Which Class do you hate/dislike ?

[jollyninja]

ok, correct me if i am wrong but wasn't the 1e bard (as far as the rules for creating one anyway) basically a 3e milticlassed fighter, rogue, druid? what's to convert? x levels of fighter (the 5-7 might be a little high for 3e) , x levels of rogue, druid the rest of the way. done, next conversion....next conversion.

i voted bard based on how it is written in the PH, not how i have altered it to not be stupid. yes, historical bards were nothing like their limp dnd counterparts except for some superficial similarities but i was not voting against the historical bard as a character concept. i was voting agianst the PH described useless piece of crap that has no place in a party. class lite? BAH! if i want a healer warrior, i'll multiclass fighter and cleric, if i want spontanious casting of enchantment spells and some fighting ability, i'll multiclass. i guess basically what i am saying is that every time i am considering a bard, i realise that i can get what i want more acurately through milticlassing.

i also hate sorceror, but must admit that i have used it on occasion when the idea of a spellbook did not feel right for my character.

 

[Irysangel]

I voted for Rangers, just because you can't throw a stone without smacking 4 rangers in the back of the head. They're waaaay too common.


But now that I think about it, I hate monks. Y'all are right--the majority of people that play monks that I've ran into (and I say MAJORITY, not all) are twinks.

The last campaign I was in I got up and left because we were introduced to the 'monk' PC that we happened to run into in the woods.

Me (thief): "I'm Isabella, what's your name?"

Him: "I have no name....but you may call me... (insert dramatic music) THE SEEKER!"

Me: "Beg yer pardon?"

Him: "I am the Seeker! I am on a quest, and have foresworn my identity until I resolve it!"

Me: "Er, okay, well, what are you seeking?"

Him: "I cannot tell you, spiteful woman. It is a secret known only to my brethern!"

Me: "Greaaaaat......oh gee, look at the time."

Later I found out the 'Seeker' basically ran through every town and slaughtered those that 'mocked' him for his stupid name (which was just about everyone...I think the DM was irritated too .

 

[SableWyvern]

Jollyninja: In 1E, when the character took the druid class, he didn't actually gain any druid class abilities. He gained the specific bard abilities, hitdice, spells etc...

"Taking the druid class" was really just a poorly phrased way of stating that, as a final step to reaching bardhood, the character underwent tutelage from druids.

 

[jollyninja]

ah, it's been awhile since i saw any 1e stuff. by all means, convert away.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

The cleric is a _crusader_ at heart. It's basically the Knights Templar, or Teutonic Knights, or Knights of St John. It's the Church Militant.

The Hospitalers, Templars, and Teutonic Knights are specifically medieval Christian orders associated with the Crusades. I am unconvinced that this is the heart of the cleric class, for three main reasons:

First of all, that's what the paladin is. The paladin represents the medieval knight after the church began to sanction the knight as a divine vocation, rather than just another vassal warrior that a king could conscript into military service. Historically, the crusaders that you refer to are just a more specific evolution of this type of knight.

Secondly, look up the word "cleric." You will not find any reference to warfare. That's because a cleric is basically a priestly figure. They practice religious "magic," i.e., by calling upon the power of the divine through prayer and ritual. In some cultures, priestly figures such as Christian priests, Native American medicine men, etc. have been thought to have the power to cast out evil spirits. Hence, the ability to turn undead.

Thirdly, the medieval crusader types have been incorporated into D&D as prestige classes. That's because they are in fact a more narrow type of archetype that is related to but different from the broader and more universal archetype of the cleric.

Finally, you should be aware that the term "church militant" or ecclesia militans, in Christian theology, has nothing to do with military. It refers to the understanding that in the present age the faithful are regarded as being engaged in a metaphorical battle with evil.

I realize that nobody really cares about this stuff. And I don't really think we necessarily should be. I just think we should be aware that the archetype is not in fact accurately reflected in the cleric class.

