill virtually identical niches in terms of RL-history, cultural significance, and game-mechanics, but they've got entirely seperate sets of rules (two for the samurai, in fact) and none of it is any good!


Er... Real-life Samurai and real-life Knights were vastly different. I mean, they sort of got incorrectly viewed the same way, but what they actually were was worlds apart.

[Gwendol]

Not that different, surely? Both being similar social classes, and having a code of honor.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Not that different, surely? Both being similar social classes, and having a code of honor.

The "Code of Honor" of knights was... not exactly what it's portrayed as. The general view is that the concept of "Knight" was defined by the code - rather, the code was creating in an attempt to reign in the already-existing knights, who were kind of heavy on the whole rape-and-murder thing.

Also, the style of martial training was vastly different. The way knights were trained to fight (Jousting, personal combat) vs. the methods developed by the Samurai (Bushido, etc)...

[Prince_Ornstein]

I dislike Paladins for a couple different reasons, which is odd because my favorite fantasy cliche is "I am a knight, i stand for honor and justice of my people, i will slay you evil doer in the name of all that is just and right in the land."
i love it love it love it.

but then the paladin in a d&d party,
a. no you cant do that because i wont let you!
b. no you cant do that because i cant let you!
c. no i wont do that because my code wont let me!
d. no i wont do that because my deity wont let me!
e. if you do that i will have to kill you!

and maybe this is not all paladins but this was my paladin experience in my party and it had left a bad taste in my mouth ever since, which is very sad for me because like i said i love the honorable knight and the valiant warrior but "SMH" paladin code....

[Calimehter]

Still waiting to see if I get a reply directly from Calimehter

I was mostly just shocked that we had gotten two pages into this thread without it turning into a ToB discussion, so I thought I'd help it along a little. :smallwink:

I don't really use ToB so I don't really have a strong opinion on it. I do think the artwork and name choices for a lot of the content were a bit . . . unfortunate. Fluff is mutable and all that, so everyones mileage will vary, but I had a hard time reading through it without thinking that someone else at the table would shout "Iron Reaver Soul-Stealer!" every time I made a maneuver. Yes, yes, you could say the same thing about Power Attack, etc. etc. etc. but the way it was written in ToB just brings it out a little too far in front for [I]my personal tastes.

[Deepbluediver]

@ Calimehter

You're free to have whatever opinion you like about anything, but I really just wanted you to clarify your statement. The exact words where:

Tome of Battle classes, because they are too anime.

-and I did not understand it. I've actually wathed a fair amount of anime over the years, and I know that there is more to it than Naruto, Bleach, and DBZ. And even within certain genres, some stuff is better than others. To me, your statement is sort of similar to saying "I don't like this movie, it's too American". :smallconfused:

How many different types of anime are there? (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071124154318AAVpO9W)



Er... Real-life Samurai and real-life Knights were vastly different. I mean, they sort of got incorrectly viewed the same way, but what they actually were was worlds apart.

You're going to have to explain that one to me.

They where both a sort-of warrior class, less than true nobels but more than peasents, trained in a variety or arms and heavy armor, and frequently (but certainly not always) linked to a lord or patron that they pledged alliegance to.



The "Code of Honor" of knights was... not exactly what it's portrayed as. The general view is that the concept of "Knight" was defined by the code - rather, the code was creating in an attempt to reign in the already-existing knights, who were kind of heavy on the whole rape-and-murder thing.

Neither was Bushido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido). According to that page, what most westerners know of it was codified all the way back in the ancient year of...1899.
Here's the wiki link for Chivalry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry), too, just for fairness.

Any society with large numbers of heavily armed men whose only skill is war is going to want to control them somehow, and both Chivalry and Bushido where developed out of older traditions of command, loyalty, assisting others, etc. In other words, ways of convincing knights and samurai to do things other than ride around starting fights and robbing people.

Depending on how cynical you want to be, they where also both bits of romantic propaganda written up long after the age where they would have been applicable had passed.


Also, the style of martial training was vastly different. The way knights were trained to fight (Jousting, personal combat) vs. the methods developed by the Samurai (Bushido, etc)...

Again, you are going to have to spell this out. A cavalry charge was a well-used medieval fighting tactic, and samurai trained in plenty of weapons other than the katana (http://www.ehow.com/list_6718484_samurai-fighting-styles.html). Both tended to wear heavy armor.
"Jousting" was not a real form of combat, it was mostly the same as a duel for sport.

Also also, while (mostly) not in the same class as nobels, samurai and knights both usually came from familial lines, and recieved personal instruction, as opposed to being trained with a large group like in an army.

If you want to convince me that there are any significant different between the two groups, you are going to have to be more explicit.

[Jeff the Green]

Devils Advocate here, but two things.

First, the names. "White Raven Tactics." Stone Dragon. Diamond Mind. All has sort of a martial-artsy flavor to it.

You've obviously never studied western martial arts. The maneuvers are called a bunch of things that make White Raven Tactics seem mundane. "Unicorn's Defense," for one. One Italian master of swordsmanship called his style the "Flower of Battle."

In reality, the knights of medieval Europe almost certainly had names for all of their maneuvers, stances, guards, thrusts, etc. so that they could teach them. Battle was a thoroughly academic discipline.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

[QUOTE]Neither was Bushido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido). According to that page, what most westerners know of it was codified all the way back in the ancient year of...1899.
Here's the wiki link for Chivalry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry), too, just for fairness.

So, my impressions - which may have been mistaken - was that there were (at least) two incarnations of Bushido - the version practiced by the Samurai, and the version espoused during WWII, which was a very corrupted, pretty much re-written version in order to control the soldiery. When I think of "Bushido," I actually think less of a code of honour and more of a code of tactics and a philosophy of personal strength, with some very strict social laws thrown in.



Again, you are going to have to spell this out. A cavalry charge was a well-used medieval fighting tactic, and samurai trained in plenty of weapons other than the katana (http://www.ehow.com/list_6718484_samurai-fighting-styles.html). Both tended to wear heavy armor.
"Jousting" was not a real form of combat, it was mostly the same as a duel for sport.

Alright, it occurs to me that I'm really not well-read enough on this to argue it too far without ending up embarrassing myself, but my impressions (and where they come from) amount to these:

European knights were mostly "Trained" for single combat, and generally fought for themselves on the field, trying to take high-priority enemies hostage, etc. They were trained much more for fighting than for battle - so, not a lot by way of strategy, working as a unit, etc. I get this mostly from reading about the difference between Mongolian and European tactics back in the days when the two were coming into conflict, and how superior the Mongolian training methods/attitude towards strategy were.

My impression of Samurai conflict, meanwhile, has been much more focused and driven towards success on a battlefield, including tactics, etc. This mostly comes from stuff my instructors taught me while I was studying Aikido, about the historical origins of specific moves we were taught; the descriptions of techniques, training styles, etc, painted a picture of an extremely focused and professional study of martial combat. Specific examples include techniques that involved unnecessary turns during follow-through in order to give you a chance to check the battlefield for new threats in the course of dealing with a single opponent, the stress placed on identifying common patterns between different weapon techniques (given the staggering variety of weaponry available at the time), and the entire structure of the dojo as a "Safe place" where warriors could train together in a culture where life was exceptionally cheap.

So, in terms of tactics and martial training, I tend to see knights as just... not being on the same level. I could be vastly underestimating the sophistication of European martial arts at the time, though.

In terms of their "Code of Conduct"... I don't see either of them as ever having been rigorous defenders of good and virtue, but again, I do see that Samurai existed in a much, much stricter society. When I read about Europen knights and their conduct, I'm reminded of things like the inability of commanders to control their own cavalry, the sack of Constantinople, etc.

Meanwhile, for Samurai, I remember one very specific thing from our training - our own teachers didn't drill this much, but there's a very common set of techniques you can still find in martial arts today, where at least one of the combatants fights from their knees. The explanation for this (at least as we were taught it) was that in Feudal Japan, it was death to rise above the level of your lord, even in his defence - so if you stood up to protect his life, yours was forfeit.

The reasons given for this strict code of conflict were described by that old maxim - "A well-armed society is a polite society." Given the exceptional violence and overall low cost of life of the culture in which these techniques were developed, a very, very strict social code formed as a way to prevent anyone from getting offended, cause when people got offended other people tended to get disemboweled. A lot of the rituals and traditions of the dojo were a result of this - the mere existence of a dojo was a difficult thing to pull off, because it required that you have these very violent, very aggressive people sharing the same place and even fighting one another, without it descending into a blood bath.

Things like that gave me the impression of two radically different cultures - I would generally view knights as chaotic neutral thugs, and samurai as lawful neutral killers.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

You've obviously never studied western martial arts. The maneuvers are called a bunch of things that make White Raven Tactics seem mundane. "Unicorn's Defense," for one. One Italian master of swordsmanship called his style the "Flower of Battle."

In reality, the knights of medieval Europe almost certainly had names for all of their maneuvers, stances, guards, thrusts, etc. so that they could teach them. Battle was a thoroughly academic discipline.

Huh, that's interesting - but, in terms of modern impressions, that sort of language does generally carry eastern connotations, whether it's historically accurate or not.

Again, I agree with the pro-Tome of Battle crowd, was just trying to explain what I saw as the opposing view. Seeing as I'm doing a rubbish job of such, I'm gonna stop now.

[monkey3]

Bully paladins that direct party action by eliminating all possible choice.

[Deepbluediver]

Again, I agree with the pro-Tome of Battle crowd, was just trying to explain what I saw as the opposing view. Seeing as I'm doing a rubbish job of such, I'm gonna stop now.

I think people are arguing over something where there wasn't really an argument to be had, and I'm the cause of it. Sorry.

I just want to say:
FREAKYCHEESEMAN DID NOT START THE TOB=ANIME DISCUSSION, AND YOU SHOULD NOT ARGUE WITH HIM ABOUT IT.
I asked for simply clarification relating to the above, which he did he best to answer, and for that I am grateful.


I will do a longer response to the stuff about samurai/knights/etc later, I need to run out to the store atm.


Bully paladins that direct party action by eliminating all possible choice.

I think that the bigger problem here is any class that lets fluff dictate mechanics and intra-party reactions, and WotC's biggest fault is for not spelling this out better.

I can't find it atm but I recent read an article that pointed out that by a strict interpretation of RAW, the ONLY way a paladin can fall is by willfully an evil act. Breaking their oath, associating with evil creatures, not using the proper hand-signals to indicate a lane-shift while mounted, etc; all of it is discouraged but NONE of it has any actual mechanical effect.

