Difficult classes

[ronpyatt]

Are there character classes/races that you find difficult to play or just don't like playing? and why?

I find it hard to get into playing a wizard or an elf. Wizards are cool, but the memorizing of spells is annoying. The elf strikes me as too fragile to have a long lifespan. The cleric and druid classes are nearly as bad as wizards with having to pick spells for the day. Druids otherwise are one of my favorite classes. Is there a spontaneous version of the druid (like the sorcerer is to the wizard). Still nothing beats a straight up fighter when you just want to slash through opponents.
Worst of all is the paladin and its lawful good zeal. I just don't find it very fun.

[gurusloth]

Never cared to play bards. I've played with bards, and appreciated the music buff, but I've never wanted to be one. I prefer classes that are more specialized; in the long run a jack-of-all-trades tends to get overshadowed by the other classes.

I agree with your beef about memorizing spells, as well. Clerics are decent, since they can turn undead and spontaneously convert to healing spells, so even if you take spells you aren't using, it's not a total wash. Druids are in a similar boat; they have wild shape, animal companions, and can convert unused spells to regeneration spells. Wizards are pretty much right out, though. I might take a wizard cohort for the item creation and buffs, but that's about it.

[Ed Zachary]

Bards... for the reason you stated, they are too jack of all trades, master of none.

Paladins... because they are too locked into a mindset of all lawful good all the time.

I like wizards because of the variety they can have, and don't consider it that challenging with spell memorization.

[Zijaerdran]

Paladins are probably my least favorite class. And for no different reasons than previously mentioned. It also seemed to me that Players that chose Paladins usually used then to confound and frustrate other players (and the DM) by manipulating their alignment to suit their own needs (which seemed more feindish than divine to me). Luckily I've never had to run a game with a Paladin in it. I also don't like the fact that rangers are only useful if the DM decides to focus opponents around the rangers chosen enemies. I liked the favored terrain option in Unearthed Arcana but still the class was locked into being truely effective in the chosen terrain.

...and thus concludes my two cents, take it for what its worth (which is probably nothing more than a flagon of cheap ale).

Cheers,
Z

[rabkala]

Is there a spontaneous version of the druid (like the sorcerer is to the wizard).

It would be easy to make one, just use the Favored Soul from the Complete Divine as a guide.

My favorite class has always been the cleric, followed closely by the wizard. They are the most powerful as you progress in levels and the magical flare that draws many to the game.

My least favorites are bard and fighter. Nothing about the bard seems appealing to me, and they have always fallen short compared to the other classes power. The white bread fighter is too straightforward and boring to hold my attention for long. Fighters are just around to hold the enemy back long enough for the true power (wizards and clerics) to come to bear.

[shilar]

For me its barbarians. I just cant get into the right mindset. I've tried bards never really worked for me. Maybe thats because my DMs always expected me to compose poems, music and such. I like the occasional fighter I actually find a lot of flexibility in the class. But since my rolls never seem to go well I never last long. I usually lean towards rouges, rangers and wizards.

[ajmuszkiewicz]

I've never been able to get into druids. I mean, I think they have a really cool set of abilities, they fill a neat niche in the campaign, and I always write NPC druids into my campaigns, but I myself can't play the things. They just seem so awfully complicated, requiring a mess of prep work to make the best of their class features (like Wild Shape). I'd love to use one, but I've got to admit to being intimidated by compiling different sets of stats for different forms. The closest comparison I see is prestatting the fiendish or celestial whatevers for the various summon monster spells.

As far as races go, I just can't stand elves. They just come off as so... limp-wristed is probably the least offensive way to put it.

[fmitchell]

As far as races go, I just can't stand elves. They just come off as so... limp-wristed is probably the least offensive way to put it.

Tolkien had a real thing for elves: they're beautiful, they're immortal, they're wise, they're moral, they're good at everything ... ugh. D&D followed the standard depiction while trying to keep them sort-of balanced, and ended up with frail critters who nevertheless are the oldest and noblest race.

I was thinking this evening about turning fantasy tropes on their head. (Yes, again.) What if the elves were short-lived, clannish, fractious, and unlikeable pointy-eared jerks, who just looked pretty? What if the dwarfs were in fact true guardians of nature and wilderness, from the bones of the earth to mountain peaks, wise and immortal, reticent among mortals yet capable of great mirth?

