Character classes you hate

G-Force

New member
Jan 12, 2010
444
0
0
Zeckt said:
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.
To be fair it's not like the other classes normally seen in RPGs are original. If you're going to rag on monks not being original then you gotta put thieves, mages and warriors there as well as we've seen waaaaaay too many of those in all the RPGs I've played.
 

Zeldias

New member
Oct 5, 2011
282
0
0
Tank types: Heavy defense, low offense classes with no damage are rarely done right. That said, it can be very fun if you get abilities that force your opponents into awkward situations; my Black Ork in WH was amazing because I could push people around, protect allies proactively, and plain old not die while being a pain, but your typical tank is really just a humanoid shield. If it's gonna be a tank, it should be some kind of defensive support, not just an aggravating guy with a titanium face.

Monks and Paladins: Like others have said, they're usually just perfect (and with monks, also often offensive stereotype amalgamations). I don't mind the idea of a monk beating the hell out of heavily armored guys and stuff, but reading something about Monks or Paladins too often turns them into Jedi cutting through Stormtroopers. I think the only well done Paladin I've ever read about is that one guy from the Twilight War trilogy (and Drasek Riven, if you wanna call him a Paladin).

Healers: Basically the same as tanks; no offense, just heals and cowering. I just think it's boring and silly gameplay supporting a boring and silly game dynamic. This is the reason I cannot return to SW:ToR. I'd like to, but then I realize I can go back to GW2 and play my supporting, healing, crowd-controlling, decent damage having Warrior (not great damage, but it gets the job done).

Fighters: This isn't a problem with the class, but I hate how they always have stupid looking moves in games. It's probably tough to make fighters look flashy with people summoning exploding dragons and stuff, but can we please stop making fighters do dumb ass spinning top attacks? Champions in LotRO were especially bad about that.
 

the December King

Member
Legacy
Mar 3, 2010
1,580
1
3
ZorroFonzarelli said:
Monks, for the same reason you highlighted.

I run D&D games far more than I play them, and Monks thematically don't belong in a standard fantasy campaign setting. They just don't. They fit an Asian-style campaign, but that's it.

Throw in the fact that they are vastly overpowered, needing no gear, armor or weapons to be one-man wrecking crews, and they are horribly overbalanced.

If I had to pay for all the gear a normal fighter has to and some player writes up a Monk that can do everything with zero cost, you've got a broken game.
Amen.

I think that a monk can have a place in a certain campaign, but I have no interest in having monk PCs in my Pathfinder games, at least from the standard races. The notion that a human, or elven, or even a halfling monk can beat up a hill giant or a hydra with his bare hands is just... it has no place in a balanced campaign.

Having said that, as a DM, I love using monk class levels for alot of my bad guys and monsters! That kind of an unfair edge makes for great opponents, challenges that allow you to control treasure distribution after the fact- no need to equip all the monsters with ever greater magical weapons and armors. It will make the aquisition of cool treasure mean all the more in the end.
 

competentfake

New member
May 2, 2008
5
0
0
the December King said:
ZorroFonzarelli said:
Monks, for the same reason you highlighted.

I run D&D games far more than I play them, and Monks thematically don't belong in a standard fantasy campaign setting. They just don't. They fit an Asian-style campaign, but that's it.

Throw in the fact that they are vastly overpowered, needing no gear, armor or weapons to be one-man wrecking crews, and they are horribly overbalanced.

If I had to pay for all the gear a normal fighter has to and some player writes up a Monk that can do everything with zero cost, you've got a broken game.
Amen.

I think that a monk can have a place in a certain campaign, but I have no interest in having monk PCs in my Pathfinder games, at least from the standard races. The notion that a human, or elven, or even a halfling monk can beat up a hill giant or a hydra with his bare hands is just... it has no place in a balanced campaign.

Having said that, as a DM, I love using monk class levels for alot of my bad guys and monsters! That kind of an unfair edge makes for great opponents, challenges that allow you to control treasure distribution after the fact- no need to equip all the monsters with ever greater magical weapons and armors. It will make the aquisition of cool treasure mean all the more in the end.
I'll preface by saying that I have a long-standing house rule that no PC is capable of dealing lethal unarmed damage to an opponent that has DR unless their unarmed attacks have at least a +1 magic imbuement (magic fang/permanence or amulet of 1000 fists). The pursuit of realism is usually a crooked road in these games, but there has to be a line -somewhere-.

That aside, you guys are overlooking the Monk's serious disadvantages over say, a Fighter.
-No armor means no magic armor, and magic armor is grrrreat!
-Someone, long ago, sold the idea that Monks have Wisdom as a primary stat, but in addition to that, they need Dex and Con, and that damage would be the result of a growing unarmed combat base damage and large number of attacks through flurry of blows.? This is stoopid, and pursuit of this idea will make your Monk be fail.
-Sure, they can do approximately the same damage as a Fighter 'for free', but Monks get crappy starting gold, plus materialism in general is anathema to your archetypical Monk (and if I have a Monk PC who frequently loots bodies, carries a sack of treasure, or whose sole motivation in life is to -find- a sack of treasure, I usually call shenanigans and hit his player with a broom).
-In order to maximize damage output, Monks have to be largely stationary and Flurry, 5' step, Flurry, 5' step, Flurry, etc. My point is that it takes a lot more thought, strategy and experience to play a Monk correctly. I don't know where you guys are getting this 'Monks are OP' business. They were super weak in 3e, and were usually only fodder for cherry-picking min/maxer assholes. In Pathfinder they're much better, thanks largely to the archetypes in Ultimate Combat, but they certainly aren't as OP as say, a Wizard?.

Referenced:
?Treantmonk's Guide to Pathfinder Monks: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/treatmonks-lab/treantmonk-s-guide-to-monks
?Treantmonk's Guide to Pathfinder Wizards: Being a God: https://docs.google.com/document/preview?id=1xjPIOH8F8a0l74BdDF7Q23nCfZ-YX68Xr6JmmtznMw4

These are both worth a read.

Edit: As for Monks not having a place in a fantasy-based campaign, the whole point of residing in a Monastery is to remove oneself from the outside world and live a simple life, devoid of material possessions. It's verging on narrow-mindedness to say it's impossible to insert such an insular community into ANY environment, fantasy or otherwise. Remember your Kung Fu: If Kwai Chang Caine could exist in the American Old West, then your PC's Monk can exist in your campaign, whatever it is.
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Oct 29, 2010
18,157
1
3
Country
UK
Yeah I hate Monk too since I hate having so much people relying on me so much to the point that they will blame for the mission failure. No it shouldn't be that but more on teamwork or bad equipment and other factors.
I'm so glad that the Monk or healer specific class is gone in GW2.
 

Hawk of Battle

New member
Feb 28, 2009
1,191
0
0
Depends on the game in question and how it's implemented. Most of the time I dislike healing classes. Hated them in Killzone 2, hate it in Dust 514, hated it in Bad Company 2 (mainly due to shit weapons), hated it in the Cybertron games (which is annoying, because in the first one scientist was my favourite class and they basically revampt and streamlined it in the sequel to focus more on healing by taking away his 2 best abilities). Strangely though, I like the Siren in Borderlands 2, even though she is the closest to being a healer in that game.

I also never really liked pure Elementalist/magic classes in Guild Wars (except for my Ranger Mesmer combo), but a pure mage was the first thing I played in Skyrim. Mostly I prefer warrior types, except in the cybertron games where they're too damn slow, or stealthy/sniper types. Or really any class that allows me to drastically change the game and sway a loss into a victory (so in Killzone 2, saboteur and tactician were my favourites). I generally prefer to be able to either stealth/disguise to cap objectives or just go in guns blazing and kill everyone, depending on my mood.
 

the December King

Member
Legacy
Mar 3, 2010
1,580
1
3
competentfake said:
the December King said:
ZorroFonzarelli said:
Monks, for the same reason you highlighted.

