Quote from: Bren;998489Of course it's possible that a 1 in 4.6 million occurrence will occur. But it is really unlikely that for any given play group it will occur.

1 in 4,665,600 to be precise. Better than the odds that you're going to win powerball, but not good odds.

I don't doubt it and if I took the time I could probably calculate the odds myself. I don't think I will ever see another Paladin with 18/00 Strength but there were a few Paladins over the year. By few I mean like three over two decades. Some nights, people just roll good.

In my ideal D20 (3.5-ish) system, there would only be 4 classes: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. If you wanted to be anything else, you'd buy feats. True20 came close.

Actually, the one that doesn't really fit into Sword and Sorcery literature, from the very dawn of D&D, is the Cleric. You just don't get that many fictional Cleric types in fantasy literature. In my ideal system, there would be these four base classes: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard.....with the Ranger taking the role as a healer and auxiliary fighter just as per the Cleric in many respects. In many D&D editions, indeed, I feel that the Ranger struggles with it's core identity largely because it had it's niche taken from it.

The role of healing makes a lot of sense if you think about a Ranger's natural abilities to help survive in the wilderness. It's never been able to establish itself with this identity however, as the Cleric has always taken that fundamental role. So in this respect, the Cleric is the Class that doesn't fit the game. That said, I wouldn't ditch the Cleric as a Class in my own game, but I would have developed the concept more independently from the idea of class healer, and more of a priestly type with different traits depending upon the divine choice.

The Sorcerer also doesn't fit as a Class. It was introduced as a more spontenious alternative to Wizards in 3rd edition, which is fine. However, this point is made slightly redundant when every class, including the Wizard, spontaneously casts now in 5E. So essentially, a Sorcerer is just a Charisma-based spell caster now, which isn't that strong a concept. They could make it a bit more distinct, as they did attempt to do with the Dragon-blooded Sorcerer, but I'm not sure it was that well executed (particularly as a luke warm combo with Dragonborn, which ought to be a natural fit), and the Wild Magic thing should have just been a Feat. So, in all, Sorcerers struggle a bit to fit in for me too.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;998592My immediate reaction is that's more a problem with the rest of the game than with the paladin, but I admit a strong bias on this point.

There would certainly have to be a good reason that a Paladin would work with a party of rogues and scoundrels, preferably a lawful good reason. Either the scum and villainy are desperate for muscle and possibly healing, which means the Paladin might be able to bully them into good behaviour, at least while said Paladin is looking. Or the Paladin decides to adventure with them. Now most Paladins aren't stupid, and combined with being able to Detect Evil, they would know who to keep a close eye on. A Paladin can be a door opener simply due to status, which could be handy in finding wealthy patrons to do jobs for, if they aren't already doing something for a church for whatever Deity the Paladin follows. So long as whomever they are murderhoboing pings evil, the Paladin is not going to have an issue with killing them and taking their stuff. It is possible to kill two birds with one stone, and Paladins who are often aligned with religions can provide great plot seeds with the potential for enough loot to put most thieves on their best behaviour.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;998626Actually, the one that doesn't really fit into Sword and Sorcery literature, from the very dawn of D&D, is the Cleric. You just don't get that many fictional Cleric types in fantasy literature. In my ideal system, there would be these four base classes: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard.....with the Ranger taking the role as a healer and auxiliary fighter just as per the Cleric in many respects. In many D&D editions, indeed, I feel that the Ranger struggles with it's core identity largely because it had it's niche taken from it.

I can see that, especially if you're approaching fantasy from a Tolkien influence. But I can also see a cleric (probably more of a priest, as you mention below) being a core class due to the Lanhkmar influence, and maybe the Greco/Roman influence. My problem with "clerics as priests" is that thematically they just become a different type of wizard, and mechnically they become a wizard that can fight better.

QuoteThe Sorcerer also doesn't fit as a Class. It was introduced as a more spontenious alternative to Wizards in 3rd edition, which is fine. However, this point is made slightly redundant when every class, including the Wizard, spontaneously casts now in 5E. So essentially, a Sorcerer is just a Charisma-based spell caster now, which isn't that strong a concept. They could make it a bit more distinct, as they did attempt to do with the Dragon-blooded Sorcerer, but I'm not sure it was that well executed (particularly as a luke warm combo with Dragonborn, which ought to be a natural fit), and the Wild Magic thing should have just been a Feat. So, in all, Sorcerers struggle a bit to fit in for me too.

Yeah, the sorcerer never appealed to me. It seemed like a solution in search of a problem. And since I don't like Dragonborn, that angle is moot for me. Wild Magic as a feat will work, but I'd like to see Wild Magic as a mechanic: something that happens when you overextend yourself in an attempt to get more power. Of course, that would require rewriting the table, emphasizing the scary rather than the funny.

