what classes do you think lived up to its idea

[calam]

In both pathfinder and d&d most classes felt underwhelming to me because they didn't play as they were described. Fighters didn't feel like masters of exotic styles because they were described as using and wizards had the opposite problem, being ablr to go far beyond the support role I originally thought they were.

I think that the only class where my first impression wasn't ruined was the alchemist in pathfinder. A combination of buffing and transformation spells were about what I expected.

what classes do you guys find fit the idea that formed in your head at first glance?

[logic_error]

Wizards are not supports. Wizards are scholars, inventors and adventurers mostly. The only class that plays as its supposed to is Monks. Monks are peaceful people who spend their time praying and meditating and not fighting. This is what you will do if you play one.

[Psyren]

They did a good job with Brawler but I think they went just a bit too far. Being a light-armored kung-fu / gladiator / wrestler that eschews the monk's spirituality was great. The ability to pick up fighting styles on the fly is great. But they also have the ability to become crazy good archers on the fly too and I'd personally rather that had stayed with the Fighter, Ranger, and similar classes. A "brawler" should be getting up in your face, or at most, throwing things at you.

As for classes I'm happy with - they did an excellent job with the Magus, Bard, Bloodrager, Warpriest, Paladin, Unchained Rogue, Ninja, Inquisitor, Oracle, Witch, Medium, Occultist and Spiritualist. The others I find either powerful but kinda bland, or weak.


Wizards are not supports. Wizards are scholars, inventors and adventurers mostly. The only class that plays as its supposed to is Monks. Monks are peaceful people who spend their time praying and meditating and not fighting. This is what you will do if you play one.

huehuehue

[Eragon123]

I really like beguiler. Goes pretty much what you'd expect on the tin.

[MHCD]

Monks are peaceful people who spend their time praying and meditating and not fighting. This is what you will do if you play one.

Ha nice.


I found most of the PHBII and ToB classes to live up to their idea and match my expectations pretty well.

Beguiler, Crusader, Duskblade, Knight, Swordsage, and Warblade all turned out almost exactly as I thought they would. Dragon Shaman is a disappointing mess, at least in terms of my expectations from the class description compared to the actual crunch and class features.

[noob]

I think cleric live up to its idea of super-powered prophet with direct divine assistance who comes to change the universe.
What you say that clerics are not supposed to all be prophets?
Then why do they get their spells directly from their god?
It is clear by the fluff that clerics are prophets assisted directly by their god and that is what they are when playing.

[Zombulian]

I really like beguiler. Goes pretty much what you'd expect on the tin.

+1 to this and for all of the specialized fixed-list casters

[Soranar]

I'll second the ToB classes and

The beguiler /dread necromancer , not the warmage sadly, had it been INT based (and thus warmage's edge would have been much better) I would have been much happier with it. I also find the warmage really needed minions to summon in one way or another.

The bard

The duskblade, the warlock, the factotum

and, one of my personal favorites, the urban druid.

[DarkEternal]

In Pathfinder, the Paladin. It gives you a holy warrior that kick arse for the lord(ideal) and not only on paper but in actual game. And he doesn't have to have a stick where the moon doesn't shine and a really dumb code of conduct to follow (or better put, a code that does not give DM the right to be a git to the paladin whenever he so chooses)

Binder and Factotum in 3.5. You get a really versatile class in both of them that can be built in various ways.

[MHCD]

Binder and Factotum in 3.5. You get a really versatile class in both of them that can be built in various ways.

When Dungeonscape came out, a friend asked me, "Remember how we were discussing character concepts and a build for Indiana Jones? Well they made him a class." I was not disappointed, and it seemed to match exactly what it claimed to be, especially in a gritty, low-magic, old-school-dungeoneering campaign.

[The Insaniac]

In Pathfinder, the Paladin.

While Pathfinder's paladin is much better than 3.5's, I actually like how 4e did it best of all. A divine champion who smites the enemies of his god without regard for alignment. I like the ability to run that archetype for any alignment without needing to go cleric and twist the priest/prophet/divine emissary into a holy warrior. At the very least, all martial gods should have paladins regardless of alignment.

[tedcahill2]

While Pathfinder's paladin is much better than 3.5's, I actually like how 4e did it best of all. A divine champion who smites the enemies of his god without regard for alignment. I like the ability to run that archetype for any alignment without needing to go cleric and twist the priest/prophet/divine emissary into a holy warrior. At the very least, all martial gods should have paladins regardless of alignment.

There are variant paladin's with different alignments in PH2 or Unearthed Arcana, don't remember which.

[Rerednaw]

Which rules set?

For 3.5...Clerics were not servants of a god. They are gods.

Druids, especially Core were about as well rounded a tree hugger that has full casting and could turn into a freaking dinosaur could be. Which is to say, extremely good and along with cleric more than able to take on multiple roles in a party.

Wizards didn't feel like how I envisioned spell slingers unless you used variants like spell recharge or (pathfinder) word casting.

Psions were great because I loved the idea of playing a Scanner. And their power was THEIR OWN. Not channeled from an outside entity, borrowed from Cthulhu, etc. And their power point mechanic >> regular spell casting. I never liked Vancian magic.

I liked Tome of Battle classes because it bumped martials up a tier and made them more viable, longer.

[Sagetim]

I think the Fighter CAN, but you need someone who knows what they are doing in both how to build it and how to use that build. For example, I've seen a two hander fighter charge in, momentum swing, and retributive strike bosses to death by being the biggest, hardest hitting thing in the room with the charge, taking hits from the enemies because his ac is relatively low for his level, and slamming the target for massive damage. I think his baseline damage was something like 2d6+26 at the end of that 3.5 campaign, then add more for power attacking, and add more based on how much damage the target did to him in the previous round. That's the guy who dominates the battlefield with his consistent, unrelenting mastery of arms.

Psion always feels like it does when I can play one, especially with the versatility of using power points instead of spell slots. That's the part that bugged me with how pathfinder did psychic stuff in Occult Adventures. Just...more spell slot using classes when I got all nice and used to 3.5 psionics using power points and being different because of it.

Mesmerist, from Occult Adventures. Just becuase I complain about psychic spells being a thing doesn't mean I dislike the classes. I'm just not a fan of more vancian casting when it could have been something else. That said, the Mesmerist mesmerizes things, debuffs things, and lives up to it's name with wierd abilities like staring at people to debuff them. There's even an archetype that steals one of the best Witch Hexes, Slumber. So if you ever want to play that weird guy with the wild eyes, Mesmerist has got you covered.

Beguiler, for reasons others have already stated. But not dread necromancer. It's pitiful base attack bonus and the errata that makes it's class abilities an exercise in pointlessness with 'lich transformation' are incredibly depressing. If the trade off of all those class features being okay but not great was that you got the lich template at the end without the ecl attached, it would have been worth it. And even if it has a 5ft aura of fear effect or something, I haven't seen anyone able to really deploy that in a useful manner while playing one. The class just isn't suited to melee combat with it's terrible base attack bonus, low hp, light armor, and incredibly short range on the aura. If it got bigger with level, it might threaten to be useful...maybe. If things didn't just ignore it for being immune to mind effects later anyway...yeah.

The Soulknife, Soulbow, and Illumine Soul. I had a blast playing a character with that as his class set up, and they synergized really well for the undead heavy campaign he was in. And it's not like taking those levels of illumine soul were useless against non-undead opponents either. The 'did you hit 0 or less' auto heal saved that character from death more than once, and the 'you have death ward for 1 minute every time you expend focus' made him a walking bastion of giving no ****s when death spells were slung his way. Meanwhile soul bow gave him an unlimited ammo ranged attack, and he was never unarmed even when unarmed and in a dead magic zone, because he could easily slap the dc 20 will save to manifest his mindblade or mind arrow at need.

Sword Sage, as I haven't tried either of the other two from the book of nine swords. But Sword Sage has access to a wide variety of abilities and some contemplative themed abilities like the best wisdom to ac bonus in the game. Gets it while wearing up to light armor AND while flat footed. Eat that, monk.

