What class or classes do you avoid playing, and why?
I usually stay away from barbarians, mainly because of raging--either I forget to use it, or I worry that it will expire at a critical juncture in combat.
I don't care for wizards or sorcerers either; at low level they don't have enough to do (fire off a couple of spells, then sit around and offer suggestions on strategy) and at high levels they have so many spells that I have a hard time using all my assets properly.
I've never had much success with bards--although I love the concept, I can never seem to find the right 'build'. Besides, I don't enjoy playing 'stand in the back and support' roles as much as I do getting into the action more directly.
|
Paladins. I can never find a DM with a realistic idea of what Lawful/Good actions entail. Usually I end up with a less-than-fighter who can't function in an efficient manner, and presented with ridiculous situations just to try to strip the Pally of his powers (like good demons, kill the innocent to save the masses, etc).
I like the class but the moral code is too unspecified and abstract, and when you try to discuss it with the DM it is like differing political views: nobody agrees with each other.
|
Paladins. I can never find a DM with a realistic idea of what Lawful/Good actions entail. Usually I end up with a less-than-fighter who can't function in an efficient manner, and presented with ridiculous situations just to try to strip the Pally of his powers (like good demons, kill the innocent to save the masses, etc).
I like the class but the moral code is too unspecified and abstract, and when you try to discuss it with the DM it is like differing political views: nobody agrees with each other.
As a DM I have a different view of Paladins than most. I see the best games as a collaboration between my players and myself and therefore working out with the player exactly what thier character is like. I am not much of a strict code that is my idea rather than helping the player figure out their code and the edges of that.
As for my least favorite class... I would say Bard and Monk. I never enjoyed the Bard class - of course in the old days it took years to develop one. I am just warming up to Monks in the game and seeing them as belonging in the game. I am still working on this. Druids are also not one of my favorites.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Regular Clerics. Too much a tank and too few skill points for my tastes. I'll take a cloistered cleric please.
Paladins- not becasue I don't like the challenge of Lawful good, but other players like to play chaotic aft-hat.
Race? Dwarves never rated high on my list.
I don't like to play spellcasters, other than bards who don't really count. I feel like I don't have the self discipline as a player to do them justice and I don't like the book keeping.
Tanks FTW!
I almost never get to be a PC, since I'm usually the DM. However, I've rarely seen a druid played well in my group and I've found that my players fare poorly with wizards, since changing memorized spells and anticipating future situations aren't their strong suit. And you would think maybe that would make the sorcerer a bigger draw, but no. Can't stand that delayed spell level access. What are you gonna do?
|
Druids and barbarians are a bit too complicated for my tastes. Anything that requires me to write in temporary stats is too much work for me.
Also, in my opinion, sorcerers and wizards are underpowered. I personally favor a "magic user" that has a sorcerer's spontaneous casting ability and a wizard's spells per day, wthout the "spells known".
Bards are hard to play, but can be interesting in the right situation. Bard / clerics, I've found, are an effective build.
See, this is what I like about 3.5. If you don't like something, you can change it on the spot without buying a metric assload of splatbooks.
I love playing all PHB classes, with the exception of perhaps the ranger and druid... I've just never been drawn to the whole nature shtick. I'm not really a fan of many of the non-PHB classes, though I haven't really had to try many of them. I play all races except for those not in the PHB (except gray elves... I love being an arrogant bastard sometimes ^_^ )
I hate clerics and wizards. Oddly enough, I like paladins. The only problem with them is that they are always misrepresented as true sticks in the mud. But let's NOT start that argument again!
I also hate bards, monks, and fighters (but not barbarians. I like those).
I don't like playing Fighters — too one-dimensional. If the class was more than a two-handed sword and plate mail, I'd say otherwise. Granted, it's more a flaw in the combat system than in the class itself.
As far as my players go, they rarely play spellcasting classes because of the bookkeeping. As one put it: he wants to play a wizard, not a junior accountant with special effects. Again, more a flaw with the system than the class...
Not fond of paladins for reasons named above.