I run D&D games far more than I play them, and Monks thematically don't belong in a standard fantasy campaign setting. They just don't. They fit an Asian-style campaign, but that's it.

Throw in the fact that they are vastly overpowered, needing no gear, armor or weapons to be one-man wrecking crews, and they are horribly overbalanced.

If I had to pay for all the gear a normal fighter has to and some player writes up a Monk that can do everything with zero cost, you've got a broken game.
Amen.

I think that a monk can have a place in a certain campaign, but I have no interest in having monk PCs in my Pathfinder games, at least from the standard races. The notion that a human, or elven, or even a halfling monk can beat up a hill giant or a hydra with his bare hands is just... it has no place in a balanced campaign.

Having said that, as a DM, I love using monk class levels for alot of my bad guys and monsters! That kind of an unfair edge makes for great opponents, challenges that allow you to control treasure distribution after the fact- no need to equip all the monsters with ever greater magical weapons and armors. It will make the aquisition of cool treasure mean all the more in the end.
I'll preface by saying that I have a long-standing house rule that no PC is capable of dealing lethal unarmed damage to an opponent that has DR unless their unarmed attacks have at least a +1 magic imbuement (magic fang/permanence or amulet of 1000 fists). The pursuit of realism is usually a crooked road in these games, but there has to be a line -somewhere-.

That aside, you guys are overlooking the Monk's serious disadvantages over say, a Fighter.
-No armor means no magic armor, and magic armor is grrrreat!
-Someone, long ago, sold the idea that Monks have Wisdom as a primary stat, but in addition to that, they need Dex and Con, and that damage would be the result of a growing unarmed combat base damage and large number of attacks through flurry of blows.? This is stoopid, and pursuit of this idea will make your Monk be fail.
-Sure, they can do approximately the same damage as a Fighter 'for free', but Monks get crappy starting gold, plus materialism in general is anathema to your archetypical Monk (and if I have a Monk PC who frequently loots bodies, carries a sack of treasure, or whose sole motivation in life is to -find- a sack of treasure, I usually call shenanigans and hit his player with a broom).
-In order to maximize damage output, Monks have to be largely stationary and Flurry, 5' step, Flurry, 5' step, Flurry, etc. My point is that it takes a lot more thought, strategy and experience to play a Monk correctly. I don't know where you guys are getting this 'Monks are OP' business. They were super weak in 3e, and were usually only fodder for cherry-picking min/maxer assholes. In Pathfinder they're much better, thanks largely to the archetypes in Ultimate Combat, but they certainly aren't as OP as say, a Wizard?.

Referenced:
?Treantmonk's Guide to Pathfinder Monks: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/treatmonks-lab/treantmonk-s-guide-to-monks
?Treantmonk's Guide to Pathfinder Wizards: Being a God: https://docs.google.com/document/preview?id=1xjPIOH8F8a0l74BdDF7Q23nCfZ-YX68Xr6JmmtznMw4

These are both worth a read.

Edit: As for Monks not having a place in a fantasy-based campaign, the whole point of residing in a Monastery is to remove oneself from the outside world and live a simple life, devoid of material possessions. It's verging on narrow-mindedness to say it's impossible to insert such an insular community into ANY environment, fantasy or otherwise. Remember your Kung Fu: If Kwai Chang Caine could exist in the American Old West, then your PC's Monk can exist in your campaign, whatever it is.
A well put argument for the Monk class!

My opinion still stands, however. I still do not envision the monk in my campaigns, thematically. It might very well be narrow-mindedness, but I just don't enjoy the thought of some of my greatest villains or titanic monsters getting literally beaten up bare- handed by some dude, 'supernatural powered fists' or not.

It's not that they don't have a place in fantasy games at all- and as a player I have been in many games involving monks, monasteries and 'oriental themed' campaigns as well as fantasy games that borrowed such elements- but left to my own devices, or as the DM, I just don't use this material.
 

OldDirtyCrusty

New member
Mar 12, 2012
701
0
0
I`m not much of a role player but if i play those games i like the fighter classes.
Running around as a barbarian with a big axe or sword is awesome to me. Dragons Dogma is a great game for this. If you have a magic weapon you don`t even need mage support.