 

[Nightfall]

This is why I'm glad I'm a part time Herald. I'm just an outsider.

 

[hong]

The Hospitalers, Templars, and Teutonic Knights are specifically medieval Christian orders associated with the Crusades. I am unconvinced that this is the heart of the cleric class, for three main reasons:

First of all, that's what the paladin is. The paladin represents the medieval knight after the church began to sanction the knight as a divine vocation, rather than just another vassal warrior that a king could conscript into military service. Historically, the crusaders that you refer to are just a more specific evolution of this type of knight.

The cleric has been around longer than the paladin has. In all incarnations of D&D, the cleric has always been based on the "holy warrior" or crusading template. This was even made explicit in the 1E and 2E rules, which used the historical crusading orders as examples of clerics. 2E also introduced the concept of generic "priest", which basically codified what a lot of people were already doing -- ie, using the cleric as a priest out of lack of any suitable alternative. However, the actual treatment of the priest was half-assed, to say the least.

What _has_ happened is that the roles of the cleric and paladin have converged over 25+ years of D&D evolution, so that people now think of paladins as being generic holy warriors. Among other things, this leads to questions like "why can't you have chaotic or evil paladins?" However, carrying on about topic this would be boring, like I said before.

Secondly, look up the word "cleric." You will not find any reference to warfare.

What relevance does this have to D&D? Whatever "cleric" may mean in real life, in D&D it's just a word, used as a label for a particular class. You could call the class "foobar" and nothing would be changed.

That's because a cleric is basically a priestly figure. They practice religious "magic," i.e., by calling upon the power of the divine through prayer and ritual. In some cultures, priestly figures such as Christian priests, Native American medicine men, etc. have been thought to have the power to cast out evil spirits. Hence, the ability to turn undead.

The turn undead ability is derived directly from old horror movies where priests use holy symbols to keep vampires at bay. It has precious little to do with calling or mediating with spirits.

Thirdly, the medieval crusader types have been incorporated into D&D as prestige classes.

Thus illustrating that some splatbook authors don't really know what they're doing.

If you REALLY want a generic priest, there have been six million alt.priests floated. I have one on my web page. There are more on the House Rules board.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

The cleric has been around longer than the paladin has. In all incarnations of D&D, the cleric has always been based on the "holy warrior" or crusading template. This was even made explicit in the 1E and 2E rules, which used the historical crusading orders as examples of clerics. . . . [chopped]

Whatever "cleric" may mean in real life, in D&D it's just a word, used as a label for a particular class. You could call the class "foobar" and nothing would be changed.

Your comments are interesting, but I must point out that my criticism of the cleric class is that it is archetypally askew. My personal presupposition is that it is important to have classes based on some classical mythological motif. You COULD make up a class called "foobar", but it would be silly, IMHO, because it would correspond to nothing in history or mythology. THAT, in essence is my critique of the cleric.

The 1E or 2E pedigree of the cleric class is completely irrelevant in regard to my argument. Regardless of how true the 3E cleric is to the original D&D, it is still archetypally inauthentic.

 

[hong]

Your comments are interesting, but I must point out that my criticism of the cleric class is that it is archetypally askew. My personal presupposition is that it is important to have classes based on some classical mythological motif.

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.

You COULD make up a class called "foobar", but it would be silly, IMHO, because it would correspond to nothing in history or mythology. THAT, in essence is my critique of the cleric.

Um, right. So what you're saying is that you object to the cleric because it has a bad name.

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.

The 1E or 2E pedigree of the cleric class is completely irrelevant in regard to my argument. Regardless of how true the 3E cleric is to the original D&D, it is still archetypally inauthentic.

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.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

I hate playing clerics and druids. Oh yeah, wizards and sorcerers bore me too. And rogues, paladins and barbarians. I hate playing bards and rangers, as well. They got the shaft, ya know? Oh, and who could ever forget those boring monks and fighters.

Oh wait, that's all of them...

I guess that's why I DM.