For me, I'd never be interested in playing a primal character (unless they were the Seeker or something, that's pretty ignorable then.) I just can't get into the whole theme, it doesn't mesh with me. Druids are cool for me until they transform into beats and stuff (terrified of werewolves and the like), I hate not being able to fight for myself and instead channeling things through a spirit like the Shaman, I despise playing stereotypical dumb rocks like a Barbarian, Wardens feel so bland for me, and Seeker actually sound pretty cool since it's slightly martial, but from what I've seen, it has a horrible class design and powers. Not that I hate nature or anything, but I would have to really be messed up to think about playing a primal class.
I'm also not too keen on Essentials characters, but with much less animosity than for primal ones.
Wouldn't do a slayer, ranger, or knight except for a one shot since I think I would get bored going longer than that. Would play a seeker only if they gave it some decent powers. Don't much care for the runepriest or artificer, but might do a one shot with them.
At this point I think I have played over 12 different 4E classes, plus some hybrids.
Terrible class mechanically (worst controller of the year, anyone?) with even worse support to go with it. And not only is it mechanically bad, its flavor is incredibly weird, too. I don't want spirits coming alive through my arrows or stuff like that. And I find it incredibly hard to try to reflavor to something that isn't so weird.
If I want to be an archer that bad, I'll be a ranger.
And don't get me started on vampires. Want to be a vampire? Go reflavor yourself a revenant and save yourself the mechanical horror of that wretched class.
I don't like classes that just spam the same thing over and over again, but being able to use something over again, like the Battlemind's various reaction powers is alright. That said, I'm oddly okay with the Elementalist, but I hate the slayer. The Psion however suffers from 2 of its first at-wills being the best for the class, so your doig the same thing for most of your 30 levels.
I'm definitely not playing any underpowered Subclass when its original class offers much of the same but better. I have considered houseruling the Hexblade to make it more interesting however. The Binder however, needs so much houseruling that you might as well just start over.
I'm probably never going to play the Executioner, mostly because it doomed the original Assassin, but also because whenever I do try to build the executioner, I never get to wield the weapons I want. I go in feeling like I'm going to capture the awesomeness of Ezio Auditore, and then get nowhere near the mark.
Most of the primal classes, beyond Barbarian/Berserker/Warden/Seeker are kind of hard to actually have character, or for me at least. You feel kind of like the old sage guy the hero goes and sees for maybe 10 minutes in a book/movie, except your somehow going to stretch this concept over 30 levels. They are also typically more awkard in cities, somewhere alot of campaigns go.
I've made a bunch of Thrown Weapon Seekers lately and Hybrid Warden/Seekers because I like the idea of being in mid-range and having options for range. I also don't consider them controllers. They can be incredibly accurate but moderate damage strikers.
I thought Vampire was awful, but then I started playing around with Multiclass Vampire to make some really durable characters.
I've made Druids that conceptually were always wildshaped, so I'd end up playing a talking beast with some ridiculous skills.
Problem is, I've never been able to actually play these characters, except a Seeker in a one-shot.
I've played around and made several Paladins so I could get a handle on how the class plays and I think that's one that I have little interest in actually playing. (except for my Revenant Warforged Assaasin|Paladin Hybrid multiclass Vampire. High defenses, great durability (doesn't have radiant vulnerability and gains 2-3 surges per encounter) damage output is good, but not great)
Other 4e classes that I'll not likely ever play are Rangers, Avengers and any of the psionic classes.
I'm probably never going to play the Executioner, mostly because it doomed the original Assassin, but also because whenever I do try to build the executioner, I never get to wield the weapons I want. I go in feeling like I'm going to capture the awesomeness of Ezio Auditore, and then get nowhere near the mark.
Several hybrids can come close to doing that, like a Rogue/Monk, or Rogue/Avenger. With themes you can cover the poison, countering and stealth of Ezio pretty well.
i know there is some seeker/binder hate going on but my hunter/mc seeker (crimson hunter) gets a +1 to rbas and 19-20 crit range so the seeker has value in that way at least. and i have a catch 22 paladin/fey binder that is not a fave of dms
Warlock* - I can't imagine playing someone dumb enough to make that kind of deal. Reflavored into a regular kind of wizard? Cool.
