What classes are you least likely to want to play?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

As the title, really.

What classes do you have trouble seeing yourself playing, either because of mechanics or fluff. Note: This does NOT include mental exercises, like Pun-Pun or whatever. I mean actual play, not theory-crafting.

I have a few.
Magus I simply don't like. I don't think it does the Fighter / Caster thing well enough to bother with.

Druid I just can't get any interest in. Anything a druid can do, I can do as some other class with less restrictions.

Summoners take up too much time, and I think they're a bit too powerful for not enough work. Yes, Wizards can be more powerful, but you have to think ahead and stuff for that. Summoners don't have to do a lot of that. Just spam out Summon Monster. So playing a Summoner makes me feel cheesy.

So what're yours, and why?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anything magic. It's so boring, and I just dislike that so little keeps those creepy little bookworms in check. In the default game, I mean.


A rogue. I feel like most things they can do can be done by a sorc/wizard or a ninja.


Bard (non-performing archetypes like Archaeologist okay)
Cleric
Druid
Paladin/Anti-Paladin
Wizard
Cavalier
Inquisitor
Magus
Summoner
Witch


Witch
Summoner
Ranger
Performing Bard
Alchemist
Monk

I think I have an interest in every other class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any religious-oriented class is tough for me to stomach and play. Combined with nearly every group "having everything but a healer" this often becomes a big issue. I usually just play a druid (I actually love their defender of nature and thematic spell list stuff, I just...play them too much) or make a cleric or the like and completely ignore the lip service to a god/cause as much as I can get away with.
I have a special dislike for the inquisitor, for its name. I would probably play one before a cleric, though, I'd just be renaming it something less offensive.

I also find Cavalier pretty boring and pointless. And sadly the Samurai not only gets its chasis, but is also weaker mechanically.

Mechanically, I hate to say it, but Rogue and Monk, my two favorite classes fluff/theme-wise. They just are so godawful, I end up at best dipping them, if used at all, and heavily refluff a different class that can actually function to cover for them. Which is why my current roguish dodge tank flashy wuxia fighting type guy is a Viv. Beastmorph Alchemist. And any sort of adept grappling master I make would likely be a Synthesist. Or for straight up unarmed attacking, some sort of Fighter archetype w/ Brawling armor.

And I dislike guns in my fantasy in general, and I especially hate PF's atrociously broken gun rules, so I will never be playing a Gunslinger. For both fluff an mechanical reasons. A dual crossbow user would be interesting (and in the end feel like a gun user, rapidly firing off with a trigger from each hand), maybe; but also far far far weaker than a gun user and difficult to build for competence.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am not a big fan of Wizards because they can easily trivialize too much of the game. I am not a fan of rogues for the opposite reason. A rogue is really lacking in desirability for a party.

The Exchange

Alchemist, summoner, and gunslinger for me. I've never played a paladin, either, but that's because I feel I should A) know a GM's views on the alignment system very well before I even try, and B) have my Code down in writing before the campaign starts, so maybe I'm just too picky for the paladin class.

Unlike a lot of the voices I hear out there, I enjoy the Cavalier. (If only they'd left out the Mount and included the Mount powers as a new branch of feats off Mounted Combat, possibly as Fighter- and Cavalier-only!) I enjoy Tactician, Challenge and the Order powers - somebody was paying attention to 4e's Warlord and I approve.


Cavalier- too much tied up in a mount that you can't use a lot of the time.

Rogue- the Ninja is just flat out better and certain Bard types and alchemists can be too, I love rogue type characters, but I doubt I would go back to the class when others do it better.

Oracle- this is more my short coming, I just can't come up with a build for a good one, there is of stuff there to work with...but I have never hit on an idea that wows me.


I don't like the Bard and the Barbarian, primarily for RP reasons.

Bards are ridiculous. I have never been impressed with musicians and I find playing a musical instrument during combat silly. I know they can be very useful, but I would still rather do without them.

Barbarians are dumb. I know they don't have to be dumb, but every one I have ever seen played was and it has turned me off to them. The whole "uncontrolled rage" thing doesn't help with their image as "not smart".