Warder, from Path of War Pathfinder. I made one helluva bruiser with that class, kitted out in full plate, with a shield, and using a feat to key his skills off of using his longsword. By the end of the short campaign he was in, he had been both the tank and competed with the party's ninja for highest dps. Reactive maneuvers helped him to ward off attacks that should have hit, and in a few cases we had some statues to investigate that wound up getting cleaved in twain by bronze knuckle through a longsword. Because ignoring Dr and hardness and all that is Amazingly awesome. Oh, and being part of the organization that grants silver guardian (or whatever the style is called) gives the Warder this knightly-paladinlike-holy feel that just fits so good.

Bard, oddly enough. Because when I think of a bard, I don't expect them to be stabbing people or useful in combat. I expect them to be making fun of things and great in a social situation. "Brave Sir Robin Ran away" "No I didn't!" "Bravely Bravely Ran away!" "Stoppit!" and so on. So, you know, since I don't expect the Bard to fight worth a damn, I am satisfied that they can master social encounters with their various class abilities, skills, and core ability score of Charisma.

The Warlock, more for his at will options than the eldritch blast. Don't get me wrong, the eldritch blast is a cool feature and all, but when it comes to living up to the idea, summoning swams of bats, disappearing and leaving an illusion that reacts to damage, just straight up going invisible and flying and raising the dead to serve all fit my idea of the kind of dark magics that the word Warlock evokes for me.

[ben-zayb]

The only class that plays as its supposed to is Monks. Monks are peaceful people who spend their time praying and meditating and not fighting. This is what you will do if you play one.If I'm the type too ask for a sig, I would've asked already.




Going by the PHB classes...
Barbarian (9/10): Rage. Charge. Smash. Repeat. The trope isn't strongly tied with lion totems, though, so...
Bard (7/10): Singing and talking your way. The trope isn't strongly tied with war dancing, dragonfire, and plenty of bard spells, though.
Cleric (5/10): It's way too disconnected to the healbot trope, and even as divine conduit has way too much.
Druid (10/10): Animals. Nature. Elements. Class features also support the trope.
Fighter (1/10): Yeah, no.
Monk (10/10): See post #2 above for hilarity.
Paladin (3/10): Goody-two-shoe holy warrior, yet sucks at protecting people
Ranger (3/10): The Scout class seriously got the ranger trope better. The trope isn't even strongly tied to combat styles, nor to wild shape.
Rogue (9/10): Skills, traps, sneak attacks. Yup. Trope supports tech/item saviness, so I'll give UMDmancers a pass.
Sorcerer (-): plain innate-magic User is still too large an archetype to possibly rate this.
Wizard (-): ditto, replacing innate with studied


That said, I find the Dread Necromancer to be the class (including PrCs) that lived up the most to its archetye. The spell lists is near-perfect, although there are weird inclusions like dispels. You got the class identity down from the 1st level to the last. Seriously, the class features themselves show you slowly transforming into the Lich-King. There's really just no question what you are playing when you roll a DN.

Honorable mention goes to the Druid and the Beguiler.

[Zombulian]

I think the Fighter CAN, but you need someone who knows what they are doing in both how to build it and how to use that build. For example, I've seen a two hander fighter charge in, momentum swing, and retributive strike bosses to death by being the biggest, hardest hitting thing in the room with the charge, taking hits from the enemies because his ac is relatively low for his level, and slamming the target for massive damage. I think his baseline damage was something like 2d6+26 at the end of that 3.5 campaign, then add more for power attacking, and add more based on how much damage the target did to him in the previous round. That's the guy who dominates the battlefield with his consistent, unrelenting mastery of arms.

Psion always feels like it does when I can play one, especially with the versatility of using power points instead of spell slots. That's the part that bugged me with how pathfinder did psychic stuff in Occult Adventures. Just...more spell slot using classes when I got all nice and used to 3.5 psionics using power points and being different because of it.

Mesmerist, from Occult Adventures. Just becuase I complain about psychic spells being a thing doesn't mean I dislike the classes. I'm just not a fan of more vancian casting when it could have been something else. That said, the Mesmerist mesmerizes things, debuffs things, and lives up to it's name with wierd abilities like staring at people to debuff them. There's even an archetype that steals one of the best Witch Hexes, Slumber. So if you ever want to play that weird guy with the wild eyes, Mesmerist has got you covered.

