Which character class would you [almost] NEVER play, and why?

**Arch Lich Thoth-Amon** · 05-03-2009, 05:57 PM

Which character class would you [almost] NEVER play, and why?

We all have our favorite classes, but what i want to know is which character/ class would you [almost] NEVER play? All rpgs are welcome.

I'll begin: Thief.

Why? It's simple, i get far in my gaming with skillful playing. Since die rolling is heavy with thieves, and my rolls have been known to go on a SUCK streak, my thieves usually live short lives. Bet you weren't expecting that for an answer?

So, what share the rest of you. Be sure to list the why/s?

Enjoy!

**Malruhn** · 05-04-2009, 06:35 AM

None of them.

My favorite character class is whatever the heck I'm playing RIGHT NOW... and it doesn't matter what it is - it's my favorite.

They all have strengths and all have weaknesses from all sorts of angles - so I really don't care. Gimme them dice and a piece of paper - whatcha need tonight?

**drewshi** · 05-04-2009, 07:08 AM

Paladin.

I don't think I could be as good as is required to play the role. Every person has their dark side and while it might be fun for the DM to try and coax that out of you, I think it would limit your play.

**Smilin' Jack** · 05-04-2009, 07:23 AM

Got to agree - Paladin

Moral relativism is a virtual necessity for enjoyable RPing.

**BrotherDog** · 05-05-2009, 03:07 AM

There are no classes that I so utterly dislike. Maybe say that I like Sorcs the least of them, and maybe the 3.5 redo the Psion, they just weren't as awesome. There was more sense to how 3.0 did it, different disciplines used different stats.

Race on the other hand is another thing entirely. That'd be them munchkinfest Humans. Ick! Lame-O!

**templeorder** · 05-05-2009, 11:16 PM

In most systems i dislike playing priest archetypes. Faith is so mishandled (in my opinion) that its just not interesting.

**gajenx** · 05-07-2009, 06:01 PM

I rarely play Paladins since I am not overly able to be the traditional cavalier hero. Though in DnD 3.0 and 3.5 I also did not like playing classes with a 2+ INt modifier for skills since I am a skill whore.

**yukonhorror** · 05-07-2009, 06:22 PM

paladin, because of the inflexibility in play. If you want to play a paladin right, you are forced into undesirable situations. That and it is so dang hard to roll a 17, and being forced to put it into charisma (where in 1e cha has no power) is that much more painful.

The 4e paladin has overcome this, so it might be fun to play one.

One that I played once, but will rarely play again is the cleric. Why? Because he seemed to always be treated as the healing vending machine. If I used spells like sanctuary or got into the thick of combat, I'd get drilled and yelled at by my party members for wasting memorized spell slots and putting myself in a position where I could fall unconscious. Every cleric in every game I have played is treated like this. Some players like being so well depended on and highly protected, but I like to get into the thick of things and have spell versatility.

Again, 4e has remedied this because of healing surges.

**InvestFDC** · 05-07-2009, 10:01 PM

I never could get into barbaraians. Too one dimentional. Paladins fall in this category too.

**Webhead** · 05-07-2009, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by InvestFDC

I never could get into barbaraians. Too one dimentional...

You just haven't met the right Barbarian! Cev Elind Bimtuck Pelgrin. Now he was a Barbarian!

Here's the only character "class" that I would likely never play:

Netrunner/Decker/Rigger

Why? I'm not interested in having to take so much of the GMs time away from the rest of the group just so that I can "work my magic". Likewise, whenever I run Cyberpunk, I treat hacking and netrunning really fast and loose with just a few skill rolls and let players know that it will be mostly relegated to plot advancement in my games. I tried to run one game with a dedicated Netrunner and that was all it took to realize what needed to happen.

**Sascha** · 05-07-2009, 10:54 PM

I can't think of any specific class that I wouldn't want to play, with the right group in the right campaign; that said ... healers. Priest-types are so varied, but somehow the execution comes down to healing, blah :P

**MortonStromgal** · 05-08-2009, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by drewshi

Paladin.

I don't think I could be as good as is required to play the role. Every person has their dark side and while it might be fun for the DM to try and coax that out of you, I think it would limit your play.

It is a tough role, I used to always try to think what would Yoda or Ob-wan do. Paladins always seamed a lot like jedi to me.

I wont play any eastern class be it monk, ninja, samurai in a non eastern setting. Even if they do exist in Greyhawk. I also wont play any over the top evil so I cant relate class (I can't think of one in D&D but for Vampire it would be no Tzimiche)

**gajenx** · 05-09-2009, 06:57 AM

Well jedis I think would not be too bad of a almost to paladins in thought. From what I have had to endure with wife and friends whom are fans of star wars movies

, Jedis are the LN alignment version of paladins.

**Webhead** · 05-09-2009, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by gajenx

Well jedis I think would not be too bad of a almost to paladins in thought. From what I have had to endure with wife and friends whom are fans of star wars movies

, Jedis are the LN alignment version of paladins.

It's all interpretation and opinion of course, but I definately think Jedi fall into the Lawful Good category. Yes, the ways of the Jedi are to respect law and authority but their ultimate service is to Good. The primary goals are the preservation of life, liberty and the well being of others. If the law is not serving to protect those basic rights, the Jedi will regard it as improper law (that doesn't mean they will "fight" said government but they will seek temperate and peaceful ways of returning those rights to the people).

One major tenet of the Jedi way is "evil through inaction". For a Jedi to allow "evil" to be perpetrated and not attempt to reasonably oppose it is as bad as if the Jedi were committing the evil act themselves.

**Sascha** · 05-09-2009, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Webhead

It's all interpretation and opinion of course, but I definately think Jedi fall into the Lawful Good category. Yes, the ways of the Jedi are to respect law and authority but their ultimate service is to Good. The primary goals are the preservation of life, liberty and the well being of others. If the law is not serving to protect those basic rights, the Jedi will regard it as improper law (that doesn't mean they will "fight" said government but they will seek temperate and peaceful ways of returning those rights to the people).

What he said. Appropriate for paladins, too, for the most part

Originally Posted by Webhead

One major tenet of the Jedi way is "evil through inaction". For a Jedi to allow "evil" to be perpetrated and not attempt to reasonably oppose it is as bad as if the Jedi were committing the evil act themselves.

The bolded bit is largely forgotten, in a lot of my experiences with Jedi/paladin problems.