Which class do you hate the most?

Bluenose · Mar 2, 2012

Monk. That's not because the concept is bad, because it does fit a lot of settings. But, the Monk is invariably an afterthought in the game, neglected in terms of mechanical support once it's basic iteration comes out in favour of other classes. And with unarmed combat that isn't functionally identical to armed combat having always been done in a complicated manner, that means it's a rules-intensive class in a way I don't like. Further, once you've decided you have to have a "fighting-without-weapons" class, then you end up making usre other classes that would have training fighting unarmed are really bad at it. Champion pankratiast who also fights in the front rank of the phalanx is right out.

Recidivism · Mar 2, 2012

Psion & Monk most notably. Not the sort of flavor I want in most campaigns.

I think there's been some good arguments made here that the "Fighter" is too generic. But realistically I'm not sure there's any way to replace it without splitting it into a number of other classes (many of which, like the Ranger, have baggage that's not appropriate either).

Kzach · Mar 2, 2012

Yuppies. They're just the worst.

Mr. Wilson · Mar 2, 2012

I voted for Psions, as I think of psionics as more of a sci-fi thing than a fantasy thing.

Can't believe Warlords are getting such a bad rap. Then again, I've never viewed hit points as anything more than an abstraction anyways, so I easily hand wave the shouting people back to their feet (plus, I always viewed them like coaches in sports, yelling at their players to get their heads back in the game or something).

NewJeffCT · Mar 2, 2012

Mr. Wilson said:
I voted for Psions, as I think of psionics as more of a sci-fi thing than a fantasy thing.

Can't believe Warlords are getting such a bad rap. Then again, I've never viewed hit points as anything more than an abstraction anyways, so I easily hand wave the shouting people back to their feet (plus, I always viewed them like coaches in sports, yelling at their players to get their heads back in the game or something).

I never considered it shouting somebody back to health - I just figured it was a different form of magic (martial), as opposed to the more traditional divine and arcane.

Minigiant · Mar 2, 2012

Mr. Wilson said:
I voted for Psions, as I think of psionics as more of a sci-fi thing than a fantasy thing.

I never had a scifi problem with psionics. My issues is it has no place as divine and arcane do everything already.

In my homebrew game, psionics makes sense as I removed most mind effecting nonillusion spells from divine and arcane. There psionics has a role, psionics had the best dominate, charms, and telepathy. Arcane and Divine couldn't enter mortal minds as well and could only screw with senses.

But as is, psionics has no place.

Can't believe Warlords are getting such a bad rap. Then again, I've never viewed hit points as anything more than an abstraction anyways, so I easily hand wave the shouting people back to their feet (plus, I always viewed them like coaches in sports, yelling at their players to get their heads back in the game or something).

As a guy who yelled someone into forgetting about a stab wound, I never had a problem with warlords.

Vyvyan Basterd · Mar 2, 2012

trancejeremy said:
Two fantasy assassins that make good D&D characters:

Arbas the Assassin in Darkness Weaves. Definitely an anti-hero, but anti-heroes have a place in fantasy - much of D&D was inspired by Vance's Dying Earth, which was almost entirely full of anti-heroes.

Morley Dotes from the long running Garrett P.I. series of novels by Glen Cook.

I have no problem with assassins existing as characters in a D&D game. I just see no reason why Assassin should be a class instead of a profession that any class can choose.

Ratskinner · Mar 2, 2012

StreamOfTheSky said:
I'm sick of it. Please, just go away, you horrible boring class that's about nothing more than how many +'s you have on rolls. I hate you. Give me a bunch of different martial classes to cover different things that are actually hyper capable of those things. Give me swashbuckling duelists who can parry spells. 2H weapon wielders that can heft giant swords and create avalanches by cleaving into the side of a mountain. Give me archers who can blot out the sun with arrows and shoot just fine in melee, disarming you of your sword as you're charging at him and in midswing.

Just not the generic fighter. Please.

I'd support this idea, although I think I'd prefer "very capable" to "hyper capable."

Ratskinner · Mar 2, 2012

Recidivism said:
Psion & Monk most notably. Not the sort of flavor I want in most campaigns.

I think there's been some good arguments made here that the "Fighter" is too generic. But realistically I'm not sure there's any way to replace it without splitting it into a number of other classes (many of which, like the Ranger, have baggage that's not appropriate either).

Why not remove the baggage, or put it into the "themes" (whatever they are)?

I'm actually starting to wonder if the fighter's versatility/broadness isn't at the core of the "min/maxing" problem, the "feat tax" problem, . That is, in attempting to differentiate the fighters by giving them proficiencies or feats, you end up giving the other classes similar options. You also end up creating stacks of proficiencies/feats that are harder to balance or avoid broken combos. That leads you to invent feat taxes and penalty feats.

Maybe, just like a universal list was a bad idea for skills, a universal list of feats is a bad idea as well. Perhaps each class should have a limited set of swappable features for the advanced version, and a preselected list of features for the basic version. If you want your Swashbuckler to get a bit better at ranged weapons, maybe you should take a few levels of Ranger or Archer, instead of just grabbing a feat or two.