Which class do you hate the most? - Page 8

Poll: What is your LEAST favorite class from across the editions?

+ Log in or register to post
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 117
  1. #71
    Member
    Lama (Lvl 13)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Decatur, AL
    Posts
    3,036
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block JRRNeiklot


    Friend+
    I should have voted ranger. I love the ranger, but detest what the ranger has become.

  2. #72
    Potassium-Rich Moderator
    Hydra (Lvl 25)

    I'm A Banana's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    15,847
    Reviews
    Read 1 Reviews

    Block I'm A Banana


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyvyan Basterd
    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.
    You could make the same argument for "fighters" and "rogues."

    I think the Assassin has an archetypally specific assortment of abilities that can distinguish them from other classes: death attacks, spying abilities, impersonation, poisons, deciet, etc. Not that other characters can't have or dip into these, just that they make up a fairly unique archetype in a way that "dude what does the fightin'" or "lady what sneaks about in the shadows" does not.

    I could honestly get on board with breaking up the fighter into several different classes (Skirmisher! Knight! Brute! Etc.!), but I'm not sure it's entirely necessrary...still, I can see the case.

    I think Wizards avoid that because of their various trappings as scholars, sages, and lorekeepers, which gets a little more specific. I do think their magic should be scattered around a bit better, though -- one class doesn't need to do all the magic tricks in the game, dudes.
    [RIGHT]Jacob J. Driscoll
    [B][I]Astral Plane Campaign[/I][/B]: Take [URL="http://www.dmsguild.com/product/193314/Hereos-of-the-Eternal-Classes-of-the-Astral-Plane"]your heroes[/URL] and [URL="http://www.dmsguild.com/product/190331/People-of-the-Eternal-Races-of-the-Astral-Plane"]your people[/URL] and come to [URL="http://www.dmsguild.com/product/198238/The-Athar-Citadel"][B]The Athar Citadel[/B][/URL], where those who reject the gods learn to wield divine magic!
    [/RIGHT]

  3. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Ratskinner View Post
    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.
    Min-Maxing is a personal problem that can't be solved. Some people just enjoy that aspect of the game. Although you're right providing more moving parts to non-specific classes like the Fighter can create advantages for min-maxers that's potentially troublesome.

    I think that'd be a good idea to rethink most of the core classes.* I would personally think about sticking Ranger and Paladin into themes. But what if you don't want any of the developed themes? That presents a problem. What if you want to further specialize into a Ranger who does two-weapon fighting? That's a lot of specificity, and that means a lot of moving parts into the game's class/theme structure. I also wonder whether it's a good idea to have Ranger and Paladin as themes when you might want say, a Ranger who's an exiled king, just as a for example. It's really hard for me to see how this would work out in a way that people would enjoy.

    * The problem with doing so, assuming the goal was basically providing logical ways to develop a character from general to specific, what you'd end up with wouldn't be satisfying to people who are attached to the idiosyncracies of the D&D classes. "I'm want to play a Ranger!" carries a lot of weight with people, even though it's just nomenclature. And it kind of reveals how tied up into typical fantasy ideas D&D is (and... kind of has to be, for everyone at the table to be on the same page).
    Last edited by Recidivism; Saturday, 3rd March, 2012 at 12:43 AM.

  4. #74
    Member
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Incenjucar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,998
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Incenjucar


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyvyan Basterd View Post
    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.
    Ehhh. Let's not get caught up entirely on class names, since they may not even exist in-game.

    The class is a stealthy stabby guy who has shadow and death magic.

    What are your feelings about stealthy stabby guys with shadow and death magic?

  5. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Ratskinner View Post
    I'd support this idea, although I think I'd prefer "very capable" to "hyper capable."
    No, it has to be hyper capable, nothing less. At least, it has to become hypercapable by high levels. If you're going to have a game where the casters can fly around, teleport, create planes of existence, raise undead armies, bring back the dead, etc...

    ...The guy whose class feature is to swing his sword around better be able to create category 5 hurricanes from doing so and be able to parry spells with the ease of which a normal person bats away a fly.

    Sorry, but anything less is simply unacceptable.