[JaronK]

My least favorite class is probably the CW Samurai. It doesn't work like a real samurai (they didn't dual weild katana and wakasashi!). There's nothing that really says samurai in the class. The mechanics force you into a play style that doesn't work (dual wielding without bonus damage). The capstone ability doesn't work at all (a level 20 character gets bonuses against low HD enemies... yay?). The one useful ability they get (Mass Staredown) is just a weaker version of what the Scarlet Corsair and Dread Pirate get.

Bad mechanics, bad fluff. Basically, there's just nothing salvageable out of this class.

JaronK

[Prince_Ornstein]

Bully paladins that direct party action by eliminating all possible choice.

100% exactly.

[THEChanger]

My least favorite class to play is the wizard. It's too much bookkeeping for my brain, and I don't have the patience to look through the thousands of spells to find the useful ones. Same with Sorcerers. Clerics are better, but I tend to not play full spellcasters.

[Bonzai]

The least enjoyable class that I have played so far was a Soulborn. Maybe it was because I was the least optimized character in the group (the Bard and Fighter were showing me up). Maybe because I rolled crap for his stats (after that the party switched to a 32 point buy system because they were so bad). Maybe it was because I had built him to be a charger in an underdark campaign where all terrain seemed difficult (which I eventualy soved with a trained riding lizard). Or maybe it's because the class plays like a core only paladin that had it's mount and lay hands ripped away. All I know is that it was a grind to play... And this is from a guy who has played a True Namer from 3rd level to 15th level.

Fluff wise, I thought it was awesome. I played a Dwarf Soulborn. A sort of holy warrior that had a strong mystical connection to the souls of his ancestors sounded really neat to me. Looking at the class, I figured that I should focus on his smiting/charging/and being an AC monkey. I did cover those things fairly well.

But you know what the frustrating part of the class was? Not being able to re-shape a meld during the course of a day pre-epic. You have a small selection of melds, and not being able to swap a general purpose meld for a utility one means that your selection is even smaller in practice. Many times I would encounter situations where I had the perfect meld that I could shape for it, but had to ignore it due to not wanting to hold up the rest of the party for a day to allow me to buff up properly. It was really frustrating.

The second most frustrating thing was being sold incarnum as a completely new variant magic system like psionics, and then having no further support come out for it (aside from dagon magic), thanks to 4th edition. I want my Complete Incarnum dang it!

[Snails]

Cleric.

This is a class that should have Flavor with a capital "F", yet it just doesn't deliver. Every cleric seems much like every other, regardless of whether they are good or evil or whatever. "Whatever" says it all.

IMNSHO the Cleric should generate all the positive and negative controversy that the Paladin does, but a little differently on a god by god basis.

[Snowbluff]

I agree with the awful crunch. But frankly it doesn't have to be played as an eastern Monk. The crunch may style it as one but there's nothing in the fluff that makes it that way. You could just as easily play this guy: It's fluffed and crunched to be an Asian monk, and I would be happier if it was Friar Tuck or something, but it's the default I am complaining about.



Fluff is flexible, and so are settings. Whether something fits or doesn't fit comes down to how you build the world and the characters that inhabit it.

You weren't listening to anything I said. Typical DnD settings involve Knights and swords, etc. Their are exceptions, but I am talking about the one class the doesn't fit in any way with the others in the Core.

[Lupus753]

I hate how the CW Samurai turned out. So much wasted potential. I'd probably make the Samurai an armored master of spears and archery, like in real life. As for details, I'm not sure. Probably something to do with horseback riding (more than a class skill). Or, I've heard plenty of legends of Samurai getting the aid of ancient spirits, which could lead to a physical-based summoner. Not sure if that would work, though. You could maybe play up the romantic aspects of Bushido, but without the chance of falling, if that were possible.

I could also say the Truenamer, but I'm not as interested in the concept, so it doesn't elicit more than vague disapproval.

I also despise classes like the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, StP Erudite, etc... that can do anything including making the GM cry. But that's not what the OP had in mind.

[alaman13]

Any PrC that lets you advance in multiple casting classes. It takes what are already the most powerful classes in the game and combines their most powerful features together.

[ThatKreacher]

Sorcerers seem really bland to me. Instead of wielding raw power that they learned to master themselves, they have the same spells as a wizard (there's a few exceptions) and have less spells to cast, and seem weaker if anything. I think someone mentioned previously how they should be more like a warlock, which I totally agree with.

[Threadnaught]

Isn't "Anime" just the Japanese word for "Animation"?

In Japan, Tom and Jerry is Anime. You can't smack a cat with a hammer, it's too anime. You can't play as a party of a Sloth, Sabre tooth tiger, Wholly Mammoth and weird Squirrel thing, too anime. You can't have a horse, unicorn, Pegasus or alicorn/weird unicorn and Pegasus hybrid, too anime.

People who complain about ToB classes being "too anime" are the ones who do not believe that mundane classes deserve the ability to push their bodies past mortal limits. Dragonball is a good example of a Monk that works. That guy trained so damn hard, he can fly, teleport, fire energy and even blow up the planet just by flexing his muscles. Against a magic user, he could win.
In D&D though, a Monk 20 vs a Wizard 20 is an unfair fight, Wizard casts "I'm invincible", Monk can't damage him anymore. Wizard then casts "Suck it" and the Monk is teleported to a demiplane where he spends the next 10000 years slowly dying while experiencing the most excruciating pain imaginable. While it's true that Wizard 20 vs Just about anything 20 is an unfair fight, but Monk is the main topic for some reason and Dragonball is a very iconic cartoon, another main topic.


Controversial, but I actually like the Monk. It's got flavour, unlike those Fighters. :smallamused:

[AthasianWarlock]

My least favorite character was a vow of poverty monk which I intended on making an apostle of peace. I had taken golden ice feat and exalted ki strike but the DM insisted noting was evil- so those feats did nothing. The druids animal companion made me look useless. I eventually convinced the DM to let me retrain.

[Snowbluff]

Isn't "Anime" just the Japanese word for "Animation"?

It's distinctive enough from American cartoons (which is what you described) that it needs it's own genre. The kind of anime referred to by the detractors is the shonen genre, which does hit uncomfortable levels of ridiculous sometimes. That aside, I do like ToB. It works mechanically.

Goku is not a monk. He would have to suck to be a monk. He's probably a Tashalatora, which is what monks should have been if I ever though they should have been in the game.

As for Fighters, what's wrong with being a soldier? You have something against the trained men and women defending our castles? Even if you claim they have no flavour, no flavour is better than screwed up flavour. I'd rather eat something bland than something that tasted like poo.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Yeah, I've never had a problem with a class having "No Flavour." Sometime's it's nice for the class to give you a starting place to build from, but other times you just want a set of mechanics, and leave flavour up to the player.

[white lancer]

Yeah, I've never had a problem with a class having "No Flavour." Sometime's it's nice for the class to give you a starting place to build from, but other times you just want a set of mechanics, and leave flavour up to the player.

I think this is why I generally don't like alignment restrictions. Part of me thinks it would be more fun if each class simply represented a different set of skills, leaving the flavor completely in the hands of the roleplayer. I don't mind some flavor restrictions for Prestige Classes, but base classes always feel like they should be freer to me.

[JaronK]

As for Fighters, what's wrong with being a soldier? You have something against the trained men and women defending our castles? Even if you claim they have no flavour, no flavour is better than screwed up flavour. I'd rather eat something bland than something that tasted like poo.

Fighters aren't soldiers. They're the only class besides Barbarians that can't take Profession... so they can't have Profession Siege Engineer (which is used for some siege weapons). They lack any Knowledge skills, so they can't know about any enemies nor do they know anything about warfare (a Fighter can't be a veteran of the Drow wars... he doesn't even know the basic strengths and weaknesses of a Dark Elf). They can't even be decent guards as they lack Spot or Listen or Sense Motive. They're just mooks.

It's really a shame, too. If they had mechanics that backed up their fluff, they'd be a lot better.

JaronK

[Doug Lampert]

European knights were mostly "Trained" for single combat, and generally fought for themselves on the field, trying to take high-priority enemies hostage, etc. They were trained much more for fighting than for battle - so, not a lot by way of strategy, working as a unit, etc. I get this mostly from reading about the difference between Mongolian and European tactics back in the days when the two were coming into conflict, and how superior the Mongolian training methods/attitude towards strategy were.

That would have been news to most knights, who routinely operated on foot in tight formation when that was appropriate.

The Mongolian tactics had little impact in Europe, they were only marginally superior to European methods and the nearly identical Mamelucks in Egypt WON all their major battles with the mongols.

Meanwhile the Samurai were a miserable failure agains mongols, as their training at that time ACTUALLY WAS entirely for individual combat rather than unit fighting.


My impression of Samurai conflict, meanwhile, has been much more focused and driven towards success on a battlefield, including tactics, etc.

Crap. Samurai routinely and in all periods did duels of small groups and duels of champions, because they were NEVER focused mostly on battlefield success.

Japan was the ONLY COUNTRY, EVER to succussfully ban firearms from the battlefield, because Samurai were not interested in actually winning if it meant doing so in a way that made peasants militarily effective.

European knights CARRIED guns as soon as they became reasonably usable weapons, because they were formation fighters who wanted to win. Samurai, not so much, individual glory all the way.

DougL

[Venger]

Factotum. The class just bothers me. Not a fan of the idea that a character can be a better spy than James Bond, a better musician than Jimi Hendrix, a better writer than Shakespeare, a better chef than Gordon Ramsay, a better swimmer than Michael Phelps, a better...you get the idea. All of that pretty much whenever a whim strikes the character.


that's exactly why it's my favorite base class :smalltongue:


Factotum. Nifty idea, but really sucky execution. The class author(s) left too much unexplained, and (the icing on the cake) didn't even know the basic game rules they were working under. :smallmad:

what specifically are you referring to? cunning surge?


I've seen both. I get the mechanics, I get the flavour, I understand exactly why people like it and love it...but there's still a niggling feeling that I can't get rid of when I look at it.

is it the names for the powers?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

That would have been news to most knights, who routinely operated on foot in tight formation when that was appropriate.

The Mongolian tactics had little impact in Europe, they were only marginally superior to European methods and the nearly identical Mamelucks in Egypt WON all their major battles with the mongols.

Meanwhile the Samurai were a miserable failure agains mongols, as their training at that time ACTUALLY WAS entirely for individual combat rather than unit fighting.



