What Class or Archtype do you see yourself not playing and why?

[TheCrowing1432]

Seeing how theres a "What race do you see yourself not playing" I figured id make one for Classes.

What 5E class or archtype do you see yourself not/never playing?

I cant see myself playing Ranger, either the standard or the revised. The woodland warrior just isnt my bag, I prefer Fighter or Paladin if im going melee, and archery doesnt interest me too much. That and the fact that the animal companion for Beastmaster seems kind of meh.

[Gastronomie]

I've played at least one archetype of every class except the Barbarian. I tend to prefer Gishes over Casters over Melee, and Barbarians are really not my thing in how they disallow casting spells while Raging.

[Monti]

Barbarians.
Boring for me. I'm in love with casters.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Druids, for no particular reason. If I wanted to play a support caster, I'd play bard or cleric. If I wanted to play a tank, I'd play barbarian, fighter, or paladin. This isn't a knock against the class; far from it, I've recommended it to plenty of players that had a blast being one. It's just not for me.

[mgshamster]

I keep looking at the wizard, because I've always loved playing wizards.

But... They just seem so boring to me these days. I probably won't ever play one. The closest I've been is a sorc, and after the first session I changed it to a thief.

I've been thinking about just forcing myself to play a wizard of some kind, but there's just so many martial characters I've got in my head that I want to try.

[Naanomi]

Nothing is completely off the table, but 5E Monks and Land Druids don't speak to me much... never felt much draw of the Arcane Cleric either

[2D8HP]

I don't play casters, short folk (dwarves, gnomes, halflings), and obviously non-humans (Dragonborn, Tieflings).

I wouldn't even play Elves but for the mechanical advantages.

Ancients Paladins, and Rangers have "fluff" that intrigues me, but I'm intimidated by the "mechanics".

I play Elves, Half-elves, Half-orcs, and Humans, and Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues, mostly Fighter/Rogues.

Sinbad and Robin Hood, not Gandalf and Naruto.

[mephnick]

I hate playing full casters, it feels like cheating. Also can't stand feeling like a frail loser who can't tale a few hits. I'd rather be the mundane guy going toe to toe with a supernatural monster and winning purely because of how badass I am, not how badass the weave or my god are.

[NecroDancer]

I'm not a big fan of champion fighters because I enjoy resource management.

[Theodoxus]

Let's see, I haven't played a Valor Bard, a Nature, Tempest or War Cleric, a Moon Druid, Champion or Eldritch Knight, Four Elements or Shadow Monk, Any flavor of Paladin, Beastmaster Ranger, Mastermind or Thief, Wild Sorcerer, Any flavor of Warlock, and I tried a Divination Wizard, but didn't enjoy it.

As for why, the Bard, I find I prefer the Lore college abilities, and I can grab a single level of any flavor of cleric I'd like to keep spell progression, grab armor and shield proficiencies, a few more spells and a nifty little gift from the gods. Since I hate dumping wisdom, I almost always have 13+ in it, so MAD is less of a concern.

Hmm, The three cleric domains just don't tempt me. Nature, I might as well go Life; Tempest, I might as well go Arcane or Light and War, I might as well play a paladin...

Moon Druid has never appealed to me. I've had too many players in my games think they're amazing (thanks internets), and quickly come to understand that they're just meat, not even a shield... nah, I'll stick to Land, with all the utility of wildshape and all the happiness of more spells.

The fighter subclasses I'd like to try, just haven't had a chance. My very first 5e character was a Battlemaster, and I just loved it. The party rogue did too - Commander's Strike for an archer rogue... great synergy. EK, I have a feeling, after playing a wizard, will not really be my cup of tea, but I'd still try it out...

The only Monk archetype I like is Open Hand. I like the well rounded package, the self-heal, the quivering palm... feels like the original incarnation. The others are too gimmicky, though I've contemplated a halfling shadow monk, just for the ease of getting darkvision, but it just feels oogy...

Paladins just don't do it for me. Not sure why. I have this great concept of an Ancients Paladin with a couple levels of Fey Warlock, running around with a quarterstaff, mimicking an archer with force based "arrows" from EB... But I've yet to actually try to play it... Though a lightfoot would complete that look... hmm...