  6. #76
    Member
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)



    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Akron
    Posts
    1,769
    Reviews
    Read 1 Reviews

    Block Ratskinner


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Recidivism View Post
    I think that'd be a good idea to rethink most of the core classes.* I would personally think about sticking Ranger and Paladin into themes. But what if you don't want any of the developed themes? That presents a problem. What if you want to further specialize into a Ranger who does two-weapon fighting? That's a lot of specificity, and that means a lot of moving parts into the game's class/theme structure. I also wonder whether it's a good idea to have Ranger and Paladin as themes when you might want say, a Ranger who's an exiled king, just as a for example. It's really hard for me to see how this would work out in a way that people would enjoy.

    * The problem with doing so, assuming the goal was basically providing logical ways to develop a character from general to specific, what you'd end up with wouldn't be satisfying to people who are attached to the idiosyncracies of the D&D classes. "I'm want to play a Ranger!" carries a lot of weight with people, even though it's just nomenclature. And it kind of reveals how tied up into typical fantasy ideas D&D is (and... kind of has to be, for everyone at the table to be on the same page).
    I generally agree. I'd be willing to bet you could carve off the "woodsman" part of ranger into a theme without getting too much static. Then you could tack that onto any class and have a woodsy themed Rogue or whatever. Of course, at this point its hard to say what (if anything) they are aiming for with the themes mechanically.

  7. #77
    Member
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)



    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Akron
    Posts
    1,769
    Reviews
    Read 1 Reviews

    Block Ratskinner


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by StreamOfTheSky View Post
    No, it has to be hyper capable, nothing less. At least, it has to become hypercapable by high levels. If you're going to have a game where the casters can fly around, teleport, create planes of existence, raise undead armies, bring back the dead, etc...

    ...The guy whose class feature is to swing his sword around better be able to create category 5 hurricanes from doing so and be able to parry spells with the ease of which a normal person bats away a fly.

    Sorry, but anything less is simply unacceptable.
    To you, maybe. Plenty of other folks are just fine without it, and even cringe at the thought of it. Myself, I don't usually play or run very high-level games, so if it happens there, it won't bother me. However, given the wide variety and extreme feelings that people seem to have about high-level play, I would humbly suggest that all high level play be optional modules. That way groups can pick their own flavor of goofy for their high-level dudes. Yes, I know that means published high-level adventures will be a rarity, but that's worth it for keeping in touch with one of their primary design goals.

    Personally, I'd rather go the other way, and tone down wizards/magic a bit. And I certainly don't want low-level fighters pulling off the stuff you describe.

  8. #78
    Member
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)



    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    85 Arnold ave Mt. Holly NJ 08060
    Posts
    475
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Aramax


    Friend+
    sorcerer-name doesnt fit,takes too much away from wizard-cant stand em'

  9. #79
    Member
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)



    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Akron
    Posts
    1,769
    Reviews
    Read 1 Reviews

    Block Ratskinner


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Oni View Post
    I've never really understood how a class devoted to mental powers and mind over matter (both internally and externally) wasn't suitable for fantasy. Clearly a lot of people feel that it isn't, but I kind of have a hard time wrapping my mind around it.
    I think its mostly a flavor thing. I wouldn't mind it so much except that it started out and often continues to be the "I'm special-er" class. As some kind of specialist wizard, it would fit right in. As "magic that isn't"...well then, there's a potential issue. This is especially true when so many of the various abilities have been given somewhat modern scientific-ish name.

    I know that different editions and takes on psionics have come at it in different ways. However, the arguments I've heard from psionics fans about why it must be so different all seem to fall back to the "I'm special-er".

    If you think about it, though, psionics isn't the only idea relegated to the flavor doghouse. Plenty of 3e prestige classes were greeted with similar reactions, but didn't have the history of psionics.

  10. #80
    My hat of psi know no limits. But monk gets a pretty close second.

    Both are a flavor mismatch for me, and psionics gets a double mechanical mismatch.

+ Log in or register to post
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Take Two: Testing The Correlation Between Class Preference And 4E Love/Hate
    By thecasualoblivion in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: Wednesday, 19th November, 2008, 03:12 PM
  2. Testing The Correlation Between Class Preference And 4E Love/Hate
    By firesnakearies in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: Tuesday, 18th November, 2008, 03:33 PM
  3. I hate cross class skills....
    By Aussiegamer in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Wednesday, 4th July, 2007, 01:44 AM
  4. Don't hate the playa, hate the game
    By Quasqueton in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: Tuesday, 19th April, 2005, 12:31 AM
  5. Which Class do you hate/dislike ?
    By Rashak Mani in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: Monday, 8th July, 2002, 04:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •