What class can you not bring yourself to play?

[sniffles]

It's interesting to me that anyone would be absolutely opposed to any class. Maybe there are times when a particular class doesn't suit the setting or campaign style, but I'd never refuse to play a specific class.

There are several classes I still haven't tried yet and would like to test out someday, when the right opportunity comes along. I've enjoyed everything I've played so far. It's all in how you play it, I think.

 

[Abraxas]

Bard

 

[demiurge1138]

I'm not a big fan of either bards or paladins. Paladins feel too restricted for me, and I've never seen a paladin in a game who didn't fall into one of these two-extremes:
1. The "it is a qwesht!" type who kills everything that's even remotely shady without remorse and is an arrogant buffoon.
2. The fighter with less feats and a glowy sword.

If given a better experience with other people playing them, I might give it a shot. Otherwise, no thanks, sonny.

I also don't think I'd ever play a bard in a long-term game. I have no problem with NPC bards, or bards in my party. I could just never do it myself for more than a peripherial role.

Demiurge out.

 

[Aus_Snow]

In the RAW, bard.

Well, that's the stereotype, I mean. The concept of a Barbarian seems to have low Int.

Does it? I think that certain classic barbarians, in some incarnations - while perhaps not being bookish, nor overly refined - were rather smart, and in fact needed to be in order to survive.

I've seen a couple of quite clever (at least Int 14+) barbarian characters played well, too.

Really, as far as the "Big Dumb Barbarian" stereotype may or may not go, wouldn't it also apply to fighters, typically?

Hm, and paladins most of all. Even min-max wise, many a paladin should probably go for Strength, Charisma, Consitution, Wisdom, in some order or other, before raising Intelligence; in fact it may even trail behind Dexterity in some cases. *shrugs* And there's the "stupid paladin" thing to get over (even if they're not).

 

[Jdvn1]

Does it? I think that certain classic barbarians, in some incarnations - while perhaps not being bookish, nor overly refined - were rather smart, and in fact needed to be in order to survive.

I've seen a couple of quite clever (at least Int 14+) barbarian characters played well, too.

Well, I could be convinced otherwise, but I don't see how Barbarians are ever smart. Their whole idea is that they're... well, barbaric. Brutic, unrefined. They're illiterate, and are stereotypically tribal. I've never seen a Barbarian with an Int above 10.

Really, as far as the "Big Dumb Barbarian" stereotype may or may not go, wouldn't it also apply to fighters, typically?

I think the Barbarian is more of an extreme in the low-Int. My first character was a Half-Orc Fighter -- he came from a tribe of Barbarians, but due to being more intelligent, more civilized, and literate, he strived for a more respectable way of fighting. Sure, he wasn't brilliant, but compared to his tribe he was.

Hm, and paladins most of all. Even min-max wise, many a paladin should probably go for Strength, Charisma, Consitution, Wisdom, in some order or other, before raising Intelligence; in fact it may even trail behind Dexterity in some cases. *shrugs* And there's the "stupid paladin" thing to get over (even if they're not).

Well, but color-wise. My problem isn't with the Barbarian's stats, but of the stereotype. Compared to a Barbarian, a Paladin is at least going be a) Literate and 2) somewhat well-read (K:Religion; he knows his religious texts).

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I think I'd have a tough time playing another non-house ruled bard with my current group. 3.5 did some good things and some bad things to them. There seems to be this perfect tenuous balance of things that irque me about the class, and if any one or two were addressed, I'd find it much easier to play one again.

Of course, the stereotype of the bard as a 'wimpy musician' doesn't help much. I wouldn't mind it so much, but having to listen to 'spoony bard' or 'gay bard' comments for two weeks really ground on me. Especially since that provokes another round of comments about appearance and bearing no matter how I angle it.

I'd like to walk around with a Halbard, tell inspiring stories, wear light armor, and have the magic of my forefathers pouring through my blood. I'm a fully fledged member of a combat oriented party. And I'm not going to flinch or hide because we're fighting a dragon. Instead I'm shouting words of encouragement, and orginizing our offensive.

Now... if only the rest of my group saw it that way.
And if my HP rolls saw it that way too...

Though the bard does become an absolutely lovely class as soon as it becomes an evil game.

I don't think I'd like to play a 'normal' monk anytime soon. While it might be fun to try and make a brawler in 3.5, I'm having enough of the 'guy trained in esoteric arts seeking to expand his knowledge and abilities' in playing a wizard. Fortunately, my DM seems to be up to house-ruling the monk a little so I can angle it as a swashbuckler type. I think that trying to do the whole "eastern kung-fu desciple" angle would kill any hope of enjoying the class.

 

[kikai]

There's a 3.0 SRD?! Where's the 3.0 SRD?! I've searched everywhere for it, but I can't find it anywhere! I know! It's a conspiracy to get us all to convert to 3.5. NOOO!!!!!!!!!

Or try this.

My least preferred class is the monk, but I'll play every coreclass. And I like the bard - more in the Thom Merrillin-way.

Regards, Happy Easter,

kikai!

 

[Darkness]

I'm willing to play just about anything. Still, I'm the DM 95%+ of the time so the question doesn't come up often.

 

[Samuel Leming]

No monks for me.

Sam

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Fighters.

Probably also Wizards.

Though I could see playing an interesting specialist.