Beastmaster, in any incarnation doesn't do it for me. I've hated Drizz't since his inception... and that's all I think of when I see a beastmaster... could be an arctic dwarf with a dire walrus, and I'll still see it as that damnable Delf and his panther...

Thief (and to a greater extent, Mastermind) are too niche, and Thief carries a lot of baggage in my circles. Bad enough I play halflings, being a literal thief would see the little fellow lynched before second breakfast.

Wild Sorcerer... having DM'd a WS, I just say no thanks. You're either granting the surges too often, or not often enough. You want to try to make it dramatic, and grant the sorc his surge when it'd do the most good/harm and he inevitably turns blue or burps bubbles... much less fun than fireballing his friends or summoning a unicorn... as a player, I wouldn't want that kind of stress, and I haven't met a DM who'd pay sufficient attention to make it work either. It's a very subtle trap option, but a trap nonetheless.

Warlock are emo. I don't do emo. And I'd try to break it anyway... I don't need that kind of temptation.

Wizards... I thought I'd like the wizard, and for the most part, I do - except everyone I know who's played them - including the two in two different groups I'm in right now - thinks they're fighters; frontlining until their HPs are gone and they try to run, only to be skewered on an orcish spear... I played mine hyper cautiously and tried to balance being smart and wise... and it was very successful... and boring... I can kinda see why all these wizards have death wishes.

[Foff]

I'm deeply in love with Warlocks, their fluff (especially Goolocks) and their mechanics also, I've played a total of 3 in D&D 5 and I'm now hexploring the hexblade archetype with my fourth character.
That said I find barbarians a bit plain: "We get it, you ragin!"
So of course I went and tried to fix that with a ragin barbarian warlock! I know multiclass barb with casters don't mix mechanically but fluffwise they're just SO RIGHT for each other: "hey i found this talking blade in the smoldering ashes of my destroyed village who told me an evil necromancer sent his skeleton army to kill my tribe after they wouldn't pay up his inhuman taxes. The blade told me to raze his tower and destroy his undead army, I guess I'm now the avenger of my people and I have to destroy undeath!".
In the end anything that can't be devoted to mayhem and chaos and spellslingin and dominating the scene through extraordinary feats and pretty lights doesn't do it for me so I would not see myself playing a non multiclass warrior, or ranger (never appealed to me in any D&D edition) or barbarian.

[Sirdar]

Cleric! A religious extremist with divine powers - no thanks! I much rather make a pact with a Fiend.

I can't stand heavy armor on my characters either. It's just stupid to wear in cities unless there is a raging war going on.

[MxKit]

Probably never, ever going to play one:

Paladins. Nooo thank you. I have just never felt the whole "chosen holy warrior" thing. Even the fallen paladins aren't really interesting to me, because they started out with the "chosen holy warrior" thing. I can't get behind the Favored Soul subclass either for this reason. A great class, from everything I hear, but just not for me.

Might play one, eventually, but too many other options are way more interesting:

Barbarians. Part of me really wants to make a Bard/Barbarian, a Bardbarian if you will. All of me knows that is a really terrible idea, and while that might not stop me a lot of the time, even I have limits. Other than that, I just really don't like the berserker rage thing. Maybe a character who's calm, even gentle, outside of battle but goes into rages in it could be doable. One with the protective route of Ancestral Guardian, or a Triton or Water Genasi Sea Storm Herald, if the game actually allowed Unearthed Arcana. Still, this is like the epitome of "maybe I'll get around to it someday... eventually," for me.

Wizards. I'm sorry! I'm just another one of those people who finds the other casters infinitely more interesting, if I'm going to be playing a caster. If I want to intensely focus on conjuring or transmutation someday, this class would be worth it. Maybe even a Necromancer someday, but even with necromancy, so long as the DM would allow it, a Cleric with the Grave or Death domain seems like it would be even more fun to play! There's just so little that draws me to the Wizard, and so many ideas for Bards, Clerics, Warlocks, and even Sorcerers and Druids vying for my attention...

Subclasses from the PHB I will literally never play:

Light or War Cleric. If I want to focus on fire damage spells for a caster, I'll probably go Sorcerer or Warlock. If I want to be a warrior, I'll take a martial class.