Crap. Samurai routinely and in all periods did duels of small groups and duels of champions, because they were NEVER focused mostly on battlefield success.

Japan was the ONLY COUNTRY, EVER to succussfully ban firearms from the battlefield, because Samurai were not interested in actually winning if it meant doing so in a way that made peasants militarily effective.

European knights CARRIED guns as soon as they became reasonably usable weapons, because they were formation fighters who wanted to win. Samurai, not so much, individual glory all the way.

DougL

Alright, again, as most of my knowledge either comes from a variety of esoteric and far-from thorough sources or my own martial arts training, I'm really in no position to argue the styles of training. I still feel that there is a marked difference between the martial arts developed by the samurai culture and those of contemporary Europe, but... yeah.

I'm curious - do you know how close or far off I was on the cultural differences/differences in the application and efficacy of their respective codes?

[rgrekejin]

Ninja - Why does this class exist? It's basically just Rogue-minus in almost every conceivable way.

Anything Psionic - This is absolutely 100% a fluff issue for me. The Psionics system is fine, I have no problems with it, but I just mentally categorize psionics as something that belongs in sci-fi rather than fantasy, and their presence in D&D feels like an unwelcome intrusion to me.

...and the Tome of Battle classes.

Wait, wait, wait! Hear me out here - I don't have a problem with the ToB classes fluff-wise. Their fluff isn't my favorite, but it's not the worst thing I've ever seen. They can keep their fluff if they want it. My problem is actually mechanical. Basically... when I'm playing a ToB class, I feel like I'm playing a caster. If I wanted to have a spell list, I would have bloody well played a wizard. Now the group I play with and sometimes DM for is fairly low-op, and we don't have huge problems with the casters routinely outshining the mundane characters. Maybe if my group was higher-op, I'd see the ToB as some sort of answer to my prayers, but as it is, the way the fighter, or the scout, or the rogue, or whathaveyou, operate just feels more like the way a mundane character ought to function. ToB characters are just a little too... gimmicky, I guess, for my tastes. It really just feels like someone at Wizards looked at a game session, saw that casters where outshining the mundanes, and decided that the solution to this problem was to turn the mundanes into casters too. If you disagree, that's fine. But, well... I don't like the ToB. And that's why.

[JaronK]

It's funny, I too hate the Ninja because it doesn't feel like a ninja. It just feels like a confused Rogue.

But I love the Swordsage, because that class actually feels like a ninja. I can do ninja things! I can teleport through shadows! I can leap over an opponent and then slaughter him on the way down! I can trip up an opponent who tries to charge me! I can create garrotes of shadow to kill people at long range! That's awesome.

In fact, I think Rogue 1/Rokugan Ninja 1/Unarmed Swordsage 18 is amazing for a ninja. You kind of need Able Learner to keep your Search up so you can handle traps, though, which is a shame... I'd prefer to be a Whispergnome. But with Hidden Talent I can create endless poison all day and be a ninja assassin, and that's pretty cool.

JaronK

[Zaq]

Rangers bother me. There's just not much to them, you know? Sure, a Mystic Wildshape SotAO Ranger is badass, but I don't feel like the Ranger itself offers much, especially because it really fails to differentiate its fluff from the Scout. What do two-weapon fighting, a weak pet, and weak spells have in common, thematically?

The Soulborn is really disappointing. It could have been so interesting, but sadly, it's just not. You get everything of value with just the feat Shape Soulmeld . . . And in fact, a Commoner spending his feats on Shape Soulmeld and Open X Chakra will access the higher-level binds before an equivalent Soulborn will. How's that for insulting? It would have been interesting if they got nearly as many binds/melds/essentia as the other classes, and they were set aside as being more combat-focused simply through which melds are available. Sure, an Incarnate or Totemist could poach the melds they wanted, but since we'd be giving the Soulborn a competitive amount of meldshaping mojo, the Incarnate or Totemist wouldn't automatically be better at it. Such a waste.

The Samurai and Swashbuckler are pretty much a waste of design space, as others have mentioned. They just don't offer enough interesting tricks to make them ever worth seriously considering. You could condense nearly every ability the Swashbuckler gets into 6 or 7 levels, and I'd still rather play a Warblade.

[Raimun]

I don't like Monks, Samurai, etc..

Basically classes that have great fluff but just don't cut it. I mean, I'd like to play a master of unarmed combat or a swordmaster but I don't want to be... use-impaired.

Not playing them doesn't help either. Someone else might just play them and it doesn't feel completely right if I happen to be Angel Summoner to someone's BMX-bandit. It's not that I shouldn't be able to be Angel Summoner but extreme BMX-skills should be more powerful. :smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

what specifically are you referring to? cunning surge?
Cunning Surge is pretty low on my list; as an Extraordinary ability, that's simply grossly overpowered. I'm talking about the class being written badly: using arbitrarily different prose styles for different ability descriptions; and terms used yet undefined, often in place of other terms that are defined in the game. For documented examples of the designer not even knowing the game rules, start here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070412a):

1. Yes, you can use multiple inspiration points to gain additional sneak attack damage.

2. It's reasonable to assume that sneak attack is an extraordinary ability. When in doubt, the DM should decide if an unmarked ability qualifies. Anything that lacks a clear, supernatural element should be fair play.
Contradicted by the rules in Player's Handbook on page 313

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. and on page 180
Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
Also see here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070411a):
If the characters have a minute or two to catch their breath and rest, assume that the last encounter has ended and all per encounter abilities refresh. and here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070409a):
Unspent inspiration points are replaced when the factotum returns to his full number of points once an encounter ends.Apparently Mike Mearls couldn't even remember the actual Factotum class rule:
At the beginning of each encounter, he gains a number of inspiration points determined by his level There's nothing about abilities refreshing when an encounter ends; a new encounter must actually begin for that to happen. Plus there's the basic problem that, while the Dungeon Master's Guide specifies what constitutes the beginning of an encounter, it doesn't have a spec for when it ends.

I'll give just a few examples of the bad writing. In Cunning Breach:
The target automatically fails any spell resistance check that she attempts to avoid your spell. D&D spell resistance has no "attempt to avoid" check; the only check is by the spellcaster. Also, Factotums have no spells; they only have SLAs. Because there's no such check, Cunning Breach will never work, even for multiclass Factotum/spellcaster characters. In Cunning Brilliance "the start of each day" and "standard character class" are used yet these terms aren't defined. What about Cunning Insight when used with a spell or effect that deals negative levels or ability damage? For sneak attack with weaponlike spells the rules state that the extra damage is negative energy instead; for the Factotum there's no similar limitation. Why was the pattern set years before in Complete Arcane ignored here? (Likely answer: didn't know, and didn't care.)

Nifty idea. Really sucky execution, by a designer who has demonstrated he doesn't know, and can't even be bothered to learn, the basic rules of the game.

[Greenish]

I hate how the CW Samurai turned out. So much wasted potential. I'd probably make the Samurai an armored master of spears and archery, like in real life. As for details, I'm not sure. Probably something to do with horseback riding (more than a class skill). Or, I've heard plenty of legends of Samurai getting the aid of ancient spirits, which could lead to a physical-based summoner. Not sure if that would work, though. You could maybe play up the romantic aspects of Bushido, but without the chance of falling, if that were possible.OA Samurai might be a starting point. It's got the class skills you'd expect with 4+int points to get them, ancestral weapons they can enhance by meditating (basically, Ancestral Relic the feat, for katana and wakizashi) but which they don't actually have to use, and bonus feats from a list that varies by clan (so one offers TWF, another gives mounted combat/archery stuff, one for heavy armour and big weapons, and so forth).

Now, if they only had class features. :smalltongue:

[RandomLunatic]

Here is my hall of shame:

Swashbuckler: I really like the Errol Flynn archetype. Too bad it is so terrible.

Monk: Hey, who let Bruce Lee into my Tolkien-eque fantasy game? And why does he suck so much?

Fighter: I have no problems with the lack of fluff, since that just lets me put in whatever I want. What I do have a problem with is that it offers nothing except feats, which are something everybody gets. Then, to justify this design choice, Wizards goes and makes any move more advanced than tying your shoelaces require a feat, if not several, thereby dooming mundanes to either dip Fighter or mindlessly full attack for all eternity.

CW Samurai: Here, we took a fighter and made all the choices for you. Poorly. Then we went and added on a Code of Conduct just in case you were still managing to enjoy it.

Paladin: This is exactly what a co-operative RPG needs; a class that is punished for the misdeeds of others, and so has to force his own code of conduct on the other players.

Dragon Shaman: What exactly does this class do? He does not cast spells, he does not have the skills to skill monkey, and 3/4ths BaB and d8 HD does not make for much fighting ability. He uses his breath weapon every 1d4 rounds and spends the rest of the time reminding everybody about his auras.

[Rejusu]

It's fluffed and crunched to be an Asian monk, and I would be happier if it was Friar Tuck or something, but it's the default I am complaining about.

The fluff in the PHB just says the Monks are trained at monasteries. It doesn't really go into much more than that. And we have monasteries in the west.


You weren't listening to anything I said. Typical DnD settings involve Knights and swords, etc. Their are exceptions, but I am talking about the one class the doesn't fit in any way with the others in the Core.

And you missed my point. Typical DnD settings do not just involve Knights and swords. They involve Dragons, Dwarves, Wizards, Orcs, Undead, Elves, Druids, Barbarians, Bards, Oozes, Giants etc.

Yet it's the Monk who's "out of place"? Yes if you were to use a stereotypical medieval setting then an eastern style Monk won't fit in. But stereotypical medieval settings aren't the typical D&D setting. The typical D&D setting is high fantasy, swords and sorcery. And if you think that the typical D&D setting is "Knights and swords, etc" then Monks are far from being the worst offenders when it comes to "not fitting in".


Any PrC that lets you advance in multiple casting classes. It takes what are already the most powerful classes in the game and combines their most powerful features together.

This is a rather misguided complaint. Theurge classes are almost always weaker than straight casters. Instead of being a full Wizard, full Cleric, or full Psion you're always going to be behind in both classes you're advancing. And it's not like you get any more actions either.


OA Samurai might be a starting point. It's got the class skills you'd expect with 4+int points to get them, ancestral weapons they can enhance by meditating (basically, Ancestral Relic the feat, for katana and wakizashi) but which they don't actually have to use, and bonus feats from a list that varies by clan (so one offers TWF, another gives mounted combat/archery stuff, one for heavy armour and big weapons, and so forth).

