Which class do you hate the most?

[Someone]

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.

Same goes for me. Cleric is IMO the most gamist creation introduced into D&D. Also guilty of the division between sources of magic, which is something I've not seen in any fiction work I remember, and makes any adaptation doubly difficult.

 

[Lwaxy]

Basic fighter for me. Too generic a use of somethting everyone else does.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I voted Warlock. I hated their 3rd Edition incarnation (either they walked an encounter, or were useless.. or maybe that was just the player in question), and I wasn't struck by the 4th Edition pact business (too much crossover with the sorceror in my mind).

 

[Ratskinner]

This was a tough poll. Soo many bad classes. Most of them, though, only for their design problems.

I voted Psionicist, merely because I think it makes more sense as a kind of wizardry in a D&D world. The idea that it was a totally different type of thing than magic always rubbed me the wrong way. Its also a class the seems to attract "problem players", IME.

That's not to say the Psionicist didn't have competition:

Monk - is he a fighter? a rogue? a totally different animal? Whatever he is, he's been kind of an oddball in DnD just because Kung Fu (awesome show) was on TV back in the day. That might be okay, but the monk almost always seems to be "held back" by a slow progression of abilities.

Sorcerer - much like the psionicist...I'm a wizard, but different! But not different! At least the sorcerer isn't trying to use the word "molecular" in a world where the 4 classical elements actually turn out to be "things."

Fighter - whose only problem is that he is overbroad, non-distinct, and/or underpowered in almost all versions of this game. Don't believe me? Try playing in a BECM campaign with three Fighter PCs.

Wizard - What?! Yes, really. Wizard was actually my second choice. Its always been a train-wreck of a way-too-broad and easy-to-get-out-of-hand class. It seems like its really hard to get a class right when its only description is "I do magic." Partially a victim of the endlessly increasing list of ever mightier magic, this class needs to be fixed somehow. Just think of the number of threads you've pointlessly argued in because of this class.

Of course, all these problems vary in severity from edition to edition.

 

[Mengu]

Not so much hate, but the one I like the least is psion, but it was a tough call. I just didn't like the mechanics of the psion in any edition, despite the fact that in general I would prefer a spell point system over spell memorization.

Wizard just never feels like a wizard from the works of fiction I like. The system hasn't even been able to emulate iconic wizards from the D&D universes, such as Elminster and Raistlin all that well.

I also have a difficult time with dark heroes, such as Warlock, Assassin, Blackguard and the like. I can see the occasional campaign/DM/Player combination that's able to make it work very well. But I rarely see any effort put in to explain why a Paladin of Bahamut and a Cleric of Pelor are hanging out with a Drow Assassin and a Revenant Dark Pact Warlock.

 

[thedungeondelver]

I said "druid" but I missed "Psion/Psionicist" on the list. My god, you want to talk about something that has no business in D&D...psionics. Yuck. Yuck yuck yuck.

 

[kitsune9]

I never played a bard. Don't think I will.....ever.....

 

[dangerous jack]

I don't "hate" any of them. But the one that I voted for is Ranger, because I think that considering how popular they are, they need some work to carve out a distinct space.

Is he:
* a light armoured two-weapon fighter
* a really good bow fighter
* a fighter/rogue/druid

2e/3e has favoured enemy - which was either overly awesome or terrible depending on your DM's monster choice
4e has hunter's quarry - which is bonus damage against the guy you're attacking... I personally think this is pretty boring and that the avenger's oath is far more evocative

I'd love it if there was something unique and interesting that really defines them... but I don't have the faintest idea of what that might be.

 

[mkill]

I hate economy class. Horrible microwave food, bitchy flight attendants, no space, and sometimes not even your own entertainment system! Give me a break!

Oh, we're talking D&D? None really. Why waste time hating something when I can just pick a different class?

That said, I have a special dislike for the classic mace-bashing, undead-turning Cleric. That's mainly because the class represents a horrible mismatch between all the complex and interesting fantasy pantheons in D&D worlds and this weird pseudo-Christian Vampire hunter-crusader archetype that no new edition managed to clean up even though we now have the Paladin as the better alternative.

The Complete Priest's Handbook did make a reasonable attempt to clear up the mess but then 3E completely ignored that.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I voted Warlock. I hated their 3rd Edition incarnation (either they walked an encounter, or were useless.. or maybe that was just the player in question), and I wasn't struck by the 4th Edition pact business (too much crossover with the sorceror in my mind).

never liked the 3E warlock, either. My campaign was focused around 1 big encounter per day, so a guy that could blast away all day long wasn't very good if his average damage was pretty low.

If I ran a game that had 4-5-6 encounters per day, the warlock would have been good because he can still fire away effectively at the end of encounter 6 where the standard wizard, cleric and psion are all out of spells and power points.

However, I picked the illusionist. Too specialized, and illusions are often hard to adjudicate effectively in game for a lot of DMs.