What class(es) does your group tend to avoid?

[Voadam]

Asian-themed classes. Thus far, no ninja has managed to sneak by me .

That you know of.

 

[Voadam]

My main group has ranger, paladin, fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue, and druid represented.

So no barbarians, bards, monks, or sorcerers. Or psionics or other base classes.

I have played both barbarians and monks in pbp games though.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Paladins, sorcerers and psionics. We don't allow 3rd party stuff at all.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

Over the years, and i'm talking 25+ , in games I've Dm'd there have been darned few Paladin pcs. I can only recall one by name (Racker Blackmore) and he was arround for a few years. I think I've been a PC in only one or two sessions with a 3e paladin being played by someone else and that was when i was playing in 3 campaigns.

 

[Zappo]

Bards. That's because with "my group" I assume "the people I DM", because personally I've played a bard and I'm itching to play another now that 3.5 has boosted them. Who needs combat power when you have a +42 diplomacy?

However, everyone else seems to dislike bards, either because they're considered weak or because they find the concept silly. So, noone has played a bard IMC, even though I've seen every other core class and a few psionic ones.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Barbarians

We've not had anyone pick up playing one since right when 3.0 first came out. We play any of the rest, but just not barbarian.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Asian-themed classes. Thus far, no ninja has managed to sneak by me .

How would you know that? Hmmm.....?

Except for the fact you're still alive......

 

[John Morrow]

As a whole, what classes does your group tend to avoid?

It depends on the player in my group. Some players in my group avoid certain types of characters. I solved a lot of that problem in my current D&D campaign by offering a 1,000 XP premium, enough to create a second level or dual class first-level character, for playing a character against type.

To get the 1,000 XP they had two choices. They either had to create a character that had at least one level in one of four classes against type for that player and no levels in any of four classes I'm tired of them playing or they had to create three different characters (with no classes in common) and I'd pick the one they played. I also gave them additional starting money for playing the sort of character race that they usually don't play.

All of the players opted for the first option and picked character races against type. The one player who never plays magic users had trouble getting a handle on his first character, a sorcerer, but seems to be having a good time with his second character, a cleric. Two of the other players created other characters more in type but both have since gone back to their original characters for the main campaign. The most successful is probably the player with the druid, a character class he might never have picked if it wasn't on a short list. He's very happy with the way his character is turning out. So I think it's worked out pretty well.

 

[National Acrobat]

Since I only use the 3 Core Books, and I play the 3.0 Version, I voted Barbarian.

Splat books, etc. didn't apply to me, and since the PrC classes available are only the few listed in the 3.0 DMG, they rarely get asked about.

We have a 9 person group.

I have yet to have anyone play a Barbarian. Most often taken are mages, rangers, bards and fighters. Usually we have the cleric and rogue, but often those are played because no one else picked those classes.

 

[Jdvn1]

Is there a reason we can't pick more than one option?

No one in my group seems to like LG, and thus avoids Paladins.