Unobtrusive wrote:
> So, another in the random factor club (I dropped from the "ages everyone
> thread" once the existential debates began).
>
> What, in everyone's collective opinion, are the "coolest" deities and
> classes for D&D? What are, in the same opinions, the "5uxx0r"?
>
> Why?
>
> My example as follows:
>
> ------
>
> Coolest Deities?
> (My selection is somewhat limited to my experience with the PHB)
>
> Wee Jas. By a hand and a half (sorry Vecna)
> Why: Sexy death and magic? Need I say anything else?
>
> Vecna. By an eye (sorry again!)
> Why: Because this bad-ass managed to succeed where many tried.
>
> Nerul. 'Cause we all need some random slaughter every now and again.
> Why: It's cool to see the PCs faces when you spring his cult on
> them.
>
> St Cuthbert. To get all smitey on ya'.
> Why: It's cool to see the PCs faces when you spring his cult on
> them.
> Bad Deities?
> (Again, limited selection)
>
> Pelor
> Why: Boooooring. Niceness and sunshine is cool for RL. Bad for plot.
>
> Pelor
> Why: 'Cause Jozan's a prat.
>
> Hextor
> Why: Tyrrany ain't what it's cracked up to be.
>
> The "Racial" Gods (ie; Something-Lorethian)
> Why: D&D shouldn't espouse faith by race. Else, where's the "Human"
> deities?
Where I play, Pelor has approved cult status - not fully accepted by
the powers that be. It makes roleplaying a Pelorite more interesting.
Pholtus is the most colorful - Alignment: Lawful, lawful, lawful,
lawful,
good, lawful, lawful, intolerant. (apologies to Monty Python) Pholtus
is a mainstream faith in the campaign I'm in, and he tends to polarize
- many characters hate Pholtans. St. Cuthbert says, "He burns me up."
Heironeous is the mainstream faith where I play, as such tends to be
the most vanilla.
St. Cuthbert is also mainstream, but a bit of an underdog and tends
to be the voice of reason, so St. Cuthbert is appealing.
Olidammara is prohibited, but worshipping Olidammara on the sly
would be in-character. Olidammara is a trickster god, but a bit over
the top - his motivation seems shallow, compared to Coyote or the
Norse Loki.
Wenta - her holy symbol is a mug of beer, her holy water is blessed
ale of beer. 'Nuff said?
Vecna is a plot arc ubervillain, and any association with 'the Unnamed
One' is a capital offense. He is a good ubervillain.
I like the racial dieties but they need more fleshing out.
> Coolest Classes?
> Fighter
> Why: Straight, no-frills, easy-to-make combat turtle.
>
> Rogue
> Why: Sneaky stealthy death. And Lidda.
>
> Bad Classes?
> Bard
> Why: It may just be me, but it's a little... washy.
>
> Ranger
> Why: Even with the update to 3.5, I still feel he's just a fighter
> with a tree fetish
>
All the core classes are cool.
Fighter's access to feats makes it the class with which to build
elaborate feat intensive characters - it is less canned and requires
planning to make good use of the flexibility.
Fighter is a good multi-class add on to pull a few more feats.
Fighter (meat shield) is the most indispensible role.
Rogue is to skills what fighter is to feats.
A rogue requires more skill on the part of the player and his
partner to perform well in combat, but a rogue/flank buddy
team can tear up an encounter.
(Rogues should have to be non-lawful. Rogue means operates
outside the law; out of control.)
Ranger and Bard are a lot like Rogue. They are all support
characters, on the high skills side of the ledger, and can
really help out a party. Whether any particular class is
needed depends on your campaign.
Rangers are important if you are tracking. Tracking is a big
part of some scenarios. A ranger has an animal companion
that is much of his fighting capacity; for example, a ranger
can provide for his own flanking. Ranger multiclasses well
with other light armor classes.
Bards have many uses. If you play in a social/cultural
intensive campaign, odds are the bard is your spokesman.
