Which class do you hate the most?

[Vyvyan Basterd]

"Assassin, huh? What do you do?"

"I kill people for money."

"Oh, you mean just like all the other guys in your party?"



I do like the 4E version, but I think it could have used a better name.

 

[KesselZero]

I chose Warlock, because I really don't like my mechanical choices to have flavor forced upon 'em. I'd love to be able to play an arcane blaster who's not a cool, edgy demon-worshipper.

 

[CleverNickName]

I voted Warlord...but Psion was a (very) close second. I hate them both equally, you see, but when I tell the players that I do not allow them in my games, I get a nod of understanding about the Psion, and an argument over the Warlord.

 

[paladinm]

Warlord first.. it's totally unnecessary if "roles" aren't emphasized. The 4e Sorceror, because it's unnecessary if there's no Vancian magic for the Wizard (but I liked the 3.x Sorceror a Lot). Most of the classes in 4e that were thrown in for role's sake.

 

[Mattachine]

I picked cleric, since they are a weird mix of historical knights and magic that had no literary/film roots. They are a game mechanic creation that I can't stand.

 

[nightwalker450]

I picked fighter, since it is nothing more than generic man with weapon. At least in 4th, it was broken up a bit by being strong man with weapon, archers were at least better served by going ranger... Though ranger would have be next on my list, that it encompasses both archers, and why does ranger mean 2 weapons?!...

Ok, good place for class rant.

 

[Nebten]

I don't hate any of the classes listed, but I don't get why people insist on putting Illusionist as its separate class. It is an example of a specialist.

The classes I do hate come from 4th edition's PHB 3.

 

[grimslade]

I picked the Illusionist. It was a too focused class that had wide open spells that did only 60% damage. The beguiler was a much more complete class by adding in enchantment, it also makes a good match for bard. It just never made a different enough class than a lesser wizard.
I will defend the paladin/ warlord. The paladin started off as a very tightly differentiated class with unique mechanics and a strict code of conduct. The class has become more forgiving but more generic as a result with little to differentiate it from a martial minded cleric. The warlord, cannotations of its name besides, fills a similar niche of the cleric, buffer and healer. These can be great classes but they need to be more clearly defined. Paladins being champions of a virtue and gaining some of that specialness is a good start. But both the warlord and paladin should make members of the group better. They shouldn't just buff, they should make the other PCs shine at their role. Hopefully, 5E will give these classes the tools to bring them out and maybe a name change for warlord. Commander? Bah.
The psion and psionics would be a better fit if the psionics system is in place from the start. How do they make the psion something more than the psychic wizard? If they answer that they need to be in the core, if not the class should be splat optioned.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Definitely voted Psion. In a game with wizards throwing down fireballs or lightning bolts, reading minds, using telekinesis, and a myriad other psionic things, they felt very redundant. Heck, in almost every edition that they exist (save 4E, which actually gave them identity and unique powers), most of their abilities were straight up conversions of wizard powers.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I picked the Assassin, a class whose concept is contrary to the idea of roleplaying with a group.

Runners-up are the Paladin for being forced to impose his mind-set to the other characters and the pre-3e cleric for being handed an awesome collection of toys but being forced to play with adhesive tape most of the time.