Invoker - Don't like divine classes, wizard does it better.
Druid* - Hate wildshape, hate animal companion. Could play the character as a 'nature wizard' with no beast form powers, though. Command nature, not revere or worship it.
Seeker- Hate primal characters, Ranger does it better.
Paladin - Don't like divine characters, Fighter does it better
Knight - Boring
Slayer - Boring
Barbarian - don't like primal characters
Runepriest - annoying mechanics, don't like divine characters
Shaman - REALLY annoying clunky mechanics, don't like primal characters
Warden - Don't like primal characters, fighter does it better
Bard* - Magical music is ridiculous. Can reflavor to a regular kind of wizard, though, as mechanics are solid
Assassin (original; Executioner is iffy) - Too weak
Avenger - Don't like divine characters
Ardent - Don't like the mechanics
Thief - Boring
Vampire - Boring, weak, not a big fan of the undead
Druid, Ardent, Artificer, Shaman, Vampire, Binder and Rogue. I know rogue is not on many peoples list, but that's why its on mine. Way overplayed.
TjD
I would not play anything from the psionic powers. I don't care for psionics in my fantasy game, although I would let someone play one if I was DMing.
The next would probably be the assassin, but I am torn on this one. I am not a fan of the dark hero types for myself, and I think I would have trouble coming up with a interesting background for me to play one.
The last one would be the vampire, and it isn't for the mechanical reasons. It is because that accursed movie series Twilight, and now every time we hear the word vampire we ask if they are glittering. Thanks for neutering something that used to be cool Stephanie Meyer.
I'm also not big on leaders or controllers. They're just not my style.
I know rogue is not on many peoples list, but that's why its on mine. Way overplayed.
TjD
Awesome classes are awesome.
There aren't many classes that I would never consider playing. I guess a few of them would be the power point psionics, especially the Battlemind. Worse name ever (Fightbrain always pops in my head). The others just don't seem to fill a needed space. The monk is cool, though. I'd play that.
I wouldn't go anywhere near the Binder. That class is just a disaster.
Cleric is iffy. I might be convinced to play one, though.
I won't touch any of the Essentials martial classes. They are the one thing in 4e that I loathe (love their phb1 counterparts, though).
I wouldn't play a Sentinel Druid. Shaman just fills the concept much better, imo.
Wouldn't touch the Vampire. Love vamps, but also love classes with direction.
I don't see myself ever playing a Warden. I love the Swordmage and Fighter too much to stray away from them as defenders. I wouldn't say never on this one, though. They are pretty cool.
Beyond that, I can't think of anything else that jumps out at me.
Also, battleminds and ardents. The flavor is cool, but the mechanics get in the way. Why do you need to hit someone with your sword to in order to mess with his mind? It feels silly.
he's so awesome and inspiring that listening to him talk is equivalent to magical healing?
I have avoided commenting on other folks' preferences, but this drew me in.
I love the warlord for this very reason. Basically, you have described every great halftime speech in history. The warlord is Knute Rockne, Vince Lombardi, Jimmy Valvano, John Wooden, and Tom Landry all rolled up into one!
he's so awesome and inspiring that listening to him talk is equivalent to magical healing?
I have avoided commenting on other folks' preferences, but this drew me in.
I love the warlord for this very reason. Basically, you have described every great halftime speech in history. The warlord is Knute Rockne, Vince Lombardi, Jimmy Valvano, John Wooden, and Tom Landry all rolled up into one!
Ditto on both paragraphs. I could probably play a Warlord every D&D game for the rest of my life and not get bored of it.
I played a warlord when 4e first came out (because we rolled our stats in order), and I'd never go back. I just can't handle the concept - he's so awesome and inspiring that listening to him talk is equivalent to magical healing? Ugh.
Also, battleminds and ardents. The flavor is cool, but the mechanics get in the way. Why do you need to hit someone with your sword to in order to mess with his mind? It feels silly.
