Quote from Lyxen >>

Quote from Emmber >>

I will never play a Bard. The stereotypical Bard is just a character I could never see myself being able to roleplay - and if I wasn't playing a stereotypical Bard - I would just play another caster class instead.

I love bards, but I don't think I've ever played a stereotypical one. My favourite was a spy / infiltrator who posed as a stereotypical one, though...

I guess my problem is that their magic comes from being a performer - it's basically a requirement of the class. They're charisma based and they need an instrument to cast (I think). I honestly don't know much about Bards because their iconic theme is anathema to me.

Quote from Emmber >>

Quote from Lyxen >>

Quote from Emmber >>

I will never play a Bard. The stereotypical Bard is just a character I could never see myself being able to roleplay - and if I wasn't playing a stereotypical Bard - I would just play another caster class instead.

I love bards, but I don't think I've ever played a stereotypical one. My favourite was a spy / infiltrator who posed as a stereotypical one, though...

I guess my problem is that their magic comes from being a performer - it's basically a requirement of the class. They're charisma based and they need an instrument to cast (I think). I honestly don't know much about Bards because their iconic theme is anathema to me.

 Technically they need an instrument, but my bard is tone deaf (like me) and can’t carry a tune in a bucket. He covers for it by telling people how much he “loathes musical theater.” He is instead “An Ac-tor” and uses a sock/buskin mask as his spellcasting focus. He specializes in playing villains (College of Whispers), and he’s very, very good at it. He recites play (movie) lines as his method of casting. He is also not a horndog who jumps into bed with everyone. He much prefers to blow all of his money on fine clothes and conveniences. And he blows all of it like it’s burning a hole in his coin purse. The bulk of his spell list are things that make his life easier: Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Unseen Servant, Enthrall, Tiny Hut, etc.

There are lots of ways to play a Bard. Maybe you’ll find an inspiration one day.

Quote from BramblefootDruid >>

I'm sorry sposta, but druids for me are amazing. It might just be that I've grown up going to the woods and listen to Celtic music. Same goes for barbs and rangers: there's something I love about the word 'primal' and the ideas it provokes. 

 Same for me, I love being in nature, and I've always liked playing rangers and druids. 

Honestly Sposta and Lyxen - you've both just reinforced my belief that I'll never play a Bard. Like I said - Bards seem to be all about performing - in whatever form that may take - and that's not something I could roleplay (or would enjoy roleplaying anyway).

But that's fine - we all have our own flavour.

Quote from Emmber >>

Honestly Sposta and Lyxen - you've both just reinforced my belief that I'll never play a Bard. Like I said - Bards seem to be all about performing - in whatever form that may take - and that's not something I could roleplay (or would enjoy roleplaying anyway).

But that's fine - we all have our own flavour.

 To each their own.

I don’t think there’s any class I just wouldn’t play, but I think barbarian is at the bottom of my list of classes that I would. The only barbarian ideas I find interesting are conceptually dexterity-based, and most barbarian features work with strength.

I'll never play a Warlock because they are the best class.

I'll also probably not play a Bard. Some people place the bar at an intimidating high.

I'll add my hat to the bard pile. For me it just comes with too much baggage. When you say 'I'm a bard' there are probably more preconceptions stacked on you than any other class - and not just for other people, it's in my head too and would affect the way I expressed my character. That and a lot of the mechanics tend to be kind of hard-wired to that default flavor so it's difficult to reskin. Just feels very constraining for the types of character concepts I like to play.

I will also agree that barbarian is a pretty thin class. Most all of their features are tied to Rage and Rage requires combat to sustain itself. You have next to zero things to do in town. I wrote up a homebrew class feature that allows them to expend a use of Rage 'socially' for things like causing a distraction or intimidation where instead of needing to take/receive damage to keep it going, they have to be continually breaking things. I think just adding a few options like that to Fighter/Barbarian really can make a huge difference in their playability.

And for the I-really-love-the-flavor-but-can't-stand-the-mechanics category, I have to say Four Elements monk. I love this archetype, but every single option they have uses their ki and you end up being able to do like 1-2 cool things and then bugging your party to stop and take a short rest because now you can't even use your base class features. It needs some low-powered freebies that reflect the theme or just straight-up spell slots like Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster. Those subclasses don't have to spend the currency of their class features to use their subclass features, and neither should monk.

I would play any class if I come up with a character that fits it.

Rogues tend to be the least interesting to me though, but even this class have some subclasses I want to try like the Phantom and the Soulknife.

Honestly I'm more picky about the races I would play.

Cleric for me too. I hate the very concept of devotion to a more powerful and important being than yourself (I hate the very concept of deities in general, but that neither here nor there). And if the deities' existence are ambiguous, you have to play a character based on faith. So someone who disregards evidence in favor of their already held beliefs. Absolutely revolting.

For me, what distinguishes Warlocks and Paladins from Clerics is; the first just made a transaction. It can even have happened in the past and you can focus on your character. And with Paladin, you have your own ideals that you adhere to, not someone else's, who decides for you what is right and wrong. A (good aligned) Paladin protects the interest of the least powerful, who cannot protect themselves. The Cleric serves the interest of the most powerful.