Champion Fighter. Ehh. I just like Battle Master and Eldritch Knight a whole lot more.

Way of the Four Elements Monk. Hahahaha no.

Oath of Devotion or Oath of Vengeance Paladin. If I literally had to play a PHB Paladin, it'd hands-down be the Oath of the Ancients one. I just vastly prefer the tenets, really. They have an air of joy and delight that the other two don't.

Beast Master Ranger. I mean, we're talking the PHB version here. For Beast Master, it's Unearthed Arcana version or bust.

Abjurer, Diviner, or Enchanter Wizard. The protection magic focus just doesn't grab me, focusing entirely on divination just seems boring, and I've just never really liked most enchantment spells that much.

[JellyPooga]

Cleric! A religious extremist with divine powers - no thanks! I much rather make a pact with a Fiend.

I can't stand heavy armor on my characters either. It's just stupid to wear in cities unless there is a raging war going on.

This was pretty much exactly the post I was going to make. I just can't wrap my head around playing a Cleric; it just does not appeal to me at all. Nor the more religious style of Paladin.

As for heavy armour; I've worn armour for extended periods (8 hours/day for a little under two weeks) and it's heavy, (largely speaking) uncomfortable, cumbersome and ostentatious. I, personally, wouldn't want to wear it on a regular basis again (the best thing about it is taking the damned stuff off!) and as such, can't really justify any character that casually/regularly wears anything heavier than a Chain Shirt.

[Shadow_in_the_Mist]

Without a doubt, absolute #1 on any list like this has to be the Druid. I have never liked Druids in D&D, not since I was introduced to the entire system as a whole by Baldur's Gate II. Jaheira often sounded like an idiot when she got to talking about "the Balance", and Cernd managed to not only make turning into a fricking self-controlled werewolf seem boring, but also be both an incredibly vapid character with incredibly awful parenting skills. Seriously, when your epilogue boils down to "your neglected son becomes so embittered from your parenting that he turns into an evil wizard and seeks to kill all druids, resulting in you atoning by facing him down in a mutual kill", you're a (censored) awful dad!

But, in honesty, I probably wouldn't have liked druids much even beyond these bad examples of druidom. The Druid has just never made any sense to me, and I think the big issue is that it's so broad it's hard to narrow down what it is. A form of priest? A nature wizard? A shapeshifting warrior? Honestly, I think the best Druid D&D has done was the 4e version, which narrowed down its overflowing bag of tricks to a more specific focus AND, most importantly, gave them a dedicated mythological reason for existing in the setting, whereas before its mythos mostly amounted to a handwave that "nature is divine even beyond the gods".

Probably not helping is that my #2 for this list has to be the Cleric. I don't think it's a bad class, it's just not for me. I will admit a certain discomfort can stem from the basic idea of the cleric - to quote Sirdar, "a religious extremist with actual god-given powers" - but I think that's an unfair brush to tar the Cleric with, since we're shown quite clearly that not all of them are like that. I think my major discomfort is two-fold:

Firstly, clerics have an inherently "servile" motif. Even if they are take-charge go-getters in the world around them, in the end, they're still bowing to the wills of a superior being, the ultimate source of their power. That can be okay for some people, but it's not the kind of characterization I'm usually interested - makes my PC feel too much like a puppet, to me.

I acknowledge that's a little hypocritical, since I happen to like the Warlock, but the bargaining between warlock and patron usually doesn't feel as one-sided and servile on the warlock's part as the cleric's does.

Secondly, building from the first, most D&D deities just don't appeal to me. It's when I can find a deity interesting that a cleric PC feels viable. Nusemnee, the Goddess of Redemption who herself is an in-universe case of Ascended Demon? Now that's an interesting god. St. Cuthbert, whose entire character schtick as "God of Common Sense" boils down to being a grumpy, self-righteous old jerk who thinks everybody should listen to him and do as he says, or get a thumping upside the head? Yeah, Greyhawk can keep that god. And yes, I have read his expanded description in Dragon Magazine - it was literally my first exposure to him.

Beyond that... well, I vastly prefer a well-done "equal measures" gish character, but since that's impossible to pull off with the Bladesinger or Pact of the Blade unless I finally convert some Swordmage spells, I'll stick with my oldest love, arcane casters, over martials, at least if it's not 4th edition.

