GM dislikes certain classes...

[Grazzt]

I like all the core classes pretty much as is myself. However, as for what I allow in my campaign...that's different (for "feel" reasons..not because I dislike the classes).

 

[kamosa]

All core classes are open in my campaign. I can sympathize with your plight.

I was in a campaign once where the GM hated Sorcerers. He had decided that they were "lame one trick ponies" that were easily defeated in combat. (This is not my opnion of the class.) Of course this decision came after one of the players decided to play a Sorcerer. He made all Sorcerers outlawed magic users, and then forced the player to multiclass into Wizard and take only Wizard levels thereafter when he'd reached 6th level Sorcerer. Then he proceeded to make everything resistant to fire, since fireball was the Sorcerers big damage spell. He kicked the Sorcerer out of the Wizard's guild and didn't give him any access to additional spells. Then he intentionally killed the character (6th Level Sorcerer/6th Level Wizard) to demonstrate how lame the class was compared to the rest of the single class 12th level party. (Not that the character's death really proved his point.)

I was very happy when this campaign finally dissolved. I was friends with several of the players, and I couldn't get out of it without offending them.

 

[Liolel]

I don't have any problems with any of the core class's. What I have problems with is certain annoying ways these classes are played.

You know the detect evil then kill paladin, the kleptomaniac rouge, the drow ranger with two scimitars

With these characters you need to talk to the player about playing a less disruptive character

Also some ways a class can be played don't work in certain campaigns
the dumb as a rock half-orc barbarian in a campaign of political intrigue, the paladin in an evil campaign, the diplomatic bard in a simple hack & slash campaign.

These characters usually can be avoided if you talk to the players about the campaign before they create their characters. Still there are those nightmare players that make a character to be disruptive. But those players don't belong in a good group.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I have no problem with it, so long as the DM is upfront about it. My group knows about my pathological hatred of monks and drow quite well.

I wouldn't go out of my way to kill or harass someone who played one of those, but I'd be watching them with an eagle eye.

 

[francisca]

I don't like monks. Never have. They do not fit my homebrew at all.

But the power-gamer wannabes who play in my homebrew want to play monks. So I let them, and try not to screw them over.

My game sounds quite a bit like TB's: Low magic, stingy on the magic items. Nobody has really tried to exploit it with spellcasters though. Only 2 sorcerors, period.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

I'm with you here, T-Bill. However, that's still no excuse for punishing a player for making a choice that you allowed but really wish they hadn't made. For instance, if I don't like magic the way it is in standard D&D, it's not hard to change it.

For my latest "low magic campaign that sucks", starting next week, I've got a number of other classes from other d20 books that don't have a spellcasting progression. I'm using the Midnight alt.ranger and alt.monk, the Path of the Sword Hunter class, the Rokugan Courier class and a slightly modified (to fit in with the others better) AU Unfettered class on top of only the fighter, rogue and barbarian from the core class group. If you want magic, you learn incantations and play a Sanity cost to use it.

So if PCs want to learn to use spells in my "low magic campaign that sucks" they know up front how to do it. There's a handful of feats that can actually help compensate for the high cost of spellcasting in this homebrew. I'll be perfectly fair to anyone who wants to use magic, but if they want to use it regularly, they'll pay for it alright. But they know that going in.

Really sounds like a GM problem here, I'm afraid to say. Punishing rogues "just because", or any other valid choice for the campaign, for that matter, is poor GMing.

 

[jerichothebard]

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.

I did that, actually. Wizards are not allowed for PCs, and Sorcery is illegal.

(brief backstory - long ago there was a war between the arcanists and the church. The church won. Libraries of spellbooks were burned. No more wizards. Sorcerers, being naturally occuring, still crop up from time to time...)


I was hoping someone would take the bait and play a renegade sorcerer, but no one did.

I find that without arcane spellcasters, as the party ages and levels, I am having to be very careful with their foes, as they lack a certain level of assumed firepower in the party.


jtb

 

[JesterPoet]

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

For my latest "low magic campaign that sucks", starting next week

Dangit... I knew I was gonna catch hell for that.

Oh, just for the record... check out my "Terrible Games You've Played In" thread for just how much our low-magic game sucked....

Believe me, it wasn't the low magic that made it bad....

 

[Desdichado]

I knew that, I was just joshin' you. Pun intended.

 

[Cor Azer]

As with many, I have no problems with any of the classes, but may disallow them for particular campaign reasons of "not-fitting".