PDA

View Full Version : Favorite Class



Lord Eldred
12-02-2001, 03:27 AM
Just interested in what is your favorite 3e class to play and why. SO after you take the poll please indicate why you voted that way as a post.

Lord Eldred
12-02-2001, 03:30 AM
that is the only class I have played under 3e thus I didn't have any comparison. In 2e rules my favorite class to play was cleric because I like the ability to cast spells and the better ability to fight than a wizard.

Temujin
12-02-2001, 08:29 AM
Fighter/Mage duo. Single class, I prefer either one, with a slight preference toward Mage, but only very slight =)

I like the abilities that fighters have to gain bonus feats, which allows them to gain a specialization in a form of battle, and so I find them much more fun to play than in 2e, since you can make each fighter different from the other.

I always liked the ability of Mages to cast spells and enchant items, however I prefer them over priests mostly because of the diversity of their spells(not to mention the ability to create new ones!).

When multi-classing, I like to play F/M since that allows my mage side to fight well and have a decent protection(yeah, I'd be one of them to wear armor, for good or worse), and allows my fighter side to create his own swords and armors, instead of relying on random treasure.

Other classes I like include Rogues and Priests, then Paladins. I have little affinity with the barbarian, ranger, monk, sorcerer and bard classes.

Sivar Windlass
12-03-2001, 01:22 PM
Why did you put Fighter and Ranger into the same voting or wisard/sorcerer?

They are difrent! Especially the ranger and fighter.

Lord Eldred
12-03-2001, 02:16 PM
I agree Sivar but I only had ten slots that I could use so I had to group some. Sorry if I upset you by this :P

Lawgiver
12-05-2001, 05:56 AM
I'm a man of high standards. I've got to go with Paladins all the way!

PCyric
12-13-2001, 10:54 AM
That's what I voted, and I am sure that my choice totally reflects my pesonality when I play dnd. I always like "complex" characters, that's why I don't usually play fighters and generally warriors. The spellcasters have a certain amount of "magic" in their role so I prefer them. Having to choose between the wizard and the sorcerer, I prefer the freedom and unpredictability the sorcerer offers, over the knowledge and wisdom the wizard represents.

Lord Eldred
12-13-2001, 08:05 PM
What does everyone have against clerics?

Strahd
12-13-2001, 08:32 PM
Nice question Lord Eldred. Funny thing: everyone is on the look around for a cleric after 4-5 challenging encounters. He is the only character that can boost up a party's most vital resources (aka hit points) back on top, most valuable against undead and diseases, and after 5th level he now has some quite useful offensive spells!

Lord Eldred
12-14-2001, 01:04 AM
Like I said before, my favorite class to play was cleric under 2e rules. Under 3e rules I have only played a fighter but look forward to the day I play a cleric again!

Lawgiver
12-14-2001, 03:43 AM
Clerics are my second choice after Paladins (go figure!).

Perhelion
12-14-2001, 06:59 PM
Dwarven Fighter/Priests for the versatility (and maybe 'cause I'm sure I was a dwarf in another life ;), Paladins for the fun of crashing into opposing armies mounted on a proud charger, but too restricted for good RP in most games *sighs*.

Riegan Swordwraith
12-14-2001, 07:14 PM
In any Edition my favorite class is the Ranger.And I especially like the make-over Monte Cook did for them.

Elton Robb
12-29-2001, 07:28 PM
I prefer the psion. especially metacreatives. But in a BR game, I go for a True Wizard.

But I still prefer metacreative shapers.

Elton Robb ;)

Lawgiver
12-30-2001, 03:38 AM
I've never liked the concept of pscionists. They have been exiled from my campaign since the dawn of my gaming.

Protheus
12-31-2001, 06:58 PM
I have played cleric since the first i play Dnd (back when i was playing basic, you know...;) There for 1st ed it was still cleric, i always had some dumn player that play a fighter and think he's invinsible and bash in a orc group alone and whinning later that i cant do my job as a cleric since i cant heal him *sigh* long memories...

