Class I'm least likely to want to play...that's hard but in the end I'd say would be the plain ol' fighter. And it's not because I hate them or anything, just I cut my teeth on 3.5 and other rps being the BSFG. Same with Barbarian. LOVE the class, just played it to the point of wanting to do something else.
Gee, I wonder why...
I like to build a bunch of characters of every class(hence why I dm), but there still are classes that bug me.
Least likely to play: Gunslinger. I don't like how the class is balanced, at all with the way firearms work. Don't need full BAB for weapons that constantly resolve touch imo & I don't like the deeds. Throw in that you actually have to devote resources to ammo(Cartridges are expensive as hell) I'd much rather play a normal Archer.
Other less played classes:
-Druids. Some intial 3.5 bias against 'em. I do like some archetypes though(reincarnation for example) and you can make some really cool concepts with them, just don't think I'd want to play one long term.
-Inquisitors. I don't really like their mechanics, though I'll admit my appreciation for them has increased.
-Bards. Never been a strong fan of the concept & seems to be fairly bland outside of certain archetypes.
|
Paladin. I mechanically love them and think they're great. They are a fine compromise between traditional martial combat and holy themes, accomplishing it in a subtly different way from a Cleric, Inquisitor, or Oracle. I appreciate their design!
However, I have received nothing but grief for playing them. On the truly baffling side of things, I've had another player rant at me for "playing an overpowered class" when my Paladin healed their character. Seriously, no exaggeration. It happened exactly that way and I am completely puzzled by it.
On the more conventional side, I have had players start arguing for a Fall when one of my Paladins didn't stand there and get killed over the party's really bad choices. Choices the Paladin warned against and presumed they knew not to make due to obvious party-endangerment. While most of the players were cool about the Paladin being all "No, I'm not dying for YOUR mistakes"... a few began dropping some pretty mean out-of-character insults and calling for a Fall. Turns out it only takes one or two jerks at a table to make you regret the whole session.
No other PC Class invites so much ill-will at the table, and that's even if the Paladin's player is portraying the class as a consistently Good and helpful person rather than an Overly Lawful Bully. It seriously needs a revision, an explicit easing of restrictions, to be fixed. As it stands, I'd sooner play a Commoner than touch Paladin again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist - It is a concept that can be replicated by any caster who makes potions or crafts alchemical equipment.
Cavalier - I'd rather play a mounted fighter or paladin.
Gunslinger - I find firearms too powerful and they don't fit the D&D world stereoptype IMO.
Summoner - Meh.
Witch - Just play a sorcerer.
Samurai & Ninja - No need for these. Want that concept then play a fighter or paladin, or rogue, and you have them covered.
Monk - Just not interested.
Wizard - I'd go sorcerer every time.
Witch - Just play a sorcerer.
Wut
Alchemist - It is a concept that can be replicated by any caster who makes potions or crafts alchemical equipment.
Cavalier - I'd rather play a mounted fighter or paladin.
Gunslinger - I find firearms too powerful and they don't fit the D&D world stereoptype IMO.
Summoner - Meh.
Witch - Just play a sorcerer.
Samurai & Ninja - No need for these. Want that concept then play a fighter or paladin, or rogue, and you have them covered.
Monk - Just not interested.
Wizard - I'd go sorcerer every time.
i have no rebuttal for the summoner and monk
but alchemist? it may seem redundant, but there currently isn't another class for angry intelligent potion making natural attacking barbarian
Cavalier; my problem, is not the class, but the restriction on mount choices, open up the Wyvern, Pegasus, Rock, Tiger, Unicorn, and Nightmare as options, i might consider one
Gunslinger; firearms are their own can of worms, but some Gygaxian D&D modules, have, since 1e, included such concepts as firearms, and alien space ships where you can loot lightsabers and laser guns.
Witch; it is mostly a mechanical thing, to the mystic theurge what the magus is to the eldritch knight.
Samurai&Ninja Cavalier and Rogue Fixes. just get over the eastern names if they bother you. call them "Knight" and "Mystic Assassin" if you must.
Wizard; it is overpowered, but like you, i prefer the sorcerer
Summoner; i don't even know a single DM that allows this class.
Monk. weak, even if you use the Zen Archer, best archetype of the entire class.
Perhaps if ppl were to leave explanations out that would minimize the back and forth?
Perhaps if ppl were to leave explanations out that would minimize the back and forth?
Why would you want to minimize discussion?
That's what a forum is FOR.
Perhaps if ppl were to leave explanations out that would minimize the back and forth?
Actually, if you state "This is why I think this" there would be a lot less questioning and possibly some healthy discussion about it. Its sort of weird to tell someone "Witch? Why not play sorc!" when Witch's main gig is having a weird divine/arcane spell list and the hex class feature. I'm sort of puzzled on that one myself. It also adds much more than "I just don't like cavaliers because." for instance, which leads to only questions and doesn't really add much to why people do or don't like a class.
Perhaps if ppl were to leave explanations out that would minimize the back and forth?Why would you want to minimize discussion?
That's what a forum is FOR.
sorry not discussion. Pointless arguing.