[Gastronomie]

Firstly, clerics have an inherently "servile" motif. Even if they are take-charge go-getters in the world around them, in the end, they're still bowing to the wills of a superior being, the ultimate source of their power. That can be okay for some people, but it's not the kind of characterization I'm usually interested - makes my PC feel too much like a puppet, to me.I do agree with this. The only Cleric character I've ever played is an old Life Cleric called Benedict (his icon that of the previous Pope), created for a one-shot joke campaign.

It was pretty hilarious to play though. Screaming "INFINITE POWER!!!" every time he attacks and all that.

But otherwise I've never played a Cleric.

[Finger6842]

Anything Evil or Divine leaves me cold. By desirability I would play:

Lore Bard - Too many choices so a blast to play and not OP.
Transmuter or Enchanter Wizard - The RP possibilities call to me.
Champion Warrior (Archer Build) - Leave the tanking to others and just DPS.
Thief - It's silly but try being a good thief or assassin in a political heavy campaign.


That said, a ton of classes don't inspire, even though they are often the more powerful choices:

Paladin - limits, just too many and Evil option are just lazy capitulation to home brewers.
Sorcerer - Again, too limited and the mechanics are of no interest.
Barbarian - Awesome tanks but one trick ponies.
Ranger - Just weak in too many places.
Priest - Too much Divine interaction, otherwise the Knowledge path might be interesting.
Warlock - DM's see these as opportunity to screw you (and the party) via patron.
Battlemaster - limits, odd mechanics, and tanking boredom should be a skill.
Druid - Wild shape sounds fun but then what?


Any Gish is off the list.
Heavy multiclass characters leave too much to be desired at high levels and fall behind power wise, though a dip often makes a character more flexible and interesting.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

It's surprising to me that so many people are anticleric. I never feel like there's a shortage of clerics in my games.

I personally don't like wizards (except divination wizards) because they feel so broad. The other full casters have a theme or flavor you can build on but wizards feel like a one size fits all magic user to me

[Spookykid]

warlock, they just look so bad at everything, the only thing they have is eldritch blast and who wants to spam that over and over and over

[mgshamster]

I brought this question to my group.

The guy who normally plays a paladin said, "Beastmaster Ranger. Because it blows."

The guy who normally plays a druid said, "Champion fighter, because it blows."

The guy who normally plays a bard said, "Tempest Cleric. (Because it blows. Woosh!)."

[nickl_2000]

SNIP
The guy who normally plays a bard said, "Tempest Cleric. (Because it blows. Woosh!)."

That dude was just plain meant to be a Bard.


I will never play a Wizard. I have leftover bad feelings from when they would drop from a single hit and would be using a crossbow for the first 3 levels.

[Byke]

Anything that is not a gish :) in 5e it's more like any full caster that is not in armor and can wield a weapon in a pinch.

While melee is balanced in the DPS department, the lack of options for me and the ability to affect the game world on a larger scale is what always pushes me back to casters.

[RickAsWritten]

Assassin Rogue-too loner, edge-lordy for me. If I'm gonna be a Rogue, I'm gonna buckle swashes, or try to squeeze as much cheese out of Thief as I can.

Devotion Paladin-Paladins, on the whole, don't interest me all that much, even though they are regarded as one of (if not)the most powerful classes. I could see myself giving an Ancients a go, and Vengeance reads as strong but meh. I do have an idea for a Crown Paladin/Barbarian MC with Magic Initiate Bard wielding a rapier(or two), so I can play as one of my favorite fictional characters, Falcio val Mond from the Greatcoats series.

Moon Druid-I prefer Land. Much more variation, and much less low AC meat bagging

PHB Ranger-much like Paladin, I'm just not all that interested. If I'm going to make an archer it's gonna be a Battlemaster.

Purple Dragon Knight-gross

[Renduaz]

As others have said, most of the martial classes. Almost no utility whatsoever except for strength related checks. They should bring back the concept of the "magical martial" archetype sort of like the Monk or Paladin but much more varied, in which Barbarians or Fighter have supernatural abilities that other spellcasters wouldn't. Like a burst of power to automatically break X cubic foot of material or lift incredible weights, Grow an extra pair of arms or legs, or whatever. Basically make them like Mortal Kombat fighters.

