Which Class do you hate/dislike ?

[Uller]

Bards. I despise the implementation of the Druid and Ranger classes, but the very idea of the Bard is ridiculous to me. (However, I did like the 1E bard, not that anybody actually got that far in any games I played!)

Yeah...it seems to me that Bard should be a prestige class(needing traits of Fighters, Wizards and Clerics). A 1st level bard makes no sense. One cannot be a bard without skads of life experience, IMO.

However, I don't mind the _class_, rules wise. I can(and have) make an effective bard. You just have to focus on some of the many things bards can be good at. They especially make a great way to achieve the Arcane Archer PrC.

 

[rounser]

the very idea of the Bard is ridiculous to me.

I'm not surprised - most people haven't read the stories which mythological bards are based around, and assume that they're simply adventuring minstrels. Even some game designers, it seems.

 

[Quickbeam]

Bards as formulated under 3E rules are an affront to their 1E predecessors. I liked Bards just fine way back in the days of AD&D, but not these nancy wandering Wayne Newtons .

I've also never been a huge fan of wizards, but like BWGWL I'm fine with sorcerors.

 

[Nightfall]

3.) Druids ~ NOT because they don't fit in with the "D&D" flavor, but just because I think they got hosed pretty badly in the rules. When I first bought the 3e PHB, I had every intention of playing a druid. Then I read over their spell list, comparing it to the cleric's. All I can say is, if you're into shapechanging, then it's a cool class, but otherwise, it does them NO justice.

In theme, druids are probably the coolest class of all.

Course the Incarnate fixed that a litttle. I do hope to see what R&R2 does to make druids seem a little more...well powerful.

Myself Monks. I don't like guys being able to throw that powerful of a punch. Much rather THEY were a prestige class.

 

[drothgery]

I hate Monks. I got no use for 'em. No, sir...

I'm surprised that the Ranger is fairing so well. Solidly less hated than Monks and Bards and even fairing better than Paladins and Druids. For all the ranting and raving about how Rangers are broken, shafted, spindled and mutilated, they seem(so far) no all that hated...I'm glad because I like rangers!

Nobody really dislikes the idea of rangers -- I'm playing a Ranger/Rogue myself -- it's just the implementation has some problems. Whereas I really don't like the ideas of barbarians, monks, or druids.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Rounser, could you elaborate on these stories you referred to? I had the same idea, but I cannot recall any specific stories.

 

[rounser]

I hope 4E bumps up Druidic healing, such that they're as good as or even better at it than clerics - it fits their themes of nature and growth (and what's more natural than healing?) more than those tin can tanks with holy symbols, IMO.

And it's not as if another capable healing class would hurt the game, what with all the bribes and porkbarreling the designers put in to make people want to play clerics so that someone plays the healer, ever since they were first introduced into D&D - let alone their 3E incarnation...

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

I voted for Paladin. Great concept, usually played very poorly.

 

[rounser]

Rounser, could you elaborate on these stories you referred to? I had the same idea, but I cannot recall any specific stories.

While doing research for a Moonshae campaign online, there were a some stories that I read while looking for material related to the Malbinogion (sp.?) and celtic myths in general that drastically changed my (D&D inspired) idea of what bards were.

I remember the way they are depicted as being more like illuminati lorekeepers with special powers and boatloads of respect, rather than rock star jack-of-all-trades with lute bayonets (sorry Devis).

 

[Tzarevitch]

While I LIKE monks, the don't belong in the PHB. I think 2e got that part right. They belong in OA and there they should stay.

Barbarians however are the class that makes no sense. It is ineptly named for starters. This class represents a Viking berserker, it is not a barbarian. Why did they feel the need to create a class who exists to run quicker, be illiterate and continually pissed off, all with a d12 hit die? All I can think of is that it is someone's attempt to revisit 1e. Who says to this mother, "Mom I want to grow up to be a barbarian."?

Honestly, you can break the barbarian's few special abilities down into a set of feats and let people take them as part of the fighter feat package.

Feat List: (New Feats)
Increased Speed (+10 to movement (only works with light armor but can take tit multiple times)),

Rage (Allows character to enter a berserker frenzy),

Uncanny Dodge (or whatever that ability is that allows the barbarian to avoid being flanked.)

Voila! No need for a 1e class that should've stayed dead after 2e. To make the feats restricted to to certain characters, simply set as prerequisites a certain number of ranks of wilderness lore or a certain dex or a certain base attack bonus.

Ranger and Paladin are fundamentally different enough from a fighter that they warrant separate classes. Barbarian however is simply a fighter with a bigger die and a specific feat set. It doesn't need to be a separate class.

Tzarevitch