HP do not = health. Not exclusively. Nothing magical about it. it's the sergeant on the front lines bringing a collapsed soldier back to his feet.
he's so awesome and inspiring that listening to him talk is equivalent to magical healing?
I have avoided commenting on other folks' preferences, but this drew me in.
I love the warlord for this very reason. Basically, you have described every great halftime speech in history. The warlord is Knute Rockne, Vince Lombardi, Jimmy Valvano, John Wooden, and Tom Landry all rolled up into one!
How Warlords Work.
As much as I try to get the primal characters to work for me, I will probably never end up playing one. I just can't get into the feel of it. I will probably never play a bard, either. I don't mesh with the musical power, though I do admire it.
I played a warlord when 4e first came out (because we rolled our stats in order), and I'd never go back. I just can't handle the concept - he's so awesome and inspiring that listening to him talk is equivalent to magical healing? Ugh.
Also, battleminds and ardents. The flavor is cool, but the mechanics get in the way. Why do you need to hit someone with your sword to in order to mess with his mind? It feels silly.
HP do not = health. Not exclusively. Nothing magical about it. it's the sergeant on the front lines bringing a collapsed soldier back to his feet.
I get that. When the soldier is both unconscious and dying, though, no amount of inspiration is going to change that. It's just a disconnect between mechanics and flavor that bugs me. Kind of like all the bard's 6-second "ballads".
I played a warlord when 4e first came out (because we rolled our stats in order), and I'd never go back. I just can't handle the concept - he's so awesome and inspiring that listening to him talk is equivalent to magical healing? Ugh.
Also, battleminds and ardents. The flavor is cool, but the mechanics get in the way. Why do you need to hit someone with your sword to in order to mess with his mind? It feels silly.
HP do not = health. Not exclusively. Nothing magical about it. it's the sergeant on the front lines bringing a collapsed soldier back to his feet.
I get that. When the soldier is both unconscious and dying, though, no amount of inspiration is going to change that. It's just a disconnect between mechanics and flavor that bugs me. Kind of like all the bard's 6-second "ballads".
They're not necessarily "unconscious". They're just unable to take actions as per the condition. Just like blind doesn't = can't see anything. Prone doesn't mean you are on the ground. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. The conditions are nothing more than an organized way to handle mechanical effects.
I prefer a disconnect between mechanics and flavor. It allows me to change it to the way I see it in my head. The game doesn't dictate how my imagination has to work.
Warden- it's bland to me, like a naturey fighter.... kind of
Battlemind- Psionicy fighter... kind of, in a way it's powers are just too generic
Vampire- It's terrible, and doesn't make as much sense to me as a class- i prefer Vyrloka to do this
Artificer- It's cool, but not my style, i like the Bard more
given enough games, i think i'd be willing to try just about anything else, cleric almost made the list but since i made that one for one of my players (i'm a DM) recently, i realized that i coudl make something i like work.
i know that this isn't the thred topic but if i ever do get to play, depending on the composition of the group i'd be one of the following:
Controller- Druid- Summon/Guardian
RStriker- Sorcerer- Dragon Magic
MStriker- Monk- Centered Breath
Leader- Bard- Prescinct
Defender- either a Fighter, Paladin, or SwordMage, i'm partial to any of them...
but, knowing my group i'll be locked into DMing for.... potentially ever (which isn't a bad thing, i like DMing alot, but i have these character concepts i'd like to use someday!)
Cavalier - Poorly implemented, entirely worse than it's base class.
Blackguard - I guess "Paladin, but I'm really mean, and I sold my soul" is too hard a concept to understand.
Binder - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I actually feel bad for whoever wrote that class.
Sentinel - See, WotC made the mistake of not naming Shamans "Druid Shaman" and decided they needed to cater to the uncreative 3.x grognards that couldn't get over the namechange for the "Primal Healer with a Pet" class.
Runepriest - Probably a good class, but should have just been a Str secondary Artificer instead of being "Here's yet another entirely incompatible version of 'Armored Religious Guy that can Heal'"
Binder - I really don't see the point. Plus I still haven't played a Hexblade or a pure Warlock.
Cavalier - I dislike mounts and that's really the only reason to play one.
O-Assassin - poorly written rules (IMHO), underpowered unless you pull tricks which I consider to be cheesey.
Unlikely to ever play:
Vampire: if I do it would just be for the role-play. Doesn't make sense for most parties.
Seeker
Runepriest
Don't ask me why, but I been playing since just before 3rd edition was released and I just have NEVER been able to get into the whole holy walking band-aid role. Even in 4th where support comes in many different flavors, I still just can't do it. Perhaps it's too much of the old stigma of clerics in my head is stuck with me.
There is a vampire class now? Include that as well.. i hate vampires.
I will never, ever, ever touch the Seeker.
If I want to be an archer that bad, I'll be a ranger.
You are ignoring something that is incredible then. I DM for a group where a guy played a hybrid seeker/ranger that was insane. With a bow, and a feat he would do cold damage, slow enemies until the end of his next turn, and with world serpent's grasp feat he'd knock them prone on his next turn. Then he had some crazy rain of arrows power that would let him slow and knock prone groups of enemies.
I think some of you that are naming classes you wouldn't play are giving reasons that relate to the mechanics of the class indicate you haven't learned much about that class. Because for most people are naming I can think of half a dozen reasons why you're wrong.
Except for a Warlord.
Every time I've tried to build a Warlord I felt that I had to divide my stat points between too many stats. Though my brother tells me I'm doing something wrong.
(Also, a lot of nerdrage vs vampires...)
For me, psionic classes just don't do it for me. Not sure why, I just don't click with them.
I prefer martial or arcane power sources.
Also none of the essentials classes appeal to me either. They feel too limited.
Would probably never play a shaman either.
I also think that people don't give the power point system enough credit. You say it's boring to play a class that has only 3 powers? Then you forget about augmentation. How about a class that has no less than 9 powers that are useful in vastly different situations? Just don't get too hung up on keeping and using one power, that will become boring very quickly.
I don't play Paladins, really can't get into the spirit of them.
Interesting to see that many people don't like psionic classes.
In 3.5E, psionic classes offered players like myself, who dislike spell slots with an ever-growing passion, with a way to play a caster that felt more magical than any of the normal casters.
In 4E, the normal casters are plenty magical, so there isn't any special incentive to play a psionic character.
In 5E, with the return of spell slots, I expect there will be a renewed interest in a spell-points-based psionic class.
In 4E, the normal casters are plenty magical, so there isn't any special incentive to play a psionic character.
No mechanical incentive, you mean. Because I love the idea of picking people up and flinging them around the room by just thinking about it, instead of doing some complicated incantation with batsh*t and rubber gloves or praying to the Lord above if he would be so kind to grant me the power to do so.
In 4E, the normal casters are plenty magical, so there isn't any special incentive to play a psionic character.
No mechanical incentive, you mean. Because I love the idea of picking people up and flinging them around the room by just thinking about it, instead of doing some complicated incantation with batsh*t and rubber gloves or praying to the Lord above if he would be so kind to grant me the power to do so.
Well yes. I was speaking mechanically.
I personally don't really like the aesthetics of psionics in a fantasy setting, so all else being equal, I'd rather play a traditional caster.
I'm also not a big fan of having "monster" races for characters - minotaurs and the like. It seems to strain the believability that these sorts of creatures would be sought out to complete heroic quests. On the other hand, I did make up a goblin character for the latest season of encounters so I may come up with a bit more of an enlightened opinion in a few weeks . . .
- Half-Orc Brawler Fighter (brawling with monsters is fun)
Stormsoul Sorcerer (telporting around the field, flying around the field, jumping around the field, what is there not to like about that...)
- Sniper Drow Rogue (with Hand Crossbows, Drows own everybody >: ) )
Dislikes:
- Ardent (too plain)
- Avenger (too much like a monk, but not that umph)
- Bard (too multiclass and skill orientated)
- Cleric (personally, Runepriest does it better)
- Psion (too weak and plain)
- Seeker (too weak and plain)
Some classes I don't want to play:
Warlock or sorceror: I don't particularly care for arcane classes, and I don't particularly care to find out what the difference is between these two and a wizard.
