What Classes are roleplayed the WORSE ?

[Liolel]

The two major offenders in my mind are paladins and monks. I've had no bad in game experiences with paladins but the number of threads about them that I disagree on the thread starters opinion is amazing. (even though this mainly happens on wizards of the coast boards I do browse other boards.)

There is a monk in my group however and I think its role-played wrong. The monk is completely and utterly insane, and crazy. For example the monk has bought a heavy war horse, and then paid to have it magically died purple and orange. The monk when captured and waking up with a sword at his throat tried to attack his capturers. Luckily for him he was more useful alive then dead and they knocked him out again with non lethal damage.

Although I didn't vote for clerics there was one incident in game a year ago the was in my mind a big no no. A cleric of garl glittergold tried to sell a magical bowl, which he knew summoned devils if it was used to collect blood from sacrifices. He never did get to sell it as the wizard who identified it was very concerned and called the town guard to make sure the bowl was destroyed. The cleric's player later left the group.

I am a player in the campaign involving both of those characters so theres not much I can do about it.

 

[Arnwyn]

Paladins, Monks, Druids, and Psionicists. Honourable mention to Clerics.

I would say Psions (Psionicists).
This is just in my experience, but my players usually want to play them like members of the X-Men.

I'd give my left arm if my players came up with that when playing Psions. Their best effort so far is "I've got a big veiny head". (Yeah, that's exaggeration, but still...)

 

[LordVyreth]

Heh, the last time I played a monk, I almost instinctively started making it a typical silent, stoic, lurk in the shadows type. I later realized what I almost did, and decided to turn the stereotype on its head, and created a monk who tried to be the silent, stoic, lurk in shadows type, but who actually was a whiny dork named Lenny who entered the order on the off-chance it would help him with women and because he couldn't cut it as a farmer, cook, teamster, etc.

Anyway, I picked Paladin, if only because reading the Wizards boards suggests a lot of people play them as sociopaths.

Vyreth

 

[Wombat]

My bids were for Paladin and Monk

Monk, in particular, gets my hackles going. Most people play monks based on some vague notion of a couple kung fu movies they've seen, even if that doesn't fit with the game world. It's like they've got a single image of what is "correct" and never budge. This makes for a truly surrealistic situation given that most gameworld (not all, but most) are based on semi-European backgrounds, with something close to feudalism, albeit with nascient capitalism, and kings in charge of comparatively small kingdoms, etc. In other words it is pure Culture Clash -- the monks do not even belong in the setting, at least as-played.

Paladin is often played as a big, dumb guy with a simple-minded view of the world who wears a lot of armour and the gods take pity on by giving him some spells. There is very little exploration of the relationship between the god(s) and the paladin. If they are not played dumb-n-sweet they are played dumb-n-mean, very narrow-minded and just one step shy of needlessly cruel.

Nope, neither class is played well.

 

[Bloodsparrow]

I don't mean this as an afront to my fellow gamers, but I've very rarely seen a Bard who is charismatic.

It's extremely hard to roleplay a charismatic character when you yourself are not a charismatic person. We always make the comparison of playing someone with an 18 int, when you may only have a 14 int...the same goes for having a high wisdom.

But the really hard one I think is trying to roleplay a high charisma.

Cedric

I agree with that one.

 

[Philip]

But the really hard one I think is trying to roleplay a high charisma.
Cedric

Roleplaying a character with high charisma is very dependent on the DM. When one of my players has a character with high charisma and they meet NPCs, I use several tricks to simulate the character's high charisma (even though the player might be lacking in this department):

- NPCs always assume the High CHA character to be the spokesman and adress them first.
- In an argument, NPC take the side of the high CHA character.
- I look a lot at the player who has a high CHA character when role-playing, and avoid looking at those with low CHA. I am often amazed how well this workst to simulate. Players that are ignored will often let their character behave rude, interrupt conversations etc. while players that get the extra attention will let their characters act bolder and more confident.
- NPCs will ignore or interpret favorably social goofs made by the high CHA character, while they will immediately jump on the same goofs made by the low CHA character.

I think role-playing a high CHA character only works well when the DM gives it a lot of support.

 

[takyris]

I picked cleric and arcane spellcasters.

You have bolts of energy coming out of your hands. You should be awestruck, almos frightened, then later on gleeful and even a bit dizzy with the power. But are you? No. You go "I cast this" and check it off your spells/day chart for that level.

You have a direct line to your deity -- you are the living avatar of your god's beliefs. You should be as bound to your particular oaths as a paladin. If you are a cleric of the god of strife, you should make conflict, even among your friends, even in your own life. If you worship Love, you should be willing to work in secret to help young lovers secretly marry, even if it hurts your own political aims.

But no. Most clerics hit things and turn undead.

 

[Philip]

I don't think classes in general are role-played badly. If a player likes to play a brutish no questions asked warrior, he will choose a barbarian, if a player likes to play a shady type constantly pestering others, he will choose a rogue.

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.

The more at odds a class is with a player's natural tendency, the more difficult to role-play the character, and the higher the risk of 'bad' role-playing. If you don't know how to properly act as a paladin or a monk, if you are not 'into' the role, you will tend to play what you are familiar with, which is often a stereotype.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm playing a bard right now, and he's boisterous and fun in the tavern, and as gung-ho about defeating evil guys as any paladin. I never play loud characters, so this is a really fun change of pace. I mean, really, if you can't have fun roleplaying a bard, you should go play warhammer.
-The Souljourner

In other words, you meet Frank's stereotype, minus the promiscuity.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I voted Rogue. Does every rogue HAVE to be a pickpocket that steals even from his own party?

I voted Rogue, but it was a tossup with Bard. While these two classes have absolutely marvelous roleplaying flexibility and potential, they end up being played quite the same for some unfathomable reason IME.

I have seen more inspired and varied attempts to play a Paladin than Rogue or Bard. But if the Paladin players fall short at least they have an excuse.