What I find funny about the OA Samurai is it begins play with a Katana, but doesn't begin play with the proficiency for it.

[Greenish]

What I find funny about the OA Samurai is it begins play with a Katana, but doesn't begin play with the proficiency for it.Yeah, but at least that's intentional (since you're proficient with it wielded two-handed).

[Venger]

favored soul hey, remember all the problems with sorcerer? it needs more of them. let's go ahead and rope wisdom in there somehow too, so it has to prioritize the worst stat in the game and one other one besides. and let's give them a list to choose from that was designed at its very core to be full of situational utility spells that you dont' want to prepare every day. and let's not give it any class features either

eruditepeople complain that wizard invalidates everything? let's make them invalidate all manifesters too

lurkrogues? too powerful! let's make them have to spend PP and expend focus to do simple things

[Bhaakon]

The fluff in the PHB just says the Monks are trained at monasteries. It doesn't really go into much more than that. And we have monasteries in the west.

If the Dominicans practice secret arts of weaponless mayhem, I am unaware. "Martial artist monastery" is about as East Asian a trope as there is. It's pretty much synonymous with Shaolin, and about as far from the Western monastic tradition as one can get.

There are certainly unarmed, unarmored fighting styles the West, so a monk-style class could work quite well. They're just not, insofar as I'm aware, based around monasteries or particularly mystical.

[nedz]

Paladin, I've never liked you, and you always seem to be on a fast track to hell.

Enlightened Spirit. This is the Warlock version of Samurai. You get a fixed set of invocations which are fewer in number and almost entirely situational. Moreover it screws up the normal invocation progression so that even dipping this class will delay your access to further invocations: forever.

Fighter. Why an earth doesn't this get useful skills. Actually the Thug variant is better, and it's quite easy to home brew further skill sets based upon this model.

Warrior. These are the NPC militia men who only practice their weapon skills at the weekend when they're not busy earning a living. So: why don't these get any skills either ?

[Fates]

Truenamer: Ursula K. Leguin's Earthsea Cycle was by far the most beautiful fantasy I have ever read- the one series besides SoIF and Lovecraft's works that I really consider as good as Tolkien's Middle Earth. This class took my hopes to play Sparrowhawk and disemboweled them, then arranged their body parts in such a way that would make Cthulhu himself vomit. I don't even need to say why the class sucks- everyone in the D&D community knows it.

Crusader: I cannot say how much this class irks me. As a DM, it's impossible for me to keep track of how its abilities work. As a player, I can't possibly compete with one unless I play a class of equal or higher tier. At least Swordsages and Warblades have relatively simple mechanics. If I want to play a holy warrior, I'll just play a cleric (or paladin, depending on the op-level)


Factotum: This class takes the Jack of All Trades idea way too far. I've never seen one RP'd successfully. I never know what kind of character I am when I play one.

All the Incarnum Classes: I guess it fits in some campaigns, but in mine, it just ends up seeming ridiculous. I wonder why everyone complains so much about Eastern-type classes in Western worlds, when this doesn't fit with the flavour of any world I've ever seen.

Dragonfire Adept: You breath fire, and give minor buffs. That's basically it. By far the most boring class I've ever played.

[Threadnaught]

It's distinctive enough from American cartoons (which is what you described) that it needs it's own genre.

I'm so sorry to have offended you oh great anime consummate. I didn't realize that only Japanese cartoons are true animation and that all other cartoons are... For children and less intelligent people.


Goku is not a monk. He would have to suck to be a monk. He's probably a Tashalatora, which is what monks should have been if I ever though they should have been in the game.


Dragonball is a good example of a Monk that works.

Monks in D&D don't suck, they just don't work. Goku on the other hand is able to make fantastic use of his combat techniques, without being held back too much by his mental stats. His dedication to keeping his body honed as the perfect weapon is enough.
Monks in D&D are often dedicated to transforming their body into the perfect weapon, but it's not enough to actually help them.


As for Fighters, what's wrong with being a soldier? You have something against the trained men and women defending our castles? Even if you claim they have no flavour, no flavour is better than screwed up flavour. I'd rather eat something bland than something that tasted like poo.

Thing is, Fighters, much like Monks don't exactly work. JaronK's already said it all, half of the example monsters are Fighters.
The thing I like about the Fighter is, how it can progress into several awesome PrCs and fill several roles in combat, but the Monk (among just about every other class) can also do this.
To make things worse, the majority of the roles a Fighter is able to fill effectively are very feat heavy. Sure the Monk is just as feat heavy in combat, but there are a few things it can do outside of combat much better than a Fighter can without WBL or other party members.

And remember, for all of a Fighter's advantages over a Monk, they have the same amount of disadvantages. I'm talking the Fighter's equipment and the Monk's lack of, against enemies that can destroy equipment or disarm a character, the Fighter is far more vulnerable than the Monk. There's a reason they're on the same tier.


Besides, if you want a soldier, there's the Commoner. There's a guide to building it into a brutal engine of destruction on this site.
If being scared of housecats isn't your thing, what about the Warrior?

[Fates]

I'm so sorry to have offended you oh great anime consummate. I didn't realize that only Japanese cartoons are true animation and that all other cartoons are... For children and less intelligent people.


Now, I am certainly no Anime Connoisseur, and have only very occasionally watched any of it, but I can say for certain that your response, on top of being extremely rude, is also totally ridiculous. Anime is a distinctive style of animation, with very clear differences from American cartoons. No one is saying that Western animation is inherently childish, and your taking offense really holds no merit. Besides, Anime is not necessarily Japanese anymore- in other countries, it has come to refer to the specific style of animation, which is constantly used by animators outside of Japan.

[Snowbluff]

This... guy... is...


Now, I am certainly no Anime Connoisseur, and have only very occasionally watched any of it, but I can say for certain that your response, on top of being extremely rude, is also totally ridiculous. Anime is a distinctive style of animation, with very clear differences from American cartoons. No one is saying that Western animation is inherently childish, and your taking offense really holds no merit. Besides, Anime is not necessarily Japanese anymore- in other countries, it has come to refer to the specific style of animation, which is constantly used by animators outside of Japan.First things first. This. Thank you.

Threadnaught, you are assuming too much.

There is a difference in genre. There are good cartoons and good anime. I like to not be bigot when it comes to art.

Goku has to have a decent mental stat to play Monk, or his AC would fall behind, leading to taking significantly more damage in the melee fights. Either way, he has either Wisdom (in the force of will sense) or Charisma in some form. He can have a mental stat to use psionics.

Monk has 3/4 BaB. Have fun not qualifying for anything quickly enough and being a whole 5 attack behind the fighter. Gauntlet is a weapon and Improved Unarmed Strike is a feat (fighters have plenty). Fighters have plenty of feats to cover maneuvers and Tacticals like Shocktroopers. While it isn't the strongest class, it managed to grow significantly thanks to its modular design.

You just suggested that we play commoners and warriors over fighters. I'll just let that sink in.

[avr]

Me, I hate fighters. A guy who can fight but can't do anything else - not hugely athletic, unknowledgeable, finds the wilderness a mystery - really isn't supported in fiction and it annoys me hugely. The D&D fighter doesn't need to be as one-dimensional as it is.

[Phelix-Mu]

Me, I hate fighters. A guy who can fight but can't do anything else - not hugely athletic, unknowledgeable, finds the wilderness a mystery - really isn't supported in fiction and it annoys me hugely. The D&D fighter doesn't need to be as one-dimensional as it is.

The game seemed to overvalue skill points, but much much much more, it overvalued a good skill list. No list should be as short as fighter, sorcerer, etc. The fighter with a high Intelligence finds that he has nothing to do but pick up some arts and Craft know-how.... If fighters had some distinguishing traits beside feat selection, it should have been in skill selection, but the list pretty much forces uniformity (outside of lots of cross-class investment)...a stupid and unrealistic thing for any game as complex as D&D to do.

[prufock]

I've never felt the fluff for Bard. In fantasy literature there are well-done bards. In D&D the whole Elan "Try, try, try to not blow us all up" bit just sounds false.

I guess it depends on how you flavour bardic music. I'm playing a bard in my current game that uses Perform: oratory that functions as motivational speaking. He offers advice, pointers, and moral support!

Of the classes I've played, the monk has been the least fun. There are just too many situations in which the monk is not useful. The fighter is a very close second, but at least the fighter can put up a better showing in combat (generally).

[ArcturusV]

I suppose my least favorite would be Cleric. And I HATE that it's Cleric too. I WANT to like playing a Cleric. I really do.

Just... sigh... I'd continually get groups that asked me to play a cleric because "no one else was" and "We need a cleric, right? Right! The game is balanced around that idea!"... so I'd be forced to roll up a cleric. Which sometimes were kind of interesting experiences. I'd get some idea and I'd start liking it...

Then I'd actually bring it to the game. And constantly this would be what happens.

Me: Well I cast (Something) on myself and start to move into position on the front lines.
Every Other PC: ... what the hell man?! You're a cleric!
Me: Yeah? I fail to see what you're upset about...
Other PC: Dude... clerics are supposed to stay OUT of the action. We need you to be safe to heal us afterwards if we need it. You can't go sticking your neck out there.
Me: ... really?
Third PC: Yeah. Well unless we need you to Turn Undead. Then you get up there. But otherwise you're too important to risk.
Me: ... really?!
Other PC: Yeah. So sit back and let us handle this.
Me: ... well aren't I having fun with my heroic character...

And that's how it'd go. Every... single... time. I know from these boards that's not necessarily how it always goes. Clerics can really cut loose, etc. But that sort of thing is what happened every time I was at the table. I'd be told to be a Heal Bot. Heck, people got upset with me once even because I played an "EVIL" cleric (Actually Neutral, but he used Negative Energy/Rebuked Undead).

Just... no wonder no one rolls up a cleric. I want to like it. I do. But I've never, ever had fun with it.

[Lupus753]

This is certainly ironic. Probably the most powerful core class and everybody wants you to do nothing but heal. Maybe if you came in with extensive notes on the usefulness of nightsticks, Persistent Spell: Divine Power, Plane Shift, Bull's Strength, Holy Word + bonuses to caster level, Energy drain, etc. to infinity, they might see your viewpoint. Then again, they sound pretty stubborn.

I dislike spellcasters in general and 3.5 Clerics are no exception. Either players know the tricks and can steamroll any opposition or players don't know the tricks and find that HP builds far more quickly than healing ability.