Nah, wouldn't work. Orlando Bloom has more fans than Warwick Davis.

[Moritz]

Never played a Bard, doubt I ever will. It just doesn't strike my interest at all as they do not seem to excel in any one thing. So they're just a mutt that can sing, woo.

Never been a big druid fan either. All that tree hugging, dolphin lovin, free indian hippie crap that spews crap like, "Worgs need love too.". Yeah, whatever.

I'll probably never do a wizard (even on NWN), too much paperwork. I think the wizard in my D&D game had like 6 or 8 pages for a character sheet. I may do a sorcerer, but only because I wanna see the rain of fireballs upon orc encampments.

I still prefer Paladin, and will be the first to admit that it is a very difficult class to play correctly.

[fmitchell]

To contribute to the main discussion, I've played wizards (magic-users in 2ed), and could probably handle a cleric, but I'd rather play a rogue, fighter, or monk.

Never did cotton to druids or rangers; maybe I'm too much of a city boy, kewl class abilities aside.

Barbarians are a caricature of Conan, and I had a bad experience when a barbarian character had my magic-user tossed out of the group. (There were out-of-game forces at work, admittedly.)

Paladins never appealed to me either; whether it's the mixture of fighter and cleric or the holier-than-thou connotations I don't know. Maybe I'm just chaotic good by nature.

I agree with someone else's assessment of bards: a little bit of everything (maybe to mimic the 2nd ed bards), but not enough of anything.

As far as races go, I played an elf once, but these days I'd rather stick to humans. D&D races always struck me as walking stereotypes. Mind you, I did play an elfling (halfling/elf hybrid) in Midnight, and I've had ideas for a half-orc monk character.

[starfalconkd]

I like bards. They make excellent spokesmen and party leaders. You just hang out in the back and buff your companions with spells and songs. And you can also heal. You make a great secondary for just about everything. Plus, with the right feats and spells, you can be an up front fighter or archer.

I'm not sure about having trouble playing anything. I'm the dm, I don't think I'm allowed that option. ;P

[TheYeti1775]

Never been a big druid fan either. All that tree hugging, dolphin lovin, free indian hippie crap that spews crap like, "Worgs need love too.". Yeah, whatever.

ROTFLMAO loved that one.

I'll probably never do a wizard (even on NWN), too much paperwork. I think the wizard in my D&D game had like 6 or 8 pages for a character sheet. I may do a sorcerer, but only because I wanna see the rain of fireballs upon orc encampments.

Scrolls are your friend.
I still feel sorry for one DM. About 3 years ago, I was playing a Wizard. The DM worked out that I could make a scroll as long as I had alloted the time and had the materials. Well I always bought supplies in every town, we had a wagon. Mage rode in wagon, always took first watch and made scrolls. DM just let me do it, whenever there wasn't an interruption.

Then comes we have to defend a town.
I think the DM was attempting a 'capturing' force for our party, we layed out the plans for defense.
All and all, the numerous scrolls I had created. 20 were 6th and 7th level Fireballs. Along with several Invisiblity scrolls, and some Evard's Black Tentacles. The DM then asked when I made them all, and I told him I had been making them whenever there was down time as we had discussed. Luckily I had been keeping it all on one page with crossed out lines of ones that got interrupted with a note of how and why.
Well Fireballs rained down over the town in the battle, the King's forces came into town a day or two later (we had sent a message about the attack about to happen as we thought we were going for a TPK).
Their accompanying Wizard asked how many Mages we had, as they had seen the scorched evidence. And the 17 1/2 yr old pipes up "Just me". Just a priceless feeling.

[rabkala]

Ooops, I missed your racist remark.

I am prejudiced against gnomes. I admit it. It all started back in 1e with the whole illusionist thing. I tried to be blind to their differences, but then the Dragonlance tinker gnome happened to my game. I swore from that moment on, gnomes were just not for me.

[Ed Zachary]

I swore from that moment on, gnomes were just not for me.

I've never played a Gnome, nor do I ever intend to.

I'm not a fan of Dwarves or Halflings either.

[Moritz]

Gnomes don't do it for me at all. But I've a friend that always does a gnome wizard. While I do like Dwarves because of the bonuses they get right along with being a contrast in real life, as I am 6'5".