What class can you not bring yourself to play?

[ashockney]

Lots of bard love here. I've played several bards, in several campaigns, including one in 3.5 Ed. I can see why they would get a bad rap, but similiar to the Druid, Ranger, Paladin, and Wizard, if the DM doesn't work with you to make the character type work in the campaign, it will really lose much of it's appeal.

As I started thinking about the characters I've played over the years, I was really surprised. Not wizard, monk, or paladin. Interesting. I like all three classes (paladin the least), but just really enjoy playing all the other types of characters much, much more. I think my personal preference would fall into the Druid or Bard category. Those have been my most consistent character types.

 

[Carpe DM]

There are two issues here: one is what classes are conceptually challenged; the other is what classes are rules-weak.

Bards have strong concept (I've wanted to play a fighting Skald for a while) but the rules are pathetic. Bards don't got game. I actually used to play them a lot in 2E. Haven't touched one since.

Conceptually-speaking, I guess the monk seems most out-of-place to me.

best,

Carpe

 

[Jdvn1]

Conan does not have low intelligence!

Then, I'd argue, Conan might not be stereotypical Barbarian.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Doesn't that make it fairly hard for you to play a cleric too in the vast majority of D&D games?

That is a good question. I have not been a player for many moons, but I have always been somewhat resistant to playing in a polytheistic setting. As you probably recall, my world only has two gods, and that works well for me. Though, it might be interesting to play in a "regular" D&D game as an iconoclast cleric who believes that his god is the only true god, all others being aspects of said god, servants, or demons.

 

[Arnwyn]

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

Yes indeed. I'd never play a bard or druid. While possible, it's unlikely I'll play a barbarian or ranger.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Bard and Barbarian - most be the barb thing. Bard has never interest me in concept and found the ranger to be more to my liking than the Barbarian concept.

 

[Galethorn]

1. Primary spellcasting classes; anybody that goes up to level 9 spells. It's just too much work for me keeping track of what spells I have memorized. That said, I don't mind sorcerers nearly as much as wizards, druids, or clerics.

2. Bards. I played a bard once, and I never want to again. I like a character that can be direct, and nine times out of ten, the bard isn't going to be that character.

I like everything else that's left (fighters, rangers, paladins, barbarians, monks, and rogues), and have a particular attachment to greatswords.

 

[Methos]

I've played every core class at one time or another, and I like all of them in their own way. Having said that, I almost never get a chance to play a rogue since someone else is always wanting to play them. I've played single class "whatever" for just about class, but I do tend to like multi-classing in at least 1 or 2 levels of fighter generally. The classes that are my least favorite happen to be however:

Sorcerers (I prefer the versatility of Wizards)
Paladins (I seem to have trouble role-playing them to my satisfaction)

My favorites:

Wizards (sucker for lots of versatility)
Clerics (for pure power and influence on a campaign)
Rangers (just for the ideal that they represent; not for the power)

Desires:

I want to play a monk in the next campaign that I'm not DM'ing just because it has been awhile since I played one

 

[Tuzenbach]

Paladin. Just too damned boring. Too good.

Assassin. Just too damned evil. To gain experience, they're compelled to kill in really mean ways.

 

[CatharticMoment]

I've played all the core classes and enjoy the challenge of playing any of them (although monks and paladins are hard to stat with 28 points).

However some of the classes in the complete books are really poor.

How the **** do you play a hexblade?