But if you like that sort of thing and that's how forum "discussions"are supposed to be then pardon my ignorance. Or don't as I personally don't care.
For classes I'm least likely to play a Druid, Samurai, Ranger or Witch.
Druids; I don't like the nature fluff that much. It makes me less inclined to not be an adventurer.
Samurai to me is the worst class to play. Most of their abilities are very 'meh' for me. I'd much rather play a Fighter or Cavalier, cheat or feat my way into the weapon proficiency I want and just call it a Samurai.
Ranger; Mechanically the Inquisitor does all the things that I wish that a ranger did, but my biggest pet peeves are Favored Enemy/Terrain, which feel too situational to be attractive, and spells because I don't see the class as casters at any stretch.
Witch; I really don't know, I guess most of my fantasy concepts fall under some other caster and flavor-wise Witch seems unnecessary. I just never have characters that fit the concept.
For races I'm least likely to play Half-elves, Half-lings, Half-orcs, Drow, Samsaran, Strix, Svirfneblin, Vishkanyan or Wayangs.
Half-elves and Half-orcs give me headaches due to how they genetically work.
I never understood what halflings are so never really have a good backstory for them.
Drow, Vishkanyans and Wayangs come off to me more like creepy monster races that are hard to form as heroes without making a mary-sue.
Strix; wings
I like the idea of Spriggans but Svirfneblin just seem off to me because they don't really thematically mesh with gnomes or spriggans.
Samsarans I just never found interesting.
|
I've played every other Paizo class except the Ninja, Oracle(working on a dwarf one in PFS though), Sorcerer and Summoner, though some of them only through multiclassing with another class, and the ones that I find the least likely to play as are Sorcerers and Druids.
Why? Well, while I, as a horror fiction afficionado, adore the kind of body horror a sorcerous bloodline can evoke(have a look at the Aberrant), mechnically the class is too tied to their spellcasting. I wish they would receive some kind of utility from their bloodlines akin to oracles and their curses. It's not that I'm at loss at what to do round-by-round, but the class itself is defined by their very mechanically-lean bloodline ability.
As for druids, I still have not found a campaign that would support the kinds of thematic associations my brain conjurers every time I read this or that archetype or certain class abilities. The closest I've got to playing one was an urban druid, a gardener cum assassin for royalty, and xe too needed a lot of mental distance from druidic flavor in order to work.
Why? Well, while I, as a horror fiction afficionado, adore the kind of body horror a sorcerous bloodline can evoke(have a look at the Aberrant), mechnically the class is too tied to their spellcasting. I wish they would receive some kind of utility from their bloodlines akin to oracles and their curses. It's not that I'm at loss at what to do round-by-round, but the class itself is defined by their very mechanically-lean bloodline ability.
I feel the same way about the Sorcerer. Bloodlines always felt like a poorly done prototype in comparison to Mysteries to me. I didn't have too much issue with them because they were a huge step forward from 3.5, but then they got left in the dust again when Oracle came out imo. Being able to pick your benefits instead of having a pre-defined bundle is much more interesting for character building. I probably won't ever play a Sorcerer, but I'd get behind playing an Oracle with 1/2 BAB and the Wizard/Sorc spell list.
I've always felt that, to roleplay something, even if you don't agree with it, you have to understand it. Avoiding specifics for obvious reasons, I could play a member of Political Party B, even though I'm a member of Political Party A, because even if I disagree with most all of their viewpoints, I can see their point of view.
I don't *want* to be able to see the point of view of a torturer, rapist, or the like.
To each their own, but frankly 99% of D&D characters are killers: killers of sentient life no less.
Add to that that plenty of actors play serial killers, genocidal maniacs or worse. These people aren't evil, they just play it on the TV.
Roleplaying evil can be cathartic: you get to do something you would never do in real life. I've roleplayed a neutral ranger who would casually break bones in an interrogation. I could never do that in real life, but that's what a character is for, creating interesting narrative.
Maybe you don't watch silence of the lambs, because it freaks you out. I love it because it takes me outside my comfort zone.
Wut
Witch - Just play a sorcerer.
For me, it is a concept thing. Want to play a witch then I recommend playing a sorcerer with the abyssal or infernal bloodline. Doesn't need a class of its own in my opinion.
For me, it is a concept thing. Want to play a witch then I recommend playing a sorcerer with the abyssal or infernal bloodline. Doesn't need a class of its own in my opinion.Witch - Just play a sorcerer.Wut
If you ignore all the mechanics and pretend every witch is related to a creature from the abyss or hell and get their powers from that instead of worship/study, then yes, that's exactly how it works.
I think the witch has enough mechanical difference to be its own thing. I just feel it's confined to the old-crone-that-eats-children concept.
It definitely has a different feel than a sorcerer or wizard. I just wish it had more hexes. Most of the hexes are silly or weak imo, like Swamp Hag or Child Scent. I don't see them getting many new hexes in the future either. I need to make a thread on making new ones sometime soon.
