Which Class do you hate/dislike ?

[candidus_cogitens]

D&D draws on many sources, not just mythological ones. And besides, if you want a generic priest, there are plenty of those floating around -- in fact, there's one right in the DMG. It's just called an adept, not a priest, but that shouldn't matter.
.........
The class name is a LABEL, nothing more. You can call it whatever you like. Change the name to "crusader" if you think it will help you make sense of it.
.........
It's only archetypally inauthentic because you have a skewed idea of what it should be authentic towards. You're coming in late to the party.

As I said in my previous post, my criticism is based on the presupposition that a class should have a broad archetypal grounding. You seem to want to argue with my presupposition. I would ask you to just respect my preference for archetypal authenticity. If my personal preference means that I'm not part of your "party," then so be it.

If my idea of authenticity is skewed, it is skewed by my educated understanding of religion, history, and psychology. My perspective is that images, symbols, and myths are grounded deep in the collective unconscious. They are not arbitrary. One doesn't just make them up from scratch. Any creative expression (such as the creation of a fantasy character) taps into those archetypal wells, whether deeply or only superficially. For example, some have been objecting that monks don't belong in D&D because they seem to disrupt the imaginitive world that they prefer (one based on medieval Europe). By the same token, many of us would find it disruptive if a player wanted to have his character construct a nuclear bomb, or a submarine. The reason is because the images do not cohere, and as a result, the composite image fails to tap the archetypal wells very deeply.

Everything about the image influences how authentically it represents an archetype. The weapons a character uses, the skills, the other abilities, the character's appearance and race, AND the "label" that we give to it. Labels are as important as anything else, in that they can either help to maintain or help to disrupt the image that we want to create.

That's my perspective. The cleric class may be fine and dandy for those whose perspectives differ from mine. I have no problem with that. I'm just saying that it has problems if you're interested in historical and archetypal verisimilitude.

 

[hong]

As I said in my previous post, my criticism is based on the presupposition that a class should have a broad archetypal grounding. You seem to want to argue with my presupposition.

No, I'm arguing with your idea of what the cleric is _supposed to be_. Your position is tantamount to saying that the fighter doesn't make a good wizard. OF COURSE it doesn't make a good wizard, because it isn't meant to be one. Similarly, OF COURSE the cleric doesn't make a good generic priest, because it isn't meant to be one.

By the same token, many of us would find it disruptive if a player wanted to have his character construct a nuclear bomb, or a submarine. The reason is because the images do not cohere, and as a result, the composite image fails to tap the archetypal wells very deeply.

Your hype well is overflowing. Last I checked, the cleric class didn't have anything like a nuclear bomb, or a submarine. It does have storm of vengeance, and you _could_ argue over whether that's an appropriate spell for the class to have. But that's something else entirely (and in fact, SoV is pathetically feeble compared to even a small-sized nuke).

Everything about the image influences how authentically it represents an archetype. The weapons a character uses, the skills, the other abilities, the character's appearance and race, AND the "label" that we give to it. Labels are as important as anything else, in that they can either help to maintain or help to disrupt the image that we want to create.

You might have a point if the cleric class was called something like "god guy" or "heebie jeebie man", but it's not. Furthermore, the name "cleric" itself has 25 years of D&D tradition behind it, as I've pointed out already.

 

[Hammerhead]

I hate monks. Not because they don't fit the game, but because they have problems with effectiveness. All too often, they suck. The rogue in my group attacks at higher values, and isn't far behind on damage even without sneak attacks. Granted, the monk will probably catch up a bit next level when he gets d20 damage, but since the rogue will almost always sneak attack, his actual combat effectiveness would be far worse.

I've been surprised by the effectiveness of my bard, even though I didn't design her for combat effectiveness. Also, the bard seems work well for swashbuckling characters. Take perform: witty comments and insults.

 

[rankarrog]

As a DM I hate fighters: In comparison to them, every other class sucks in combat, but outside combat fighters suck. No thats wrong. They don't suck because they can't even try to suck: They have absolutely no noncomabt-abilties and their usual 1-Skill-point/level makes them pretty useless outside of combat(I seldomly see fighters having a higher intelligence than 8 or 9).

If I center the game on combat, everyone will be partwise happy, cause everyone can at least try to do something in combat.

If I don't use combat in an adventure everyone will be partwise happy, because everyone has some skills or spells which help outside combat, oops I forgot the Fighter: Besides intimidate he's useless or has at least to work without skills as a backup.

I like Conan, Ffjard, the Grey Mouser or other fighters in fiction, but in 3e Fighters became more "Showfighters" than every thing else ("Look what cool new combat-tricks I've mastered!").

The babarian itself is not wrong, fo me, but the name just sucks. Berserk or such would have been fine but the name Babarian is more an ethnical background than a name for a class. Babarian implies some kind of "savage ,not well educated people which live in the wilderness...", so the question is: Are all babrians Babarians? or better: Is everyone in a tribe of savage ,not well educated people a d12-Hit-die-Monster with the ability to rage...

 

[Rashak Mani]

You hate fighter as a DM... but as a player its not "hated"... and skill wise its not impossible to make the fighter useful.

 

[Mok]

I hate them all.

Onward...to a classless D&D.

 

[Darkchylde]

I would say also, the Bard. I am constantly reminded of Monty Python and the Holy Grail..."Brave, brave, brave Sir Robin....he bravely ran away...."

 

[JoeGKushner]

Cleric, Druid and Barbarian.

Clerics finally acheived some escape from being walking band aids in 2nd ed with the various specialty priest classes. Some were too powerful or strange but they worked much better than standard cleric. Now we're back to root one with clerics even more than ever supported by the rules to be band aids.

Druids always seemed out of place in most games I've played or GMed. More an NPC class. Useful in some settings and time frames but...

Barbarian. Just hate the whole berserk factor inherient in the barbarian in 3rd ed. Stupid.

 

[estevans_lackey]

pee-yew...a bard!!

Bards stink. I've thought up of a million different personalities for a bard character but some mysterious energy keeps pulling me away.

Frankly, the only setting I can see some unique role-playing with a bard is Planescape. You'd be able to use more modern music as "your songs" like Tom Waits, Pavement, Neil Young and Stereolab to name a few. Magical amplifiers, sonic effects and such.

 

[Genysys]

Hmmm. It seems that an overwhelming percentage hate the monk. I think I agree.
Monks suck.