Beguiler, for reasons others have already stated. But not dread necromancer. It's pitiful base attack bonus and the errata that makes it's class abilities an exercise in pointlessness with 'lich transformation' are incredibly depressing. If the trade off of all those class features being okay but not great was that you got the lich template at the end without the ecl attached, it would have been worth it. And even if it has a 5ft aura of fear effect or something, I haven't seen anyone able to really deploy that in a useful manner while playing one. The class just isn't suited to melee combat with it's terrible base attack bonus, low hp, light armor, and incredibly short range on the aura. If it got bigger with level, it might threaten to be useful...maybe. If things didn't just ignore it for being immune to mind effects later anyway...yeah.

The Soulknife, Soulbow, and Illumine Soul. I had a blast playing a character with that as his class set up, and they synergized really well for the undead heavy campaign he was in. And it's not like taking those levels of illumine soul were useless against non-undead opponents either. The 'did you hit 0 or less' auto heal saved that character from death more than once, and the 'you have death ward for 1 minute every time you expend focus' made him a walking bastion of giving no ****s when death spells were slung his way. Meanwhile soul bow gave him an unlimited ammo ranged attack, and he was never unarmed even when unarmed and in a dead magic zone, because he could easily slap the dc 20 will save to manifest his mindblade or mind arrow at need.

Sword Sage, as I haven't tried either of the other two from the book of nine swords. But Sword Sage has access to a wide variety of abilities and some contemplative themed abilities like the best wisdom to ac bonus in the game. Gets it while wearing up to light armor AND while flat footed. Eat that, monk.

Warder, from Path of War Pathfinder. I made one helluva bruiser with that class, kitted out in full plate, with a shield, and using a feat to key his skills off of using his longsword. By the end of the short campaign he was in, he had been both the tank and competed with the party's ninja for highest dps. Reactive maneuvers helped him to ward off attacks that should have hit, and in a few cases we had some statues to investigate that wound up getting cleaved in twain by bronze knuckle through a longsword. Because ignoring Dr and hardness and all that is Amazingly awesome. Oh, and being part of the organization that grants silver guardian (or whatever the style is called) gives the Warder this knightly-paladinlike-holy feel that just fits so good.

Bard, oddly enough. Because when I think of a bard, I don't expect them to be stabbing people or useful in combat. I expect them to be making fun of things and great in a social situation. "Brave Sir Robin Ran away" "No I didn't!" "Bravely Bravely Ran away!" "Stoppit!" and so on. So, you know, since I don't expect the Bard to fight worth a damn, I am satisfied that they can master social encounters with their various class abilities, skills, and core ability score of Charisma.

The Warlock, more for his at will options than the eldritch blast. Don't get me wrong, the eldritch blast is a cool feature and all, but when it comes to living up to the idea, summoning swams of bats, disappearing and leaving an illusion that reacts to damage, just straight up going invisible and flying and raising the dead to serve all fit my idea of the kind of dark magics that the word Warlock evokes for me.

Wait... are you complaining about Dread Necromancer... because it's not a good melee class?

[noob]

Well it is the same thing as the one complaining that cleric was too much powerful compared to his expectations while the fluff of the cleric is: each day he asks to do miracles and his god grant him the power to do whichever miracles he asked for.(that is quite literally what is written in the class)

[Sagetim]

Wait... are you complaining about Dread Necromancer... because it's not a good melee class?

Yes, but as I was thinking about it more, those are just complaints I have with the class instead of how much it fits the idea of a dread necromancer. It's spell list is spot on for that, and the class abilities it gets Do fit the theme. I just have the aforementioned issues with the way those abilities play out in trying to actually play one. Mostly from watching another party member trying to play one and just being useless in a lot of combat encounters we had from not being able to hit things, or not being able to effectively position, or etc. It might have been that he was just trying to do the wrong thing with the class (like making an 18 str 10 int wizard and wading into melee with a quarterstaff). But yeah, the class and it's errata leave a poor taste in my mouth because it feels like it got some rather mismatched abilities for what it's proficient in and capable of doing well. Animate Dead? No one else can really compete. Hit things in melee? Most people are doing it a Lot better and not risking their life nearly as much.