Pretty much anything outside of the core classes (the ones in the main rulebook). I just find that they do the job for me and I still haven't explored all of their possibilities. The classes from he APG, UC and UM seem, to me, to be unneeded and overly complex constructs you can likely simulate with the core classes.
I felt this way about the 3E splatbooks classes too though so it isn't exactly a new thing to me.
Perhaps if ppl were to leave explanations out that would minimize the back and forth?
Yes - because lists of classes without anything else makes for a fascinating discussion.
I think you *do* miss the point of discussion forums.
I've always felt that, to roleplay something, even if you don't agree with it, you have to understand it. Avoiding specifics for obvious reasons, I could play a member of Political Party B, even though I'm a member of Political Party A, because even if I disagree with most all of their viewpoints, I can see their point of view.
I don't *want* to be able to see the point of view of a torturer, rapist, or the like.
To each their own, but frankly 99% of D&D characters are killers: killers of sentient life no less.
Add to that that plenty of actors play serial killers, genocidal maniacs or worse. These people aren't evil, they just play it on the TV.
Roleplaying evil can be cathartic: you get to do something you would never do in real life. I've roleplayed a neutral ranger who would casually break bones in an interrogation. I could never do that in real life, but that's what a character is for, creating interesting narrative.
Maybe you don't watch silence of the lambs, because it freaks you out. I love it because it takes me outside my comfort zone.
There's a significant difference between 'killing' and 'murder'. I don't believe I've ever had a character who killed anything that wasn't trying to kill me, my friends, or an innocent being.
I also can't be a hero in RL, so that's the route I prefer to take.
I want to play rogues, fighters and monks, but in any long game the stats wind up stacking against them. They kind of sit there asking to be dipped into for a couple of levels.
Otherwise I'm just not interested in a lot of the semi-core classes (witch, cavalier etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel pretty much the same way. Can't stand the implied servility the whole God/Priest thing implies. It's like kow-towing willingly to some being to stroke it's ego so it gives you stuff. Ethically icky to me.
Totally agree.
I'm a Christian and this just bugs the crap out of me. Not so much that the fantasy world has a religion other than my own, but that it seems so ridiculous; it's one thing to believe that there's one true God and act on that knowledge. ...but to arbitrarily pick one of several known "gods" and become a zealot for some powerful, yet decidedly imperfect being? Why is this guy worthy of your worship and praise? Because he'll give you cool spells?
*sigh*
Yeah, stick with ideals if you can help it. Or play a Druid or Oracle or something. =/
EDIT: There's probably no good way to inject religion into fantasy without annoying some group or another, so I'll acknowledge that the way D&D/Pathfinder handles it is probably the least offensive way to work in the ever-present trope of the holy man with healing spells.
Iunno, ask the Greeks?
And who says you have to be a zealot? It may just so happen that this particular god speaks to your sense of morals best, and you're so devoted to that cause (and by extension, that god) that s/he grants you divine power.
Really, picking among a number of known gods is no different than picking from a number of unknown gods (There are quite a multitude of religions extant today all with different gods, y'know), with the added bonus that you can be assured for a fact that when you die...you know for a fact you're not wrong in believing in their existence at least.
Rogues and Cavaliers. Rogues for reasons already stated by others and Cavaliers because what is even the point of them?
+1
And sort of:
I always interpreted all the gods in the DnD world as being massive dicks, though some more so than others. I assumed the whole infinite cosmic power that is dependent on mortal worshipers would just mean that those mortals are viewed as little more than batteries or lowly but necessary beasts of burden... not the followers would be encouraged to see it that way.
On an unrelated note: Ur Priests. Always wanted to play an Oracle based on that concept. Always evil? Says who, the insane transhumans at the wheel who will do anything to maintain power?
i don't think it matters which class i would mention here, at some point i would want to try a concept with it. But the ones i imagine that to be least likely to happen are
- Wizard, there is a spontaneous casting alternative to it with much cooler secondary abilities
- Cavalier, i have played a samurai and it was awesome, the western version however doesn't appeal much to me, also mounted classes are problematic in a game about dungeoneering. (if the unmounted archetypes were a little more interesting, maybe i'd change my mind)
- Monk, unless you have a bunch of houserules or a very specific build, the very mechanics of the game stack against this class in a way that just makes it un-fun to play.
- Bards (other than archeologist), i actually tried one in a pbp once, at it was alright, but i actually don't care much for the class, i don't like the idea of a performer in a dungeon. Maybe i would do it, if i had a great singing voice and i could just roleplay my performance at the table.
Every post here makes me want to play that class just to prove to myself that person is wrong.
Every post here makes me want to play that class just to prove to myself that person is wrong.
cool post, although it is actually imposible proving me wrong in that I don't like some classes. :-)
Rogue - anything they can do someone else can do better. (Though I'll admit Merisiel may be able to do it backwards and in heels).
-TimD
I always interpreted all the gods in the DnD world as being massive dicks, though some more so than others.
Which is why none of my characters bother. "Why should I worship someone who is even more imperfect that most people?"
This is also another reason why I prefer the distant gods or no gods model, so religion is actually faith-based, not objective fact.