My favorite class is Wizard. Knowledge is power. I have never been a jock and have never desired to be one. I hate sports. I will play fighters (the jocks of D&D/PF), and enjoy it when I do, but even then I don't dump Int.

All of the above is of course my personal preference, and I respect that others will disagree and have other opinions. Just expressing my own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogues and Cavaliers. Rogues for reasons already stated by others and Cavaliers because what is even the point of them?

@Twig: You do know that a Bard doesn't have to play an instrument, right?


Rynjin wrote:
@Twig: You do know that a Bard doesn't have to play an instrument, right?

Yes, but they are tainted by the ones that do. ;)


Rynjin wrote:

Rogues and Cavaliers. Rogues for reasons already stated by others and Cavaliers because what is even the point of them?

@Twig: You do know that a Bard doesn't have to play an instrument, right?

Rynjin has a point...for the anti-bard crowd, would you feel the same way if perform was reflavored as tactician? I have done this in the past a fair amount of time, and taken my skill in Oratory, think more Braveheart, less Minstrel.

Contributor

I don't like playing Prepared Spellcasting classes; I hate the extra amount of bookwork added to what is already a very bookwork-intensive game.

Its a shame, because I'd really like the Magus if there was a spontaneous casting variant. Same with the Druid.


Everything is better with spontaneous casting instead of prepared.

Gunslinger
Monk
Paladin
Alchemist
Inquisitor
Wizard (since I can have sorcerer or witch)
Cleric (since I can have oracle)
Cavalier

I think everything else I could live with, if the theme of the campaign absolutely demands it.


Let's see..

The cavalier and samurai don't really appeal to me. I can't really see myself playing these classes.

I dislike the summoner's "two concepts meshed into one, but both deserving more" feel. I enjoy playing characters that summon creatures, and really like the eidolon as a concept, but I think the two concepts should have been split into separate classes and been fleshed out further. And no, the master summoner doesn't go anywhere near far enough along that route. I would love to play a summoner, just not in its current incarnation.

I find the PF druid boring compared to the amount of time needed to look through potential wild shape options and comparing them to the various beast shape spells. Many potentially interesting options are simply obsolete right from the start (like lions compared to tigers), and supposedly powerful forms really have very few differences compared to less powerful forms (like tiger vs dire tiger). And then there's the rather arbitrary-seeming lists of granted abilities. I'm simply not a fan of this approach. While 3.5 wild shape may have been too powerful, PF wild shape simply feels over-balanced.

Sean K Reynolds once mentioned that he would prefer it if the beast shape spells granted a menu of abilities, and you could choose a certain number of those abilities (depending on the spell). That would appeal to me far more than the current version.

The ranger has a concept I like, but every time I consider playing one, I always find myself thinking "why not just play a fighter, use the same concept, and have more feats to play with?" I still enjoy playing rangers though, so perhaps it doesn't really fit in this list.

All the other classes appeal to me in various ways, and I can easily see myself playing either of them.


I won't play Alchemists or Gunslingers because I don't like their flavor in fantasy settings. I could see an Alchemist as an odd villain, but that's about it.

I'm not a big fan of the Magus - it seems like something that can only be played effectively optimized a certain way. Also, while I'm the biggest fan in the world of Summoners and Master Summoners, Brood Masters are utterly unplayable and Synthesists are so over-cheesed they've left a bad taste in my mouth for life.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Summoner. Not a fan of summon spells or eidilons, so can see playing one.
Gunslinger. I'm not morally opposed to guns in pathfinder like some are, but I don't really like the grit mechanic, and firearms are too unreliable for me unless they are advanced.
Anti-paladin. I can really enjoy playing lawful evil, but I just can't get into the chaos and destruction joker mentality that is chaotic evil.

Scarab Sages

Alexander Augunas wrote:

I don't like playing Prepared Spellcasting classes; I hate the extra amount of bookwork added to what is already a very bookwork-intensive game.

Its a shame, because I'd really like the Magus if there was a spontaneous casting variant. Same with the Druid.

It's not a full spontaneous caster, but have you looked at the storm Druid? They can spontaneously cast their domain spell instead of a summon. You still need to prepare, but the swap is much more useful.