Edit: This could just be me having limited experience in seeing the class in action or playing it myself. So if you have had a much better meleeing experience as a Dread Necromancer, please share the story so I can have some more context on how it can be done well.

[ben-zayb]

Well it is the same thing as the one complaining that cleric was too much powerful compared to his expectations while the fluff of the cleric is: each day he asks to do miracles and his god grant him the power to do whichever miracles he asked for.(that is quite literally what is written in the class)Funny, because that's not what mainly constitutes the class role/fluff in PHB v3.5 if one were to actually read the entire thing. Are you reading the fluff from some other game or editions?

[Zombulian]

Yes, but as I was thinking about it more, those are just complaints I have with the class instead of how much it fits the idea of a dread necromancer. It's spell list is spot on for that, and the class abilities it gets Do fit the theme. I just have the aforementioned issues with the way those abilities play out in trying to actually play one. Mostly from watching another party member trying to play one and just being useless in a lot of combat encounters we had from not being able to hit things, or not being able to effectively position, or etc. It might have been that he was just trying to do the wrong thing with the class (like making an 18 str 10 int wizard and wading into melee with a quarterstaff). But yeah, the class and it's errata leave a poor taste in my mouth because it feels like it got some rather mismatched abilities for what it's proficient in and capable of doing well. Animate Dead? No one else can really compete. Hit things in melee? Most people are doing it a Lot better and not risking their life nearly as much.


Edit: This could just be me having limited experience in seeing the class in action or playing it myself. So if you have had a much better meleeing experience as a Dread Necromancer, please share the story so I can have some more context on how it can be done well.

Mmm. Sounds to me like both you and your friend brought your own expectations (expectations more suited to a WoW Deathknight or the Bone Knight PrC, or heck, even a necromancer Cleric) to a squishy, necromancy focused caster that tells you exactly what it is right away. Of course it's going to be underwhelming when you try to force it into a role it's not built for.

[Sagetim]

Mmm. Sounds to me like both you and your friend brought your own expectations (expectations more suited to a WoW Deathknight or the Bone Knight PrC, or heck, even a necromancer Cleric) to a squishy, necromancy focused caster that tells you exactly what it is right away. Of course it's going to be underwhelming when you try to force it into a role it's not built for.

Quite possibly. I mean, with charnel touch, armor proficiency, a martial weapon proficiency, and the aura and all that seemed to flag it as being useful in melee, definately not great, but at least useful...and it's just kind of not.

To get back to classes that lived up to their idea, I think Psychic Warrior did it's job. It may not have a full bab, but it has a boatload of bonus feats and a decent amount of manifesting for a class that's doing both melee and manifesting. It's powers also support it in it's endeavors to fill the roles that a fighter or other warrior type would fill in combat. I still think it would be nice if it had a full base attack bonus, but it doesn't fail at a fundamental level for lack of BAB.

I think Ardents also fulfill their fluff, but as a class to try and play they're kind of weird. With the mantles they pick from not having powers at every level, and in some cases having multiple powers at the same level, you can totally wind up accidentallying yourself into not being able to pick any powers at some levels. They're not like, gimped or anything though. From the DM side of things I've seen one in action and he did just fine in a party with a Scythe Fighter, a True Necromancer, A Beguiler, A Great Hammer Fighter, The Ardent, and (for a little while) a Dragon Shaman. It was an odd campaign, where everyone was playing evil and I was mostly running them around canned adventure modules within the forgotten realms setting. In point of fact, the scythe fighter became known as The Masked Bastard because at one point he challenged Drizzit to a Very public duel, killed him, then ran off with the body. I think they pulled a switcheroo at some point during the hustle and bustle and eventually wound up selling the items off and leaving the body hidden in a ditch somewhere.

[Rhyltran]

Yes, but as I was thinking about it more, those are just complaints I have with the class instead of how much it fits the idea of a dread necromancer. It's spell list is spot on for that, and the class abilities it gets Do fit the theme. I just have the aforementioned issues with the way those abilities play out in trying to actually play one. Mostly from watching another party member trying to play one and just being useless in a lot of combat encounters we had from not being able to hit things, or not being able to effectively position, or etc. It might have been that he was just trying to do the wrong thing with the class (like making an 18 str 10 int wizard and wading into melee with a quarterstaff). But yeah, the class and it's errata leave a poor taste in my mouth because it feels like it got some rather mismatched abilities for what it's proficient in and capable of doing well. Animate Dead? No one else can really compete. Hit things in melee? Most people are doing it a Lot better and not risking their life nearly as much.


Edit: This could just be me having limited experience in seeing the class in action or playing it myself. So if you have had a much better meleeing experience as a Dread Necromancer, please share the story so I can have some more context on how it can be done well.

I think you miss his point. The dread necromancer isn't a melee class. It's a caster. A very powerful one at that which can solve entire encounters on it's own.

[Zombulian]

Quite possibly. I mean, with charnel touch, armor proficiency, a martial weapon proficiency, and the aura and all that seemed to flag it as being useful in melee, definately not great, but at least useful...and it's just kind of not.

To get back to classes that lived up to their idea, I think Psychic Warrior did it's job. It may not have a full bab, but it has a boatload of bonus feats and a decent amount of manifesting for a class that's doing both melee and manifesting. It's powers also support it in it's endeavors to fill the roles that a fighter or other warrior type would fill in combat. I still think it would be nice if it had a full base attack bonus, but it doesn't fail at a fundamental level for lack of BAB.

I think Ardents also fulfill their fluff, but as a class to try and play they're kind of weird. With the mantles they pick from not having powers at every level, and in some cases having multiple powers at the same level, you can totally wind up accidentallying yourself into not being able to pick any powers at some levels. They're not like, gimped or anything though. From the DM side of things I've seen one in action and he did just fine in a party with a Scythe Fighter, a True Necromancer, A Beguiler, A Great Hammer Fighter, The Ardent, and (for a little while) a Dragon Shaman. It was an odd campaign, where everyone was playing evil and I was mostly running them around canned adventure modules within the forgotten realms setting. In point of fact, the scythe fighter became known as The Masked Bastard because at one point he challenged Drizzit to a Very public duel, killed him, then ran off with the body. I think they pulled a switcheroo at some point during the hustle and bustle and eventually wound up selling the items off and leaving the body hidden in a ditch somewhere.

I agree, Psywar is a great class that pretty much functions exactly how it's described on the box. I also like Ardent; it was a nice "Psionic's response to clerics" kinda idea.
Though from your post I think I may be able to trace back why your group found a Dread Necromancer underwhelming... you guys sure like melee.

[zergling.exe]

But not dread necromancer. It's pitiful base attack bonus and the errata that makes it's class abilities an exercise in pointlessness with 'lich transformation' are incredibly depressing.

Did I miss something? Heroes of Horror never got errata'd did it?

Also this thread is about classes and their idea. Dread necromancer has a number of melee abilities, so someone may think of it as a melee undead master and be disappointed if it doesn't work. Which fits exactly what was said about the class.

[Sagetim]

Yeah, and the person who The Masked Bastard is the one who was running a Dread Necromancer more recently. So he's definitely had more experience running melee characters.

Didn't it get errata'd? I remember finding, if nothing else, a post about it online somewhere. If it didn't have official errata then I might be remembering a forum post as 'the closest thing to errata that Heroes of Horror will ever get". Which reminds me that someone dropped the ball on the errata for an entire book at some point and pasted complete arcane's errata over the document partway through the first few entries. I think it was the book of nine swords errata document...which is still flubbed on the wizard's site to my knowledge.

[DEMON]

Which reminds me that someone dropped the ball on the errata for an entire book at some point and pasted complete arcane's errata over the document partway through the first few entries. I think it was the book of nine swords errata document...which is still flubbed on the wizard's site to my knowledge.

Yeah, TOB's errata is one helluva middle finger to the 3.5E fans from WotC. A parting gift, if you will.

[Elderand]

Yeah, and the person who The Masked Bastard is the one who was running a Dread Necromancer more recently. So he's definitely had more experience running melee characters.

I can see why someone might, at a cursory glance, think the dread necromancer might be a melee class.
The first impression you get of a class comes from the picture of it and they dropped the ball hard on the dread necromancer picture. A woman carrying an axe and wearing armor scream melee class, not minion master.

