What class can you not bring yourself to play?

[Jdvn1]

Barbarians are not stupid, just uneducated.

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

 

[Impeesa]

I'm fairly open-minded about classes being simply packages of abilities to help flesh out my character concept, so I can't really think of anything I wouldn't play given the right concept. So really, I shouldn't be chiming in here, but I thought I'd play devil's advocate for one of the less-loved classes...

Picture this: A dark cave filled with the deep rumbling snoring of a powerful wyrm. Our gang of heroes enters slowly, the mage's body crackling with arcane power, the fighter tightening his grip on his trusted blade, the Cleric radiating holy power and ...

...the bard. Who takes out a harp and starts doing a 'magic' jig.

Oh my god. You will never catch me playing a bard. In fact, I hate them so much they don't exist in my home brew.

Where does that leave the young evangelist, enchanting the masses and spurring his allies to great acts of courage with his rousing oratory? Or the orcish drummer, bolstering his unit's morale and striking fear into his enemies during wartime, and acting as a keeper of cultural lore during times of peace? It's not the game designers' fault if the only bard archtype you can come up with is "gay leprechaun."

I could see myself playing a Harper in HARP (the bard equivalent), but I can't bring myself to do it in d20. I tried, I thought it was horribly weak. I switched to rogue/sorcerer, and immediately got more spells, and more skill points. Go figure. Of course, that was 3.0. They are marginally better in 3.5, but not by much. The musical magic stuff destroys the verisimilitude for me, I agree.

HARP Harpers don't have that. They have spells like wizards, and have artistic and roguish skills which they can choose from. It's really quite flexible. No silly musical magical effects in that system.

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?

--Impeesa--

 

[Dyne]

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!!!!!!!!!

Whoa, too much spam. Oh well, I think it'd be better to just have one spell that provides protection against energy, and it'd just get better as you get more powerful. And maybe you could augment it somehow by preparing it at a higher level. Oh well, I guess I just like Psionics too much.

Anyway, I've never played a Druid, but I think it's an interesting concept. They really come into their own in campaigns that have a deal of wilderness travel, though.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Druid. Going all tree-hugging nature-loving hippy and at the same time espousing trendy, incoherent "balance" claptrap would send me over the edge. My hat of the druid know no limit. Even being the cheesiest, most overpowered class in the game doesn't induce me to play one.

Pretty much any other core class, however, I'll play. Paladin? You betcha. Monk? Not a big fan, but the 3.5 version multiclasses well. Fighter? Love the feats baby. Barbarian? Me rage, me smash. Given a non-stupid oaf model (like the Arcanis val-Tensen hook), I can really get into it. Bard? subtle manipulation isn't something I can do forever, but I can be pretty good at it given the right tools. And the bard has those tools. Cleric? What's your flavor? Battle cleric, support cleric? I'll play them all. Rogue? I tend not to like roguey settings, but as long as we're not stuck fighting undead all the time, I can get into it. Ranger? I love the flavor; mechanically, I don't quite have it figured out, but I like the class. Sorcerer? As long as I get to start after level 4, I'm good to go. Suffering through the low levels is a pain though. Wizard? You betcha. (Fighter/wizard has always been my favorite combo). Even some of the expansion classes--Psion, Wilder, Psi Warrior, etc. seem like a lot of fun. I'm not so keen on things like Favored Soul, Samurai, Hexblade, Scout, Spellthief, and Warmage because they seem a lot more limited than the core classes, but I would be happy to play them if I needed a change of pace.

The only class I can't stand is the druid.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

The Bard. I'm just not comfortable in the role as the party spokesman...

 

[hero4hire]

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

ditto...

 

[VirgilCaine]

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!!!!!!!!!

www.opengamingfoundation.org

 

[Ogre Mage]

Bard. Ugh. Too artsy-fartsy foo-foo for me.

Paladin. Has a longsword shoved up their arse which ruins the fun for everyone else.

 

[Shade]

Bard. It is a terribly underpowered class, and from the roleplaying perspective, I'd rather play a rogue with lots of ranks in Perform.

 

[Turjan]

I don't play fighters (too boring), monks (I really dislike the concept) and bards (too much hassle for not enough turnout). I'm not good with sorcerers, either. Although I've played some rangers, I feel the halved caster levels really hurt. Wizards and druids are my preferred classes.