And in 3ed (i know i skip 2nd but it was pretty much like 1st:p ) i still play priest and with all the god you can choose from the possibilities are enormous.

Right now in BR i play a Priest of Cuiréacen using the domain of Strenght and Storm (FR) im now lv 10 and before my group goes i start with boosting my "Bull" with spell like Endurance and bull's strenght they last 10 hours :P

To end this novel all i have to say it's that Priest is cherry over the sunday....

Lord Eldred
01-01-2002, 07:45 PM
Orginally posted by Lawgiver

I've never liked the concept of pscionists. They have been exiled from my campaign since the dawn of my gaming.

I have done the same. There is one guy in my campaign who bought the book of pscionists and waves in my face just to upset me every once in awhile!

Protheus
01-02-2002, 06:28 AM
I have'nt red yet psionist class for 3rd ed but i heard somes that say that now the psionist is more equal to other class, but i never like the way to calculate the PFP. I fell like if the psionist can use is power they way he want i guess so be it for other spell caster using the magic point rules.... That what i think!!

Temujin
01-02-2002, 07:38 AM
Having bought both the 2nd edition(a while ago) and the 3rd edition psionicist books, I can testify that the 3rd edition book is very very very improved over the 2nd edition. The problem with the 2nd edition psi was that you generally could take any power, getting the most powerful(except those few with pre-requisites, granted) sooner, and then not knowing what crappy ability to pick up as you grew in level. In 3E, the psi powers are ranked by levels 0-9, like priest and wizard spells. As such, they are much more interesting, useful and compatible with regular D&D. However, I don't think that the concept is really appropriate in BR, but what the hell, whatever floats your boat.

Lord Eldred
01-06-2002, 04:57 PM
Psionics sinks my boat!

Abbess Allessandra
01-06-2002, 05:08 PM
I think is is obvious what my fav is. I agree that we have the capabilities to help our party and the public as well. I also get geeked about the way my characters plot is interwoven with the others lives.Clerics are a very important part of a game. If for instance you were in a battle would you stay in longer knowing that the cleric would be able to heal you? Otherwise how do your characters survive? I get the biggest kick out of the game when my character gets into trouble and Lord Eldred busts out laughing.

Lord Eldred
01-06-2002, 05:47 PM
Now, now, I never laugh at you in public!

Abbess Allessandra
01-06-2002, 05:55 PM
I seem to recall you laughing quite loudly when I was arrested. As well as the other members of council.
It is ok I learn when you do that!

Lawgiver
01-06-2002, 07:45 PM
BUWAH-HA-HA!!!!

Sorry, I felt left out of the loop and was trying to fit in. ;)

Lord Eldred
01-08-2002, 02:32 AM
No need to apologize. I am sorry you are feeling left out.

Abbess Allessandra
01-10-2002, 12:59 PM
Worry not Lawgiver for I am armored against thy humor. It upsets me not. Have your folly and join in the celebration.
(Okay do you like the old English? It is new and I am working on it)

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
01-14-2002, 01:57 PM
Why doesn't anyone like Barbarians? Barbarians make for great role-playing experiences (especially with anti-combat DMs).

Lawgiver
01-16-2002, 03:56 AM
I prefer brains to brawn.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
01-16-2002, 04:37 AM
You could still play a barbarian, it could be interesting. (I don't play them either) Not all barbarians need be dumb.

Lawgiver
01-18-2002, 06:02 AM
I wasn't saying they are all dumb. I just have never liked muscle bound PCs, regardless of their class. I don't see playing a barbarian without at least a 16 STR... it just doesn't fit that well with me. I realize it may be a good roleplaying experience for some, but its not my cup of tea.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
01-19-2002, 04:36 PM
Understandable, I haven't done it either. Even my fighters tend to have high intellect if at all possible.

Sellenus
01-23-2002, 07:54 PM
I played a rather dumb and unwise Fighter regent. Good fun, but not the best ruler.

