Character classes you hate

[ImperialSunlight]

Paladins - I have to admit, I have a gripe against Paladins myself, usually how they happen to be portrayed. Good at just about everything, high and mighty, so self-righteous and pious... But usually done wrong. Really, they need to be changed, and better yet, renamed: Call em Crusaders. Fits the theme better as holy warriors, but at the same time, you have more leeway seeing as Crusaders were usually fanatics, and pretty clearly very black-and-white fanatics.

How dares't thou, villain!? My god shall rain down judgement and smite you! ...any minute now...

*Sigh*

Anyway, OT, I don't really like "rangers" or "archers". I find them too cowardly, especially in games where you're meant to be a hero. It's hard to feel like a hero when you're just shooting something from afar. I dislike theives for pretty much the same reason. I also don't like magic classes if you just spam magic projectiles, essentially making them the same as archers only cooler looking and squishier.

 

[D-Soul]

Squisy Wizards as some people calm them

I can't be bashing on a giant f-ing(hate spiders btw) and then play support at the same time

Paladins-even though I don't play the RPG's most escapers do (I'm sorry and I don't mind starting playing D&D or whatever other RPG out there except WOW)
but When I played a Paladin in this F2P MMORPG called Grand Fantasia (Made by Aeria Games) I love how I could be like LEEEEEEERRROOYYYY JJJJJJEEEENNNNKINNNNS and bash on the nearest thing in my sight even though the chance of dying is 70-30 odds on death and the only thing I hated about being one is I could not go against any other class in the game bc they had RANGED attacks and playing a character that's all about bashing things senseless at close range...yeah, not a good idea...

 

[Connor Lonske]

I hate the combat centric classes/tank classes. If your only abilities go to combat then you're basically only useful as a meat shield, which kinda say something about the person playing the character. I don't really play the kinda games where you would deal with multiplayer, so i just hate these kinds of classes in single player RPGs, as they tend to be the "i don't give a fuck let me kill things" option.

 

[Vect]

I generally avoid playing most Warrior classes, or at least classes meant to focus directly on running up to a guy and taking damage. I also don't like playing defensively. I tend to prefer a highly offensive/Glass Cannon approach so I generally prefer Mages/Rogues. However, I won't deny that tanks and healers have their uses in a party. I just don't like playing them myself.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

I think I disliked druids until WoW. In books they were generally passive and boring (wasn't one of the main characters in the Shannara series a druid?) while in games [D2] they were lackluster versions of mages with shapeshifting. I like them in wow however, as the 'nature' version of healers.


Generally I favor defensive play, so I'll opt for a rogue-ish character in any game for the first playthrough. Then I can get a handle on what's good and what's not.

Warrior is the class I stay away from, because there's guaranteed to be a warrior, and it's guaranteed to be the vanilla class. 'Soldier', if we want a more modern term.

 

[Thistlehart]

There are no bad classes. Only bad players.

There are no classes that I "hate". But there are many badly played characters that dislike.

The Lawful-Asshole Paladin.

The Chaotic-Stupid Rogue.

The Neutral-Hungry Druid.

The Judgmental-Neutral Cleric.

The Robin-Good Ranger.

These characters/players suffer when they enter my games.

 

[StylinBones]

I'm probably in the minority, but I hate a thief/rogue. I hate stealth. On the other hand, I love a hacker, which is semi-stealhy...

No you're not the only one, I never bother with it either. Its not that I particularly hate it though I just end up being a guy with heavy armour and a kick ass sword who also has powerful magic (oblivion and skyrim). No matter what I decide to do thats how it ends up.

Haha, it's so much better that way! Kick the doors down and go in guns blazing!

 

[LetalisK]

Bards. And in single player games, having the player character be a spellcaster. Enemies seem to always charge the player character no matter what, so I'm quickly squished. Being the group tank just makes too much sense. Oh, and Monks. A monk being a badass combatant never made sense to me. Call them something else.

 

[Eddie the head]

the monk makes a better fighter than the plate-armoured axe-wielding death machine! That's... just... so... stupid.

No it isn't. Have you ever seen a real plate-armoured axe-wielding human being before?

Besides, monks have supernatural abilities.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with D&D monks. They are very difficult and underpowered early on in levels, unlike the fighter.

Lets not go in real life stuff, because in real life monks are pacifists. For the most part. And anyway knights in the middle ages didn't often die I mean the plate armor was bulletproof at the time. I think Cross bows and maces where the only real way to get past it. So yeah they where like the Tanks of there time.

 

[thirion1850]

Archers/hunters/rangers/bow wielding annoying Legolasses. (ha, lasses) When I imagine a ranger, I imagine Aragorn. Stalking the wilderness, aim, shoot, kill. Survival within an unforgiving natural environment, learning it like the back of their hand out of necessity and will. Not taming tigers and bears because they oh so cute and then doing backflips as you fart out magical arrows and make every fletcher in the land wallow in their misery.

"Pirates" or swashbucklers. Just rubs me the wrong way. Can't place why exactly.

Druids. Especially god damn druids. The way I imagined druids were true mysterious guardians of the natural order. Unfortunately, every other roleplayer I've met didn't see eye to eye with me. Thus this definition was thus soon changed to "cocky-urban-smartass-cunts-that-also-turn-into-cats".

Monks. Every game they are put in they nearly ruin it with their ridiculously stupid gameplay! MOP Kung fu panda monks HOW ORIGINAL! taking out that human in full plate armor with a sword and shield with a stick and a straw hat in no armor? Pffft. Warcraft has become a pixar cartoon.