Nowhere in the rules are clerics actually required to worship a god.

True, but I feel the bond is far more restricted and very 'distanced' compared to a warlock, where it is a *bit* more free willed, and *can* be a LOT closer. Like I said earlier, my 'Pantheon' character worships no god; he believes men are just as powerful. I mean, he did survive a blow that killed a god, sooooooo..... (his League of Legends character lore that is).

I disagree with you, but if you want to debate, I believe this is the thread to do it. 

https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/paladin/75030-atheist-or-non-devout-paladins

Talk with your DM about the divine options available in your campaign, whether they’re gods, pantheons, philosophies, or cosmic forces. Whatever being or thing your cleric ends up serving, choose a Divine Domain that is appropriate for it, and if it doesn’t have a holy symbol, work with your DM to design one.

But this, THIS says otherwise. Also, Xanathars brings up the idea of philosophies, ideals etc. My personal opinion, and many Dm's and other I have played with. If you disagree, to each their own I guess.

But I'd rather the thread stay on task 

i usually have one or two ideas in my pool of ideas for schenanigans to get up to with any given class and i cannot say any is unplayable (unless i am forced into a character i did not make), but some classes and some subclasses generate more creativity more than others, there are a bazillion ways to make a bard, a significant portion of sorcerers i want to play are divine souls and all ideas i have for blood hunters involve the pact of the profane soul except for maybe an fleeting consideration of cheesy things to do with the order of the lycan, hunter and beastmaster rangers are all rangers i can think of mostly,  fighters bore me with their class features and the only thing saving them in me eyes is their deliciously scrumptious subclasses and various degrees of cheese (as well as to some level the appeal of playing a simple man trying to make their way in the world), wizards probably comprise the least of my character ideas but my urge to play those few concepts is strong, 

Quote from Emmber >>

Honestly Sposta and Lyxen - you've both just reinforced my belief that I'll never play a Bard. Like I said - Bards seem to be all about performing - in whatever form that may take - and that's not something I could roleplay (or would enjoy roleplaying anyway).

But that's fine - we all have our own flavour.

you do not have to flavour your spells as performances, in fact in many instances it does not even make sense for your spell to be an performance, their spell list (even without magical secrets) supports an vide variety of effects, the bard is not forced to use an instrument to cast spells any more than a wizard is forced to use a wand, you can absoluely just use a component pouch like a normal spellcaster, the skill proficiencies you gain from the class and the features to do with skills are not specific to perfomances of any kind and can be used to make your character better at athletics and such.

Generally, think of the class as a jack-of-all-trades class that can be good at anything, rather than as a class for playing a musician. 

That being said you might still find that you still dislike the type of character an bard is, even when they don't sing, i am just pointing out that the bard is not exactly wedded to the concept mechanically at all

I do not play bards.  Not because I dislike them - mechanically I like the bard class a very great deal and strongly wish I could play them.  But because I am not a musician, performer, orator, or anything else.  I'm a technician and a hobbyist writer; I cannot do the class justice, and so despite how much I love the idea of a magic rogue with a handy trick for every occasion, I cannot bring myself to screw up playing a bard.

Beyond this, there's no class I'm not willing to consider.  Insofar as 'roles' go, I absolutely detest the MMO "Tank/Healer/DPS" nonsense and refuse to align with it.  I believe people who insist that all clerics be meek, nurturing Team Mom heal*****es whose only job in life is patching up everybody else after their reckless stupidity nearly results in a TPK are not only being actively terrible to their cleric player, they're denying the majority of what the class can accomplish.  "Tank & Spank" combat is lazy and unsatisfying for both the DM and the players, and building those roles into a party is a great way to get me to look for a different game.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Beyond this, there's no class I'm not willing to consider.  Insofar as 'roles' go, I absolutely detest the MMO "Tank/Healer/DPS" nonsense and refuse to align with it.  I believe people who insist that all clerics be meek, nurturing Team Mom heal*****es whose only job in life is patching up everybody else after their reckless stupidity nearly results in a TPK are not only being actively terrible to their cleric player, they're denying the majority of what the class can accomplish.  "Tank & Spank" combat is lazy and unsatisfying for both the DM and the players, and building those roles into a party is a great way to get me to look for a different game.

 Agreed.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

 I believe people who insist that all clerics be meek, nurturing Team Mom heal*****es whose only job in life is patching up everybody else after their reckless stupidity nearly results in a TPK are not only being actively terrible to their cleric player, they're denying the majority of what the class can accomplish.  

 Wow, who does that?!

A significant portion of the D&D playerbase, all of whom assume that "The Cleric" is identical to "The Healer" in common MMO parlance, and thereby also assume that The Cleric exists solely to cast healing spells on the people who are doing the actual fighting.  It shows an egregious and aggressive fundamental misunderstanding of how 5e works, but it's also inescapable.  If one can cast healing spells, one becomes the healer, and 'The Healer' has one and only one job - to heal.  It's ridiculous, but eh.