Lord Twig wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
@Twig: You do know that a Bard doesn't have to play an instrument, right?
Yes, but they are tainted by the ones that do. ;)

LOL

I too find the playing of instruments silly in combat, but I find myself really enjoying a number of Bard archetypes.

In Skull and Shackles I was a human Sea Singer who was fairly non-combatant but was chosen captain of our ship. She whistled which was effective for dancing a jig, controlling the winds or calming the crew... but in actual combat she simply used oration to command the battle.

In Rise of the Runelords I was a halfling archeologist who was also fairly non-combatant, more of a bookworm, linguist, cartographer and historian who had a fascination with traps.

In Second Darkness I was a human Arcane Duelist who was all about combat and social situations. He used oration as well.

For the upcoming Wrath of the Righteous, I'm going to be going with an Aasimar Dervish of Dawn who's 'performance' will be her battle dance. I've already run some playtests and she's going to be absolutely deadly in combat.

Four Bards and not an instrument in sight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anything that feels like cheese, which mostly means alchemist, summoner, gunslinger, and magus, as well as a lot of various archetypes.


Classes I really do not like much:

Cleric - for some reason I just don't 'get' clerics. I don't like playing them.
Summoner - I can't see the point, the game already had conjurers.
Gunslinger - I hate guns in fantasy, period.

Classes I find mechanically weak - but thematically I love them, so I do play them:

Monk - possibly the weakest class in the game, but I am a masochist for trying to make a monk that works.
Rogue - I don't have the temperament to play one, but I keep trying.

Are wrote:
Sean K Reynolds once mentioned that he would prefer it if the beast shape spells granted a menu of abilities, and you could choose a certain number of those abilities (depending on the spell). That would appeal to me far more than the current version.

That's exactly how Dreamscarred Press made the metamorphosis powers in Psionics Unleashed. Works like a dream.


Cleric - I don't think they get enough. The abilities of the domains are little better than traits imo and divine spells leave something to me desired.

Wizard - I prefer sorcerers. They have less book keeping and I can spam spells. Spellbooks usually make me waste slots with spells I won't use or I need more of them but don't have them. I'd only play them for sin magic and that's soley for flavor.

Ranger - favored enemy is too specific. I find that if I fight them I'm awesome but that's only a small percentage of the time. I like classes that are like my spells on a sorcerer character; useful 90-100% of the time.


I've never liked the bard as a core class. In 1st ed. it was basically a prestige class, which I think makes sense both fluff-wise and mechanically. If a bard takes levels of a(nother) core class and then gives a bonus to others that works better for me, but a starting character giving everyone else a bonus by performing doesn't work for me.

I like the idea of a spontaneous divine caster, but I'm not sure oracle works for me.

Rogue now falls into the category for mechanical reasons. Rogues are great, but anything a rogue does other classes can do.


I'm with Alexander, thus I don't like the Wizard and Magus classes.
In the latter case it's a shame because I do dig a fighter-caster hybrid but aside from my preference of spontaneous casting. It does make more sense that a guy who is training with the sword (or whatever weapon he fancies) has a natural talent for magic instead of having a work overload of training at both.

I like, however, the Witch despite being a prepared caster. She needs a better selection of spells, perhaps. Maybe it's a flavor thing.


Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Never going to play an Asian-themed class in a Western-themed fantasy.
Never going to play a rogue, witch, alchemist or summoner. I just dont' like the flavor (or mechanics, in the case of summoner).

All the rest are of interest to me.

I particularly like the prepared spellcasting classes. Wizard and Cleric are my favorites.


Rogues for sure. I can't play sneaky or stealthy. I tend to be a loud character - a Paladin in the middle of a fight or a Wizard in the back blowing stuff up.

Fighters - I tend not to get into characters that just fight. I like mystic stuff - Paladins, Rangers or Monks are more what I look for in that niche.

Barbarians - I never like the idea of Rage - I play tightly controlled personalities.

Anything Evil. I don't even like to play Nuetral - for me it is good or nothing.