Not fond of rogues either, but that's from two campaigns with 2nd-ed thieves that tried their best to die on me. It's bad when you regularly blow find trap rolls when you've got a 95% chance of success.
Haven't had much desire to play a sorcerer either, I like a wizard's versatility though I admit that low-level is annoying.
As for races, I don't care for gnomes or halflings either. I like tall characters. Most of the races with level adjustments don't do it for me either, I think they're usually being shafted.
I usually stay away from any class with too many hodge-podge abilities. It's d&d so all classes have at least a few, but some have more than others. For example, I love the concept of casting classes but spells in general are too much a hodge-podge of various effects created by a series of varied game designers with no unifying vision. Other classes have abilities that are too situational or obscure (resist nature's lure, is countersong useful against any non-harpy encounter?), are contradictory (paladins have a remove disease ability but that spell isn't on their spell list) or just don't scale well (turn undead). Classes with flavor restrictions (any class with alignment and/or multiclassing restictions) also get on my nerves.
Also classes whose class abilities sort-of-follow-a-pattern-but-not-really. For example Rage, Inspire Courage, just about any spontaneous spell level progression, Wild Shape, Monk Special Abilities and Paladin/Ranger spell progression.
...wow, it looks like I have problems with just about every class. No wonder I house rule so often!
Hate playing Monks, Barbarians and Rangers.
Monks dont get cool weapons and armor..I just prefer the heavey equipment over the kung-fu. Plus I try to make a Europeon vlavor of monk so it fits in th egame world and other players cant wrap their minds arounf monks that arent from oriental regions.
Barbarians have the same problem as Monks. Why not just be a fighter because they are cooler anyway? Raging is a pain in the butt to handle and all the feats fighters get is cooler IMHO.
Rangers have animal companions which is annoying. And fighting with 2 weapons is so complicated that no one I know handles it correctly so its not worth it. I usually DM and when a player wants to use 2 weapons at once I want to slap them from acrooss the table because I know they will not handle it correctly and abuse it. Every session will be me correcting them or checking their sheet to make sure its being handled correctly.
I don't like playing Fighters — too one-dimensional. If the class was more than a two-handed sword and plate mail, I'd say otherwise. Granted, it's more a flaw in the combat system than in the class itself.
As far as my players go, they rarely play spellcasting classes because of the bookkeeping. As one put it: he wants to play a wizard, not a junior accountant with special effects. Again, more a flaw with the system than the class...
That's why I stick to sorcerers.
Bards. There is something about bardic music I just can't take seriously. Also, sas a PC I prefer to stay somewhat in the background.
As for races, I never play halflings or gnomes; in fact, I care so little for either race that I eliminate them from my game worlds.
I like gnomes, but halflings are pretty Tolkien-ish. That's why I don't have them in my homebrew.
Also, I've never quite understood why they brought elves' power down. Actually, that is a lie. They brought the elves' power down because everybody likes elves (thanks to Orlando Bloom). It was D&D's cheap shot for power.
|
|
Hmmm lets see, I tend to stay away from classes that don't have a good feel to them and to the mechanics, that being said it generally means I dont liek anything but the core classes. I know Grognard!. I like Rouges and Paladins dont think much of Sorcerers since wizards are much more flexible but I like the easier play of a sorcerer so it really is a toss up. Fighters are gre4at to cherry pick a levle or two. Rangers even more so. Don't like the flavor of Druids in most worlds so I tend to stay away from them.
Races anything that leads to good roleplaying. Elves, Gnomes, Humans tend to work best for me.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I've never been a big fan of playing paladins. I believe they are underpowered as a class and don't really add anything to a party roleplaying-wise that couldn't be accomplished with a LG cleric.
