Through my years of mmo and rpg gaming I've tended to swing between the two extremes of the warrior/wizard dynamic.
Some days I just want to be a dumb tank in full armor soaking up hits and acting as a wall for squishier classes. But then there's days where I love being a glass cannon that can kill something in 1-2 nukes but a strong breeze can kill me.
The least fun I've head with a class was as a healer druid in Everquest. Something so stressful about the party relying on you for heals and if you wipe it's generally your fault. idk how people dedicate themselves to a class like that.
I found the best class for the PC to be a combo of rogue skillbot with a dash of magical ability. You can usually fill in a weak melee front with party members, but oftentimes rpgs will suddenly remove you from your lockpicker/magic shit analyzer so having those skills on the one character all but guaranteed to be in the party is useful.
This is true and really annoying. It also means that you're usually stuck with whoever the Rogue companion is if you don't have those skills yourself, which you may or may not like. Baldur's Gate 3 was truly revolutionary by just letting you use the highest skills from your party members in most circumstances. But even PIllars of Eternity 2 has MC-specific checks, and checks that your other party members can contribute to if they have points in the same skills. Hacking, speech, lockpicking, and other 'social' skills are pretty much mandatory to not be locked out of significant chunks of content in some games.
...you what? Pathfinder: Kingmaker did that 2 years before BG3 went into early access, and I'm pretty sure owlcat weren't the first to do it either.
I swear down, D&D players claim the weirdest shit as unique or original to D&D.
I never played the Pathfinder games but a ton of CRPGs don't let you do that still. I don't even like D&D, I think the rules system sucks because it encourages specialization/roleplaying at the expense of fun.