[The Insaniac]

There are variant paladin's with different alignments in PH2 or Unearthed Arcana, don't remember which.

Yeah, the CE one's unplayable, though. It was a good start but I'd prefer less paragon of alignment and more divine champion.

[Silva Stormrage]

Yeah, and the person who The Masked Bastard is the one who was running a Dread Necromancer more recently. So he's definitely had more experience running melee characters.

Didn't it get errata'd? I remember finding, if nothing else, a post about it online somewhere. If it didn't have official errata then I might be remembering a forum post as 'the closest thing to errata that Heroes of Horror will ever get". Which reminds me that someone dropped the ball on the errata for an entire book at some point and pasted complete arcane's errata over the document partway through the first few entries. I think it was the book of nine swords errata document...which is still flubbed on the wizard's site to my knowledge.

There was a cutserve ruling that isn't official that a lot of people use that says their 20th level ability doesn't do anything... I have never actually seen that interpretation used in a game.

On topic I actually feel that Druids fit very well to what I expect the class to play as. Their spell list has a lot of mass area effect spells regarding nature. The only complaint I would say is that I would expect a lot of the stuff Druids can do to be pushed back a few levels.

For PRC's Thrallherd really does play exactly how you would expect it to. Sure it's broken as you would expect but it lived up to it's idea of a horde of disposable minions fairly well.

[Big Fau]

I nominate the Commoner, for no other class is as accurate to its archtype as the Commoner.

The Totemist, easily. The Incarnate and Soulborne tried, but the Totemist nailed it.

[AOKost]

I feel that the Artificer (D&D &/or Pathfinder), Cleric (D&D &/or Pathfinder), Swordsage (D&D), Brawler (Pathfinder), Arcanist (Pathfinder), Warlock (D&D &/or Pathfinder) and Slayer (Pathfinder) are some of the best well rounded classes and offer great versatility within each class in comparison with most other classes. As a side-note, I have issues with most classes, feeling they are always lackluster in and of themselves, and the multi-classing system is to restrictive, though Gestalt comes close.

The cleric, with their wealth of offensive, defensive, and augmentative spells, as well as nice weapon and armor selections offer one of the best options for any player to start off with. They are, out of the box, one of the most broadly opening character any player could start off playing.

The swordsage, with it's choices and versatility being able to pick and choose stances and maneuvers that they can use has been one of my favorite D&D classes to play far and above Monk. The Monk being a very nice spiritual class, they are also very restricting.

The Brawler is similar to the Swordsage, but the without much access to Stances or maneuvers (unless they learn them with feats or temporary feats). I love their access to light armor (hello chain shirt, dastana, armored skirt, etc.), ability to increase their unarmed damage, and close weapon damage which is one of my favorite aspects about them, and their ability to use multiple weapons virtually out of the box. They are what a Monk should have been to begin with and modified from there. My only critique about both Monk and Brawler unarmed damage progression, which should be slightly higher, ending in either 3d8 or 4d6 for a medium character.

The arcanists ability to cast variable spells with slots like a sorcerer and wizard are very nice, but also limited. Their ability to create specific abilities from a pool is interesting, but should be broader.

When I play a wizard or Arcanist, I always play one that crafts magical items for the party, and myself. For this reason I love the Artificer. They get specific bonuses for crafting, and being able to craft things and that's extra nice, and many of their creations can be extraordinary effects, and therefore work in antimagic/psionic fields. But, their they can't actually access magic like spellcasters, and that's a tough restriction.

Warlocks and their abilities offer great flavor that I love. A specific attack every round that can be used almost literally all day long, and being to alter it out of the box is staggering and couldn't be emphasized enough at how great that one level dip alone offers. The choice of blast shapes and essences to add to their eldritch blast are rather great too, and being able to use them (again) virtually at will is astounding! Their ability to craft and trick magic items are great points I love. But.... I feel they don't get enough essences.

The Slayers blend of Ranger and Rogue is so sweet that it should have been done officially earlier. The ability to switch the equivalent of Favored Enemy to your next target (after studying them) is of far greater benefit in my opinion than Favored Enemy (unless you're in a campaign almost devoted entirely to specific species).