I'm also not fond of druids. Wild Shape is useful, but it does not become terribly potent until you begin to get the elemental forms. Many of the druid's spells are useful and they make acceptable healers and buffers, but they are not as good at either of those roles as a cleric is. They also do not have enough skill points to make them useful as a wilderness specialist, a role much better suited to a ranger. The druid suffers the same problems as the bard: Good at a lot of things, but not awesome at anything. There are some PrCs that mitigate this problem slightly, but I still don't find druids to be worth the effort.
|
|
Don't like;
Ranger - A sub-par Fighter who has to replace a weak Animal Companion every 24 hours. Meh.
Paladin - I don't care for the theme or skillset, and I've never played with one that didn't cause more interparty strife than a game of Paranoia set in the World of Darkness played by drunken hyenas.
Rogue - I never play the skill-monkey. Neither does anyone else in our standard groups. In the last 20 years of gaming, we've gone without a trapfinder / skillmonkey 95% of the time. 'Finding the trap' consists of the guy in the lead making a saving throw and then getting healed.
Monks - Too thematically wonky for me. Although I played one in a Kara-Tur game and loved it.
Bards as written - I like the idea of a Bard-as-Noble, with a small spellbook of prepared Arcane spells, and inspirational abilities based on oratory and tactical theory. Bard as sonic-based magical singers descended from dragons, I loathe with a fiery dispassion.
Love;
Druid - decent spells, summoning goodness, an Animal Companion that can survive a fight.
Cleric (neutral or evil) - rebuked undead hordes (elementals, constructs, spiders, scalykind, etc.) for the win. Oh, and Summonings, decent spells, heavy armor, and twice the hit points of an arcanist. Insanely optimal choice.
Fighter - Gosh those feats are purty.
Barbarian - Rage is fun. The Extra Rage feat makes it viable to use more than once / day.
Warlock - A fire and forget class. Wonderful to give to new players who might be scared off by large spell lists, spell preparation or a variety of combat maneuvers. The 'mage' answer to the Barbarian. Good mindless fun.
I've never been a big fan of playing paladins. I believe they are underpowered as a class and don't really add anything to a party roleplaying-wise that couldn't be accomplished with a LG cleric.
I'm also not fond of druids. Wild Shape is useful, but it does not become terribly potent until you begin to get the elemental forms. Many of the druid's spells are useful and they make acceptable healers and buffers, but they are not as good at either of those roles as a cleric is. They also do not have enough skill points to make them useful as a wilderness specialist, a role much better suited to a ranger. The druid suffers the same problems as the bard: Good at a lot of things, but not awesome at anything. There are some PrCs that mitigate this problem slightly, but I still don't find druids to be worth the effort.
What???!!! Druids are among my favorites! He gets, basically a cohort at 1st level! And spells! And a skill that nobody else gets(save rangers)! The druid is an important representative of Celtic folklore!
And before anyone points out that 'D&D is not supposed to be in a Celtic world', let me remind you all that King Arther was Celtic! Or maybe Irish, i can never remember. Also, what is the monk doing here???!!! get the Asian folk out of our European fantasy (no offense, any Asian folk reading this)!
See, this is what I like about 3.5. If you don't like something, you can change it on the spot without buying a metric assload of splatbooks.
What system required (requires) this?
|
|
I've never been a big fan of playing paladins. I believe they are underpowered as a class and don't really add anything to a party roleplaying-wise that couldn't be accomplished with a LG cleric.
I'm also not fond of druids. Wild Shape is useful, but it does not become terribly potent until you begin to get the elemental forms. Many of the druid's spells are useful and they make acceptable healers and buffers, but they are not as good at either of those roles as a cleric is. They also do not have enough skill points to make them useful as a wilderness specialist, a role much better suited to a ranger. The druid suffers the same problems as the bard: Good at a lot of things, but not awesome at anything. There are some PrCs that mitigate this problem slightly, but I still don't find druids to be worth the effort.
What???!!! Druids are among my favorites! He gets, basically a cohort at 1st level! And spells! And a skill that nobody else gets(save rangers)! The druid is an important representative of Celtic folklore!
And before anyone points out that 'D&D is not supposed to be in a Celtic world', let me remind you all that King Arther was Celtic! Or maybe Irish, i can never remember. Also, what is the monk doing here???!!! get the Asian folk out of our European fantasy (no offense, any Asian folk reading this)!
