Andy responded:
Here's something that really sticks in my craw:
Classes without a role.
I hate the fact that if I want to play a ranger, or a monk, or a binder, or yes, even a bard, that I have to make sure that all the "normal" bases are covered in the party first, because my class isn't good at the basic functions that every party needs.
....
There shouldn't be only one class that really accomplishes a key role (cleric as healer--sorry druid/favored soul/whatever, you're strictly second-rate).
And, frankly, there shouldn't be classes that fulfill multiple roles simultaneously (cleric, I'm looking in your direction again). If the fighter rolls his eyes and wonders why he bothered showing up, that's just stupid...and it's flawed game design.
说起来牧师也被批得很惨.............