Bards - but not because I wouldn't like them, but I tend to play solo, and lots of bard stuff is for the party - doesn't work as well for a solo character.


old school: Monk or bard or druid
new school: Gunsmith or whatever and magnus and summoner

Inquisitor is the first non wizard/cleric class to appeal to me in a long time.

Dark Archive

Starfinder Superscriber

I prefer not to play any of the classes without using the Gestalt rules.
After having to play a Magus by RAW for PFS, I don't want to play any class that doesn't get everything it needs to make it effective as a class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oooh, I forgot about Cavalier. I just don't see their purpose. They get a horse, and they are really good at that horse. But how often can you bring your horse with you into the dungeon? No thanks, I'll stick with my Paladin, which gets a horse a bit later, but can do well without it.

Gestalt rules would be too overpowered for me, unless the party doesn't have enough people in it and we're running an AP.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If I absolutely had to pick, I'd say Witch or Bard. Not that I wouldn't play them, they're just not my first choice. Fighter would be third. Again, nothing wrong, just not my tea cup.


Any character that lacks versatility--I hate just doing one thing. That means I won't play:

Cavalier, Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk, non-Hexcrafter Magus (all they do is burst damage), and Rogue

I also dislike Wisdom as a stat, and have little to no interest in Wisdom based classes except the Druid (holy crap, talk about versatility), so that means I also don't want to play:

Cleric, Inquisitor


Dabbler wrote:
Are wrote:
Sean K Reynolds once mentioned that he would prefer it if the beast shape spells granted a menu of abilities, and you could choose a certain number of those abilities (depending on the spell). That would appeal to me far more than the current version.

That's exactly how Dreamscarred Press made the metamorphosis powers in Psionics Unleashed. Works like a dream.

Interesting. I'll have to check out some of those Dreamscarred Press products :)


Wizard; i would rather play a sorcerer around Weekly William

Cleric; i like Oracle a lot better. much less MAD, and much more specialized

Cavalier; guy with a horse, a suit of plate, and a lance? too wannabe medieval for me. now, if i could have a small framed female with a Flying Wyvern Mount, a maid uniform, a hot back, and a Lance, i'd play one. but, there are no stats for Wyvern mounts and no social rules for having a hot back.

Summoner; it is often banned, and i cannot get a group that would allow one.

Paladin; Lawful Good restriction cuts into all my fun. no torturing prisoners, being forced to give mercy to every goblin who surrenders, no mutilation, hell, not even a necklace made from the left ear of every Demon i finished off.

classes i would love to play but rarely if ever get a chance to play

Bard, my favorite oblivion class was the spellcloak, an assassin that used illusion magic to become a better assassin. the closest class would be the bard. at least fluff wise. i have a Sickly nymph blooded loli fetchling Countess i wouldn't mind playing either.

Inquisitor; Spanish Inquistion was one of my favorite organizations, as is their modern fictional catholic counterpart. the Iscariot Organization, branched in the Vatican. something about Sadists who slaughter heretics coldheartedly makes me all giddy inside.

Barbarian; i want to get a chance to play a bestial cannibal who eats the flesh of his or her foes, a claymore, or something like a human who emulates the personality of a freaking tiger.

Ranger; same reason as barbarian, just swap melee for switch hitter. an angelkin huntress that consumes human flesh just sounds so epic as an antiheroine.

yeah, i hate the no evil restriction.

evil totally can, adventure alongside good. it's called the Antihero.


Cavalier, seriously, what were they thinking basing yet another class around mounted combat (which while really powerful, is useless in 2/3 of adventures). Did they learn nothing from the 3.0 paladin?

That said, I have been wanting to play the Huntmaster Archetype.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Gunslinger. I don't mind guns in my fantasy, but the class doesn't seem to have a firm middle ground between "near useless utility character with a unique weapon" and "rapid-firing death machine".
I have and will play pretty much anything else, including rogues. They may be mechanically sub-par, but the game is balanced to a pretty low power threshold, sooo.....


if we move on to races, I'll never play a "damp hair" or whatever they are called or a gnome.