I prefer the fighter type, although I am about to play my first BR mage in an upcoming game.

Arlen Blaede
01-24-2002, 04:44 PM
I voted for fighter because currently it is the only Birthright character that I have played so far. Actually, this is my first experience in the Birthright setting. So far I have to say that the shear versatility of a fighter is the greatest part about being one. Clerics and Mages have their magic, and rogues and such have their guilds, but fighters are the middle man that has absolutely no qualms with using any of the above as lackeys, I mean lieutenants.

Gunnar
01-26-2002, 04:57 PM
I have only played the Rogue in 3e and I love the concept of skills and the rogue is the master of them. I have currently worked him from level 1 to Rogue 9/Shadowdancer 2. I like the freedom to really tailor the character via skill points.

This being said, Clerics are very powerful individuals in 3e as my companion 11th level fellow can attest to.

Ron

Arlen Blaede
01-27-2002, 07:08 AM
After doing some more reading I think the class I would have the most fun with would be the Rogue. Something about being the guy in charge of all the secret spy stuff is just really cool. That and all the guilds and trade routes to profit from.
It's like Robin Hood but different; steal from the rich and give to me.

Raesene Andu
01-27-2002, 11:16 AM
I haven't really played many 3E characters yet, in fact, just the one, a dwarf who began life as a warrior in the army of Khurin-Azur, but discovered that he prefered a life of theft, murder and general evil doings. It remains to be seen how he survives.

astragaal
01-31-2002, 04:15 PM
Hi, all.
I prefer playing multiclass in 3ed, as up till now in D&D being anything except a streamlined characature has been tricky to say the least. But now Im playing my first 3ed character a 4th level Barbarian/Fighter/Cleric/Rouge.
In the long run though my favorite chatacter type is fighter, but in 3ed its nice that its so easy to attach new strings to my bow :)

Eisel Miloh
01-31-2002, 06:35 PM
I almost always play a cleric, sometimes cleric/ranger, but take my levels in cleric. People always say the whole point of roleplaying is to be something different than you are in real life, but I say it's impossible to role play well if you take on a character that acts differently than you would in real life - or maybe I just don't have that kind of ability. I like being the one people turn to when they need healing, or 'good' spells. And in 3rd ed, I like being able to burn spells that are of no use in a certain situation in order to keep on healing.

And Abbess, your old English is coming along beautifully! I keep trying, but it's hard not to lapse.

glassteel
02-07-2002, 06:00 PM
Sorry, all. Had to break the arcane-divine stalemate. :P
I prefer playing an arcane caster, though I haven't settled on either wizard or sorcerer yet.

However, I often prefer that my characters come to that decision later in life, so they generally start out as either a thief or ranger, since I love stealth. When I do play a thief, they never pickpocket, instead focusing on the 'cat-burglar' or 'second-story thief' approach. Heavy hide/move/listen/climb/jump/tumble focus, with a craft or profession maxed out as a cover. The decision on whether the evenual-mage will pick up an earlier class is largely based on the rest of the party.

Inevitably, something happens, and it's time for a life-change. This is when they revisit their sorcerous nature or investigate the riddle of the Art.

I also look forward to playing a cleric in 3e. Haven't had the opportunity yet, since we've always had one already. Despite their significant boost, I'm not interested in fighters, and don't like the natures of paladins or barbarians. Monks are too static for too long in the lower levels, then overcompensate for it in the higher levels. Druids just don't interest me outside of Darksun. Bards might be interesting at some point, but they come after clerics in my order of preference.

gnoel
02-17-2002, 06:23 AM
I've rewritten rangers in my campaign, as I don't understand how spending in the wilderness teaches you how to use both hands with equal ability. I found players took a level of ranger to gain three feats, and then became other classes, not roleplaying any ranger like aspects.

I got rid of the free ambidex and 2 weapon fighting and added 2 skills per level, a high reflex save and a favourite terrain ability, much the same as the favourite enemy.

Rangers have always been my favoutite class, since I started playing first ed way back in 1985.

