What makes a class fun?

[danzibr]

From the player's PoV, fun in D&D depends more on the DM, your fellow players, and how the actual session goes. But this isn't what I'm talking about.

What is it about a *class* that, when you see it, you think, ``Gee, that looks fun.''

Maybe it's the fluff of the mighty Samurai, or the power and versatility of the Druid, or the extreme deeps of the Leap Attacker, or the ability to buff your buddies to absurd power levels with the DFI Bard, or the tankiness of the Crusader, or the extreme number of minions of the Dread Necromancer, or the healing abilities of the Healer, or... eh, that's enough.

[Glorius Nippon]

A combination of being able to do at least a decent variety of options, moderate power, and sheer coolness (whatever it is you find to be cool).

Or at least, that's what I look for in a class.

[Brova]

Ideally, it should be easy to build but complex to play, powerful without being broken, and have a decent replay value.

[lonewulf]

For me it is 2 ends of a spectrum.
1) classes that are versatile as hell (factotum, psychic warrior)
2) classes that can be insanely good at 1 thing (ubercharging fighter)

Those examples are just that...examples.
It depends on what im itching to play at the time. Versatality and Speciality are what makes classes fun for me. And sometimes neither of those things (CW Samurai is bad-fun).

[mabriss lethe]

Having something to contribute regardless of the scenario. Having that contribution be meaningful. Being able to reliably make that contribution.

[Milo v3]

I personally care about the visual. Whether or not I can make something dramatic and cool with it.


it should be easy to build but complex to play
Completely disagree, building can take however long is necessary, but if its too complex in play then it can just slow things down. Summoning characters for example are very easy to build, but they slow everything down because of having to look up the statistics and each of them having seperate actions, etc.

[MyrPsychologist]

I like options.

Whether it's magic or spell like abilities or something else unique and interesting to do beyond just swinging a sword at an enemy. I don't need the full breath of options like a factotum but just the capacity to do more makes me happy. Especially because it means I can contribute in more situations.

[Shadowscale]

Simplicity, role play flavor, the opportunity to have a unique niche.

[Felyndiira]

Versatility is probably the most important thing for me. The class doesn't need to be as versatile as a full caster, but I need to at least have tricks that I can throw out when my one thing isn't appropriate. Warlock (not counting the UMD abilities) is pretty much the bar for the minimum versatility I need in a class before I can enjoy playing it.

Though I am willing to do Frankenstein multi-classing, so if a class is not versatile but provides some utility (like a two level dip in Fighter), that is okay as well.

[A Tad Insane]

Versitilaty in build and actions, non trivial amounts of power, and maybe interesting fluff, if you're into that.

A role that fits your play style also helps, but I enjoy my Anima mage to death even though I love being the murder tank in most other games due to the above

[Brova]

Completely disagree, building can take however long is necessary, but if its too complex in play then it can just slow things down. Summoning characters for example are very easy to build, but they slow everything down because of having to look up the statistics and each of them having seperate actions, etc.

The big problem with complex builds is that I genuinely do not want to go to the effort of figuring out all the moving parts of a Wizard for an actual game. Now, you are correct that you can have a build that is too complex at play time, but that tends not to be a problem if you know your limits beforehand.

[Rubik]

I love classes (or builds) with options versatile enough to allow me to think outside the box, such as most shaper psion powers. The sheer number of things you can do with Astral Construct, Psionic Minor Creation, and Time Hop alone are practically mind-boggling. They allow me to exercise creativity and allow me to leverage a small amount of effort into a huge amount of power, and when things work right, they can end up impressive as hell.

I find that outrageously fun.

[Pluto!]

Immediate actions. And swift actions. But mostly immediate actions - Doing cool little things while you're doing the more prescribed big things is fun. Playing a Fighter with even just 1/day Immediate Invisibility is infinitely more interesting than playing a fighter without, even if the alternative is bigger numbers.

Intuitive mechanics - Factotum, Binder and Incarnate are not examples of this. Nor are prepared casters, however long we on this forum have accepted their concept. Warblade, Warlock, Psions and spontaneous casters are probably the best. They have a few things they can do or one resource to draw from, and they draw from it to solve problems.

