Troll Lord Games

The more I reread the PH, the more I see some classes are designed better than others.
How would you rank the classes as of the 6th printing?

They all seem D&D archetypical to me...

Falinor wrote:The more I reread the PH, the more I see some classes are designed better than others.
How would you rank the classes as of the 6th printing?

How would you rank them? What are your ranking criteria? What does designed better mean?

Aergraith wrote: What are your ranking criteria?

This is key to offering any answer. Rank them based on what I like to play? Based on Spell availability? Based on highest average hit points....

I would love to play along once I know what you mean.

I always think a more interesting question is, what is the best combination of classes given n players. Usually C&C is a team sport.

It's me. I'm the best class.

But seriously, what criteria do you want to use. And I'm not sure what you mean by "designed better." The classes are designed to represent classic RPG archetypes. In that, they are superb.

R-

I would put barbarian and knight at the end of the list as neither is entirely necessary, for my style of play, but that does not mean they are not "designed" well... only that I do not have a need for them as class. Then, right above them, it would be paladin which I do feel is a badly implemented class, and always has been (except for Classic D&D, where it has less flaws.)

So I can sort of reverse list, but design and play are entirely different things... I know some who hate the monk class yet I've had nothing but fun with it. Some detest the rogue's multi-Prime skillset, but I find it makes perfect sense. Others don't like the fighter's non-skills... which, seeing they fight, I think is what they should have...

Like everyone, it seems, someone needs to define what the intent is.

serleran wrote: Others don't like the fighter's non-skills... which, seeing they fight, I think is what they should have...

Well put! But for me it is about trying to do stuff as needed even if the PC sucks at it.

My thoughts on class design:
- Barbarian could be lightly underpowered, but his manly muscle factor makes a lot of players choose him anyways. So he probably doesn't need a buff.
- Monk's lack of body armor is extremely punishing. But this has also been the case for every instance of the Monk / Mystic except for, most likely, some modern edition like Pathfinder or 5th. However, I haven't tried playing a Monk in those two editions.
- Illusionist magic needs a lot of clarification. Some argue that his illusions are so fake, a blind person could be completely immune to his magic. I personally lean towards his magic being pretty darned real, although conjured from his own inner psionic power.
- Paladin no longer gets Cleric spells, but he still has that punishing experience curve. He needs something else to compensate. Depending on how much you want to rewrite him, I would make him a "prestige" class again.
- Bard no longer dabbles in Wizard magic, and no longer has a variety of songs, so has to rely on being a "discount fighter". Lack of full-plate is punishing for a bit, but probably becomes more balanced as he gets powerful magic gear. Very good at filling space in the front line, possibly even better than the actual fighter, due to his XP curve.

See also my house rules about some of this stuff: https://sites.google.com/site/x17rpgstu ... ouse-rules

ssfsx17 wrote: - Illusionist magic needs a lot of clarification. Some argue that his illusions are so fake, a blind person could be completely immune to his magic.

Between the PHB & the CKG, this is clarified quite well now.

Arduin wrote:

ssfsx17 wrote: - Illusionist magic needs a lot of clarification. Some argue that his illusions are so fake, a blind person could be completely immune to his magic.

Between the PHB & the CKG, this is clarified quite well now.

Thanks - looks like the Plasmic model is just what I needed.

ssfsx17 wrote:

Arduin wrote:

ssfsx17 wrote: - Illusionist magic needs a lot of clarification. Some argue that his illusions are so fake, a blind person could be completely immune to his magic.

Between the PHB & the CKG, this is clarified quite well now.

Thanks - looks like the Plasmic model is just what I needed.

That's just part of the illusionists spells. Obviously single mind affecting spells are hypnotic and not plasmic. But they give example spells. Also the illusionist healing paradigm is quite good and different than than what clerics use.

Yeah, I don't think the classes are perfect as written, which is what I cover in my house rules. Even so, I wouldn't say they are "badly designed", they just aren't designed to my specific likes.