What Classes are roleplayed the WORSE ?

[Jakathi]

paladines, monks and any lawfully aligned character

simply put, most people are a little chaotic at heart especially americans (points to herself proudly). They can't simply understand the motives of a paladin or a monk, nor do they understand the disapline involved. And the same goes for tru neutral characters.


Without law there is no chaos. Without chaos there is no law. Without good, there is no evil. Without evil, there is no good.

"That's all well and good, but try discussing philosophies to a rampaging orc horde. I dare you,"

 

[Gothmog]

IME, the worst played are wizards and sorcerers. A DM worth his salt will write up a few pages about any religion a player decides to play a character for, so background, motivations, doctrine, and theology should be taken care of. Given that context, if a cleric or paladin ignores those rules of his religion and plays like a CN or CE thug, then they are played badly. But IME, that usually isn't a problem.

The main problem I see in gaming are from arcane spellcasters. Let's be honest, most arcane spellcasters are played like they are simpletons, with around a 9-12 Int score equivalent. Very little forethought, planning, or consideration is given to a situation other than to "blast it!" Wizards should be the brightest of the bright- people who can use unconventional means and spells to accomplish their goals. Years of study and discipline over arcane texts should not result in trigger happy psychos who fling fireballs and magic missiles at a moment's notice. Yet, 99% of all D&D arcane casters are just that- incindiary nut jobs. I have only ever seen ONE wizard played well- my sister has an 11th level wizard she has been playing for 10 years who actually uses her utility and defensive spells more often than attack spells (and she has no fireballs, lightning bolts, teleports, etc). In fact, she uses illusions and deception quite a bit, as well as using the enemies own plans against them, given a quick tactical rundown of the situation. THAT is what a wizard should be.

 

[gamecat]

IME, the worst played are wizards and sorcerers. A DM worth his salt will write up a few pages about any religion a player decides to play a character for, so background, motivations, doctrine, and theology should be taken care of. Given that context, if a cleric or paladin ignores those rules of his religion and plays like a CN or CE thug, then they are played badly. But IME, that usually isn't a problem.

The main problem I see in gaming are from arcane spellcasters. Let's be honest, most arcane spellcasters are played like they are simpletons, with around a 9-12 Int score equivalent. Very little forethought, planning, or consideration is given to a situation other than to "blast it!" Wizards should be the brightest of the bright- people who can use unconventional means and spells to accomplish their goals. Years of study and discipline over arcane texts should not result in trigger happy psychos who fling fireballs and magic missiles at a moment's notice. Yet, 99% of all D&D arcane casters are just that- incindiary nut jobs. I have only ever seen ONE wizard played well- my sister has an 11th level wizard she has been playing for 10 years who actually uses her utility and defensive spells more often than attack spells (and she has no fireballs, lightning bolts, teleports, etc). In fact, she uses illusions and deception quite a bit, as well as using the enemies own plans against them, given a quick tactical rundown of the situation. THAT is what a wizard should be.

I play a wizard who is passionate about his causes. Very smart, but highly impulsive. Ergo, he's a fireball mage subconciously.

 

[WattsHumphrey]

First and foremost, I'd say clerics. In most of my game worlds, clerics use the weapons of their deity... and choose the domains that fit their goals, not the domains that fit their ability to crush the enemies. I generally see players doing the opposite. Picking domains and weapons are spiritual, not whoring decisions.

Second, I'd pick Pallys. I think their stereotypes are appropriate because they make pallys that... almost work. It's nearly impossible to get along with a party of dynamic characters if you insist on following a restrictive code like that. Most of the pally stereotypes are ways of simplifying the mindset of the pally to the point where they're actually playable.

I finally chose monks. Not that I see many played. But it seems hard for people to play a character who's lawful-minded all the time. Monks are generally all about mental discipline... and charging in to hit things or even spring attacking them right off the bat doesn't seem disciplined to me.

 

[WattsHumphrey]

I have more trouble with the reverse: players that always play the same character, regardless of the class and/or race they have chosen, and the ability scores their character has. Some always play the rebel, the leader, the tactician, the fanatic, or the oddball.

I know someone just like this. He always plays the elven ranger. Always.

I've seen him as a Paladin... and he had to dual-wield weapons and try to track things all the time, as well as quibbling with the dwarves.

 

[Rashak Mani]

heheh... true there is always an eternally Elven player.... no matter what class...

 

[Li Shenron]

I am not sure I got the point of this thread and poll... all complains can be summarized in two types

- there is too little roleplay at all in our games: players just fight and think of abilities and stats instead of developing their PCs as characters

- many classes are always roleplayed the same

First of all, I have nothing against games where roleplay takes little attention compared to tactics. If players like this way of playing, let them play as they like, if you don't like the same then find other players who feel the same. I am not a fanatic of roleplay, but also I am not a munchkin either.

IMHO the current D&D we are playing is not RP-oriented very much: for example, PCs advance too fast and die too easily, and this means that every player doesn't have time to think about his PC's personality. When we started our gaming group, we all claimed we wanted a very flavorful campaign, with lots of in-character scenes and severily non-optimized RP-driven choices done in our character advancement, but soon we found out that it was very difficult to play that way, when most of the published adventures are hack'n slash with trivial plots, and accessory books are mostly abusing the same old ideas. I don't blame my fellow players if they can't easily RP better.

Now for the second part, it is difficult to come up with original character ideas.
I have never been a good roleplayer, since I always focused more on the strategic part of playing (not min/maxing anyway...), and I don't know what to suggest about it. In the 3.0 DMG there was a table to randomly roll traits, perhaps an idea could be to roll a few random things (perhaps minor) of the character, and then try to find a point to make them match. Or getting inspiration from other classes?

The alignent system is very good to start from IMHO, but usually it is played trivially. I am CE, therefore I play as a maniac mass murderer... there should be hundreds of way of being evil and thousands of way of being chaotic: furthermore, you could be chaotic in the majority of aspects, but for example you could still love traditions. And mostly, there are a variety degrees of being for example evil, from mildly evil to definitely b***ard to utterly insane.

Last, there is of course what I thought this thread was about: players who just have one and wrong idea on how to play a class. If they are beginner players I wouldn't expect much. Now the problem is if you long-time gamer has chosen to play his 84th paladin and is still being the crusader who detects-smite all the time. It is possible that the class as written suggests itself this bad approach, but nothing can help unless the group is willing to discuss directly with the player about his being boring and missing what he could try instead.

 

[marshaldwm]

I would have to go with Clerics.

I mean, where do these guys think their powers come from, anyway?

So many clerics I see played use a one line "I pray for spells" and spend the rest of the day doing whatever they please.

If I see another cleric who thinks their powers come out of some personal privlidge without obligations or duties I think I will scream.

 

[Rashak Mani]

Li Shenron I don't think people were saying you have to RP ... but that when people do roleplay that Clerics and Paladins and Monks come thru as badly RPed. We also tend to play "wargame" D&D a lot... but even then we want to suspend disbelief. So if your Paladin is killing innocents or in a lighter tone just lying all the time.... doesnt this "hurt" your game ? Even if its a pure war game... Its about fantasy. Fantasy can benefit from stereotypes for sure... but when people only play stereotypes things get bland.

Being a somewhat lousy actor myself... I think everyone should at least try to RP in strategic D&D. Our campaigns tend to be balanced with a certain tilt to Wargame.... but the memorable moments tend to be roleplayed ones.

 

[Jack Daniel]

The only class that is consistently played wrong is the druid. I have seen many rogues, paladins, and monks in my time, and they have all been played excellently, just enough originality that they don't conform to the steretopyes, but still well within the parameters of the class (paladins being lawful good, for example). Most rogues I see played as pickpockets and burglars, but the occasional swashbuckler or outlaw changes things up. Likewise, paladins I see played as swashbuckling musketeers or good-samaritan mercenaries as often as they are shining knights. As long as the character is a heroic, holy warrior, the paladin class applies. Most of the monks I see are played very chop-socky, like wire-fu heroes, but that's a good thing, because that's precisely what monks are -- and there's plenty of room for vareity in there, so no two monks are ever the same.

Druids are where this pattern breaks down. Rarely have I ever seen a druid portrayed as anything but a tree-hugging, animal-kissing wizard. Also crucial to this stereotype is an eco-terroristic view of nature, with the druid suddenly attacking good humans or elves for cutting down some trees to build a house. I personally blame the 3rd edition description of the druid class; in 2e, the druid was clearly a priest class that was heavy on nature worship because the Celtic druids had sorta been that way. In 3e, they culled out all resemblance to history, and made every tenth word in the druid class description "nature," which really narrows the potential of the class. When was the last time you saw a civilized, scholarly druid who wasn't covered in furs or hides? The best druid I've ever seen played was a dwarf who passed himself off as a wandering fighter-mage with an army of tabby-cats that just followed him around, presumably for his copious moonshining skills. Now that was a character.