And with humanoids able to level up in classes, gnolls, hobgoblins and orogs really throw down in combat.

Strahd
02-18-2002, 01:53 AM
Orginally posted by gnoel

I've rewritten rangers in my campaign, as I don't understand how spending in the wilderness teaches you how to use both hands with equal ability. I found players took a level of ranger to gain three feats, and then became other classes, not roleplaying any ranger like aspects.

I got rid of the free ambidex and 2 weapon fighting and added 2 skills per level, a high reflex save and a favourite terrain ability, much the same as the favourite enemy.

Rangers have always been my favoutite class, since I started playing first ed way back in 1985.

And with humanoids able to level up in classes, gnolls, hobgoblins and orogs really throw down in combat.
It seems that montecook did most of what you 've done already :)
Check out www.montecook.com (the archive section), for the revised ranger. Quite interesting.

Lord Eldred
02-24-2002, 06:19 PM
Gnoel it is nice to see that someone else is bothered by people who multiclass for the benefits and then don't roleplay the two classes.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
03-05-2002, 12:44 AM
WuHooo, somebody voted for Barbarian.

Abbess Allessandra
03-05-2002, 02:53 AM
I thank thee Eisel for the kind words. Lord Eldred, Do you have anyone particular in mind?

Chioran
03-05-2002, 01:18 PM
Orginally posted by Lord Eldred


Orginally posted by Lawgiver

I've never liked the concept of pscionists. They have been exiled from my campaign since the dawn of my gaming.

I have done the same. There is one guy in my campaign who bought the book of pscionists and waves in my face just to upset me every once in awhile!

That's me right?! :P

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
03-05-2002, 09:24 PM
Psionics are good in their place, which isn't birthright, and is in an area that is designed to handle them (Darksun).

Chioran
03-06-2002, 12:09 AM
Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

Psionics are good in their place, which isn't birthright, and is in an area that is designed to handle them (Darksun).

Why is Birthright not the place for Psionics? Why is any one place "better" than any other? What does "handle them" mean?

Perhelion
03-06-2002, 01:09 AM
I also had a player addicted to psionicists. Once I relented ans let him play on a stand alone mission. Psionicists were unbalanced in the 2ed imo, as a psionicist can to some extent do things normally reserved for mages, priests, thieves etc. What's the point of working in a team when you can do all yourself?
Thus, I was well pleased when written on official birthright rulebook it said: No psionics. I had an official reason to forbid him from playing them :)

Chioran
03-06-2002, 01:42 AM
How do you figure that Psionicists can do it all? I played a psionicist in 2e and was thankful to be part of a party. They have very limited powers (like a mage) for the first several levels. It takes quie some time before they can become powerful enough to stand on their own.

Riegan Swordwraith
03-07-2002, 02:46 PM
I loved psionicists in 2E,but hated the too complex psionicist power sysytem.They made the powers easy to do in 3E,but then they screwed the pooch with the rest of the psions.In 2E,magic defenses did not work against psions,as psions did not use magic,and psions had no tells,ie when a psion was using a power,unless it did something physical to him,you didn't know who was doing what.Not in 3E,all defenses,magic or otherwise work against each other and psions are as easy to detect as wizzies.That and I just don't like the classes in 3E.


Shame............

Rcook12a
03-07-2002, 10:59 PM
I chose Sorcerer.
I think this new version of the arcane spellcastor is a great addition to a party of adventurers (I don't always play Birthright). I never did like the concept of momorizing spells (didn't use it either) so its great to finally have a legal class to fit our conversions.
Unfortunetly the Sorcerer suffers compared to a Wizard in the BR conversion with less Regency gains.
Actually I like most everything in the 3d Edition except presitge classes, I haven't found a single PC interested in using them. Who knows?
Regards

Crazy Wolf
04-09-2002, 11:39 PM
In our BR 3E game all I have played is a paladin. In all games of D&D I love paladin up to about lvl 4-6 then it is time for a change. I know that is power gaming but I know what I want so I take it. That is why I don't play bards or rangers since they are pitiful after second level. IMHO a ranger druid is much better than a ranger. Like I said though I am a power gamer.
The good part about being a power gamer is I always know how badly a player can break my adventure so I am always prepared. ;)

Cheers All,
CW

Lord Eldred
07-01-2002, 02:01 PM
Who else thinks powergaming sucks?