Bard: I just don't like bards, and I don't like to be the party "face"
Str-cleric: I'm just not a big fan of the "I'm a religious guy who shows my devotion to the book by being really really strong and hitting people with a mace" archetype. I'd rather bring down the wrath of my god with lasers and cool special effects than by hitting someone really hard with a blunt object.
1) True Name Mage? Are you serious?
1B) Any of the casters from that Unearthed Arcana, I think it is.
2) Paladin - Like wtf, Nuff said.
3) Barbarian - Uhh, umm.. ..Not really to my liking
4) Ranger - If I wanted a pet, I would play a Druid, if I wanted lots of feats I would play a fighter, if I wanted to cast a small amount of divine spells I would multi-class a fighter/cleric.
That said? I can guarantee that I'll never play something from Essentials or any of the various 4e classes from the DDI subscription.
1st: I don't like 4e. So it's incredibly unlikely that I'd find myself playing it again.
2nd: I consider that I own all the 4e stuff I need. So I won't be wasting $, printer ink, memory space, or even time reading them, to gain access to those classes. Don't have them, don't need them, don't want them.
After that? It'd be Psionics in general. AD&D1e-present, I've just never liked this class.
And in 32 years I've played exactly 3 of them.
Once in 1e - We rolled randomly for this & I found myself so "blessed". yay.
Once in late 2e - intentionaly. Combat oriented.
And right now in our Sunday game - intentionally. A pre-cog/observer based upon the Watcher from Marvel comics. also very soon to be retired as play has revealed a very obvious hook to introduce a much more interesting character storywise.
There is a vampire class now? Include that as well.. i hate vampires.
Amen. Vampires are things we hunt for XP.
Bard* - Magical music is ridiculous.
You have no soul
Music IS magic.www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg4SWxEY7X4
Healer (the Class, not the Role)
Knight
Marshal
Bard* - Magical music is ridiculous.
You have no soul..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
That is correct.
This is how Bards work -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tiynTPuUUM
Tried a couple of the psionic classes, but really did not like them at all--I'll take the martial or magical version over those any time.
bladesinger - encounters as dailies anyone?
wizard - honestly, i hate being squishy and i really dislike wizard flavor. dont get me started on eladrin wizards.
warpriest/cleric - loads of meh powers, too many roleplaying handcuffs (although fluff is mutable)
rogue/theif - never thought these types ever had a place on the battlefeild until 4e, but still not that entertaining to me
Bard - your a healwizard, not a jack of all trades type like i think of when i think bard. i always felt it was like a rogue with some extra magic thrown in, but none play that way
seeker - weak, has no fluff or flavor that rangers couldent already have.
shair - weaker wizard
witch - weaker wizard
O-sassins- I played an O-sassin as my first serious character in 4e. Very little going on with that class, prettymuch frustrating to play from day one.
Avengers- Characters I'm really attached to, I like to level from 1. This is basically begging for punishment with an avenger, as you don't get through your feat tax until level 8ish on avengers.
Pacifist Cleric- I'll play a pally, a warlord, or a war-cleric any day of the week, but pacificts are just... eeeeh. -x to y is awesome for your party, and they're almost inarguably the best healers in the game. That being said, you're basically just showing off your jazz hands at your enemy. Not my thing.
Laziest of Lazylords- I'm taking the "I'm level 18 and still havent made an attack roll" type of lazylords here. Sure, you're weilding a theif as a two-handed weapon, but you're also a pompous eladrin, hanging out sipping cherry while the other adventurers do the adventuring. Bored.
Charging slayer- All charge-kit and no creativity makes Jack a dull boy.
Binder- I'm the warlock's idiot cousin!
Cunning Sneak Rogue- I've done this one before, and it gets terribly borring very fast.
Knights- I LOVE the original fighter too much to play the essentials version.