Warcraft's nowhere near the true awesomeness, wit and parody that was Kung Fu Panda. Also, your realism fails to apply when said human, much like his other 50 human buddies are built so well you could grind cheese on dem abz, with beards so mighty the Norsemen of old wallow in their jealousy. Whilst throwing holy hammer swirls around. Or charging at 200 miles per hour. Or moving around in said plate/robe completely unimpeded by its weight or design stupidity. I wonder when people will finally understand the fallacy of these kinds of complaints. :|

 

[scorptatious]

The closest I've ever played to a paladin would be Cecil from Final Fantasy IV DS. So I don't have too great an idea to what paladins are usually like. If they're anything like Cecil though, (tanks enemies and can also use healing and support spells) they're alright in my book.

I guess if I were to pick a least favorite class it would probably be a pure mage. I don't really feel comfortable with the idea of playing as a squishy fighter who can't defend himself/herself when engaging enemies up close. If I'm going to be using magic, I would like to be able to have some form of weapon to help me defend myself.

 

[Saladfork]

the monk makes a better fighter than the plate-armoured axe-wielding death machine! That's... just... so... stupid.

No it isn't. Have you ever seen a real plate-armoured axe-wielding human being before?

Besides, monks have supernatural abilities.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with D&D monks. They are very difficult and underpowered early on in levels, unlike the fighter.

Have you ever tried to punch one?

If monks have supernatural abilities, why can't they use them with a weapon?

And if for some reason they can't, and monks are still more effective than traditional soldiers, why would anyone even bother using weapons to begin with? Just become a monk, you'll be a better fighter and you won't have to bother paying for and maintaining equipment!

Now, you could say that not everybody's cut out to be a monk. Fine, whatever, but not everyone is cut out to be a warrior either, and those people don't tend to be fighters at all.

My point is that if monks really outclass dedicated fighters, there's no point in having dedicated fighters (except to maybe try swarming monks en masse but if you've reached that point in a class-based RPG then you've thrown balance straight out the window.)

 

[Ryan Minns]

Not sure where people get the monks beat fighter ideas :S sure mid game maybe but in D&D monks get shit on late mid to late game compared to a well made fighter... not sure if 4th edition changed this actually but it's been this way all through D&D history, very little is able to compete with a fighter late game.

OT: I'd say some of the very specialist prestige classes in D&D! Quite a few of them are "YOU GET SKILL TO KILL GODS AT LEVEL 2... but only if 37% of the moon is illuminated on the 234 day that the elder goblin has been hospitalized due to severe toe injuries cause by kicking oak furniture!" And it's always made me think... Seriously what's the point of them?

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

Rangers are epic, But I hate healers, they can't solo mission a lot vs other classes.

 

[OblivionSoul]

I really dislike playing mage classes. I don't dislike their existence, I just find I get bored playing them. I've tried, and I know in general they tend to be more powerful, but I just get bored so quickly.

As for ones I like, I like Warrior classes the most, and sneaky types after that.

 

[Frission]

I don't dislike any class in particular, but they all have their cliches. I tend to dislike assassins, because people always cast them as awesome, death dealing, trench-coating badasses. But every class has their own cliche. Big muscular barbarian? Do-gooder Paladins in shiny armour? Slight, tall rangers? It applies to races too.

My one piece of advice is that if you make a viking dwarf with an axe, or a haughty elf with a bow, just stop right there. Just stop and rethink how boring you're being.

I don't know. There is the opposite problem of people trying to be as "unique" as possible, only to realize that despite being having some fancy exotic class or race, they still have absolutely no personality.

I would rather go for the time tested cliches if they're not done in a way that's too annoying.
Already done (maybe even to death), doesn't necessarily mean it will be bad. At least it would rather be better than "My epic sorcerer-monk half demon half orc who uses katanas".

 

[gigastrike]

Mesmers from Guild Wars 2. I swear they have no point other than being a troll class. Here's a basic rundown of my fights with mesmers: "My gosh, just...stand still already! Stop putting conditions on me and fight like a man! Hah! Got you n...crap, he split into a couple clones...and now I'm a bird..." And the worst part of all of it isn't the class, it's the players! They all think they're so pro because the mesmer is supposed to be this "smart player's class" who is all about "out-smarting" your opponent, but all they do is pile on conditions so that you can't do anything, and run away!

 

[Eddie the head]

The type of monk that D&D monks are close to are martial arts monks, not bloody pacifist ones who spend all day looking at flowers. Imagine a shaolin monk.

If you think that "knights in the middle ages didn't often die" then you need to go read some history books my friend. And it's not necessarily that a monk could kill one in combat, but about rendering him useless.

They didn't die that often for one thing. For one thing the armor was really hard to get past, for another they where more valuable alive and often sold back the the warring kingdom. They could be defeated not often killed, all you needed to do was knock them on there back. I don't know what you have read but most of what I have read has said that they didn't die often. And I can see why. It would be like taking down a tank today yeah it can be done, but it's hard. You are much better off going after the squires IE, the fuel trucks.

 

[Zeren]

I tend to dislike Clerics and Paladins. I love some of the awesome spells and abilities they get, but I just can't play as a servant to a god.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Monks. Every game they are put in they nearly ruin it with their ridiculously stupid gameplay! MOP Kung fu panda monks HOW ORIGINAL! taking out that human in full plate armor with a sword and shield with a stick and a straw hat in no armor? Pffft. Warcraft has become a pixar cartoon.

FYI and everyone elses, Pandarin Monks have been around in the series since Warcraft 3 although rather obscurely.