Mastery of one domain - Classes that can rewrite their ability lists daily lack a coherence in concept and bog gameplay down. I'd take a system where characters are shoehorned into strict archetypes (where all casters were limited to one element or spell subschool) over one where characters rewrite their ability lists daily. Plus, Wizards, Clerics and even less extensive rewriters like Incarnates, Binders and Chameleons slow the game to a crawl when they try to deliberate over choices to play optimally.

Edit:
And it shouldn't feel exploitative to make the class work - Half the strong points of the Factotum, for instance, come from exploiting nuances of the definition of SLAs, digging up a weird and class-specific feat from an archived setting-specific web page, or reaching into another setting manual from an older edition of the game. Similarly, the only draw of the Divine Mind involves an obscure and poorly-defined ACF from an article full of poorly-defined and easily exploitable ACFs (The one with both Dominant Ideal Ardent and Spells-to-Power Erudite). I shouldn't be worried about whether the DM's going to lose his patience for a particular loophole or unbalanced option, just to get a class to do something interesting.

[Mando Knight]

Three broad categories define an interesting class to me.
Flavor: The class has to be about something that catches my interest. This is the most subjective part, and there's not really too much rhyme or reason to what catches my attention.
Features: The class has to back up its flavor with the actual functional mechanics. A "Fighter" class that gives nothing that actually improves his fighting skill isn't fun, and neither is one that can only the same attack roll every turn with the same set of bonuses and effects.
Balance: I'm not going to have much fun if I can't do anything useful or well, or if another player does "my thing" but better.

[Extra Anchovies]

I like classes that can be played with as little recordkeeping as possible. I don't want to have to pick new spells every day, or even keep track of how many "spell slots" (ugh, vancian magic) I have left. It's the main reason I like the Warlock so much - I only have thirteen spells, but I can use them all damn day. It's also why I'm not a big fan of randomized maneuvers (e.g. Crusader, Mystic) - I don't want to have to shuffle a deck of cards every time I start a fight. I'd rather pick a Warblade, write down quick summaries of what my maneuvers do on my character sheet (e.g. "Strike, +2d6 damage, ignores DR/hardness") and pick and choose them from there.

[Rubik]

In addition to what I wrote above, I also like classes that take very little to refluff. Wizards, clerics, and druids, for instance, are welded pretty hard onto their fluff. There's a bit of leeway, but overall, they're pretty hardcoded. And despite people biatching about them, psionic classes tend to have a LOT more leeway for fluff, since they aren't straightjacketed into singing "I'm a Little Teapot" while doing the hokey pokey, spinning in circles, and flinging bat crap everywhere.

I like to come up with my own fluff, which is oftentimes wildly divergent from what the designers sometimes seemed to believe was the only way to play the game. Writing my own characters is important to me, and they never seem to be dung-flinging weirdos dancing the hula in a dress.

Imagine that.

[Hiro Quester]

Three things:

Versatility. Having options for helping to solve many different problems in creative ways. (This has usually meant being a caster; though I see how Tome of Battle might offer similar versatility to melee types.)

Suspense. Having lots of rolls that will make a difference if they go well, but not being absolutely certain that they will go well. The drama of a just-barely made saving throw, the frustration of rolling a critical fumble, the glory of a massive possibly-combat-ending critical hit. For me, one big spell in a round is less fun/suspenseful than making three or four separate attack and damage rolls. (I currently play a druid; biting face in wildshape, or summoning 1d3 dire wolves to roll for, is way more fun than just calling down a flame strike.)

Flavor. A class that lends itself well to role-playing creativity. A class that gives the character room to do things that will keep things interesting and amusing for fellow players. Being able to play a character with some personality quirk or inability or addiction or weirdness. (E.g. Drunken Master just writes itself. Swiftblade as a junkie speed-freak, who can't ever wait or sit still, and would never delay his action, etc.)

[Afgncaap5]

I like acting out how the character would respond to situations, so the "class" aspect (classpect?) is a secondary concern. Having said that...

-I like classes that have something to contribute. It's really awesome to be the mysterious, shadowy figure who backstabs enemies without being seen, but if you've got three other players doing that then it's not going to be fun. I generally don't like melee fighting, but in the one campaign where no one else wanted to do that I finally tried paladin, and I've been loving it. No one else is tearing through (evil) enemies with quite the same effectiveness, and it's fun sitting apart while doing that (and while the other team members do their jobs so that I can survive to do that (ignoring the fact that I've died 1-or-2? times (The second time was in a no-longer-present timeline.))