Bards, without landing a blow, can often account for the
majority of the hitpoints taken from the enemy in an encounter,
with their party buffs.
(Bards should be allowed to be any alignment. Bards would
be an accepted part of society, news and entertainment.)
Barbarians are just badass coolness.
Monks are an interesting minimalist approach. For all their
bells and whistles, they aren't really particularly good at
anything all that useful. I like them for flavor and challenge.
My biggest gripe with monk is that there needs to be rules
for varieties of monk other than Asian martial arts. There
should be distict racial monks and weapon sets.
(I would get rid of the lawful restriction. A monastery is
lawful in itself, but so is a barbarian tribe. A monastery
may be at odds with the lawful order of the kingdom, in
fact that is the roots of Asian martial arts.)
Clerics - a lot of options, a lot of role playing color. Clerics
as medics are indespensible. Their combat prowess is low
enough that they do not overshine all other characters.
(If this class gets changes in 4th ed., I'd like to see them
loose the shields and heavy armor.)
Druid - cool, nominally overpowered, but I've not seen it
be an issue. The nature spin is essential to the flavor,
but probably not the full alignment restriction - I'd go
with non-lawful, and grandfather lawful neutral. 'Laws
of nature take precedence over the laws of man' kind
of thing.
I like the arcane classes, but I think they are too limited
in D&D - they should have a few more skill points. Our
arcanes are rarely called upon to do much outside of battle.
With his high Int and years of study, a wizard should have
some sagely aspect - skill points and more knowledge as
class skills would be appropriate. This would fit the wizard
in fantasy literature better, too.
Wizards are out and out flexibility, even just as they stand.
Sorcerers should have class skill access to social skills like
intimidate. They would have been doing something while not
studying. (This is my least favorite core class, but there is
nothing wrong with the class.)
Paladin - fighter trading feats for class features, but it is a
balanced trade, there's good color, and it works. Lawful
good alignment works for BtB paladins, and there is
Blackguard for evil antipaladins - there should be other
'champion of ...' variants for other alignments.
> Coolest Classes?
>
> Wu Jen
> Why: Been a fan since AD&D Complete Wizard.
>
> Sohei
> Why: Holy rage? I'm in.
>
> Necromantic (Anti-)Cleric
> Why: Wee Jas, Nerul... anyone else see where this is going?
>
I find that I do not like most of the non core classes all that much.
Not as much thought has gone into balancing them.
I do like the assassin class. Basically a variant rogue that still
makes sense. I would make assassins non-lawful rather than evil.
The best arguments I've heard for why paladin should not be a
prestige class (real world examples of the archetype at entry level)
would more than apply to assassin.
I am not fond of the BtB scout.
I like the shadowdancer prestige class.
Marshal is useful, plays kind of bard-like. I've never played one
and I don't own the book it's in (Miniatures Handbook) so I only
know what it was like having one in our party.
> Bad Classes?
>
> Improvised Weapons Master
> Why: Cheese. Golem.
Which book is it in?
> Psionics Classes (All)
> Why: Super. Cheese. Golems.
> All of them.
I don't like psionics in fantasy D&D. That's for any game system,
I don't like psionics and magic put together.
> NPC Classes (All)
> Why: You don't have a "20th-level" king. He's the king. He orders
> his -guards- to fight you, and if he can't, there's no reason for him not to
> die in one or two sword swings. Otherwise, give 'im a class level, for
> crissake!
>
> ------
>
> And there you have it. My opinions, broadly and loudly stated for all to
> hear.
>
> And now; yours?
>
> --U
>
> BTW:
> Cheese Golems
> 1) are anything that is cheese, that almost looks like it could walk from
> the page by itself.
> 2) are anything that would scare you from doing the washing.
OTOH, a golem made of cheese would be cool. Culinarmancy.
MadKaugh
>> Stay informed about: Coolest Deities & Classes? 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