Mark_Aurel
07-16-2002, 01:49 PM
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with min-maxing a character. 3e encourages you to do it, in fact, as the system is supposed to be robust enough to be able to handle it without creating really big power discrepancies between characters of similar level.

That said, I don't find bards or rangers to be "pitiful." It's just that they require players to actually think a bit for their abilities to really shine. That said, there is a vast difference between what a certain character can do depending on how clever the player in question is.

For a bard, starting off with a repulsion, combined with a wand of protection from arrows or similar device is a pretty good way to foil a fighter, barbarian or rogue, for instance. Proceeding to take the f/b/r apart from there shouldn't be too hard.

It's all circumstantial, though. Bards simply don't have as many mega-damage effects as other classes - that doesn't make them "weaker" in terms of what they do good - being versatile.

Lord Eldred
07-16-2002, 02:32 PM
I don't have anything against trying to have the best character you can...I have a problem with the person who can only play when there character is really unbeatable...often time cheating to make their character better...that is the power gaming that I think sucks!

soudhadies
07-17-2002, 04:23 AM
In 2nd ed. I generally preffered to play fighters of the swashbuckling, chandalier swinging variety who had only their wits to keep them together. When 3E came out I realized that the new rogue class with its skill based abilities was what I had been dreaming of all along.

soudhadies
07-17-2002, 04:29 AM
Orginally posted by Lord Eldred

I don't have anything against trying to have the best character you can...I have a problem with the person who can only play when there character is really unbeatable...often time cheating to make their character better...that is the power gaming that I think sucks!

I'm with you here. I've encountered many players who think this way; even some whose gaming experience makes you think they should know better. Both as a DM and as a player I try to work against this when ever possible. It makes the game a lot less fun for everyone involved; especially because these people generally try to use their tanked up characters to boss the other PCs around.

geeman
07-17-2002, 09:46 PM
Mark_Aurel wrote:

>That said, I don`t find bards or rangers to be "pitiful." It`s just
>that they require players to actually think a bit for their abilities to
>really shine. That said, there is a vast difference between what a certain
>character can do depending on how clever the player in question is.

There also needs to be a little collusion between the player and the DM for
bards and rangers. That is, the DM needs to factor the abilities and uses
of those character classes into his thinking when designing/running
adventures. Of course, that doesn`t mean a ranger or bard is completely
useless adventures not designed for him, and all classes require that kind
of thinking on the part of the DM to a certain extent, but the bard and the
ranger seem to require more than is typical for other character
classes. That`s particularly odd considering those two classes would seem
to be among the most versatile conceptually, and in my experience those
classes were much more versatile before 3e, which leads me to the
conclusion that the problem is really with the class write ups themselves.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Lord Eldred
07-18-2002, 12:24 PM
I think it is the players responsibility to figure out how to best use the skills of their character in whatever the adventure is without having to design the adventure for them. A Ranger has talents that others do not and should always be thinking about how to use them in any situation.

blitzmacher
07-18-2002, 11:38 PM
I think it is the players responsibility to figure out how to best use the skills of their character in whatever the adventure is without having to design the adventure for them. A Ranger has talents that others do not and should always be thinking about how to use them in any situation.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds a lot like role playing to me.;)

Lord Eldred
07-19-2002, 12:43 PM
MY POINT EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alamar
07-26-2002, 11:34 PM
I would have to say that I still prefer a Cleric even though 3rd edition is designed towards multi-class.

Azrai
07-29-2002, 08:26 AM
I prefer playing Bards :) .

Unfortunatly they are slightly weakened in the 3. Edition.