[Greenish]

I suppose my least favorite would be Cleric. And I HATE that it's Cleric too. I WANT to like playing a Cleric. I really do.

Just... sigh... I'd continually get groups that asked me to play a cleric because "no one else was" and "We need a cleric, right? Right! The game is balanced around that idea!"... so I'd be forced to roll up a cleric. Which sometimes were kind of interesting experiences. I'd get some idea and I'd start liking it...

Then I'd actually bring it to the game. And constantly this would be what happens.

Me: Well I cast (Something) on myself and start to move into position on the front lines.
Every Other PC: ... what the hell man?! You're a cleric!
Me: Yeah? I fail to see what you're upset about...
Other PC: Dude... clerics are supposed to stay OUT of the action. We need you to be safe to heal us afterwards if we need it. You can't go sticking your neck out there.
Me: ... really?
Third PC: Yeah. Well unless we need you to Turn Undead. Then you get up there. But otherwise you're too important to risk.
Me: ... really?!
Other PC: Yeah. So sit back and let us handle this.
Me: ... well aren't I having fun with my heroic character...

And that's how it'd go. Every... single... time. I know from these boards that's not necessarily how it always goes. Clerics can really cut loose, etc. But that sort of thing is what happened every time I was at the table. I'd be told to be a Heal Bot. Heck, people got upset with me once even because I played an "EVIL" cleric (Actually Neutral, but he used Negative Energy/Rebuked Undead).

Just... no wonder no one rolls up a cleric. I want to like it. I do. But I've never, ever had fun with it.Suggest a game where all of you play clerics. Watch their heads explode.

[Telonius]

If the Dominicans practice secret arts of weaponless mayhem, I am unaware.

Not so much the religious orders, as (at least in urban legends) the Irish priests in the 1920s-40s US. Example from my own high school: the story goes, back in the 40s, one of the priests would give misbehaving students a choice of either a week of detention, or a five-minute fight after school. The priest, Father O'Malley or O'Shea or something like that, was a former bareknuckles boxer. Only one kid ever chose the fight, and after the results, nobody ever did again.

I've heard a few different versions of the same story from other places around the country; honestly thought it was a bit better known of a trope.

[JaronK]

I suppose my least favorite would be Cleric. And I HATE that it's Cleric too. I WANT to like playing a Cleric. I really do.

Tell them you're going to be a skillmonkey. Then be a Kobold Cloistered Cleric with the Kobold and Trickery domains. Use Wieldskill and Guidance of the Avatar to nail all skill checks. Don't tell them you're a Cleric at all. They'll never see it coming. Add in the full DMM:Persistent bit for extra fun.

JaronK

[SiuiS]

Rangers bother me. There's just not much to them, you know? Sure, a Mystic Wildshape SotAO Ranger is badass, but I don't feel like the Ranger itself offers much, especially because it really fails to differentiate its fluff from the Scout. What do two-weapon fighting, a weak pet, and weak spells have in common, thematically?

The ranger has been dilluted by being a concept based on a person, which passed through generations of people whonever knew either the person or the concept, until the only thing distinguishable about it is that it is a fighter of the wilderness... Kind of.


Rangers were originally, anthropocentric paladin archetypes. They were human only, as a gift from the gods of humanity to help the fledgeling race against the Giants and Ogres of the world. That's why they had strict requirements, specific skills and abilities, and could use divine, arcane, and non-magic, because they were meant to trek to the dark corners of the world, murder terrible beasts in the fastness of their power, and basically be the rough men who do violence on your behalf so you can expand into the wilderness without fear.

I prefer to call this concept ranger, and just sort of ignore the name of the mechanical subsystem that is the ranger class.

[HylianKnight]

Wow, every other class got mentioned on the first page, and here we are on page 5 and no one's said Barbarian.

Well I'll be that guy.

Since this is a totally a subjective question, I'd have to say Barbarian is my least favorite class. It's the only class I've never had any desire to play whatsoever after all these years. I have a bit, but damn it's so uninteresting to me it hurts. One note flavor, and you have to spend the game RPing a freaking barbarian! The guy who is so simpleminded and uneducated that he literally can't read. He's only good for combat, and while competency is awesome, if you're in a group like mine where combat doesn't mean breaking character, you just swing you're ax until you or the enemy is dead.

Again, completely my own feelings, but that's what the question is. I'd mourn every other class being dropped, except that one.

[Drelua]

Wow, every other class got mentioned on the first page, and here we are on page 5 and no one's said Barbarian.

Well I'll be that guy.

You know, I never really thought about it before, but I completely agree with you. I only played a Barbarian once, for a single session, and it went against the class fluff completely. He was a guy with a hammer, named MC hammer, with ranks in perform (dance), and a monkey Assassin cohort named Furious George. Not anthropomorphic or anything, just a plain old monkey. Strangely, they both fit right in to that group.

Other than that, I just have no interest in playing anything with more spells than a ranger. I tried playing a Cleric of Kord once, and just ended up being a fighter/heal-bot. Other than that, I just have no interest in using the mechanics of spellcasting or role playing a spellcaster. I don't know why, it just doesn't appeal to me at all.

[Yora]

I have no use for paladins. Almost all the games I run or play either have no cosmic forces of good or evil, or they never really get spared a second thought. In these games, a paladin is just a lawful good fighter/cleric, and a really bad one. It's a silly concept and a redundant class.

On second place would be monk. I see how it could be interesting in some settings, but the class itself is completely useless.

Pretty much the same thing for Soulblade. Which I think it meant to be a psionic monk or something like that?

Pathfinder Gunslinger would also be high on the list, but for no good reasons. I just don't like how Pathfinder tends to be all 19th century and the gunslinger is the poster child for that thing. Also, I heard the class sucks.

Also: Spellthief? Who had that idea?

[Hyena]

Bards. I freakin' hate bards, I hate them so irrationally I ban them in every game I DM. Every single one.
The concept of people, who can cause bears to apper from a thin air by singing a sweet song with cheesy lyrics, annoys me. The fact that every bard I ever played with as a player was cracking silly jokes in inappropriate time.
Like, when the village was under attack by hordes of undead and people were pretty much slaughtered.

[Yora]

Giving the player any other class most certainly wouldn't have helped with that.

[Grasharm]

Truenammer because I love the concept but it sucks so hard that even though I'm not a op monster I still can't bring myself to use it.

[nedz]

I suppose my least favorite would be Cleric. And I HATE that it's Cleric too. I WANT to like playing a Cleric. I really do.Tell them you're going to be a skillmonkey. Then be a Kobold Cloistered Cleric with the Kobold and Trickery domains. Use Wieldskill and Guidance of the Avatar to nail all skill checks. Don't tell them you're a Cleric at all. They'll never see it coming. Add in the full DMM:Persistent bit for extra fun.
JaronK

Tell them your playing a Sorcerer. Play a Spontaneous Cleric, Cloistered too why not. Take either the Sun or Fire domains and then the Magic domain. Take Energy Substitution (Electrical), Fiery Burst [Reserve] and then Born of Three Thunders.

A Gnome cleric with (Illusion or Gnome) and Trickery works almost as well, if you prefer your Sorcery to be more subtle; bonus points if you can later wrangle the Shadow domain.

You're right though: Do not be Eric the Cleric.

[Amnestic]

Bards. I freakin' hate bards, I hate them so irrationally I ban them in every game I DM. Every single one.
The concept of people, who can cause bears to apper from a thin air by singing a sweet song with cheesy lyrics, annoys me.

As opposed to causing bears to appear out of thin air by saying a few nonsense words and swishing your hands about hither and thither? :smalltongue:


The fact that every bard I ever played with as a player was cracking silly jokes in inappropriate time.
Like, when the village was under attack by hordes of undead and people were pretty much slaughtered.

Bards can absolutely be more than that. It sucks that you've had one of my favourite classes ruined for you by bad players :smallfrown:

[Eldariel]

Tell them your playing a Sorcerer. Play a Spontaneous Cleric, Cloistered too why not. Take either the Sun or Fire domains and then the Magic domain. Take Energy Substitution (Electrical), Fiery Burst [Reserve] and then Born of Three Thunders.

A Gnome cleric with (Illusion or Gnome) and Trickery works almost as well, if you prefer your Sorcery to be more subtle; bonus points if you can later wrangle the Shadow domain.

You're right though: Do not be Eric the Cleric.

Tell them you're Conan the Barbarian. Buffrage in the start of each fight, cast your all-days during your watch and clobber some skulls. Though avoid AMFs.

[Fates]

Wow, every other class got mentioned on the first page, and here we are on page 5 and no one's said Barbarian.

Well I'll be that guy.

Since this is a totally a subjective question, I'd have to say Barbarian is my least favorite class. It's the only class I've never had any desire to play whatsoever after all these years. I have a bit, but damn it's so uninteresting to me it hurts. One note flavor, and you have to spend the game RPing a freaking barbarian! The guy who is so simpleminded and uneducated that he literally can't read. He's only good for combat, and while competency is awesome, if you're in a group like mine where combat doesn't mean breaking character, you just swing you're ax until you or the enemy is dead.

Again, completely my own feelings, but that's what the question is. I'd mourn every other class being dropped, except that one.

Though this is how I've usually seen barbarians played, I have to say, you're really stereotyping a bit. It only takes two skill points to become literate, which you could theoretically do at first level, and barbarians are one of the more skillful meleeists out there. If done right, a barbarian can be an incredibly interesting character- besides illiteracy, they are far, far more adaptable to non-combat situations than the fighter is.

[Gnome Alone]

@Telonius:
I'd certainly give some big style points to anyone who showed up to wanting to play a Monk with the concept of "Father O'Malley who beats up little kids."

[Venger]

Tell them you're Conan the Barbarian. Buffrage in the start of each fight, cast your all-days during your watch and clobber some skulls. Though avoid AMFs.

or roll cheater of mystra and embrace AMFs. :smalltongue:

never understood noobs who think 3.5 clerics can't do anything. I would if these circles were grognards who'd been playing since 2e, since cleric worked very differently in that game, but that never seems to be the case. :/

[Zaq]

Though this is how I've usually seen barbarians played, I have to say, you're really stereotyping a bit. It only takes two skill points to become literate, which you could theoretically do at first level, and barbarians are one of the more skillful meleeists out there. If done right, a barbarian can be an incredibly interesting character- besides illiteracy, they are far, far more adaptable to non-combat situations than the fighter is.

