Character classes you hate

[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. :|

I would like to see what your monk could do against somebody who trained all their life in full plate mail on a mailed horse with a lance coming at them at full charge adept at killing unarmored infantry. Oh thats right, he would DIE

This is T14 Warrior armor.

That fellow that's been training all his life on a mailed horse with a lance? Yeah, he probably wouldn't be able to get on said horse or even move around in that tin can. A purple-eye-glow horse with legs as thick as toothpicks that wouldn't be able to support said plate or mail. And his lance wouldn't do jack in the end because the knight's lance in general was an impractical weapon, inferior in almost every way to a spear, glaive or halberd. Your understanding of how medieval warfare worked is hilarious since your only experience with it is through fantasy and WoW.

Also, since we've got on this, said monk would be capable of doing quite a bit considering said monk is either A) in a fantasy setting and is thus capable of doing god knows what with his palms while looking quite awesome or B) is a yamabushi, sohei, shaolin or other traditional definition of "Asian warrior monk", thus adept at evasion to make a charge useless, wields a naginata, yari, qiang, guan dao, yumi, reflex/short/recurve bow or something similar to bring down the horse and/or its rider and can utilize some rather sophisticated martial arts to get around to the armor's openings and joints. Also, the idea that monks don't wear armor into battle is also popularized by fantasy and shaolin stories, they may be skilled, but I highly doubt they're stupid and cocky enough not to do so.

 

[Pyrokinesis]

Any Melee class, (drones,surrogates, self projections,any remote form of it excluded)

I just dont like to go fist/melee weapon first into a battle and put my hide on the line. Worse so when it involves bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Borderlands 2

"wait wait so tell me that again?"
"Instead of running in with my fists, i prefer to keep my distance and take out my enemies with a well placed shot"
"you lost me at without fists"

 

[Blaster395]

Any class focusing on stealth in a game where the stealth mechanics are broken, uninteresting, or the game is grindy and repeating the stealthy approach procedure 500 times would drive you insane.

 

[OutcastBOS]

Snipers/Rogues/Theifs. I just do NOT like stealth at all. I think it's boring. Gimme a big weapon and let me charge/spray bullets in the direction of.

 

[AngloDoom]

I hate played D&D only once with a group of friends who had been playing it for years. They had quite inventive characters and I really didn't see any class I hated as a result. I honestly think that the problem lies with tired clichés rather than certain classes.

I've got to say, though, after playing a Rogue I see no reason to be any class. So many abilities! =D

 

[Lunar Templar]

Barbarians- Why bother being a barbarian if you can be a better "fighter" with heavier armor. Most games always focus on the fighter first as the base class so you tend to get better items and stuff Unlike barbarians the fill-er in class.

Drow Classes- Ever since that over-rated guy drizzit made peoples bookshelves I dont know how many people name themselves Drizzit 12896712789412 online when this race/class is available. Really Elminster was a far superior hero if you going to copy do it right.

i agree on barbarians, and bards really, never seen the need to be one when you can roll s fighter and ACT like a barbarian.

as for drow, eh, i actually for get Drizzit exists most the time, so, on DDO i have several Drow, (all female to).

as for other non D&D classes, any that are worthless alone. this is mostly an MMO gripe, but if i NEED a team to survive or even finish in a reasonable time, then i have no time for it. granted i like when they're around on my team, they are useful, i just hate needing other people to do my stuff

 

[sanquin]

I'd like to point two things out. One about the monk and the other about the druid in D&D

Monk:
They're strong in early game yes. But once you get to level 8 or so mages are stronger, and at 12+ monks are among the weakest classes in the game. Unless you go prestige class or multi class of course. Which is good, imo. An inexperienced fighter in plate with a sword and shield won't have much use for them, but the more experienced the fighter gets, the more advantages he has over an unarmed, unarmored monk.

Druid:
Druid may seem weak, but they're actually among the most powerful in D&D. Shapeshifting is only a minor part of the class unless you go into prestige classes that enhance it. Druids' spells have more utility than a mage's, and have more combat potential than most of the cleric's.

---------------------

On topic:
Bards or instrumental classes. I just can't understand such classes and don't see much fun in them. The only bard class I ever enjoyed in a game was one that buffed with music and attacked with a bow and arrow.

Monks. (As they are implemented in games, not the concept) They're just always implemented in such an unimaginative way, or are just plain weaker than other classes when it comes down to it. Well, okay, I did like the overall feel of the monk class in Ragnarok Online, but that was the only game ever.

Paladins. Holier than thou... I hate that kind of mindset. It's probably because one of my friends used to always play a paladin (and sometimes a cleric) in D&D. And he definitely put the 'awful' in 'lawful' when playing a paladin. Plus, just the whole 'Righteousness, holiness and lawfulness' idea behind it annoys me in general.

Alchemists. There aren't many games that really have such a class, but there are some. Using flasks, potions and poisons as weapons and spending a lot of time crafting said things just...seems boring to me. Usually alchemists are weak in physical combat too, which is a thing I like.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Rouges, I guess? Mostly just those classes who really aren't strong, good for support/healing, but just needed for rather annoying things (opening locks, detecting traps, etc.). Or maybe it was just like that in one game I played? Not a big fan of most RPG's because all the goblin, troll, and fairy stuff bothers me.

 

[Yan Hunt]

Character class creep is a side effect of the original tabletop games industry where every new supplement/edition had to have a new class, a new skill and a new pile of advantages/disadvantages or traits etc. During the early 2000's I did my stint writting games (available at a bargain bin near you). You'd be told the subject matter of the supplement and told how many new classes/skills etc you'd have to include. Some felt natural, and a part of the flow, other were real Friday afternoon efforts where you just put in whatever to get the work done and go to the pub (go back through your collections, and you'll soon see the Friday bits).
Anyway, games packed in more and more non-sense character classes and filler till the systems crumbled under their own min/maxed weight. Luckily, video games has yet to suffer under this deluge. It takes time and effort(and cash) to code in new graphics, animations, and balance it all out for PVP. Warcraft is on its 4th (5th maybe..?) expansion/supplement and has just stuck in 5 new races and a new class. That's in 8 years! For the big systems, RPGs have multiple books a month being released. Just imagine if it was the same for video games with DLC for Dragon Age or Skyrim coming out that quickly, or if there was a write your own class and skills feature for a mmorpg?

Where am I going with this? In essence there are THREE main classes - fighter, skilled and magical)and the hybrids of two of them (fighter+skilled=ranger, monk or assassin). Sadly, games designers always forget this and end up with books of half classed messes that are just padding. then problems of an inconsistent game world then arises. If you're playing on a world where gods are real and take a direct involvement in day to day lives of it's people then, what's the point of a paladin? Any hero that embodies a deities beliefs or ideals would earn their favour and support. Just look at Greek mythology.
The point is, are your classes a way to describe your character by defining their actions or combat style, or merely a list of class features? Is Robin Hood a lawful good fighter who uses a bow, a paladin who fights for the poor or a ranger?

 

[verdant monkai]

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.

 

[G-Force]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.