Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Roleplaying in General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-05-2022, 06:06 AM   #1
Astromancer
 
Astromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Virginia
Default 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
Astromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 07:11 AM   #2
Anaraxes
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default 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?
Anaraxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 07:38 AM   #3
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes View Post
You might want to specify the version you're interested in discussing. 5e? Or still with 3 / 3.5? Does Pathfinder 1e/2e count?
He probably means 5e. That's the one with the disappointing Ranger..

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
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 07:40 AM   #4
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default 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
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 09:55 AM   #5
Astromancer
 
Astromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Virginia
Default Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes View Post
You might want to specify the version you're interested in discussing. 5e? Or still with 3 / 3.5? Does Pathfinder 1e/2e count?
I was thinking about the 5e Ranger. But specify your edition and Pathfinder is allowed if you say you're talking about Pathfinder. I'm certain most folks simply see Pathfinder as another edition of D&D anyway.

Oh, and thanks for making the thread clearer for everyone. I mean it. It's a contribution.
__________________
Per Ardua Per Astra!


Ancora Imparo
Astromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 05:59 PM   #6
Shostak
 
Shostak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
Default 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?
__________________
* * * *
Anthony Shostak
myriangia.wordpress.com
Shostak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 07:59 PM   #7
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
He probably means 5e. That's the one with the disappointing Ranger..

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.
I thought that was 3e? I seem to recall that Rangers got most of their bonuses at first level, so there was little incentive to make a 10th level Ranger over a Ftr 9 / Rgr 1.

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
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 08:48 PM   #8
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
I thought that was 3e? .
<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
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 11:17 PM   #9
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
I think I remember relatively satisfied ranger guys in 3.5 for both Dual-wielding and Bow style.
My understanding is that the Ranger class was specifically changed in 3.5e in response to criticisms that it was not very effective (or at least, not worth sticking with) in 3e. But its hard because many of these issues are only issues in the right kind of game. There are games where "can I enchant arrows with Defending Weapon and get AC 100?" is a burning question, and games where the answer is "obviously not you munchkin."

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
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2022, 03:53 AM   #10
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Flaws in D&D classes, and what you think is a good patch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
I thought that was 3e? I seem to recall that Rangers got most of their bonuses at first level, so there was little incentive to make a 10th level Ranger over a Ftr 9 / Rgr 1.

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.
From what I've seen, the linear/quadratic problem took off in 3.X as the fluff based brakes that had restrained magic users were removed in favour of putting everything into RAW. This was sad as the principle of regularisation was a good one ... it just went horribly wrong.
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.
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.