I agree with the diminutive dragonic humanoid, you haven't seen what a Druid with Improved Grapple can do in Bear or Gator form. It gets real ugly, real quick. I have one in my group now that took a level or 2 of monk and is 9th level with a +30ish grapple modifier. Yuck.
I've never been a big fan of playing paladins. I believe they are underpowered as a class and don't really add anything to a party roleplaying-wise that couldn't be accomplished with a LG cleric.
I'm also not fond of druids. Wild Shape is useful, but it does not become terribly potent until you begin to get the elemental forms. Many of the druid's spells are useful and they make acceptable healers and buffers, but they are not as good at either of those roles as a cleric is. They also do not have enough skill points to make them useful as a wilderness specialist, a role much better suited to a ranger. The druid suffers the same problems as the bard: Good at a lot of things, but not awesome at anything. There are some PrCs that mitigate this problem slightly, but I still don't find druids to be worth the effort.
What???!!! Druids are among my favorites! He gets, basically a cohort at 1st level! And spells! And a skill that nobody else gets(save rangers)! The druid is an important representative of Celtic folklore!
And before anyone points out that 'D&D is not supposed to be in a Celtic world', let me remind you all that King Arther was Celtic! Or maybe Irish, i can never remember. Also, what is the monk doing here???!!! get the Asian folk out of our European fantasy (no offense, any Asian folk reading this)!I agree with the diminutive dragonic humanoid, you haven't seen what a Druid with Improved Grapple can do in Bear or Gator form. It gets real ugly, real quick. I have one in my group now that took a level or 2 of monk and is 9th level with a +30ish grapple modifier. Yuck.
Pity he ain't a barbed devil. Those guys are killers.
|
|
Race? Dwarves; have never "gotten" the dour dwarf concept enough to want to be one. Gnomes would be the next, though I have played a couple gnomes before; they're handy for a bard or illusionist.
Classes?
-Fighter (not as tough or cool as a barbarian, and just too easy to cherry-pick for a couple feats). Straight fighters just don't seem to have any flavour to them, they're just an attack bonus and feats.
-Cleric (not as combat-good as a fighter, and not as overall cool as a druid). I've seen some straight clerics played well in my last few campaigns I DM'd, but still not really interested in passing up the druid's versatility to be an armored medic.
-Ranger. Not as tough as a barbarian, not as combat-skilled as the fighter, and not as nature-focused as a druid. The favoured enemy ability is only attractive if you face off against a predictable class of opponents; anything else a ranger does can really be copied by a barbarian, druid, or rogue with skill and feat selection.
|
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
I tend to shy from wizards and clerics, due to the spell management and the metamagic stuff. Sorcerors and warmages are easier (here are the spells I know, I can cast whatever this many times).
Clerics are also difficult for me to roleplay. I always feel that they should be pretty heavy into their service to their god/religion, but I personally don't enjoy religious fervor. At all. So, my clerics don't really ACT like someone in the church would.
As for races, I don't do gnomes or halflings. I tend to play humans (extra feat and skill points), or elves. Once played a tiefling in Planescape, and loved it, though. Currently playing an ihn (elemental halfling, essentially) in a homebrew campaign, and VERY excited about it!
|
|
For races, I never play Dwarves or Halflings. (I did play a Dwarf back in 2nd Edition, when the Complete Dwarves Handbook came out and made them ubercool, but 3.X Dwarves have never gotten such an interesting treatment, IMO.)
I've played more Gnomish Giant Space Werehamsters, Daelkyr Halfbloods, 1/2 Ogre Magi, Necropolitans, 1/2 Merrow and Xixchil than I have Halflings. Silly little blighters. I haven't found a use for 'em that doesn't involve force-feeding them a piquant horseradish & beer blend, along with copious quantities of stuffing and throwing them in the oven for a few hours.
