What D&D 3.5 Standard Class Do You Hate?

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

As per topic title.

I personally hate Rangers, because they do nothing a Druid/Fighter couldn't do better. Rangers are forced into light armor by their Combat Specialty feature (without the possibility of using Ironwood Plate armor), can't tank like a fighter or wild shaped druid can, have horrible spell selection. They get track, evasion, and more skill points but that doesn't seem worth losing all those spells and feats.

[SGI]

In terms of pure flavor I never really liked Druids, it gives me horrible images of the annoying 'nature chick' archetype common in fantasy movies and stories. Although I accept their necessity in the game. As for game play wise. The bard's idea of 'jack of all trades master of none' is one I've never ever believed in following. It seems to counter the idea of a party playing off each others strengths to offset their weaknesses. Although they are absolutely great to pick on in a party.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I somewhat agree about most Druids. On the other hand Evil Druids are awesome. Those hippies will burn down your village, send in dire wolves to finish you off and then plant an oak in your ashes.

Bards kind of have to take a backseat in actual combat, but if you are playing a less combative campaign they'd be useful. They are a decent leader-character, and they have the spells and skills to be a manipulative bastard. While I wouldn't play them, I can understand their utility.

[SGI]

Of course they have a place in the party. But I always dislike the jack of all trades character types. And the manipulative bastard archetype did get overshadowed when the wickedly good Beguiler class came out in Player's Handbook 2.

[Tetsanosuke]

I actually enjoyed being a ranger, but I suppose it was because our group wasn't strict in what items were where and what kind of things we've faced. In the end, my Ranger had a full attack of about 8 swings, and an additional Snap Kick that came with a feat from 'The Book of Nine Swords'.

But I suppose my ranger was partly Swordsage, so, eh.

As for a druid, my brother was a druid and he turned out to be additional Spell firepower in later levels with Call lightning and what not. Though, the idea of making Acorns into grenades tickled my fancy. x3

Our group is starting a new campaign, and I'm using the Duskblade class from information I could string up. A lot of the hobby shops in my area have cleaned earlier books in lieu of the 4.0 books. It makes me die inside when I can't expand our world any longer. ._.;

But in the end our adventures are usually straightforward, seeing as the rules are also subjective to interpretation I'm still figuring out out to balance Role playing with combat still, the scale still tips one way or another.

As for hatred of a class, it might have to be the Wizard. Though they are versatile in switching spells daily, they just aren't 'one' with it like Sorcerer's, which is something I like to work off of in most fantasy based projects like RPs and Videogames.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

@SGI: Beguiler does make a pretty good Manipulative Bastard, but I'd personally go for a Psion Telepath. They get all the good powers really early, and the later powers are pretty awesome for the archetype.

@Tetsanosuke: I personally love wizards. They are awesome at everything but healing and tanking. If you play a Sorcerer, you are limited to a few combat spells and maybe a few utility spells because you have to worry about what you'll use the most. But if you play a (generalist) wizard and you can do anything. Giant chasm? Spend a night and memorize a Wall of Iron, have the party tip it over, and you have a permanent bridge. You can be a manipulative bastard, divine behind every door, plane shift the party, whatever. Sorcerers can learn to do one or two things extremely well, but if you have the downtime a high level wizard can accomplish almost anything.

And Warlocks (from Complete Arcane) manage to eat the Sorcerer's lunch. They get their Big Bang at will, and they have other great at will abilities and damage resistance.

[SGI]

I've never had the privilege to play as any kind of psionic character. Every single GM and group I've ever played with has outright banned psionics as cheesy.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I've never actually played one either. Most of the arguments I've heard are against the 3.0 version and some of the insane exploits you could do. Like (if I recall correctly) a Psychic Warrior could manifest a mid level power called Claws of the Vampire, scratch the walls, and gain thousands of temporary hp. In 3.5 it just lets you slaughter sheep for normal hp. Which is only slightly unbalancing.

[Lavos]

Bards: They are like watered down version of a thief/spellcaster.

[Tetsanosuke]

@Tetsanosuke: I personally love wizards. They are awesome at everything but healing and tanking. If you play a Sorcerer, you are limited to a few combat spells and maybe a few utility spells because you have to worry about what you'll use the most. But if you play a (generalist) wizard and you can do anything. Giant chasm? Spend a night and memorize a Wall of Iron, have the party tip it over, and you have a permanent bridge. You can be a manipulative bastard, divine behind every door, plane shift the party, whatever. Sorcerers can learn to do one or two things extremely well, but if you have the downtime a high level wizard can accomplish almost anything.