This required a little cooperation from the GM, but I once played a Barbarian/Warblade who was functionally ADHD when not raging, but totally able to focus and think when raging. (As I saw it, adrenaline worked for him the way methylphenidate works for a lot of real-world folks with ADHD, me included. To avoid confusion, I called it "focus," rather than "rage.") I got the GM to houserule that he could use Concentration when raging/focused, but he took something silly like a –8 to it when not. When not focused, he used Iron Heart, Tiger Claw, and Stone Dragon, and when focused, he used Diamond Mind and White Raven. He was a lot of fun to play. It may be a simple inversion of the stereotype rather than a clean break from it, but it was an effective one.

Not everyone will have a GM who lets them bend the rules like this, I understand, but it doesn't take much to pull off something similar. Even just roleplaying being more aggressive and reckless when not raging and becoming collected and tactically minded when raging can be a good starting point for breaking the stereotype, and it's easy to evolve from there.

[Eldariel]

or roll cheater of mystra and embrace AMFs. :smalltongue:

never understood noobs who think 3.5 clerics can't do anything. I would if these circles were grognards who'd been playing since 2e, since cleric worked very differently in that game, but that never seems to be the case. :/

I'm thinking it's a combination of story of the mouth and more recently, exposure to e.g. MMOs where healers are rarely amazing at anything else; sets the expectations. And the whole "this guy is a ****ing priest, of course he's a caster".

[Aldizog]

Wow, every other class got mentioned on the first page, and here we are on page 5 and no one's said Barbarian.

Well I'll be that guy.

I also dislike the barbarian.

I dislike that 3.0 decided that "barbarian" meant "berserker," in marked contrast to earlier editions. Now rage has become so intrinsically linked to the class that it is the *one* class feature retained by every Pathfinder archetype. And rage is the source of most of my objections to the class.

I dislike the concept of rage as a largely consequence-free power source. A non-Will-save-optimized Frenzied Berserker more accurately captures what the "power" of anger should look like. Or perhaps rage should have had more AC penalty or an unawareness of HP damage taken. I do like that, in Pathfinder, AC penalties make you more vulnerable to trip/disarm/etc., which for levels 1-10 cancels out the Str bonus from rage.

I STRONGLY dislike the idea of berserk rage being seen as superior to discipline, training, and skill. A better-designed barbarian class should *lose* one-on-one to an equal-level fighter nine times out of ten, because of what the archetypes represent. The barbarian (even when not raging) can be better against magic and against sneak attacks.

I dislike limited-use non-magical abilities, except for luck (which I can readily accept the character being unaware of).

I dislike the way the class plays. Sacrificing defense for offense is, in many actual games, no sacrifice at all, if the DM is reluctant to kill PCs, as many are. And I find combatants with an attention to defense to feel much more real to me, rather than those that rely on their HP, since I see level-based HP as mostly plot armor. I think it is a flaw in 3.5 that it encourages "all offense, all the time" as much as it does.

I am not trying to change any minds here. Just saying what I dislike about the class.

[Threadnaught]

Now, I am certainly no Anime Connoisseur, and have only very occasionally watched any of it, but I can say for certain that your response, on top of being extremely rude, is also totally ridiculous. Anime is a distinctive style of animation, with very clear differences from American cartoons. No one is saying that Western animation is inherently childish, and your taking offense really holds no merit. Besides, Anime is not necessarily Japanese anymore- in other countries, it has come to refer to the specific style of animation, which is constantly used by animators outside of Japan.

But, when I used the word "Anime" I was using it as the Japanese word for "Animation", if we go by Snowbluff's countering of my point (that all cartoons are anime in Japan), my extremely rude and ridiculous response is supposed to be how things are.

Originally I was snarking at people who ban ToB for "being too anime", well the Druid and Wizard having magic pets reminds me of Pokémon, they're both PHB. Is that "too anime" for anyone? A cat dude beats up the tough guy Fighter with his own weapons, then unleashes a lightning storm on him, Pokémon and Tom and Jerry, half Animation, half... Cartoon.


Threadnaught, you are assuming too much.

There is a difference in genre. There are good cartoons and good anime. I like to not be bigot when it comes to art.

Let's see, first thing's first... Animation has to have the style of Japanese cartoons and no other form of cartoons originating from any other country are ever called "Anime" in Japan and therefore are not "Animation" anywhere else, fact. That about right?
I do question what "genre" western cartoons are, we know that "Anime" rather than being a "medium" is a single "genre", so what are Cartoons?

Either, you've been making a poor choice of words this whole time, in which case we should just drop this and forget all about it, or you just don't get the issue. The main problem being your assertions of what the things we've been talking about are, Anime is not a genre. Action is a genre, horror is a genre, romance is a genre. Tabletop Role Playing Games are a medium. Heck, Role Playing Games are a genre in the Videogame medium.


Goku has to have a decent mental stat to play Monk, or his AC would fall behind, leading to taking significantly more damage in the melee fights. Either way, he has either Wisdom (in the force of will sense) or Charisma in some form. He can have a mental stat to use psionics.[QUOTE]

Well as I've already repeated myself... Nah, you'll just ignore it again.

Nevermind. Here, have a biscuit. Maybe it'll stop you from trying to make me hate Monks and lick Fighters' boots.

[QUOTE]You just suggested that we play commoners and warriors over fighters. I'll just let that sink in.

Let what sink in? Commoners and Warriors do make better soldiers than a Fighter, look at a Fighter's stats, now look the a Commoner and Warrior's stats, now look at a Fighter's. Look at the British army (from Medieval times), every Commoner in the country is required by law to train with a Longbow, or in this case since we're talking D&D, a Sling. Now look at the Warrior, these would be the more professional soldiers, these are likely to be the police force for the time. Enforcing their will over the Commoners in times of peace, still not quite all that one on one, but more experienced than the average Commoner.
Whereas a Fighter is unlikely to be a typical soldier, they're probably knighted. Or mercenaries.

Just to clarify, I don't like the Warrior, it's like an even weaker Fighter.

I like the Commoner, it's all the weaknesses of a Wizard, with none of the strengths. It's also been proven that clever play can turn it into an engine of destruction.
I like the Monk, tastes like sweat and blood. :smallamused:

And I still don't like Fighter. Thank you.


I doubt this is the end of it though. :smallsigh:

[zlefin]

bad prestige classes.

I don't really have a single disliked class; but there's a bunch of prestiges I don't like. I think I like all the core prestige classes; all of which are flavorful and/or ahve interesting abilities.
But when I start looking through splatbooks; often like a third of half the prestige classes are just bad; they're just plain weak, have a few bad abilities which seem like somebody should be able to do them anyways.

Then there's the ones for casters that only give half progression or some such for a few weak abilities.

[Callin]

I have to agree that the Generic Warrior is better than the PHB Fighter. The Warrior gets to assign what his best save is, assign all of his class skills, use his bonus feats to pick up certain class features, has the same BaB and HPs as the base Fighter.

I would replace the PHB Fighter with the Generic Warrior ANY day of the week.

[Threadnaught]

I have to agree that the Generic Warrior is better than the PHB Fighter. The Warrior gets to assign what his best save is, assign all of his class skills, use his bonus feats to pick up certain class features, has the same BaB and HPs as the base Fighter.

I would replace the PHB Fighter with the Generic Warrior ANY day of the week.

I was actually referring to the NPC Warrior Class for the role of a Soldier, but yours also works.

In the opposite way mind you.

[Venger]

I'm thinking it's a combination of story of the mouth and more recently, exposure to e.g. MMOs where healers are rarely amazing at anything else; sets the expectations. And the whole "this guy is a ****ing priest, of course he's a caster".

I'm not familiar with the expression "story of mouth" can you tell me what you mean?

ah, WOW healer then. that explains that.

[Zman]

Prepared casters. Allows Wizards and their bottomless Spellbook to have a dozen different magic bullets. Clerics for not being spontaneous, seriously, who plans out their miracles. Druids, why am I prepared, and why am I a full caster. Paladin, man's with Battle Blessing and a Spontaneous list I may actually be useful, Rangers, hey I'm a caster?! Damn, prepared.... Archivist.....yeah, self explanatory.

[Snowbluff]

Let's see, first thing's first... Animation has to have the style of Japanese cartoons and no other form of cartoons originating from any other country are ever called "Anime" in Japan and therefore are not "Animation" anywhere else, fact. That about right?
I do question what "genre" western cartoons are, we know that "Anime" rather than being a "medium" is a single "genre", so what are Cartoons?Anime is an overgenre like scifi. It maintains certain tropes and stylizations (to a degree) and can be used as a medium for other genre. Like have a scifi action movie or an anime noir film. By medium I would put film, animated ,CG, painting, etc.




Nevermind. Here, have a biscuit. Maybe it'll stop you from trying to make me hate Monks and lick Fighters' boots.
A poor job assuming intent again, as well as being incredibly dismissive. That is very rude. I would have been happy to have you ramble one by your lonesome if you had not taunted me. I hate biscuits.

Everyone knows I hate monks. When something has few redeeming qualities and way too many detractors I hate it. What I do not do is ignore the underlying issues and say it's fine anyway.


Just to clarify, I don't like the Warrior, it's like an even weaker Fighter. For example, the fighter. I pretty much already told you the fighter is the lesser of 2 evils. It's not great, but it still functions to a more serviceable degree than monk for the regular, playable optimization level.


You made the suggestion to play something you don't like. It's not a matter of being so much as you filling
I like the Commoner, it's all the weaknesses of a Wizard, with none of the strengths. It's also been proven that clever play can turn it into an engine of destruction.
...and that someone equally someone can do the same with just about any class. Like a PC class. Like the kind that DMs will let the player play without cocking an eyebrow, getting suspicious, and throwing a book at your preemptively.

For example, any class can cast 9th levels spells, (www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8753936&postcount=35) but you do not see me playing commoner because I think that's clever.


I like the Monk, tastes like sweat and blood. :smallamused:
Yes, getting beat up by monster can be fun sometimes.

And I still don't like Fighter. Thank you.
I doubt this is the end of it though. :smallsigh:

Unsalted wheat cracker. It's healthy and delicious. (::)

EDIT: Talking about the npc class warrior as well.

[Namfuak]

I'm not familiar with the expression "story of mouth" can you tell me what you mean?

ah, WOW healer then. that explains that.

I think he meant "word of mouth," as in anyone who is joining the community after hearing about other people's stories ingame will hear about the healbot cleric, because so many games feature one, and then they will expect their game to have one, and the cycle continues. I've never understood why it's always a healbot cleric and never a healbot druid though, it seems to me that as long as the caster himself is going to sit back and do nothing most of the time, they may as well control another combatant.

