GM dislikes certain classes...

[JesterPoet]

Quite a while ago I played in a low-magic campaign that sucked. The GM was the "I will win and feed my God complex" type of GM. One of the things that bugged me most about him was that he didn't like rogues in his games. There was no reason for this, but then again there was no reason for many of the stupid things he did. But instead of just telling players they couldn't be rogues, he'd just screw the rogue, or let other players screw the rogue every chance he got.

Oh, he also couldn't make the distinction between rogue and "thief" (which there can often be)

So, do any of you out there have a STANDARD class you dislike or disallow? If so, why? I'm cool with all the classes when I run and don't understand why someone wouldn't be.

 

[Henry]

No, I like 'em all equally for what purposes they have.

Now, I can see disallowing some for a particular campaign because they are a bad fit, but I try my best not to shaft any players in any game, no matter what they play.

 

[Hand of Evil]

As a DM I try to work with my players, basic core classes are a building block, they set the background for the players. It is about fun.

 

[Altalazar]

I would never want to disallow a core class - not unless it was basically built into an entire world I'd created - but my main world includes them all (and then some!) so I guess it is moot.

 

[Telperion]

I dislike some players, but I do like all of the core classes.

At the moment the campaign I'm running has no room for barbarians, druids, or paladins, and the sorcerer is a bit touchy too. These are all nice classes, but ill suited to the story I'm portraying.

 

[Zerovoid]

I dislike the way alot of rogues end up being played, as disruptive loners, but I don't dislike the class.

 

[nimisgod]

I'm okay with all of the classes... but one of my players is making me hate the Paladin class. I like the Pally, but this just gives the class a bad name with his attitude.

 

[Teflon Billy]

I mostly dislike spellcasting classes in my game, as it is one of those "Low Magic campaigns that suck"

I'm pretty stingy with magic items, which tends to really, really ramp up the spellcasting classes effectiveness (As they get to choose a minimum of two new spells every level).

I mostly like games about barbarians, fighters, rogues and my own variant ranger and variant cleric. There's no place for Monks, and preciouslittle for Paladins (though there are NPC Paladins...they are a scary order that hew a little closer to "Law" than "Good" unlike the standard D&D Paladin who seems to pay more attention to Good than Law as a rule).

All of that said, I would never bother allowing someone to play a Monk just so I could screw them over; though I've lost count of the people who want to play a spellcaster "for RP reasons" (Bull)...they always seemed to hear the words "low Magic" and decide that they needed to screw with me by playing magic-based characters.

 

[Gothmog]

Well, there are three core classes I don't allow in my games.

Bard and Sorcerer- Magic in my homebrew world doesn't fit at all with these two core classes. The sorcerer and his assumed inherited innate magical abilities goes against the cosmology I have established, and the bard doesn't exist in the PHB incarnation. Instead the "bard" class is only open to the Romari, a gypsy-like group of wanderers with powers of divination, curses, and illusion.

Monk- The unarmed martial artist with ki powers doesn't fit well in my world at all. My world is strongly western European in flavor, and these guys stick out like a sore thumb. I guess I might use something like them in the more Oriental areas of my world, but the campaign hasn't gone there yet.

In addition, I only allow humans as the player race, although I have made 15 different cultures now that each grant their own ability modifiers, skill bonuses, and cultural feats- so its pretty much like different races.

 

[Foundry of Decay]

I like pretty much all the core classes, and don't disallow any of them. Diversity is what sets a party apart from the cliche' (Personally I wouldn't want to run a group of all fighters, or a group with absolutely no caster types, but that is personal preference).

The only semi-core class I don't allow is the Oathsworn (or is it Oathbound?) from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. While the class itself is valid, I tend to run a pretty open ended type of campaign and don't care for the rigid need for such a character to be tied to a very specific oath, and the harsh penalties that come with failing after a certain time (I'd be driven to distraction just timing a campaign to that one Oathsword character.. Imagine suddenly having to veer off of a quest because the character had to finish his Oath or be turned into a veritable turnip).

Otherwise its pretty much all good.