01-05-2022, 06:06 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Virginia
|
Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.
What it says on the tin.
I'll go first. I think most of the problems with the Ranger is they made them too specialized. If they aren't in their preferred terrain they lose many of their best tricks. Similarly, if they aren't fighting their chosen foe they lose their best advantages. They should be able to tap into some part of their Ranger abilities in any wilderness situation. Let them be the wilderness survival guys.
__________________
Per Ardua Per Astra! Ancora Imparo |
01-05-2022, 07:11 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.
You might want to specify the version you're interested in discussing. 5e? Or still with 3 / 3.5? Does Pathfinder 1e/2e count?
|
01-05-2022, 07:38 AM | #3 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.
Quote:
I'm not sure "wilderness survival guy" is a sufficient fix. That's still rather specialized. A Fighter with Proficiency with the right skill is probably a better option.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
01-05-2022, 07:40 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.
I'm only familiar with 3.x and a bit of Pathfinder, but the code of a Paladin needs toned down. I don't really feel the Paladin has enough advantages over the other classes to justify such a strict code (they're basically a Fighter that has traded their giant pile of bonus feats in for some special abilities, and honestly without the code it seems a roughly fair trade). More importantly, however, the code needs to be revamped to limit the Paladin, not the party.
Honestly, just modifying the Paladin to be a sort of "Divine Warrior" (like Dungeon Fantasy's Holy/Unholy Warrior), a more combat-focused variant of the Cleric (much as the Ranger is, in some ways, a more combat-focused variant of the Druid), would be a welcome change. If you want to be a champion of Law and Good, just choose an appropriate patron deity (or worship the concept, which I believe is an option for Clerics) - but a True Neutral Divine Warrior, a Chaotic Good one, a True Evil one, etc should all be legitimate options (although that last one obviously won't be available in all campaigns). If you still want the various oaths, take those separately, like Vow of Poverty and the like.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
01-05-2022, 09:55 AM | #5 | |
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Virginia
|
Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.
Quote:
Oh, and thanks for making the thread clearer for everyone. I mean it. It's a contribution.
__________________
Per Ardua Per Astra! Ancora Imparo |
|
01-05-2022, 05:59 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.
The Wild Magic bit with sorcerers is flawed, in that half the time the surge is detrimental. What other class gets that kind of treatment?
|
01-05-2022, 07:59 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.
Quote:
In 3e and 3.5e min-maxers often argued that the Cleric was the most powerful class, although some of that may have depended on a GM who let the player do some munchkiny things. In the editions I know there was the "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" problem TvTropes. It was one of the mechanics which discouraged multiclassing. In Basic and 1e Thieves were not very effective at anything unless you handwaved a lot about how thief skills worked. I don't know anything about any edition after 3.5e and Pathfinder.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
01-05-2022, 08:48 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.
<shrug>I've seen more satisfied 3e ranger-players than for 5e. Actually I've only seen one fellow even try the 5e ranger and he abandoned the character after a few levels.
I think I remember relatively satisfied ranger guys in 3.5 for both Dual-wielding and Bow style. At least my group basically abandoned multi-classing and Prestige-classing for Pathfinder. I can't remember anyone ever getting much out of "favored enemy" or "favored terrain" in any edition from 2e on. The 1e Ranger's "Giant-class" bonuses were much broader and freqently used. However, the one 1e Ranger I played it was for the bonus hit die at 1st level.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
01-05-2022, 11:17 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.
Quote:
The outdoor bonuses are very important in some games, and meaningless in World's Largest Dungeon (unless you pick Underdark).
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
01-06-2022, 03:53 AM | #10 | |
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.
Quote:
The thief class was always meant to be a jack - and very focused on old skool dungeon crawling. They also tended to be a bit of a solo role which lead to a need to split the party and related nonsense. Outside the dungeon they tended to be a bit of fish out of water. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|