What class can you not bring yourself to play?

[MonsterMash]

For me its been the monk, I've played lots of fighters and magic users (i did start when they were MUs), thieves/rogues, some clerics, an odd bard, ranger, paladin, etc, but never a monk. Partly because I don't feel they belong in a western style setting, partly just because the martial arts stuff in D&D doesn't float my boat.

 

[der_kluge]

Gosh, what a lot of bard-hatin'. I find that understandable though, considering the its class mechanics are a somewhat "bleh", and it is a true J.O.A.T.M.O.N. (Much as I dislike that term, it certainly is the case.) Also, the fluff aspects make it easy for the bard to appear a silly class.

Whew, I made my intelligence check and figured out that JOATMON means "jack of all trades, master of none", which I find curious. No, not that I made my int check, but that you see the Bard as a JOATMON.

I see bards as being incredibly one-dimensional - charisma. That's it. Anything to do with charisma, they're good at it. Bluff, diplomacy, enchantment spells, manipulating people, etc, etc. Even some of the important rogue skills like disable device, and open locks are cross-classed. And what I don't understand is that bards have listen as a class skill, but not spot. Even intimidate is cross-class.

I think the bard would be better served by just making every freaking skill a class skill. That might be a start.

 

[eris404]

What about you? Is there any class(es) that you just can't see yourself playing, ever?

I have a slightly different problem. There are certain classes I'd like to try but for various reasons don't get to. For example, I've never played a monk or paladin and until recently, I'd never played a rogue (or thief back in the day either). Either someone else is playing that class (and I don't want to step on anyone's toes by playing the same class) or we need a cleric (which often, but not always, falls to me) or something about the setting prevents me from playing a certain class.

I did try bard recently and realized that I probably won't play that class again unless it's in a game that has more intrigue, investigation or diplomatic elements. Much of what I had come up with for the character wasn't useful in dungeon-crawls. :\

 

[Nighthawk]

The only core classes that I am willing to play as single-classes are the Monk and the Rogue.

I have become a player who is more interested in playing multi-classed characters. This is nothing more than a personal preference outlook, as place little personal importance on game mechanics.

Core classes I always avoid playing: Cleric, Sorcerer.

The class, from any D&D/d20 source, that I really want to play and have yet to, is the Psion (or any class of that nature).

 

[Synchronicity]

I've played every core class in the book once or more, and there are only two classes I never intend to play again. They won't come as much of a surprise: the monk, and the bard. I found the monk to be a very pointless class - lots of bells, whistles and shiny flags, not much in the way of substance. And as for bard...I liked my bard character. He was fun, friendly and curious. However...the class was dire. There really wasn't much I could do in a standard D&D environment (dungeon crawling et al.) It was 'Inspire Courage', then 'Um..' My most useful moments were when I cast Hideous Laughter or Suggestion on an enemy, and put them out of action for a bit. However, a wizard could have done that, and done it better. I didn't come away hating the bard...just feeling that it'd been an utterly pointless experience.

Synch.

 

[Gez]

I've seen many intelligent Barbarians, and they're fun to watch. But my reason for not liking the Barbarian has nothing with the dumb Barbarian stereotype. I don't like Rage. Not mechanically, but the idea of it.

If you have Unearthed Arcana, look at the Whirling Frenzy variant. It definitely did the trick for me, as the barbarian character I linked to previously show.

 

[Timeboxer]

To me, there is nothing more boring than a single classed fighter.

I dunno, what with the Complete Warrior and all, I've found fighters to be the only really interesting class that I'd single-class. The myriad feats available means that I can really make a different fighter every single time, whereas every ranger is more or less going to look the same. But possibly that's just me.

Personally, while I think I should play a cleric to get a handle on them, I think I'd dislike playing them, unless the campaign was, I don't know, Planescape or something where religious themes are explored. There's just something about the stock "I'm adventuring for my god" that doesn't sit exactly well with me.

 

[qstor]

I can't seem to play a monk. The class just never interested me.

Mike

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

If you have Unearthed Arcana, look at the Whirling Frenzy variant. It definitely did the trick for me, as the barbarian character I linked to previously show.

Yeah, its nice, but still just doesn't appeal to me. Though if I did ever play a Barbarian, I'd definitely use Whirling Frenzy instead of Rage.

 

[Gez]

I like how it allows to transform the barbarian into a rough'n'tumble swashbuckler -- a fast, nimble, resilient fighter that doesn't dress like a Renaissance spadassin.