Talk:Unfledged (3.5e Class)

Ratings

	Foxwarrior dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	I don't see what this class does that playing a lower than party level character doesn't do already, and more faithfully to most source material at that.

Both of my source material examples began the story with no available class abilities, then gained a bunch of levels worth all at once, in the middle of an encounter. How does the approach you describe handle that?--Ideasmith 04:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

	Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	I see this is still a non-class class. I don't think the idea is viable, sorry.

	ThunderGod Cid opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	A class dedicated to not filling a role or being a party liability is a pretty ridiculous concept. It basically is a waste of space; its class features even reflect that. Seriously.

This class isn't dedicated to being a party liability. This class is dedicated to ceasing to be a party liability.--Ideasmith 22:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But it remains a liability until it stops being one. --Ghostwheel 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ceasing to be a liability is a feature of the class it becomes, not this class. That is to say, an Unfledged is unavoidably a liability, and stops being a liability by not being an Unfledged anymore. Something which he could have done by never taking levels in it to begin with. --DanielDraco 23:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Already being an asset is a feature of the class the unfledged becomes. Ceasing to be a liability (as Bilbo Baggins does about halfway through The Hobbit, and Garion does about a fourth of the way through the Belgariad) is not. I can tell the difference just fine, thank you.--Ideasmith 04:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you can't, because you've still failed to explain what motivation there is to take any levels in this class, whatsoever. The whole point of the class is to evolve into some other class; but why not just start out as those classes? Hell, your entire concept could be better served by just having someone start with an NPC class, like "Commoner" or something. This is absolutely extraneous in every sense. --71.82.214.138 04:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

	DanielDraco opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	See the discussion.

This class seems like just a way for someone to procrastinate in choosing a class. Its inclusion in a game would only be damaging, because that character will not pull their weight until they get out of the class and because any player that takes it will probably be lazy in other ways as well. --DanielDraco 13:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That particular benefit is incidental.

This class, like many D&D classes, is intended to help players emulate fictional characters.

D&D is played for fun. If a player who otherwise adds to the fun is playing a character who is not helping the party overcome challenges, this class might be exactly what is needed.--Ideasmith 00:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A class that makes them...even less effective? --DanielDraco 00:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with DD on this one. --Ghostwheel 00:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read any of this. --TK-Squared 00:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What he's saying is that this class is bad because it disrupts the fun of others. D&D is indeed played for fun but one must still respect the fun of your team. I shall explain.

The first issue is that the gimmick of the class literally is "Be useless", you kinda say it right there in Making an Unfledged. The PC is gonna be dead weight. But they're actually worse than dead weight due to Tagalong. "Yay! Now the monsters coming at our party are weak frail goblins, which are now an appropriate encounter... for me. Meanwhile the rest of the party stand around bored, destroying the weaklings with no sense of challenge."

Included with that is the troubling flavor and concept. As DD said, it really embodies the "can't decide a spot" class, unfortunately well. Binders and Factotums did it better if you want to play a "I can do anything" class (nevermind actual wizards, who really DO embody all the roles in a party).

You WANT to be able to help your party overcome challenges, thats your entire purpose for playing, to BE someone, whatever that someone is. Plus, if you really wanted to be useless... :P ...play a monk. -- Eiji-kun 00:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Overcoming challenges is nice, but is not central to why I play RPG’s.

I don’t see how any of the classes you suggest fit the fictional characters I gave as examples. Neither Bilbo Baggins nor Garion starts out as an “I can do anything” character. Bilbo never becomes one, and while Garion does become a powerful spellcaster, the key word there is ‘become’. Similarly, neither Bilbo nor Garion is permanently useless; they both become quite effective party members.

A useless character won’t be annoying, (or, for some groups, at least not as annoying,) if the players and GM know that he is supposed to be useless. Thank you, Eiji-kun, for pointing out that this information might not reach the other players; I will have to add suitable advice to the warning.

Also thanks for pointing out that problem with Tagalong (even if you exaggerated it). A possible revision might be: Ignore the presence of the tagalong when determining appropriate opposition or dividing the base XP award by the number of characters in the party. The tagalong still receives experience for the encounter.

But Bilbo Baggins is the equivalent to a rogue. And I'm not sure who Garion is. You could just say that the storyline started with Garion as one class (nobody specializes in being useless) and due to a radical transformation, becomes another class. The archetype you are going for can be fulfilled with the Factotum much more easily, with retraining of classes being the transformation that occurs over time. This class literally just says "I do not contribute, ignore me." In a cooperative storytelling game, this is not fun for everybody else. --Havvy 04:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So with that being the consensus...do we want joke classes with no actual use on the wiki? Certainly we have our fair share of joke material, but generally it's also actually (hypothetically) useful. Should we add the April Fools category and keep it on the grounds of being amusing? --DanielDraco 06:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to others on if it's April Fools stuff, but I will say that April Fools SHOULD be useful, even if in a highly circumstantial or unbalanced way. The one exception I've given to was "Bonus Feat" feat.

...well, this is "unbalanced" in the "too weak/doesn't work" sense, so, I guess it works there. -- Eiji-kun 07:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Towards the end of The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins is definitely a rogue. Towards the beginning of the novel, however, he is definitely not any sort of adventurer. This lack is made very clear in the novel, to humorous effect. At no point in either The Hobbit or The Ring Trilogy does Mr. Baggins use abilities from several different classes, the way I understand a Factotum does: when he uses a class ability, it is always a rogue one.

As for Garion, while nobody specializes in being useless, kitchen chores are useful. Garion specialized in kitchen chores (not cooking: Aunt Pol was the cook). When Garion becomes a spellcaster, he remains a spellcaster, of that type, for the remainder of The Belgariad. At no point in The Belgariad does Garion use abilities from several different classes, the way I understand a Factotum does: when he uses a class ability, it is always a spellcaster one, and always from the specific type of spellcaster he turned into in the first place.

Cooperative storytelling is about stories. Some stories are about characters who ignore anything that does not help them win, but most aren’t. A story can, for example, be about a group of champions who rescue the helpless, and, if possible, take them to safety. And if the party is doing this on the way to a more urgent rescue, and the detour to safety would make an unacceptable delay, then the rescued victim might prefer to accompany the champions. And if a player in such a group playing such characters plays such a rescued victim, who by luck develops sorcerous powers which help the party accomplish their mission and then joins the merry band in defending the helpless, then that player is contributing to the story just fine.

I am now convinced me that the ‘chose class when using Metamorphosis’ thing has to go. It seemed like a good idea: It made describing Metamorphosis a lot easier and I prefer giving players more, rather than fewer options, but this discussion is the last straw. I will just have to figure out how to describe Metamorphosis without it.--Ideasmith 15:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The class is now revised. The revision was much less difficult than I expected, and it looks like a great improvement. Thank you.--Ideasmith 15:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If I did it: An Eiji Take

Thinking on how the theme of the class would be possible period, the best I could come up with is a class which is the Diet Mimic. That is, no powers of his own but he can borrow the powers of his fellow party members. Team fighter? He's picked up a greatsword. Team sorcerer? Have a few spells. These temporary powers are based on his allies, and in turn he supports his allies in tasks that are common between them. It suffers in that it's a commoner when alone, but plan for contingency there somehow.

Turning into a class he's experienced in the past is optional. I've always been of the opinion that the point of making a class is to encourage you to take Class 20. If that's not a viable option, then its a poor class. Anyway, food for thought. -- Eiji-kun 00:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've finally gotten rid of that 'chose class when using Metamorphosis' thing, I'm not about to put it back in, let alone expand it beyond all sanity while adding a weird restriction--Ideasmith 04:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC).