What's your least favorite 3.5 class?

[Setanta]

My how the ranger has come along. The favoured whipping-class of 3.0 is currently the only class in the poll without a single vote. Kudos to WotC on that one.

I voted Monk, partly because they don't fit (as others have mentioned), and partly because they're weaksauce. People end up taking the things and then complaining that they're useless. I'd rather not hear it, and I get tired of telling players how lame monks are before they pick the class, so I just banned them. If they fit better, I'd maybe take the time to try to balance them for my game, but in this case, two strikes and they're out.

 

[Meeki]

I think all the classes are alright. Except for alignment restrictions you can pretty much diversify any class one way or the next.

I think there's a really good reason why we started living in cities, namely the fact that living surrounded by nature in all its glory without the comforts of civilization to buffer you from it totally sucks ass.

wow..... that just sounds ignorant... I hope you dont really think thats why cities developed...

 

[jerichothebard]

I voted druid - although they have cool abilities and a nice spell list, I just find them difficult to fathom - they seem redundant in a world with nature gods. (I also think the same about clerics of magic gods...)


jtb

 

[Wombat]

I've never been fond of the monk, in any of its incarnations. Never fit into any of my campaigns conceptually.

So why would 3.5 be any different from any of the other editions that way?

 

[The_Gneech]

On the uselessness of monks:

In my game, there's an NPC monk/cleric who was unable to do much of anything in 3.0 other than act as a roving cure light wounds-bot. The game ended at 8th level, where he was something like monk 5/cleric 3, and never was any real use in a fight.

We recently rebooted the game in 3.5 at 4th level, where he is monk 3/cleric 1, and suddenly he's kicking butt! Armed with masterwork nunchaku and bracers of armor, he tumbles from one end of the field to the other, manages to hit more often than he misses (a big change) and actually to do damage when he hits (another big change).

I'd say without reservation that he's much more effective as a monk 3/cleric 1 in 3.5 than he was as a monk 5/cleric 3 in 3.0, and I'm looking forward to watching him bloom as the game goes on.

So don't write off the 3.5 monk quite so easily.

-The Gneech

 

[Goblyn]

Wizard

I voted Wizard because I hate the spell memorizing-into-slot system. Never have I seen it used in books, movies, comics, or anything until I finlly heard about the Jack Vance stories recently. Sometimes I would like to be able to play a spellcaster who is NOT a rote-learner.

Druids are a close second, not because of the class, but because of the implied (likely)personality: antisocial loner. This type grates against the idea of a group of PCs on a quest together(or some such). There's only so many times you can be the 'lone wolf ho is forced to work with those he dislikes and disovers the value of friendship' before it gets old. This argument stands somewhat for the ranger, monk, and paladin.
...
Hmm... Maybe a class-based system isn't the best for me

 

[Ao the Overkitty]

I've got to say wizard. They're okay when I'm dming, because they just have a static spell list, but as a PC, I find spellbook upkeep and daily creation of spell lists to be a chore. I generally just find a list of spells I know work in any situation and stick with them. If I'm going to play a spellcaster, I'm just better off with a spontaneous caster. Just my style.

 

[Psion]

"What is the Bard", Alex.

Not that I think the bard doesn't fit or is useless.

Rather, because the bard is so bleedingly NARROW. It's a celtic spellsinger. Any other cultural bias (and yes, D&D accomodates more than just western europe), and the bard begins to look funny.

But the thing is, it doesn't have to. There are chanters and oral lore-keepers in a variety of cultures; the bard as a class just lacks the built in design flexibility to emulate these. Anyone could make the bard more flexible, but only a few have tried (FFG is my shining star, here). Some who have tweaked the bard have made it even MORE the celtic spellsinger.

 

[pdkoning]

But the thing is, it doesn't have to. There are chanters and oral lore-keepers in a variety of cultures; the bard as a class just lacks the built in design flexibility to emulate these. Anyone could make the bard more flexible, but only a few have tried (FFG is my shining star, here). Some who have tweaked the bard have made it even MORE the celtic spellsinger.

I voted monk, like others said, they do not fit in an midieval-Europe based setting. They do not fit in Middle-Earth or Narnia either.

I see a lot of people who voted the bard. In my opinion the bard is just the coolest class. The 'jack of all trades, master of none' thingie applies, but I can live with it. The bard is so much more than the minstrel / celtic spellsinger. I play a bard, now level 7, and he leads our party to battle blowing his horn - no lute or harp. He is the diplomat and settles many problems without need to fight. He keeps the party together by having a good relationship with all party members. He is not really a loremaster, but a story teller. Everytime he visits a inn, het sits around the fire and tells stories, many listen to him. He is also a decent archer. Because the guy who played a cleric left the party, and there are no other divine spellcasters, he also takes the role of healer.
Other party members consider my bard a most valuable party member.

 

[Setanta]

Originally posted by Psion
There are chanters and oral lore-keepers in a variety of cultures; the bard as a class just lacks the built in design flexibility to emulate these. Anyone could make the bard more flexible, but only a few have tried (FFG is my shining star, here).

What product would that be? I agree that the base bard lacks flexibility. If there's a product that helps, I'd love to see it.

Originally posted by The_Gneech
So don't write off the 3.5 monk quite so easily.

Interesting. I read the 3.5 version and saw more flexibility, but no more strength. I'll have to try throwing some at my PC's again in the campaign where I still allow them.