Edit: Oops, forgot to answer.
I don`t like magic classes.
 

Combustion Kevin

New member
Nov 17, 2011
1,206
0
0
I hate it when games can't get classes right, fighters being the worst offender.

if you have to compete with fire hurling arcanists and hulking demonic beasts, brute force won't get you anywhere.
the appeal of the warrior is that he prevails through training, discipline and tactic.
plate armour helps though, and so does a shield, but going WAAAAAGH! on a monster three times your size gets you killed no matter how tough you think you are.

strategize damnit, you are a fucking fighter!

DRUIDS!
I hate how druids are cast as these passifistic, tree-hugging hippies who happen to control the power of nature.

have you seen nature? it is violent as hell!
out of all classes, the druid should be among the most aggrassive characters to play, they're not pious monks for crying out loud!

Paladins!
being good is a cause, not a doctrine.
nobody knows how to play this guy properly.
 

GlorySeeker

New member
Oct 6, 2010
161
0
0
I like the idea of Monks, especially in DnD. (A game I adore) At low levels, a fighter will win, but as they each progress, a monk is superior cause they train their body and mind in different ways. A fighter relies on his weapons, as where a monk, is his weapon.

Druids never really interest me, though I do like them. They are more of a niche ( The Aquaman comparison does it justice even if a little unfair haha) but they can blend well.

I would have to say bards though. They can be well played Bards, but they just do too much. They are jack of all trades, and it just makes them seem useless to me.
 

T0BB0

New member
Jul 14, 2009
38
0
0
The class I have a problem of the concept of (which is what the OP asked) is the "Thief".

I love stealthy gameplay, whether it's solo or in a group party. I think using the idea of sneakiness and avoiding attention is a good thing from a mechanical and a roleplaying perspective. What I don't like is the word, Thief.

A Thief is someone who steals things. Breaks into people's houses and robs them. Perhaps if they have some muscle, they might perform a mugging if necessary. What a Thief doesn't do is kill someone, that's a far greater crime that will draw far more attention without the material gain that a thief aims for. If I need to gather a party together to attack some giant demonspawn, what the hell is a Thief going to do for me? I need a demon to be defeated in combat and banished, so I need holy men, magic users, brave souls to put their lives on the line to protect the rest. When I need an heirloom stolen from a noble's bedroom, I'll call a thief.

Someone who uses stealth and misdirection to attack and kill their enemies is an "Assassin", not a "Thief". "Rogue" is just a runaway or someone who's untrustworthy, and can be applied to a Wizard who has abandoned their college to study forbidden arts.

Also, as a real life engineer (albeit not in the armed forces), calling a class with a blowtorch or wrench an "Engineer" is a pet peeve. No, you're a Mechanic. If carrying an anti-tank missile launcher defined an Engineer, I'd have a much higher job satisfaction.
 

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
NameIsRobertPaulson said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Zeckt said:
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.
As far as I know, the Pandaren from Warcraft 3 were just big bears that liked to drink. Any idea of them being martial arts masters did not get added till Mists of Pandaria.
Large bears with an obviously eastern themes[footnote]And we all know that would either mean "martial arts" or "samurai". OK, maybe "ninja" but that's sort of close to both of this with some stealth thrown in.[/footnote] embedded in them, who like to drink and actually were (apparently) renowned fighters who only use a stick and drunken brawling techniques.

Based on their very depiction I would have actually been surprised if anybody said there weren't any martial artists among them. I hear they get expanded background as time went on, though, it's probably even more explicit there.
 

skywolfblue

New member
Jul 17, 2011
1,514
0
0
Druid - Filthy stinky hippies.

Thief - Archer type rogues or slice and dice dual sword rogues are ok, but pickpocketing and scumbaggery is boooring.

Bard - Like thief, only replace pickpocketing with dumb musical instrument.
 