Funny enough, even though groups I play with are not high-optimization, anyone who plays a cleric, even a healbot cleric, always ends up preparing summon monster, because anyone who looks at that spell will immediately see at least the great in-combat uses for it.

[Eldariel]

I'm not familiar with the expression "story of mouth" can you tell me what you mean?

Ah, basically just story passed by word-of-mouth. That is, in this context hearing stories about how Priests/Clerics/White Mages have been and creating expectations based on what they've heard. I'm not sure how commonly used an expression it is but I've run into it sometimes.

[Elricaltovilla]

Wizards, because they're too anime for my D&D game, and it screws up my willing suspension of disbelief.

[JaronK]

Least favorite PrC has to be Shining Blade of Heironeus. Seriously, does anyone see a point to this class? The class abilities are so horrible that no one would ever want to take it. It's basically a REALLY horrible Kensai.

JaronK

[Guy Incognito]

Divine mind, easy. Of the Big Three Horrible Classes, he's the worst to me.

The truenamer is horribly-designed, sure, but he's actually fulfilling a role; his magic system's pretty unique, if broken, and his fluff is really well-written. Sure, most of the time he's just a lamer warlock without the longevity or offensive power, but I can definitely respect the intent there. It's a class you want to get fixed.

The samurai isn't as straight-up horribly designed as he is suffering from Hexblade Syndrome: his class features weren't as strong as the designers thought they were, and as a result, 90% of the time, 20 levels of samurai add up to nothing. But mass staredown isn't too bad, and again, he's trying to fulfill the role of samurai. Again, you want this guy to be better, not out.

The divine mind, though? No excuse. This was WotC shoveling crap and calling it chocolate sauce.

Where to start? The fluff that claims that gods can grant manifesting abilities? That's not why people play manifesters. Look at the sample psionic races in EPH, and see how many don't have an actual deity. (I'll do it for you: the githyanki and dromites venerate individuals instead of deities, the githzerai, thri-kreen, and elans don't care about religion, and the half-giants are actively atheist.) The whole deal with psionics is that it's something that you learn by yourself and comes from yourself. Look at the psychic warrior, whose fluff is all about physical perfection through the body and mind. Look at the psion, who gets his powers from self-reflection and study of his own brain. Check through the psionic deities - there's a demigod mostly venerated by monks, and a racial deity of mind flayers. There's not a god of psions. And I'm not saying I have a problem with religion, but if you want to play a religious character in D&D, you're pretty spoiled for options, while psionics was entirely a secular system. Even wizards are still summoning demons, while the psion is making things from his own thoughts. Adding something inherently tied to divine power really undermines all that. (And just to twist the knife, the 'iconic' divine mind is a half-giant.) I've heard the handwave that it's a magic-feather mental block, but if so, why does he need to atone to get his powers back?

I say "powers" very loosely. A divine mind is absolutely pathetic. They start out with zero powers known and an aura with a range of five freaking feet. Eventually, though, they'll blossom to knowing... nine powers. The psychic warrior gets more than double that. But wait, they also get psionic mantles! Except the ardent gets more at level 5 than the divine mind has at 20, and manages to be cleric-esque while (mostly) maintaining the secular attitude of psionics. But wait, you can use your mantles and your aura together! Like the energy mantle, which lets your allies deal... one... extra point of damage. Or the creation mantle, which gives fast healing... to constructs... at a rate of one hit point per hour. Most aura powers don't scale at all, and the ones that do, go at a snail's pace.

But you know why this is? Because the divine mind IS the ardent - a late edit, spawned from the need to have more classes to meet the deadline. He's not mentioned on the back or throughout most of the book, and his "abilities" writeup fails to mention his need for Charisma. He's something they slid in hoping nobody would notice, and knowing that somebody might pick it up and try to play it. That's just irresponsible.

So, it tries to be a psionic paladin when nobody was asking for one, and it's actually basically a bard minus everything that makes bards fun. I'd say it's a safe bet for least favorite.

[Guizonde]

I think he meant "word of mouth," as in anyone who is joining the community after hearing about other people's stories ingame will hear about the healbot cleric, because so many games feature one, and then they will expect their game to have one, and the cycle continues. I've never understood why it's always a healbot cleric and never a healbot druid though, it seems to me that as long as the caster himself is going to sit back and do nothing most of the time, they may as well control another combatant.

Funny enough, even though groups I play with are not high-optimization, anyone who plays a cleric, even a healbot cleric, always ends up preparing summon monster, because anyone who looks at that spell will immediately see at least the great in-combat uses for it.

i actually wanted to play a healbot with one caveat. if i'm to be a paragon of good and healing, i'm gonna make sure that anything alive stays that way, and any undead stays dead. our group dynamic is always in the order of progression from first place to last place when dungeondelving: the rogue, the sorceror, the fighter, me good ol' cleric in the middle, wizard, and the sneaky monk. the reason is this: with me in the middle (everyone knows i'm a hidden powerhouse), i can support the frontline, the rearline and on two separate occasions above.
i don't particularly care for playing frontliner, since i'm more a support kinda guy. but to any mmo fanboy who thinks clerics are healers (and i do see them that way), they've got to remember that clerics patrol in some pretty inhospitable places and not only survive but thrive there. there's a reason they're allowed to wear plate and use martial weapons. despite all this, if i can avoid being frontline i will. if i have to, i'll make sure the fight lasts the least amount of time possible.
i guess my definition of healbot is: be tough as nails to have no need to heal yourself, thus healing the party more. make sure you're never in danger so you can keep on saving everyone's bacon.

funny anecdote regarding summon monster. i was banned from using that spell offensively. the conversation:
"can i summon a boar over that ork so he's flattened?"
"NO! you're not allowed to summon a boar above that ork!"
"can i use that spell like a boar-gun? you know, so the ork eats a charging boar full tilt."
"what? no!"
"can i at least use that spell to disarm traps with badgers and wolverines?!"
"ok, fine, you know what? even if it's in the middle of a battle, swap that spell out with something else! you're not allowed to use summoning offensively ever again!"
"ok... i'll bean it with my mace *rolls* does he have more than 19 hp? i crit"
"you know what? you boar me"
it was especially unfair as the druid in the party (before i joined) actively used summon monster to hit enemies.

[ArcturusV]

PrC wise? Least favorite is probably Arcane Archer. Not as a player, but as a DM. I'd get players who really liked the idea of it. A guy who shoots magical arrows and can channel magic through his arrows. Neat. Right?

But.... the class just doesn't seem to work. Always made me feel like such an ass when the Arcane Archer would come up with this cool idea and I had to shake my head and say "... no... no... your ability sadly doesn't work like that..." and such session after session. No one enjoyed playing it. I hated DMing with an Arcane Archer for that reason. Just.... ug...

[Amnestic]

"you know what? you boar me"

...

...

:smallamused:

I also find the Cleric a bit weird. It feels to me like there should be more to it (which they usually attain through PrCs) but there's just...not much there. I that you don't get more from following a specific god contributes to that. If you follow a specific God, it should mean far more than just a few domain choices and maybe a favoured weapon.

[ArcturusV]

True. One of those things I actually liked about Anima, you got your Cleric Powers from acting like how a god wanted you to act. Rather than praying a lot. So the "clerics" of two different deities were radically different characters.

Similarly when I rolled up a Cleric of a Thief God I'd just always unconsciously try to emulate that. I wore leather, I used Crossbows and Daggers. I chose spells that were exploration oriented rather than combat.

[Fates]

I've actually always been a fan of nonsecular clerics. If played right, they can be really interesting. (IE, rather than the servant of a deity, you're a being infused with divine power that you can use as you will- essentially, you are on the path to becoming a god yourself). Works especially well with spontaneous clerics. I once played one who was CN with the fire and destruction domains, and it was loads of fun.

[Threadnaught]

Everyone knows I hate monks. When something has few redeeming qualities and way too many detractors I hate it. What I do not do is ignore the underlying issues and say it's fine anyway.
For example, the fighter. I pretty much already told you the fighter is the lesser of 2 evils. It's not great, but it still functions to a more serviceable degree than monk for the regular, playable optimization level.

Interesting, I'm going to have to do this section in segments.

1: Really? I didn't, not until you started whining about how I dare to like them.
2: This makes it look like you only started disliking Monks because you decided to jump on the bandwagon because you saw someone else doing it.
3: Did I say the Monk was fine? I don't remember that, could you please point out where I said it outside of this post and just now? I may be making assumptions, but you're just making stuff up.
4: *Yawn* The repetition is as boring to me as the class.


...and that someone equally someone can do the same with just about any class. Like a PC class. Like the kind that DMs will let the player play without cocking an eyebrow, getting suspicious, and throwing a book at your preemptively.

For example, any class can cast 9th levels spells, (www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8753936&postcount=35) but you do not see me playing commoner because I think that's clever.

Yes, you can do anything with any class. Hey you could become PunPun and neither the DM or other players get to do anything, fun for everyone.
A PC class? But what happens in games where PC classes aren't allowed?

A DM who throws a book at their players for playing clever and making good use of whatever limited resources they have, does not deserve to DM in my eyes. Here's a game style almost as fun as the earlier one that allows PunPun. Why not ban all PC abilities outside of hit stuff for damage? No Sneak Attack, Smite Evil, Hide, Move Silently, Diplomacy, Animal Companion, Spells, nothing. Fun.


Yes, getting beat up by monster can be fun sometimes.

Yes, and it's hilarious for the DM when said characters are a Wizard and a Druid, the monster is a lone CR1 Human Warrior Skeleton and the players are well above the required level for this fight.
The funnier part is where a lightly optimized (as in no "correct" feat choices, Quick and punch things) Monk slaughters several trolls in front of the equal level PCs. Who are playing far more capable classes.



Unsalted wheat cracker. It's healthy and delicious. (::)

EDIT: Talking about the npc class warrior as well.

I find this amusing because you said you hate biscuits. Also because I hate crackers, even though they're both very similar food items.
Hey, I like Crackers just as much as I like Fighters. :smallamused:

[Snowbluff]

Interesting, I'm going to have to do this section in segments.
I really should not answer these. You are just asking for trouble. I mean, #2 is another blatant poor assumption about my character. Ad hominem.


snipIt's not limited resources so much as "I have this TO trick I know and I'll play it to mess with the party". If playing nothing but TO is fine, but don't expect others to slump to your awkward standards. Being clever is fine, but their are things we don't let people do so we don't end with a TO arms race.

Yes, and it's hilarious for the DM when said characters are a Wizard and a Druid, the monster is a lone CR1 Human Warrior Skeleton and the players are well above the required level for this fight.
The funnier part is where a lightly optimized (as in no "correct" feat choices, Quick and punch things) Monk slaughters several trolls in front of the equal level PCs. Who are playing far more capable classes.

Well, I'll just say that your other players must be doing an awful job, or you are just playing better than they are. Or your DM is really nice. An average (assuming point bought stats to facilitate MAD) level 5 Monk has 36 HP, +5 to attack, and an AC of about 15, before any items. The monk hits the troll less than half of the time, the trolls hit you more often. The being a monk part certainly is not facilitating your victory.

A monk can't even kill a troll, can it? The class features don't bring fire or acid to get around the Regeneration. Before calculating for for your miss chance, you are doing an average of ~7 damage with your fists, versus Regen 5. I don't think your fists have anything to do with it as well. I hope you packed some Alchemist's Fire.

I'd like to hear this story. I would have dropped buckets of acid on them from a tree I was hiding in.



I find this amusing because you said you hate biscuits. Also because I hate crackers, even though they're both very similar food items.
Hey, I like Crackers just as much as I like Fighters. :smallamused:
You should put in your sig. That way you don't have to eat it. :smalltongue:

[Sith_Happens]

Me: Well I cast (Something) on myself and start to move into position on the front lines.
Every Other PC: ... what the hell man?! You're a cleric!
Me: Yeah? I fail to see what you're upset about...
Other PC: Dude... clerics are supposed to stay OUT of the action. We need you to be safe to heal us afterwards if we need it. You can't go sticking your neck out there.
Me: ... really?
Third PC: Yeah. Well unless we need you to Turn Undead. Then you get up there. But otherwise you're too important to risk.
Me: ... really?!
Other PC: Yeah. So sit back and let us handle this.
Me: ... Hell no. YOU all sit back and let ME handle this.

Edited with the correct response to that situation. No offense, but the more you tell this story, the less I pity you and the more I think it's kind of your fault for never putting your foot down.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah. Just wasn't very confrontational about that sort of thing back then. Kept fooling myself into thinking it'd eventually get better. Or I'd run into a group that didn't do that, etc. I wasn't even planning on cheesy stuff or anything. Just wanted to be a holy guy who could throw down, cast buffs/debuffs on the party/enemies and have some fun with it. Course by the time I finally did get fed up with it and probably would have started slapping people for it, I never got the chance to be a player again, I was always DMing (Again because no one else wanted to, but I actually enjoy DMing).

[Guizonde]

Yeah. Just wasn't very confrontational about that sort of thing back then. Kept fooling myself into thinking it'd eventually get better. Or I'd run into a group that didn't do that, etc. I wasn't even planning on cheesy stuff or anything. Just wanted to be a holy guy who could throw down, cast buffs/debuffs on the party/enemies and have some fun with it. Course by the time I finally did get fed up with it and probably would have started slapping people for it, I never got the chance to be a player again, I was always DMing (Again because no one else wanted to, but I actually enjoy DMing).

funny, that's exactly how my friends described the cleric to me before i rolled my first. although my dm pretty much forced me to take searing light (sun domain), without explaining. then i read the spell description. clerics are powerhouses, even unoptimized like mine. anything that at level 5 throws out 6d8 unblockable damage is sweet.

[nedz]

never understood noobs who think 3.5 clerics can't do anything. I would if these circles were grognards who'd been playing since 2e, since cleric worked very differently in that game, but that never seems to be the case. :/

Did you ever play AD&D ?

Clerics were the most powerful class available especially in 2E.

Though not if you played one called Eric.

[Venger]

Did you ever play AD&D ?

Clerics were the most powerful class available especially in 2E.

Though not if you played one called Eric.
no, I never have. I didn't start playing 3.5 myself till late 2009. I never played AD&D/OD&D or 2e, but I hear people talk about stuff in rules threads and I have a couple of odd 2e spellbooks (for the art) and it's given me a small amount of insight into how the game's changed.

I was under the impression bard was the most powerful class in 2e, even though you had to take levels in fighting man, magic user, and thief in order to qualify. from what I've heard, it did other people's specialties better than they did.

[nedz]

I was under the impression bard was the most powerful class in 2e, even though you had to take levels in fighting man, magic user, and thief in order to qualify. from what I've heard, it did other people's specialities better than they did.
That was the 1E Bard, not that I ever saw one. By the time you qualified everyone else was way ahead anyway.

[Zelkon]

Ranger, because whoever designed FE deserves to be a CW Samurai in a game with wizards.

[Venger]

Ranger, because whoever designed FE deserves to be a CW Samurai in a game with wizards.

you will literally forget you have it 90% of the time, that's how much of a difference it makes.

why can't it just function as bane effect? +2 higher enhancement bonus against FE, +2d6 damage. not game breaking, no one cares about 6 extra hp damage. when FE improves, let it go up: +4 enhancement and +4d6 damage and so on

[Deepbluediver]

Alright, again, as most of my knowledge either comes from a variety of esoteric and far-from thorough sources or my own martial arts training, I'm really in no position to argue the styles of training. I still feel that there is a marked difference between the martial arts developed by the samurai culture and those of contemporary Europe, but... yeah.

I'm curious - do you know how close or far off I was on the cultural differences/differences in the application and efficacy of their respective codes?

Never did get back to make a long reply like I said I was gonna, just got busy this weekend; sorry. I'll try to do my best to keep this succinct.

I too have had some martial arts training, and our instructor would give us occasional bits of history or insights into easter philosophy. But I was studying karate, not akido.
In particular, he described the roots of our martial art as being in the working-class groups of people, who couldn't afford (or where banned by law) from owning weapons, and sometimes not even allowed to keep farm tools on hand, because the nobility didn't want the peasents revolting (again). So rather than things like learning how to fight from our knees so as to not dishonor a lord, we learned how to shatter some one's elbow, permenantly crippling them (provided they survived the follow up technique that broke their nose and drove fragments of bone into their brain). In other words, you learned the high-class martial art, and I learned the down-and-dirty one.
The reason I mention this is that we need to be aware of how our various experiences may be coloring our perceptions.


First off, I admit that there are going to be some differences between Knights and Samurai; they where seperated by nearly an entire continent at a time when a long journey was anything more than a day's walk.

But also remember that , like I said before, both Chivalry and Bushido, as well as our modern interpretations of "Knight" and "Samurai" are heavily influenced by being viewed from a modern standard, as well as several centuries of technological and societal development.

For example, to the best of my knowledge both Knights and Samurai both thought of peasents as of a disposable resource, somewhere on the scale between chickens and earthworms (i.e. not real people).

Also, looting conquered cities and ransoming back captured nobles or knights has a long history in pretty much every culture everywhere. Until very recently, every army pretty much ransacked any city that came too. It was one of the primary motivations for getting people to go to war in the first place. Some events are better known in the West, but if you think that the Japanese never scaked a city because of the samurai's code, you should review your Asian history (particularly of Japanese-Korean relations).

This brings me to my next point- armies where rarely composed entirely of just knights or samurai. The bulk of many armies (at least by numbers) where non-knighted soldiers, conscripts, or even mercenaries. And most armies used whatever tactics they could employ most effectively. For Mongols this was mounted archers. For Europeans in heavy plate armor this was a mounted cavalry charges. For samurai is was often spears or swords backed up with archers. And there was plenty of overlap.

To conclude, there where also plenty of knights and samurai both, who did not have a lord, or did not obey any command structure, and where little more than armed thugs. There was nothing really inherent in either group that made them less likely to follow the same basic pattern of human nature.
I don't know enough about history to say which culture (European or far-east Asian) might have been more like our modern view, or had a more restrictive philosophy, or more effective military tactics. They where so far apart that they didn't come into major contact until long after the medieval period had passed. But if you look past the annecdotes and minor details, the majorly important pieces line up surprisingly similar.


Regarding your question: my knowledge of Chivalry and Bushido is that both are romanticised versions of existing codes of conduct that where practiced in parts of Europe and Asia, but they are almalgemations of real-world concepts AND mythical stories from prior periods that nowhere near as universal as they are portrayed in modern media.

Modern western concepts of Chivalry grow out of the legends of King-Arthur and similar tales, whereas Bushido was codified as a way for modern Japanese rulers to instill a sense of nationalism in their armed forces circa the early 1900's, which was a period of very rapid moderinisation for Japan as it moved from a pre-industrial society to a post-industrial one to keep up with the west.



Spoiler is a little bit off-topic, but I wanted to include it anyhow.
All this leads back to my original point: in all the game-related ways that matters, Knights and Samurai are very VERY similar. They where even presented as such in the books (heavy armor, melee weapons, code of conduct relating to service and command, etc). Almost all the special abilities where purely fluff.

So like I said- I think that if you wanted to "fix" both classes via homebrew, you could combine the better features, and simply add in a few more choices for flavor. For example, let them pick between Sword n' Board (western) or TWF (eastern). A secondary specialtiy of either mounted combat (western) or unarmed combat (eastern). A code of conduct that is more paladinish/protect the weak (western) or respect & loyalty-based (eastern). The individual player can pick whatever they want and fluff it however they want, but mechanically any build has the same sorts of options.

[Eldan]

TWF for Samurai is a bit silly, really. Few if any ever fought that way. A wakizashi is for fighting indoors and as a backup weapon, not to wield both at once. The only real TWF styles I know comes from European fencing.

Edit: and they aren't even medieval. They are 16th century (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/DiGrassi/03001047.jpg) Italian. (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/Agrippa/p084.JPG)

[Deepbluediver]

TWF for Samurai is a bit silly, really. Few if any ever fought that way. A wakizashi is for fighting indoors and as a backup weapon, not to wield both at once. The only real TWF styles I know comes from European fencing.

I purposefully left out mentioning using TWF with a katana or wakizashi; I realize that trying to mimic reality in D&D is a fool's errand, but that we can mimic "dramatic-reality" for the sake of the story.

I was simply trying to offer some examples of the kind of thing you could do. Because honestly, when I wrote that, I was thinking of the TMNT.

Raph, Mike, and Leo would all like a word with you. :smallbiggrin:

[ArcturusV]

Admittedly, after Fencing what I tend to think of for two weapon Fighting goes both eastern (Something like two Tonfa), and not (Dual Tomahawking from Native Americans). But not so much of the two swords variety that DnD seems to presume.