What Classes Don't Fit....

This really is a matter of what game is being played and what it's trying to emulate isn't it? I mean D&D is such a broad spectrum of kitchen sink that most classes have SOME place for them, depending on what Setting you're going with. Paladins, Clerics, and divine classes don't belong in Dark Sun, for example while I think that more primal classes such as Druids are a bit out of place in a setting like Eberron. Not to mention how much "realism" you want to flush into the setting. I'd agree with Tenbones that 4e classes aren't a good representation of trying to mix realism into a D&D campaign, but I'd say they're perfect to emulating high-fantasy heroism that is consistent with D&D.

Quote from: Krimson;998633There would certainly have to be a good reason that a Paladin would work with a party of rogues and scoundrels, preferably a lawful good reason. Either the scum and villainy are desperate for muscle and possibly healing, which means the Paladin might be able to bully them into good behaviour, at least while said Paladin is looking. Or the Paladin decides to adventure with them. Now most Paladins aren't stupid, and combined with being able to Detect Evil, they would know who to keep a close eye on. A Paladin can be a door opener simply due to status, which could be handy in finding wealthy patrons to do jobs for, if they aren't already doing something for a church for whatever Deity the Paladin follows. So long as whomever they are murderhoboing pings evil, the Paladin is not going to have an issue with killing them and taking their stuff. It is possible to kill two birds with one stone, and Paladins who are often aligned with religions can provide great plot seeds with the potential for enough loot to put most thieves on their best behaviour.

Worth noting that Paladins in 5e Detect Evil only detects supernatural evil like undead and demons/devils. I think that is a good fix for the always goofy side effects of detect evil/good.

Quote from: Dumarest;998347Ah! BLACK BELT JONES! Endlessly entertaining!

Police chief guy: "It's top priority."
BB: "I'M top priority!"

Karate guy in dark room: "Who the fuck hit me?"
BB: "BATMAN,  motherfucker!"

Love that movie. Have you seen the sequel, HOT POTATO?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1722[/ATTACH]

Man, I would play a Blaxploitation kung fu game in a heartbeat.

Ahem... http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/148480/Spirit-of-77-Core-Rulebook

Quote from: Voros;998935Worth noting that Paladins in 5e Detect Evil only detects supernatural evil like undead and demons/devils. I think that is a good fix for the always goofy side effects of detect evil/good.

It was similar in TSR D&D as well. Had to be exuding supernatural, or very high level (9+) unwavering devotees (evil priests) in the middle of an evil act (which basic observation would confirm). WotC made an effort to undo a lot of its past "improvements!" in this 5e edition as a compromise to OSR/old-skool no longer needing licensing for presence: the compromise edition.

The Mary Sue class.

Quote from: Certified;998944Ahem... http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/148480/Spirit-of-77-Core-Rulebook

Ah, but does it come with two to six players interested in playing?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;998201Specifically, I don't care for how "class" has an elastic meaning depending upon which classes we see.  For example, paladins and clerics are too much alike.  Then barbarians and rangers are specific while the fighter is generic.  If a ranger has spells, why do we have that instead of a rogue/druid or fighter/druid mix?  Or if we must have hybrid classes, why also multi-classing?  Yeah, I know, "archetypes".  Except that rationale is all over the place, too, with frequent gaps unaccounted for.  It's a mess.  It's a glorious mess, which is why I can enjoy it.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;998420This is why I always say that you'll be disappointed if you're looking to find a "there" there. D&D is a 'first' something, and like most of them, is a mongrel thing that resists attempts at base principles. Classes are just classes. There isn't a consistent rationale, there are gaps. It's a glorious mess and for some people that's bad, some people that's good, some people wouldn't have it any other way, and some people (like me) simply recognize that when you do try to fit an organically derived thing like this into a consistent, principled form, you'll probably damage the thing or change it into something else entirely.

Oh, so much this. Is a class a broad skillset or description, like the fighter? Is it a narrow archetype, like the paladin? (The exclusively LG one being almost a specific character unto itself.) Is it a cultural role, like the barbarian? Which is it?

I've accepted that D&D classes will always be a mishmash of inconsistent concepts, but it's something I enjoy D&D despite of rather than because of.

Eh, it's D&D ; I kinda figure you take it for what it is if you're going to play it, oddball classes and all, otherwise why not just play another game, maybe even one without classes.

Forget it, Jake; it's D & D.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1735[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;998182Monks, anyone?

My choice.  Although I will add the D&D Barbarian.

The AD&D (1e) Bard was a mess.