What class can you not bring yourself to play?

[Khayman]

Still haven't tried the monk, and still not interested. Paladins are also low on the list, though I'm playing one now --- not in love with the class as written.

Of the WotC non-core classes, I like most of 'em except for the Samurai, and then only because of its mechanics. I've seen other samurai with different abilities and they work well enough.

 

[Gothmog]

Bard- I can't stand the bard. Nancing, froo-froo, music as magic...BLAH. And I can't figure out how to make a compelling bard character that would actually have a good reason go out and adventure- they seem much better suited to non-combat courtly or political intrigue sorts of scenarios.

Not too fond of monks either, since they seem a little too eastern in style, but I could play one under the right circumstances.

Traditional, single class wizards or sorcerers aren't too high on my list. Blaster style arcane casters aren't my thing, and most wizards tend to start feeling/playing the same after a few levels IME since there are a few spells in D&D that are "must haves" and all spellcasters pretty much end up with.

Everything I'm fine with- my favorites being fighter, cleric, and druid (even back in 1E and 2E). I rather enjoy playing religiously themed characters and the complex RP opportunites their religion and theology offer. And the most fun I've ever had gaming was with a fighter/wizard multiclass warlord trying to take back his homeland from his brother who tried to have him murdered.

 

[EricNoah]

I probably would steer clear of cleric, bard, barbarian, and druid. I would play anything once, for a one-shot or short campaign, but these are probably my least preferred classes to play long-term.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Monks, Bards or Barbarians.

No interest in any of those classes. But I've played Rangers, Clerics, Paladins, Rogues and Fighters. I'm more in the let's kick butt dept. of gaming and neither Monks nor Bards fit that role, IMO. And Barbarians have that bad rap of being "illiterate and stupid". :\

 

[Orius]

Let me add to the bard hate here. Definitely not my favorite class. Not a big fan of those tree-huggin' druids either. I don't like clerics much, but I'd play them for the power, which they have plenty of.

 

[tetsujin28]

Wizards, 'cause I hate dealing with spell memorization. I'm willing to put up with it in clerics and druids, but not wizards.

 

[Aethelstan]

Monks: They're out of sync with the quasi-medieval vibe of D&D and the class has too many bells and whistles.

Druid: Too crunchy-granola for my taste and I don't like a class that loses power outside its preferred setting.

Paladin: I don't like the concept of alignments at all and Paladin's are all about being the exemplars of Lawful Good (and if I see one more "Our Paladin killed a Hell Hound puppy, is he still Lawful Good?" thread I may set upon and badly beat some small person in a fit of anger).

Sorcerers: How many times can a PC cast magic missile before becoming completely numb with boredom. The only thing worse is a Warlock.

 

[Wormwood]

Wizards.

At low levels: Too limited.

At mid-levels: Too many options

At high levels: The feeling that I'm ruining the game for everyone else.

 

[Crothian]

Wizards, 'cause I hate dealing with spell memorization. I'm willing to put up with it in clerics and druids, but not wizards.

Since they work exactly the same why do you put up with it for those two classes but not Wizards?

 

[der_kluge]

Ironically, I ran a whole swashbuckling campaign once, which gave my players lots of opportunity for buckling of swashes in various iterations. But it's not my bag, baby. Not that I don't enjoy dex-based fighter builds. But there's a difference between a nimble weapon expert and a swashbuckler that basically comes down to personality. Duelist? Any day. Elven thinblade master? Sure. But the moment I have to swing on a chandelier and then make snappy comments about my opponents' style, I get bored. Robin Hood I'm not.

Not much of a Zorro fan, are you?