What class can you not bring yourself to play?

[monboesen]

I'm somewhat surprised that so many people here link classes to such narrow definitions and concepts.

In many ways the bard, for instance, is the ultimate adventurer. He has decent combat abilities, good skills and decent magical abilities. And his "music abilities" need not be music at all. It could as easily be percieved as shouting encouragement and commands in battle.

The barbarian is a stupid brute. Who decided that ? I don't recall Conan being stupid but rather clever actually. Illeteracy and tribal life = stupid. Thats a pretty condemning point of view.

The druid can easily be played as a lone mage in his remote tower. Just load up the right spells and use that elemental wildshape.

I think all classes can be great fun. It helps if you are open to small changes to skill lists, abilities and changing mechanics fluff.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Paladins. Can't deal with alignment/code, not to mention they're still frontloaded and should be prestige.

Bard I would play only in a really skill-focused campaign.

Other thna that I'll play almost anything.

 

[Harold as a Verb]

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.

I dislike the direction the bard is going in too: Gnomes as bards? bards as second-rate illusionists? Which is why in our homebrew the bard is significantly changed. We have two bard types. One is the uber-enchanter type (through a fusion of handled-differently-from-core music and spells). The other is the war-bard, kind of a skald, or barbarian bard, with major party-buff war-crys and excellent summoning abilities - not conjuration per se, but summoning somewhat in the "Final Fantasy" mould. These variants work for us, anyway. *shrug*

Now, to get to the thread's question:

I'm somewhat reluctant to play Paladins, largely because of the infinite variations of interpretation concerning Lawful Good and the paladin's code as it interacts with the situations the campaign will involve. But it tends to come down to the DM and their campaign and approach to such issues. With a DM who I have a good understanding, and where we discuss all manner of potential paladin-in-the-campaign-related problems in advance, then I enjoy running a paladin.

Monks on the other hand ... no amount of ... uhh ... *anything* ... can convince me to try one. Dunno why.

 

[KB9JMQ]

I have never played a Bard nor a Paladin.
I just can't get myself to play either one.
The paladin is so not me and a bard has always seemed silly.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

I won't play a druid, as I have a very dim view of paganism (I do have them in my game, though).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

It would... except

1. Fighters tend to benefit from a 13-14 int since that opens up a number of good feats and options (Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, etc).

2. Paladins don't benefit much from playing an int-penalty race. (Half-orcs). Mechanically, a half-orc barbarian is the way to do the most of what a barbarian does--massive damage. Mechanically, a half-orc paladin is at a significant disadvantage because of the cha penalty.

So, half-orc is what really makes the "big dumb barbarian" stereotype stick.

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).

 

[Dark Jezter]

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.

Just because you've never seen it dosen't mean that it dosen't exist. I actually ran a barbarian in an old Scarred Lands campaign who had an Int of 14. Due to some very lucky stat rolls he had abilites to spare.

Intelligence has nothing to do with education in D&D. Intelligence represents your character's ability to learn concepts.

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.

Well, I can't change how barbarians are portrayed in campaigns you've played in. Although if I had a DM who portrayed all barbarians as extreme idiots, to me that would indicate a real lack of imagination.

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).

If we're going to hang on to the "dumb barbarian" stereotype, shall I bring up the "lawful stupid paladin" stereotype? How about the "violent zealot who attacks anything that registers as evil" stereotype?

If the concept of a barbarian with a higher intelligence than a rock is too much for you to wrap your mind around, I suggest that you read the Conan tales by Robert E. Howard. Conan, the definitive fantasy barbarian, is a very crafty and cunning individual in addition to being a physical powerhouse and a skilled fighter.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

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.

 

[der_kluge]

So having nothing to distinguish it mechanically from any other rogue/wizard is a good thing? I don't particularly care if it has a different name on a similar package, I'll give it whatever flavor I want when I conceptualize the character (see examples above). And if those spells do include exclusive spell lists like "Controlling Songs" and "Entertaining Ways" (to use the Rolemater examples), then you still have 'silly' musical magical effects, don't you?

Nah, Harpers in HARP have their own spell lists, and it tends towards enchantment stuff. It is very similar to a rogue/wizard, but you'd have to pay a cost for multi-classing....

 

[Altalazar]

If I can come up with a good character concept, I'll play anything. Heck, some of my more interesting character concepts were chosen before I even had a class to go with them, then I'd try and figure out what class would fit best.

Ultimately, it is the character that makes it fun for me, not the class - the class is just a way to bring the character to life. Some classes or combos have inspired certain characters as well.