Magus. They are retardedly op as interpreted on the board's and as such I will NEVER play one again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Races i will never touch

Halfling; Elijah Wood's Whining Ruined both Frodo from the LotR movies and the entire flipper movie for me. leaving halflings with a bad taste in my mouth.

Gnome; are they tinker dwarves? are they fairies? are they comedical? i don't know, but their humour makes no sense in most campaigns, most of it being based on such modern concepts as sports (Gnome Punting), Compensation issues, gibberish, or being defeated by a midget with obnoxious rainbow hair.

Dwarf; Short, Stocky, Bearded, Scottish Accent, Really Bad Axe Puns, even worse Beard Puns, always has the Surname "Axebeard", always has an Axe for every occasion

Goblin; essentially a bad episode of Looney Toons

Half Orc/Orc; giant green skinned man in a loin cloth with a giant axe is the standard. it has been a steriotype for over 3 decades that won't go. i like my Onispawn or Angelkin barbarian a lot better.

Elf; remember that prissy useless blonde who keeps complsining about her aching feet? that is an elf. tall, scrawny, blonde, and so easy to kill they they might as well be useless if the DM doesn't coddle them. the best way to play them is as OMG, spoiled brats who depend on others to help them because they cannot contribute on their own. tieflings make far better wizards due to the increase in survivability and utility. a prehensile tail for scroll grabbing far outweighs +2 to concentration.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
I don't like playing Prepared Spellcasting classes; I hate the extra amount of bookwork added to what is already a very bookwork-intensive game.

THIS.

I haven't played a wizard in decades for that reason.

I rarely play a straight up fighter for the opposite reason: it's too simple.


Vamptastic wrote:
Anything magic. It's so boring, and I just dislike that so little keeps those creepy little bookworms in check. In the default game, I mean.

Wanna see a funny feat? Fast Study

Benefit: Normally, a Wizard spends 1 hour preparing all of his spells for the day, or proportionately less if he only prepares some spells, with a minimum of 15 minutes of preparation. Thanks to mental discipline and clever mnemonics, you can prepare all of your spells in only 15 minutes, and your minimum preparation time is only 1 minute.

lol I had a wizard with that, the DM asked me to change it because it basically breaks Wizards (worse then they start out as) because you can get all your spells in 15 mins. If the party was getting badly hurt, we'd retreat for 15 mins then go back with a fully ready caster


buddahcjcc wrote:
Vamptastic wrote:
Anything magic. It's so boring, and I just dislike that so little keeps those creepy little bookworms in check. In the default game, I mean.

Wanna see a funny feat? Fast Study

Benefit: Normally, a Wizard spends 1 hour preparing all of his spells for the day, or proportionately less if he only prepares some spells, with a minimum of 15 minutes of preparation. Thanks to mental discipline and clever mnemonics, you can prepare all of your spells in only 15 minutes, and your minimum preparation time is only 1 minute.

lol I had a wizard with that, the DM asked me to change it because it basically breaks Wizards (worse then they start out as) because you can get all your spells in 15 mins. If the party was getting badly hurt, we'd retreat for 15 mins then go back with a fully ready caster

the refreshing of slots only applies once per day. it doesn't allow the wizard multiple rests in one 24 hour period. merely lets you prepare spells faster.

it's not overpowering, and doesn't break the wizard. it just gives the party more time to adventure.

a sorcerer, bard, or oracle can recover all his or her slots in only 15 minutes as well.

plus each minute of partial prep adds up.

now spending a minute to 15 minutes preparing is pretty sweet. it's not bad.

now. an example of bad

was collegiate wizard from complete arcane

doubled starting spells, double free spells, period.

6+2xint spells at first level instead of 3+int and 4 free spells a level instead of 2.

plus, your college provided a guaranteed means to buy replacement spellbooks.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
I don't like playing Prepared Spellcasting classes; I hate the extra amount of bookwork added to what is already a very bookwork-intensive game.

Agreed. I will never play a Wizard, Magus, Cleric, etc. because of this. What a shame. At least Pathfinder has the Oracle.

I'll also probably never play any 2 skill point classes unless Intelligence is a primary stat. I mean, seriously...

