Which Class do you hate/dislike ?

[Chimera]

*sigh*

More of the "What are Monks doing in Medeival Europe?" line of logic.

FR isn't Europe, and neither is my own campaign world.

My feeling is that if you are asking this question, you are asking the wrong question and making the wrong assumptions.

 

[Skarp Hedin]

You should be able to find good Bard stuff in the Mabinogion, the Tain bo Cuailgne (only a tiny bit, but still), and the tales of Finn mac Cumaill (Finn McCool). Especially the salmon of wisdom story.

Bards were performers, but their main role was as lorekeepers and teachers -- it's easier in a non-literate society to do that via stories, songs, and performances in general. Bards also performed legal functions as well, as they would be expected to be familiar with the legal code (Brehon law in Ireland). This has similarities in medieval Iceland, where the Lawspeaker was expected to memorize the legal code (gragas) and then recite it publically at the Althing in three parts, one part per year (hence the Lawspeaker's three-year term of office -- when he was done speaking the law, time for a new election). The main similarity here is the theme of law-as-performance.

Now, bards like -that-, which is more in line with the first edition bard (often ascribed magical powers in stories, esp. the salmon of wisdom), as well as their connection with religion (being interconnected with the legal and societal codes of the time), and knowledge.. that's okay. Bards as Brave-Sir-Robin types make me want to bludgeon them to death with a lute, and the roguish aspects also I don't like.

As for sorcerers/wizards: I don't like spontaneous casting. In fact, the entire entry for the sorcerer class in the Player's Handbook annoyed me, with the dragon blood allusions, etc. I think using Charisma is excellent for the class, but I still don't like spontaneous casting. Note that bards also cast spontaneously.

Oh yeah, and Hennet's a total goober. I don't care for the iconic characters at all in general (no offense to those who like them, of course, de gustibus non disputandum est) but Hennet made my teeth hurt. Devis too, come to think.

 

[Sigma]

Barbarians are dull, one-trick ponies in the hands of most players. Yuck.

 

[Kraedin]

Well, no classes scream "I should be a PrC, not a core class!" like the Paladin and Bard, and I'd like the barbarian better if they called it a berserk and gave it literacy.

 

[rounser]

From what I gather, they tried the paladin as a prestige class under playtesting, and the playtesters responded that it "didn't feel D&D enough" with the paladin as a prestige class - thus the reversion to class.

This is a good example of why the "can't take at 1st level" aspect of prestige classes makes them inappropriate for some tasks, IMO - the paladin isn't the only kind of role that you don't want to wait until level X to become.

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

I happen to like all of them . No vote from me...

-Zarrock

 

[Rashak Mani]

Bard 1E would be similar to a prestige class nowdays in 3E it was pretty powerful mix of classes.

Sorry about mixing Wizards and Sorcerors... only 10 slots for options...

 

[Xarlen]

I'd have to go with Sorcerors. But I'm not going to vote, because that would take down for Wizards.

I like the Concept of the sorceror, don't get me wrong. I'm just not big on how they're done in the rules.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It is barbarians that I dislike as a class. I think they are a social group which may have various classes amongst them - which is what I did for my campaign!

The ranger as a concept is good (it used to be great before they ditched his arcane magic!) but the implementation is sadly lacking.

I would have preferred Paladins as a prestige class, to give them more focus - and something that had to be earned.

 

[hong]

My feeling is that if you are asking this question, you are asking the wrong question and making the wrong assumptions.

My feeling is that you are in the wrong thread.