-I like classes that fill certain niches in whatever campaign world I'm exploring. I was a little concerned the first time I played Eberron that the Dragonmarked Heir class wouldn't be worth only having second level spells at level 10, but then I realized that 1) I was being a ridiculous force multiplier by teleporting myself and others anywhere we wanted, and 2) people... including villains I'd actively antagonized... could just tell by looking at me that I was the kind of "old blood" that brings riches you can't get with money. I talked my way out of a TPK with Count Strahd von Zarovich by talking about the possibility of opening up Orien trade routes exclusively to Barovia so that he could begin a logging industry. He held off killing us for the chance at improving the strength of his land holdings. Arguably I could've done #1 with a highly specialized caster, and I could've done #2 with an Aristocrat, but the Dragonmarked Heir class allowed me to pull off both, and it was fun in both situations.

-Every once in a while it's fun for me to goof off if I can contribute without actually being useful. I had a character die and made a temporary Healer character. The Healer was, as we eventually came to call it "Cripplingly Overspecialized." The party didn't have injuries from that moment on, but I was otherwise useless in combat (unless we fought undead.)

Beyond that... hard to say. Mostly flavor, I guess?

[atemu1234]

Error 404, filename=fun not found, searching foldername=humanity... ... ...

[Flickerdart]

For me, a class is never fun - the best part of 3.5 is building the characters with increasingly absurd series of dips.

[Milodiah]

Having something to contribute regardless of the scenario. Having that contribution be meaningful. Being able to reliably make that contribution.

Came to say this, but he said it. So reread this post in my voice. Which you've never heard. Use your imagination. Or make me sound like Sean Connery. Either way.

[Extra Anchovies]

Having something to contribute regardless of the scenario. Having that contribution be meaningful. Being able to reliably make that contribution.


Came to say this, but he said it. So reread this post in my voice. Which you've never heard. Use your imagination. Or make me sound like Sean Connery. Either way.

Since I'm curious: what classes fit those criteria for you? I hear "able to contribute in every scenario" thrown around a lot but can't think of anything that really can other than a full Schrödinger's Wizard.

[Uncle Pine]

I almost never play as a player, but when I do I like to play characters that can solve problems in interesting and even unexpected ways while giving myself limits. This ranges from reasonably complex things like the Wizard/Rainbow Servant/Warblade/Jade Phoenix Mage with random spells known that I'll play as soon as I end the campaign I'm DMing at the moment to incredibly simple builds like straight Barbarian Wizard (trust me, it's even funnier than it looks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?195049-Help-Me-Be-Annoying-with-a-Barbarian-Wizard)) or playing with as much Commoner levels as possible while being decently optimized and wielding a cursed sword (Chicken Infested is optional). I also like doing cranky accent, but that's possible regardless of the build. :smallbiggrin:

More in general, I like having (crazy) ideas and see them in play. Thu'um in d&d? There's a class for that (Voice Warrior, technically 3rd party but it's from the author of the EPH). Armored returning dire tiger thrower? There are several classes for that. Admittedly, in order to not change a character a week, this mostly influence me when I play as a DM rather than a player, but the point still stands: I like quirky characters that can do crazy things without completely break the game.

[Komatik]

From the player's PoV, fun in D&D depends more on the DM, your fellow players, and how the actual session goes. But this isn't what I'm talking about.

What is it about a *class* that, when you see it, you think, ``Gee, that looks fun.''

Maybe it's the fluff of the mighty Samurai, or the power and versatility of the Druid, or the extreme deeps of the Leap Attacker, or the ability to buff your buddies to absurd power levels with the DFI Bard, or the tankiness of the Crusader, or the extreme number of minions of the Dread Necromancer, or the healing abilities of the Healer, or... eh, that's enough.

Options and enough power. Preferably being able to do active things instead of having a bunch of passive things. Movement modes. A strong sense of theme (eg. Druid, Beguiler, Dread Necro, Warblade, Binder).

[danzibr]

Thanks all! Great responses.

Since I'm curious: what classes fit those criteria for you? I hear "able to contribute in every scenario" thrown around a lot but can't think of anything that really can other than a full Schrödinger's Wizard.
Yeah, I wonder about that. My guess is... well, it's a bit crude, but looking at the niche system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System), I imagine a class which can fill every niche moderately well with little warning.

I mean, I don't think *any* class can meaningfully contribute to *every* encounter on the fly. I think people don't want to have nothing to do/feel useless during an encounter (I don't necessarily mean combat encounter, btw).

[EisenKreutzer]

For me, it's the combination of an exciting concept and solid mechanics. The ideal class for me is one that does something interesting in terms of concept, while also being unique and interesting mechanically. It could be a class feature or an exciting new way of casting spells (I adore psionics). Baked into that is also a desire on my part to have a mechanically sound character who can affect the game in a meaningful way. Meaningful in this context often means "in battle," but it can also mean interesting options outside of combat.

[LoyalPaladin]

A code of conduct.

I think, for me at least, what makes a class fun is unique features that make you a useful asset to the party.

[CrazyYanmega]

For me it's a matter of how much interesting flavor I can pump into the individual character. Take Szazrik'k, my Poison Dusk Lizardfolk monk. Small size, weak natural attacks, +1 LA, and generally as unoptimized from the start as you can get. But his fired-up personality, determination to win, and sheer ability to barely survive whatever's thrown at him (DM for his campaign really enjoyed seeing just how much Szaz could take) makes him one of my favorites.

Another is Levia, my Merfolk fighter. For land-based campaigns. 'nuff said.

[Taelas]

I personally care about the visual. Whether or not I can make something dramatic and cool with it.


Completely disagree, building can take however long is necessary, but if its too complex in play then it can just slow things down. Summoning characters for example are very easy to build, but they slow everything down because of having to look up the statistics and each of them having seperate actions, etc.

That isn't complexity in play, that's just having a lot to do. You can cut down on it by preparation, such as by having index cards with all the possible monsters you can summon.

[Extra Anchovies]

Another is Levia, my Merfolk fighter. For land-based campaigns. 'nuff said.

I'll bite. How'd you manage it?

[atemu1234]

Are we talking about our favorite characters? Because I can dig up my favourite character. Easily. Probably. We'll see.

Here's what I made a while back...


Now's the time for the story behind my paladin, I guess. Child of a noble family, he was raised from a young age to succeed the patriarch, until he decided to instead enter the order of paladins nearby, the Order of Freinacht. He quickly became among the best of the order's paladins (this lasted until level five-ish) but when he was raised in rank, he discovered a terrible secret: through a systematic series of wards such as undetectable alignment (and a few of the DM's homebrewed alignment-blocking wondrous items) the clerics and higher-level paladins were actually evil and served orcus (and the paladins of about level 8+ were blackguards). He left the order (although hardly amicably) and began fighting against it, bringing another group of paladins to help fight the corrupted order (he had been framed for murder to prevent anyone in his own order or even his own family from believing his words). He eventually succeeded, destroying Freinacht but refusing to join another order, preferring to wander and destroy corruption as a champion of justice rather than order (choosing lawful GOOD over LAWFUL good, as it were). But ~ level 15 (a fully leveled gray guard) he realized his own limits, and as his step brother (well, technically his father's bastard, but same sentiment) became the patriarch, he asked for funds to make a new order of paladins. That's kind of where the character ended, leading an order of paladins in the hopes of creating a better future.

[Molosse]

Applicable and effective Archetypes.

That is to say taking an Archetype from a historical or fantastical context for example the axe-flinging, team-rallying Vanguard or the Wandering Bardic Knight and tweaking it to fit within an RPG context.

Making that concept not only work within the RPG's framework and ruleset but to make it work damn well is a great feeling and really encapsulates the sense of fantasy I crave when putting my head down and looking over a rule-set. Some classes, and in PF actual Archetypes, do this better than most.

[CrazyYanmega]

I'll bite. How'd you manage it?

Quite well actually, She had a swordbow(homebrew found on DnDWiki), and the DM ruled her fighter feats and weapon enhancements counted for both sword and bow mode. Thus she was able to fight at range and in melee.

[Yukitsu]

For me, a class is most fun when it has tools that help me realize a character that I have in my head. For example, if I am imagining say, a banshee pop star (which I admit is my shadowrun character) anything that helps me realize that archetype is good. For a D&D 3.5 example, the character currently in my head is a classy phantom thief who uses stage magic in their capers. A pretty old character idea, and definitely not original, but the amount of BS required to make one that works, so the classes that I find that help me realize that archetype are all gold.

[bobthehero]

Simplicity, I quickly grew bored of my cleric because I realised that I have prepare spells and whatnot. I'd much rather play a straight forward fighter/cavalier/paladin with a sword and shield, all clad in plate armor. I also really really really like the whole plate/shield/sword mix, might make my characters seem boring and all look-alikes, but eh, I am enjoying myslef immensely (which is also why I rolled 3 distinct stormtroopers in 3 different Only War campaign).

[Amphetryon]

The ability to make the Character reasonably emulate the abilities I imagine, mechanically.

[ace rooster]

Meshing with the party, crowning moments of awesome, and making the DMs life easier/game run smoother.

I have fun if everyone is having fun (DM included), so overpowered is as bad as underpowered for me. Builds which help other characters to be team players or use novel tactics I really like. If the DM is having to customise encounters so my build does not immediately end them then this is bad.

Crowning moments of awesome usually come from not being too specialised. Doing what your build is supposed to well is satisfying, but doesn't really make a character for me. When the human sorceror (non gish) decides that their best play in a wizards duel against a gnome is simply to tackle them, then I start really having fun.

I don't play to have rules arguements, or to spend half my time looking things up. Classes which make this happen are not good.

[falloutimperial]

I think the primary quality of a fun class is when the expectation of what the class does matches its abilities. monks and soulknives are not fun. Paladins, sorcerers, and experts are fun.

Power is an important consideration, but there is no uniformly preferable power level. Some games should be high-power, some should be low-power.

Versatility is less of an important consideration. It's fun to be able to do something at any given time, but your build is not the only consideration in that. Who your character is can make them interesting to play even when they're useless for the task at hand.

[Segev]

For me, what tends to grab me are two things: the ability (but not requirement) to build to a theme, and the power to be useful in most scenarios and circumstances.

It has been many years since this was so, but when I was a younger gamer, I fell into a mindset akin to (if not quite identical to) the Stormwind Fallacy. After building a number of characters in an effort to be a "good roleplayer" under that fallacy's assumtpions, I learned that it was no fun to be bad at things in games. Thus, I tend towards being a massive powergamer as a general rule.

One of the things I enjoy about building characters is finding ways to make my concept useful/powerful (or at least powerful enough that it's not useless). The converse is also true: when I find a powerful build, I enjoy coming up with ways to tweak it towards a theme and build a character concept around it.

I have found, equally, that I stop having fun if, when I arrive at a game, I have a powerful character build...but don't really know what the character wants out of his power. Fortunately, it's usualy pretty easy to come up with a concept if I think about it. How did he get where he is? Why did he make the choices that led him here? (One of my favorite examples is still my concept for a Beholder Mage, which I would love to one day play. It would have to be, obviously, a very high-op game for it to be even marginally appropriate, however.)

[Darkweave31]

PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER!!!

heh... I like classes that can be used for a variety of character concepts. The best class is one that you can keep finding new ways to play.

[Telonius]

For me, it's a class that meshes with my playstyle. I don't care about being the one to deal a bajillion damage. I want to be able to think my way out of/around problems; to use my wits to creatively get around situations. If a class supports my ability to do that, it's a fun class for me. Things like Bard, Beguiler, and Warlock are great examples.

[atemu1234]

PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER!!!
Itty-bitty living space.

[Necromancy]

I judge this based solely on the amount of kooky antics I can pull off and how long he can survive DM annoyance

[Segev]

...how long he can survive DM annoyance

One "rocks fall."

[Rubik]

One "rocks fall."Not hard to become immune to death by damage, massive or otherwise. The same goes for compression, suffocation, poisoning by underground gases, and even supernovas engulfing the planet.

[Darkweave31]

One "rocks fall."

I think opening a gate to the paraelemental demiplane of falling rocks above their head is my favorite way to kill a person.

[Rubik]

I think opening a gate to the paraelemental demiplane of falling rocks above their head is my favorite way to kill a person.You're not related to Frieza, are you?