While we are on races, other than possibly a goblin, I will never ever play any of the short races. Halflings? Gnomes? Ugh. I probably couldn't ever bring myself to play a Dwarf either.

Also, I've got no problem with evil or even dark elves in certain other settings but I'll never play a Drow. Ever.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
buddahcjcc wrote:
Vamptastic wrote:
Anything magic. It's so boring, and I just dislike that so little keeps those creepy little bookworms in check. In the default game, I mean.

Wanna see a funny feat? Fast Study

Benefit: Normally, a Wizard spends 1 hour preparing all of his spells for the day, or proportionately less if he only prepares some spells, with a minimum of 15 minutes of preparation. Thanks to mental discipline and clever mnemonics, you can prepare all of your spells in only 15 minutes, and your minimum preparation time is only 1 minute.

lol I had a wizard with that, the DM asked me to change it because it basically breaks Wizards (worse then they start out as) because you can get all your spells in 15 mins. If the party was getting badly hurt, we'd retreat for 15 mins then go back with a fully ready caster

the refreshing of slots only applies once per day. it doesn't allow the wizard multiple rests in one 24 hour period. merely lets you prepare spells faster.

it's not overpowering, and doesn't break the wizard. it just gives the party more time to adventure.

a sorcerer, bard, or oracle can recover all his or her slots in only 15 minutes as well.

plus each minute of partial prep adds up.

now spending a minute to 15 minutes preparing is pretty sweet. it's not bad.

now. an example of bad

was collegiate wizard from complete arcane

doubled starting spells, double free spells, period.

6+2xint spells at first level instead of 3+int and 4 free spells a level instead of 2.

plus, your college provided a guaranteed means to buy replacement spellbooks.

whoops; read it wrong :p well he read it wrong too :p lol


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

Races i will never touch

Halfling; Elijah Wood's Whining Ruined both Frodo from the LotR movies and the entire flipper movie for me. leaving halflings with a bad taste in my mouth.

Gnome; are they tinker dwarves? are they fairies? are they comedical? i don't know, but their humour makes no sense in most campaigns, most of it being based on such modern concepts as sports (Gnome Punting), Compensation issues, gibberish, or being defeated by a midget with obnoxious rainbow hair.

Dwarf; Short, Stocky, Bearded, Scottish Accent, Really Bad Axe Puns, even worse Beard Puns, always has the Surname "Axebeard", always has an Axe for every occasion

Goblin; essentially a bad episode of Looney Toons

Half Orc/Orc; giant green skinned man in a loin cloth with a giant axe is the standard. it has been a steriotype for over 3 decades that won't go. i like my Onispawn or Angelkin barbarian a lot better.

Elf; remember that prissy useless blonde who keeps complsining about her aching feet? that is an elf. tall, scrawny, blonde, and so easy to kill they they might as well be useless if the DM doesn't coddle them. the best way to play them is as OMG, spoiled brats who depend on others to help them because they cannot contribute on their own. tieflings make far better wizards due to the increase in survivability and utility. a prehensile tail for scroll grabbing far outweighs +2 to concentration.

So basically you only like humans, and only because you haven't made up some silly stereotype you think you HAVE to play for them yet?


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


Half Orc/Orc; giant green skinned man in a loin cloth with a giant axe is the standard. it has been a steriotype for over 3 decades that won't go. i like my Onispawn or Angelkin barbarian a lot better.

Unless the GM restricts the races to the core rulebook (as mine has)

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/buddahcjcc/Cohen_zps02910917.jpg

My barbarian, Half-Orc, Armored Hulk, full plate. At least I know Im not a stereotype lol


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to play them all.

Contributor

Alchemist, Druid, and Ranger. I've had some character ideas, but they are very few.

Contributor

Kitsune is almost always going to be my race of choice, if only because I think that Change Shape lends itself to brilliant roleplaying.

I find elves to be somewhat boring, and I'm not a fan of gnomes. I do like halflings and the half-breed races, and while I love the mechanics, too many people in my gaming group play humans so I tend to shy away from them. Curse you, bonus feat!


eakratz wrote:
I want to play them all.

others always one in every bunch.

1 to 50 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What classes are you least likely to want to play? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.