[jaappleton]

I tried it once and wasn't a huge fan.

Rogue. The single attack thing kills it for me. Wait for everyone else to go, wait for my turn to do something cool, to contribute in some way, and SWING AND A MISS. I know you should always try to attack with Advantage, but low rolls are low rolls. I didn't like it.

I don't like Fighters. They work, they're fine. I just find them to be very mundane. Especially the EK, I think the spell school limitation is terrible. Evocation spells on an EK is just stupid, their spell progression is so slow that using damage-dealing spells is such a terrible choice.

GOO Warlocks. My table is just too combat heavy to make use of it. Which is a shame, since they can be so much fun.

Berserker Barbarian. Never, under any circumstance.

Lore Wizard. Just... no. There's limits, even to my madness.

Artificer. I like it conceptually, but it doesn't really fill any sort of role. I'd like to see a third archetype for them, and some scaling for the Construct Companion.

[Potato_Priest]

Rogue. The single attack thing kills it for me. Wait for everyone else to go, wait for my turn to do something cool, to contribute in some way, and SWING AND A MISS. I know you should always try to attack with Advantage, but low rolls are low rolls. I didn't like it.

Berserker Barbarian. Never, under any circumstance.


Rouges, generally speaking, should aim to get sentinel at some point in their career for another attack.

I've played beserker barbarian and loved it. It's definitely not stronger than the alternative mechanically, but I like how it feels more mundane. It's also not too bad if you play a race with a common damage resistance like fire or poison.

I will probably never play a champion ever again. (I did with one of my first characters, but I now realize that it sucks mechanically and is more boring than the alternatives)

Other than the champion, pretty much everything else is on the table.

[2D8HP]

I may never play a "Battlemaster".

I like playing "mundanes", but keeping track of "superiority dice", and :maneuvers", seems like too much mental juggling, when I'm just trying to shoot an arrow!

[Joe the Rat]

This is an interesting question. I'm going to run this by my players next session.

I'm probably never going to play a Paladin. A lot of the old "Goody-goody crusader of good" feel still remains (even on Bat-Paladin), which generally does not interest me in a character. The fact that I have to keep looking up their abilities whenever my Paladin Player has a question suggests the class does not hold my interest.

On my preferred classes:
Rogue Assassin. Super Stealth Surprise nova damage is awesome, but boring. Everything utility they bring can be done by the Mastermind (which I find more interesting in a team game) and a Feat.

Chain Warlock: For my various ideas, I never pick Chain pact. Super Awesome Shapeshifting Familiar never quite makes it as a necessity - standard issue familiar (through tomelock) is usually good enough.

Banneret Fighter: Rather than a Leader of Men, I prefer a Basher of Faces. I appreciate the irony of preferring archetypes that diversify abilities and work well on teams... but not this one.

Racewise, I eschew full elves. Don't like 'em. Highly recommend them, but I don't like playing them.

[coolAlias]

Warlock. I realize it's not much different than clerics, but I hate the fluff. That and the seemingly limited spellcasting makes this distasteful to me. I also don't find casting eldritch blast every round to be interesting, even though I'm fine attacking with a mundane weapon.

Sorcerer. Might play if there were better choices of origins - I detest dragon ancestry and wild magic was cool in 2e AD&D. Otherwise, too few spells known; I wish the origins granted a bonus list, not to choose from, but to always have like divine domains.

Anything with a pet as a major part of its class design. Great, now I'm half the man I could be because I have a stupid pet that's also usually not very good. I find it more satisfying when my character is the one performing the actions. Pets also make doing anything outside of combat harder - just watch the Critical Role team's reactions whenever Trinket wants to tag along.

[Puh Laden]

It's surprising to me that so many people are anticleric. I never feel like there's a shortage of clerics in my games.

I personally don't like wizards (except divination wizards) because they feel so broad. The other full casters have a theme or flavor you can build on but wizards feel like a one size fits all magic user to me

Interesting. The appeal of the wizard to me is how I can build to theme with its extensive spell list, and still have plenty of room for utility. No other spell list has the grease spell for a fire specialist, and to me grease screams "fire" even if there's no mention of it being flammable.