Jfswift

Hmm.. what's this button do?
Nov 2, 2009
2,396
0
41
Gun fighters: Now dont get me wrong. I love these guys and use them a lot.. but.. They seem kind of silly at the same time, what with their stylized shooting moves. Quit pussyfooting around and just shoot already. It's a real love-hate thing for me.

Gun class in FFX-2. That kid from Xeno Saga or the other gun fighter from Xenogears.

Paladins: I tend to play as a gritty "border of the law" kind of guy in most games. Paladins are just too rigid for me.

Feral kids: off the top of my head I can only think if Gau from FF6 but I really (am going to destroy this phone if it autocorrects one more time) dislike dirty squatter, Tarzan characters running around with little clothes.
 

Roggen Bread

New member
Nov 3, 2010
177
0
0
Tragedy said:
Warriors - what's the point of playing a warrior in a fantasy game? Seems contradictory to me and I've felt they can never keep up with the fun factor the other, less dreary, classes have.
Warriors are kinda my favourite class, but I agree with you.

Actually, I completely agreeD(capital D for long passed times :D) with you, before playing WoW.

I really like the image of warriors that is painted. A warrior is a being that is a complete and totally crazy berserk while being disciplined.

I give you a short run-down in case you don't know. The WoW warrior comes (at least it was like that in my time...) in 3 specs. Fury. Arms. Protection. All 3 specs have the common resource: Rage. 0 rage is empty, 100 Rage is full.

I'll start with fury. That one is just fun. You carry a weapon in each hand and just become a bloodthirsty berserker, grinding through blood and bones with every passing second. But you still have to somehow remain calm to actually hit your target and calculate your targets moves and so on.

Protection: What's to say? It's a tank. He gets hit the whole time and somehow remains calm and concentrated enough to be a fortress. Now this counts for every tank, but they have different motivations.
The paladin believes, he has to, for the light and such. The druid, well, heck, I don't know. It's just a warrior-knock-off. The death knight: He likes inflicting pain, suffering for this is a small sacrifice and in general worth it.
But the warrior is just a loyal companion. He endures this because he is one of those, who can. And yet again, he stays disciplined the whole time. If he gave in to his fury and went berserk, he would certainly die.

And arms: This represents complete mastery over a big-ass-2-handed weapon. Every strike has to hit. And in my personal opinion, he is the instrument, that channels the fury of his weapon.

And this kind of changed my view of the warrior. He only has his weapon. So he has to be extra-super-special good with it to keep up with the lightning-flingers.
 

Thanatos5150

New member
Apr 20, 2009
268
0
0
verdant monkai said:
I hate Vanguards on Mass Effect 3 multiplayer, they are terrible team players.

However I think people were mostly going for fantasy stuff here so I will say Thieves, I dont really hate them but I think they are boring to play as.
Hey, now! When I Nova!Guard, I'm a team player. I lock down one group of enemies so you three can focus on the other group. And I generally Charge->Nova my way up to you, Mister Downed Man, in order to clear the field and revive you.
Of course, I typically play Infiltrator, anyway, and it's therefore really hard to fight the instinct to "Corpsman up".
 

verdant monkai

New member
Oct 30, 2011
1,519
0
0
Thanatos5150 said:
Hey, now! When I Nova!Guard, I'm a team player. I lock down one group of enemies so you three can focus on the other group. And I generally Charge->Nova my way up to you, Mister Downed Man, in order to clear the field and revive you.
Yeah maybe once. The rest of the time you :-

Make the screen shake and send blue shit flying everywhere.

Steal kills by teleporting in front of the person who did all the damage and absorb their bullets.

Charge off to somewhere like a kill zone and need to be rescued.

Charge out of hack zones and escort droid zones, lengthening the time it takes.

Can never be bothered to recover objects because you are too busy flying about being a nob.

I have nothing against you individually (hell you may even be the one none scumbag vanguard out there) but the above list is just what Vanguards do. Don't try to convince me otherwise I have played many games and unlocked least 80% of the stuff, and this is how all vanguards, I had the misfortune to encounter are.
Period.