Stuff you don't have a problem with, but will never use

[Salamandyr]

One of my favorite characters (and the one my handle is named after) is an old fashioned 1st edition fighter rogue type. He's the kind of character for whom "sneak attack" means "fight dirty". So naturally when I saw the "thug" scheme, I was excited. And then I read it and said "pass" (can I work in any more quotation marks? Stay tuned!) The reason was, and this is a carryover from the flank teams of 3rd & 4th edition, I really hated that the rogue, the guy who plays by no rules, the guy who's not a team player, the...loner, if you will, is the team player who only really shines when he has a battle buddy.

I hate that.

So, I'll never play a Thug. I'll play a Fighter with a Thug or Thief background, and kick butt my way, with or without a friend. And that's great. The thing is, there's nothing really wrong with the Thug mechanic; it's just not something I find particularly exciting.

Which is what I told them in my survey "OK mechanic, but as is I'll never use it". Are there any things that you too look at and say "Yeah, that looks okay, but I will never, if this game lasts a million years play that". When that happens, do you want them to change it to something you do want to play, or do you think rather "eh, different strokes for different folks".

 

[Bow_Seat]

The key difference is whether or not you won't play it because you don't think it's cool or because you think the mechanics are underpowered or not conducive to adventuring success. If the mechanics make sense and I'm not using it just because it's not my thing, I say don't change it. If it's something that I would want to do, but am perpetually afraid to try because I think that I will not be a good adventurer, then I say change it.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

The entire Thief/Rouge class for me. I just cannot play a sneak - yeah I know there are other version recently - but this attitude was set back in 1st ed. It is just so far from things I like that I couldn't enjoy playing it.

Same with Druids - I lived in an area that shoved eco-green-tree-hug down my throat, that I have a negative reactions to it; couldn't finish Wall-e, and rooted for the bad guys on Captain Planet. To play a dude so tied into nature - just not something I like.

As for littler stuff - I tend never to use Charm type spells. Or play N characters - I'm a goody two shoes, so my characters tend to be. Paladins, Good monks, and Good Gishes are my most common type of characters.

Just things in the game that aren't my style.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Vancian magic.

 

[Tovec]

rooted for the bad guys on Captain Planet.

I'm a goody two shoes, so my characters tend to be.

These two lines seem at odds with each other. I get the point you were trying to make but they seem rather contradictory.

Also, rooting for the bad guys in captain planet? I mean you could but why would you. Cobra commander, megatron, megabyte and a number of other evil guys are much better and cooler enemies of the good guys

 

[Ahnehnois]

Crafting rules. I just can't see ever using them, but I can see where someone else might.

 

[CleverNickName]

There is nothing wrong with the following...in fact, lots of people seem to like them a great deal. And I don't really have a problem with them, mechanically--they just don't fit the style of play that I go for.

Dragonborn. I don't mind their background and fluff, but I would rather they be an isolated tribe of humans who believe they descended from dragons...not a reptilian race.

Half-orcs, tieflings, etc. The thought of monsters interbreeding with humans has always skeeved me out.

Spiked chains. This weapon is absolutely absurd, and has no historic analog whatsoever...not even a farfetched one. But I suppose it is a perfect weapon for some comic-book archetypes. (shrug) Not my thing.

Psionics. A lot of people like the bizarre, sci-fi feel of psionics in their game. I am not one of them. But I have to give props to psionics, for laying the groundwork for the new sorcerer and the spell-point system in D&D Next.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I hesitate to say, "never." But a lot of things are pretty darn close. If the Next psionic system isn't very good, I'll never use it. It it is really good, I might use it once or twice in five years of play, but wouldn't miss it if I didn't have it.

Tieflings leave my whole group blah.

I might play in a D&D game that used alterate caster options that use "power points," but I'm highly unlikely to allow them in a long campaign that I DM.

Assassins and Blackguards and other such "anti-hero" classes are right out, though I'm willing to let someone play a fairly strong anti-hero using some of the other classes.

I can count on one hand the number of "monster PCs" in our group over the last 25 years.

I don't mind any of that stuff being in the game, but as far as I'm concerned, it might as well be 37 variations on polearms.

 

[Stormonu]

Chaotic Neutral. My games have good guys and bad guys as well as those that can be swayed from one side to the other. I really hate this as "swing whichever way gets me what I want and screw the other players while doing it"

 

[Lord Mhoram]

These two lines seem at odds with each other. I get the point you were trying to make but they seem rather contradictory.

Also, rooting for the bad guys in captain planet? I mean you could but why would you. Cobra commander, megatron, megabyte and a number of other evil guys are much better and cooler enemies of the good guys

I'm also an old person who grew up before the ecology was considered a moral choice, and an overreacction to those that tried to make me feel that it was.*

And even though I was a child of the 70s/80s I never saw transformers, or GI Joe cartoons. But I did catch captain planet occasionally.


* I'm not anti-green. Just anti green message - I recycle, and work for eBay one of the greener companies out there.