And Warlocks (from Complete Arcane) manage to eat the Sorcerer's lunch. They get their Big Bang at will, and they have other great at will abilities and damage resistance.

I see your point with the wizard and I know that statistically in that respect they are a great class. But in the end when it's not down to that and more towards the feel of your character, tinkering with magic rather then being one with it might not seem as serious or focused.

In the respect of how a character is, in the role play area, a man whose one with magic just seems much more interesting (to me at least) then a man who pokes at it with a curious stick.

But still, Wizards get less spells overall then Sorcerers, and even though they can change them out everyday it's still a lower amount of ammunition.

Not Arguing their use, just pointing out the little things around the bush that I look at and how I see'em.

Edit: Warlocks? Hmmmm... < Evil finger brushing. >

[Sanosuke23]

I cannot stand Samurai from Complete Warrior, or Wu Jen from Complete Divine(or Arcane, I never can remember which one it's in).

Samurai gets a free MW Bastard Sword/Short Sword set, free DW feat, and at higher levels intimidates all enemies everywhere just by being. It screams beawoo fan-wank houseruled class to me.

I just don't like Wu Jen. No real reason, I just think it's terrible.

I play Bard fairly often, mainly as a knowledge repository and buffbot for the party.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I like Complete Warrior Samurai more then the Oriental Adventures version. It's basically a Fighter with a free masterwork bastard/ short sword set that gets magical as time goes on from you spending money on appeasing your ancestors or something. Complete Warrior Samurai is just a less gay Scary Melee-Ranger, which is alright in my book.

Wu Jen is from Arcane, and Oriental Adventures. All of the Oriental Adventures spellcasters seem sucky to me. In fact, aside from some of the monsters I hate the whole setting. (Well, to be fair I also enjoy laughing at the race selection, which includes such favorites as rat-people, monkey-people, and badger-people.)

[Sanosuke23]

@MP2k: I still just don't see why you can't just rock Fighter with ranks in Intimidate. Plus they get their own PrC if they break their code similar to Blackguard, though as I recall they don't lose anything from Samurai(or at least as much as Paladin). It's like, scary asian paladin. Gives me douche-chills.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Ex CW Samurai lose their intimidate/smiting stuff, and keep the sword skills. They can regain it with Ronin levels, yeah. But I mostly like the CW Samurai, although I wouldn't bother sticking with it for 20 levels. I'd probably go into Fighter for some feats, even though Samurai has that stupid no multiclassing rule-thing. The intimidating stuff seems to be the icing on the cake- the real reason for the class is the sword skills without the stupid ranger no-medium-or-heavy-armor-rules. Although if you are playing a charismatic tank, the kiai smite isn't bad (add Cha bonus to attack and damage for next attack).

Plus, the Samurai MUST exist, because there are already many classes (both standard and prestige) tailored to play both Knights and Pirates.

[ShadowWalker]

I have to say I have YET to find a proper alchemist class, there was a game I played years ago, and they were actually able to do more then just the same typical things that any character can do with proper training, I went through what is left of my collection for RPGs, and I am sorry to say I cannot remember it. But there is a lot to the class I feel should be properly explored.

[N-Zero]

I never liked Clerics. I know they are very important to a good, balanced party, but I think a Paladin would work fine. A Bard might do the trick too.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I never liked Clerics. I know they are very important to a good, balanced party, but I think a Paladin would work fine. A Bard might do the trick too.
Bards and Paladins are horrible Cleric replacements. The only decent one is a Druid. Nobody else can raise the dead like a cleric. Sure, Druids get Reincarnate, and Wizards/Sorcerers can Wish, but the best part about clerics is that your characters can play like heros (or an heros) knowing they can get brought back to life.

Not to mention that Clerics get most of the decent divination spells. And if you are only using the PH classes, they are pretty much the only choice for Necromancers.

[SGI]

I can see why you would dislike a Cleric as a character choice at first glance. After all, they are a support class and in their archetype often are only ever given a chance to shine in supporting the rest of the party. Especially if you base that assumption on the Priest class in World of Warcraft.

However, Clerics can be incredibly, incredibly nasty, and were, before the 3.5 edition, effectively broken in 3rd Edition. I am an absolutely huge fan of Clerics, and they are probably my favorite PHB class to play, and my second favorite of all the D&D base classes (After the aforementioned Beguiler).

The fact that Druids are the closest to substituting for Clerics is superficial at best as the only thing they have in common is Divine Spells (which are actually different sets) and a high Wisdom. Although I can see where MP2K is coming from with that statement.

And I can say, I have had a vast array of Clerics who have been melee combat monsters. High Charisma, Dexterity and Wisdom + Divine Might + Turn Undead + an array of Buff Spells equals DM tears.