[the_david]

I find that classes are actually very limiting. You can chalk it up to preference, but I don't want to build a character around the idea of a class. I want to build a character around a concept. I don't see the need for a bard to have more than one kind of magic music. (Spells and Bardic Performance.) Does a priest really need to be able to turn undead if a deity's portfolio is kinda meh on undead? There will almost always be class features that I see as a bad fit for my character.

So for example, a Knight (D&D 3.5, Player Handbook II.) could work as a Swashbuckler and I probably would have more fun with that than by playing a Swashbuckler. (D&D 3.5, Complete Warrior.)

I really like Spheres of Power for Pathfinder because it allows me to focus on something without getting those weird class abilities that don't fit my concept. I suppose you can't really build something as versatile as a wizard. (Except for a Hedgewitch with the Spirtitualism tradition maybe.) But you can easily build a pyromancer or an Erinyes possessed archer. (I made the latter, I think I could do better though.)

So I generally don't look at a class to see if it fits the idea/stereotype. I look at the class to see if it fits my idea.

[Zombulian]

I find that classes are actually very limiting. You can chalk it up to preference, but I don't want to build a character around the idea of a class. I want to build a character around a concept. I don't see the need for a bard to have more than one kind of magic music. (Spells and Bardic Performance.) Does a priest really need to be able to turn undead if a deity's portfolio is kinda meh on undead? There will almost always be class features that I see as a bad fit for my character.

So for example, a Knight (D&D 3.5, Player Handbook II.) could work as a Swashbuckler and I probably would have more fun with that than by playing a Swashbuckler. (D&D 3.5, Complete Warrior.)

I really like Spheres of Power for Pathfinder because it allows me to focus on something without getting those weird class abilities that don't fit my concept. I suppose you can't really build something as versatile as a wizard. (Except for a Hedgewitch with the Spirtitualism tradition maybe.) But you can easily build a pyromancer or an Erinyes possessed archer. (I made the latter, I think I could do better though.)

So I generally don't look at a class to see if it fits the idea/stereotype. I look at the class to see if it fits my idea.

That's a good way to play this game, and it's practically required if you don't wanna get bored of the system/want to multiclass without composing contrived fluff narratives. BUT that's not what this thread is about :smallwink:

[Sagetim]

I find that classes are actually very limiting. You can chalk it up to preference, but I don't want to build a character around the idea of a class. I want to build a character around a concept. I don't see the need for a bard to have more than one kind of magic music. (Spells and Bardic Performance.) Does a priest really need to be able to turn undead if a deity's portfolio is kinda meh on undead? There will almost always be class features that I see as a bad fit for my character.

So for example, a Knight (D&D 3.5, Player Handbook II.) could work as a Swashbuckler and I probably would have more fun with that than by playing a Swashbuckler. (D&D 3.5, Complete Warrior.)

I really like Spheres of Power for Pathfinder because it allows me to focus on something without getting those weird class abilities that don't fit my concept. I suppose you can't really build something as versatile as a wizard. (Except for a Hedgewitch with the Spirtitualism tradition maybe.) But you can easily build a pyromancer or an Erinyes possessed archer. (I made the latter, I think I could do better though.)

So I generally don't look at a class to see if it fits the idea/stereotype. I look at the class to see if it fits my idea.

Well, if cleric isn't doing it for you in 3.5, you could always crack out ye olde ADND books and look through the various god specific kits. They actually addressed that issue directly. I mean, it wasn't always balanced, but clerics were flavorful as hell if nothing else. I know there was one priest kit that got unarmed combat instead of turning undead. Another kit got access to any weapon they wanted to put proficiency slots into and I think they also got a fighter's Thac0, but I could be wrong on the Thac0 part. The point is that there were a lot of kits that didn't actually have turn undead, or had a weaker turn undead, in exchange for powers and abilities more suited to their particular god. I think Talosian priests got to chuck lightning (or I might just be remembering the priest kit from Baldur's Gate 2...)

But Pathfinder did a better job of that, at lest with more of an eye towards some kind of balance instead of just 'Classes: The Flavorning'. There's bound to be at least one archetype that turns in channel energy for something else (though, to be fair, channeling energy is pretty damn good as compared to turning undead).