What class can you not bring yourself to play?

[TroyXavier]

Clerics. I know how powerful they can be, but I'm just not comfortable with playing them.

 

[Jdvn1]

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.

Again, I'm basing this off of stereotypes. I'm not saying there aren't other ways to play Barbarians, but since I've never seen such a Barbarian, maybe my schema is skewed.

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, they're consistently uneducated and brutish. That's often a mark of low Int. Again, stereotypes.

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?

First of all, that's not the stereotype of Paladins that goes through my head. I think of Paladins like King Arthur's knights. Regardless, at least I've seen Paladins played otherwise. Based on those experiences, I've been able to come up with other ways to play Paladins. I need some sort of starting point to play a non-stereotypical (at least my subjective stereotype) Barbarian.

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.

Does that mean high Int or high Wis? It might be able to be argued either way. I'll consider reading those books, but it'd probably be more useful for me to see a D&D Barbarian played in such a way. I tend to read Sci Fi and play Fantasy, so don't bet on my reading those books any time soon.

I'm not saying I'll never play a Barbarian -- I want to at least try each class once, at least for the experience. I'm just most dubious of Barbarians due to subpar experiences with them.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Anything that memorizes spells. If it's a spell I'll need, I'll've not prepared it. Screw this short-term planning stuff.

Bards. I hate to add to the bard-hate, but they're annoying and they're getting all the attention that should be going to the monk and rogue, my favorite classes.

Brad

 

[Emirikol]

I don't think I'd ever like to play a commoner, adept, aristocat, warrior or witch (DMG) in a party of core characters. The point-buy alone...sheesh...

jh

 

[Illvillainy]

No core PC class upsets that much.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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

Conan does not have low intelligence!

 

[GimbleRaulnor]

Hmm, least favorite? That would be paladin for sure.. Too restrictive and one sided.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Anything single-classed. I just can't imagine playing a character that one-sided.

 

[LondonReign]

Yup, Monk and Paladin. Yechk. :\

 

[paulsometimes]

While I consider myself to be in the camp of "willing to play anything," there are a few I'm not nearly as likely to go towards unless I have a great character concept to go with it. The sorcerer as number one and for no real good reason. Heck, I always thought they sounded like a good idea and nothing about mechanically or story wise seems too wrong with them, but they just rub me the wrong way. After that comes barbarian; it just seems like a class that wants to be a race. Monks and druids round it out. They just seem so one-dimensional to me for classes. Though my brother once played a monk and ended up being our power house.

Paul