As for myself, I'd probably play as everything eventually, but at the bottom of the list is barbarian. If I want to be a pure martial, I'd rather go with champion or battle master depending on whether I want the master swordsman or the natural warrior (not respectively). And if I want the tribal warrior, I'll go ranger for the "shaman" magic.

[Iamcreative]

Wizards and barbarians, if I wanted to play a nerd or someone with anger issues I'd go back to real life :smallbiggrin:

[Naez]

I've never cared for the ranger in any edition. Their class features seem too finicky, only working some of the time, and it seems everyone else does their roles better. 2 weapon fighting, fighters or rogues, scouts, rogues, nature themed spellcaster, druids, excellent archer, fighters, skill monkey, rogue or bard, tracker, anyone could easily match. The only thing they really bring to the table is their unique spells and in older editions you could just copy that with a wand and a skill check.

Edit: decided to add a couple more. The 1/3 casters the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. Their spell progression is so slow and restricted I think I'd be better served by multiclassing if I wanted to cast a lot or just take Magic Initiate if I only wanted a little casting.

[GlenSmash!]

Full Casters. I'd rather play as someone who overcomes supernatural foes with grit, wits, and determination.

High charisma characters. I find social interaction to be stressful, even in games.

Classes with a Pet. I don't like trying to split my limited consciousness over two characters.

[Finieous]

Anything Evil or Divine leaves me cold.

We'll know for the first time
If we're evil or divine
We're the last in line

#metal

Anyway, monk. Any monk.

[Blacky the Blackball]

The only subclass from the PHB that hasn't piqued my interest and had me thinking of potential character ideas is the Nature Cleric. It's always seemed to me that if I want to play a priest of nature I should just play a druid instead.

A lot of the UA subclasses make me look askance at them though - but being UA classes I've glanced at them but not gone back and re-read them repeatedly, so I can't remember what they actually are.

[Ralanr]

The wizard.

Not because I can't be creative with spells. I've found myself to be rather creative at times (and I always recommend a mirror to deal with line if site stuff). I just cannot for the life of me keep track of all my spells and what they do.

This happens whenever I play someone with spells (except Warlock oddly). Even as a paladin I forget spells that would make encounters so much easier.

[mephnick]

. The 1/3 casters the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. Their spell progression is so slow and restricted I think I'd be better served by multiclassing if I wanted to cast a lot or just take Magic Initiate if I only wanted a little casting.

The EK and AT almost beg for multiclassing. A few or half levels in wizard for each helps a lot (especially Bladesinger for AT). Gee, maybe they should have just made a proper arcane half caster in the first place..

[jaappleton]

Gee, maybe they should have just made a proper arcane half caster in the first place..

Agreed. Agreed, so damn much. It's frustrating. Rangers are all about light AoE, Paladins are all about single target melee. Where's the INT based half-caster that is the middle ground?!

[dejarnjc]

I'm actually glad to see the wide variety of responses in this thread. It reminds me that we all have different play styles and different preferences.

My answers to the OP would be:

Assassin Rogue: It feels like too much solo play is required in order to get maximum value of your archetype feature. I don't want to have to constantly be sneaking ahead of the party and ambushing opponents to get maximum value of my archetype feature, especially when something as fun and versatile as the arcane trickster exists.

Berserker Barbarian: The exhaustion rules are pretty heavy handed on frenzy for this guy. Mindless rage and intimidating presence seem uninteresting to me too.

[Laurefindel]

I'll never play a necromancer wizard; zombies are gross, and unethical. I could play a speak-with-dead/interact with ghosts to get info type of necromancer, but then I'd rather play a diviner wizard that cast necromancy spells.

I always had an issue with the cleric, RP-wise. Not interested to play the violent religious extremist, or even the pacifist missionary that tries to convert everyone. I only play it as a white-mage, which for some DM, is off the mark.

[edit] oh, and the wild magic table turns me off, like big time, so don't expect a RAW wild sorcerer from me. I wouldn't mind if it meant lack of control over the spell that you cast, but total random effects feel too much like a joke to me.