What's your least favorite 3.5 class?

[Epametheus]

Monk.

 

[Crothian]

Monk. Monks do not seem to ever be effective in any campaign I have been in. They either do too little damage to be effective, get too far away from the party to be protected or get too up and mighty on their Flurry of Blows to actually hit. Monks also have no flavor to them. It seems that people who play them play the same Lawful-Neutral characters every time who follow some unknown code.

Sounds more like you've never had someone play a monk who knows how to play a monk......

 

[Azazyll]

the paladin better fits the holy warrior than the chivalric knight. likewise, it has issues with being to steeped in modern fantasy culture. it's almost as specialized as the monk (which I would have put down if I had even remembered they were in the core rules, a fact I try to forget since they completely negate a fundamental section of medieval society, the monastery, and make it impossible to reasonably incorporate it into a "all class friendly" campaign).

On the other hand, the only class I have absolutely no interest in playing and have never understood why anyone would is the rogue. I know there are a lot of rogue fans out there, I just don't understand it myself. The whole point of D&D is magic, that's why I play a fantasy game. At least a fighter gets some feats to make up for it, and his magic sword an armor are flashy too. but rogues? as someone once said in second edition, after low levels, there's nothing a rogue can do the the rest of the party can't do better without them. they become flavor.

 

[MerricB]

Sounds more like you've never had someone play a monk who knows how to play a monk......

It might well be the most challenging class to play.

Cheers!

 

[ph34r]

I never really cared for the Paladin very much. I played one once but it wasn't that great. The whole trying to keep to the strict code sort of slowed things down for me.

 

[astralpwka]

I went to vote, and realized I didn't have a least favorite class. Then I made myself, and decided on cleric. I've never wanted to play a cleric because I'm not into the religious commitment. Once I almost made myself, but talked myself out of it.

 

[S'mon]

Bard - at least the Monk concept is cool even if the implementation is iffy. The D&D Bard is horribly uncool (at least since 2e - 1e Bards were closer to their Druidic roots, and kinda nifty). 'Wandering minstrel' just doesn't cut it for me as an heroic character concept. Not that there aren't cool bard archetypes - Orpheus, say - but I don't see them in the D&D version, it's more Alan a'Dale in green tights.

 

[Crass]

Had to go with bard. I don't think it's an awful class, nor do I believe it should be banned. I just have no interest in them on a personal level.

(And I, for the record, love paladins, love that they're a core class, and love that they still have the LG alignment restriction. I like the fact that D&D still has at least a few nods toward the chivalric heroes of myth. I don't know if I'd say they're my favorite--I don't think I have a single favorite, which is why I haven't answered this poll's opposite--but they're definitely up there.)

Hear, hear! to bards - and for the same reasons. Poor gnomes, I don't think I'll ever play my favourite demihuman species whilst they are lumbered with bard as favoured class. (Quick question: when the powers that be decided to change their favoured class, why didn't they make druid or ranger their favoured class, as they are depicted as a very outdoors-ey type?)

Second least - sorceror. The lazy (or less imaginative) man's mage, in every campaign I've played in where they have featured.

Favourite class would be straight fighter.

 

[johnsemlak]

Monk. I've always thought it's out of place in my campaigns. I generally don't allow them or encourage them.

 

[Trickstergod]

Monks. Simple as that. They stick out like a sore thumb in an assumed psuedo-European game setting; plate mail, long swords, elves, dwarves and...sai-wielding, karate-chopping monks?

It may not be so bad were they restricted just to the core rule books, which are supposed to be generic, but because they've also become an assumed standard, they now pop up far too regularly in far too many places where they shouldn't, in my opinion. From the Forgotten Realms to Darksun to the Scarred Lands and more, while there may be places where monks exist, they've all too often become a standard sight in places where they shouldn't. To my mind.

So, yeah - against the monk to no end.

The whole point of D&D is magic, that's why I play a fantasy game.

That may be why you play a fantasy game, but that doesn't mean that the whole point of D&D is magic. Considering the Tolkien influences, arguably the rogue is the quintessential D&D character class - it certainly fits the burglar better than anything else.

Whether at higher levels the rogue becomes non-essential, that's another story altogether, but I hardly find the whole point of D&D is magic (despite the fact that 3rd edition seemed to heavily draw it towards the center; ugh).