Until the 2E Complete Book of Elves, I was all Elves, all the time (with a strange obsession with Aquatic Elves). Then that fluffy book came out and made me gag and I switched to other races. For 3E, it's been pretty much all Humans, all the time. That extra Feat is just too sweet for words.
Cleric. They are great I just hate playing anything that can heal. I know clerics aren't healing wands, but I like to know when I do something rash and stupid others aren't going to die. I guess as a cleric I could never see myself going down swinging. I would always think, I'm going to need to patch some of these guys up.
Bard. Never liked them. Jack of all trades, Master of none, No thank you.
I've done druids, but I rarely heal and make sure it is know healing will be slim to none. I play my druid like a celtic warrior. Spear, no armor, and barbaric
Fizz
I almost never get to be a PC, since I'm usually the DM. However, I've rarely seen a druid played well in my group and I've found that my players fare poorly with wizards, since changing memorized spells and anticipating future situations aren't their strong suit. And you would think maybe that would make the sorcerer a bigger draw, but no. Can't stand that delayed spell level access. What are you gonna do?
Reading James comment made me think of the games I run. I have a mix of people new and old to the game. Unfortunately, the new people all like to play classes that involve them looking up abilities and the more experienced people wind up, for balance, playing straight fighters, rogues, etc. I do fortunately have players that stick to PHB races and classes.
This was the main reason I bought the GameMastery Combat Pad. I have always had a hard time passing up a newbie player because they haven't figured out exactly what spell they want to cast. The Pad helped immeasurably with that, but they still like to play spellcasters.
I am not crazy about most spellcasters except for Bards. I can just never really find a concept for playing one. Also I don't like barbarians for basically the same reason.
I rarely find barbarians interesting. The class just doesn't have anything to make it interesting from an RP perspective, at least not for me.
I despise monks. I don't know what the hell they're doing in a Europeanish fantasy game. They don't seem to fit any niche in the world aside from that I don't care for the class' build.
Druids and Bards.
I just don't care for 'em. Although C&C remedied the bard dislike for me, it was a great class in that system. C&C also made druid less irritating to me as well. My half-orc druid wielding a black iron two handed sword was awesome.
What do ye have agains' druids?!
|
|
What do ye have agains' druids?!Druids and Bards.
I just don't care for 'em. Although C&C remedied the bard dislike for me, it was a great class in that system. C&C also made druid less irritating to me as well. My half-orc druid wielding a black iron two handed sword was awesome.
Personally, the concept just isn't overly interesting to me.
What's black iron?Druids and Bards.
I just don't care for 'em. Although C&C remedied the bard dislike for me, it was a great class in that system. C&C also made druid less irritating to me as well. My half-orc druid wielding a black iron two handed sword was awesome.
Iron that someone thought would look cooler if it was painted black.
|
|
Iron that someone thought would look cooler if it was painted black.What's black iron?Druids and Bards.
I just don't care for 'em. Although C&C remedied the bard dislike for me, it was a great class in that system. C&C also made druid less irritating to me as well. My half-orc druid wielding a black iron two handed sword was awesome.
Pretty much yup.
Iron weapons are fairly low-tech, suitable for rcs in that campaign, this particular sword was colored black.
Black iron.
Of course,the iron weapons usually shattered on a roll of a 1, but that wasn't because they were shoddy blades. No! It was because the orcs were SO STRONG their massive strength just caused blades to break a lot.
Right?
|
|
What do ye have agains' druids?!Druids and Bards.
I just don't care for 'em. Although C&C remedied the bard dislike for me, it was a great class in that system. C&C also made druid less irritating to me as well. My half-orc druid wielding a black iron two handed sword was awesome.
Oddly enough though, I love using druids as villains.
Bards - Let me sing a song of inspiration? The single most lame aspect of Dungeon & Dragons. Period.
They're selling shoddy black iron weaponry.
Anyone want another black iron sword? Only 3,000 gold! Heh heh heh...
Don't buy it! It's garbage!!!
Sorry, not lookin' for black iron. If ya got alchemical silver, though, maybe we can talk . . . .