I'm not interested in playing any type of Barbarian, Bard, Monk, and probably Ranger. They just don't interest me, and I don't find them engaging with the current themes and subclasses for the. I could see myself playing one of those classes if they made a subclass of them that I did like, but I'm just not interested in playing them right now.
I have nothing against being a tank or supporter, I would readily and gladly play a protection-focused paladin or battlefield controlling wizard. However, I don't find it engaging and interesting to play a barbarian tank or support bard, so for the foreseeable future, I will not be playing either class. The same applies to rangers and monks, I just don't find them interesting or fun to play.
I won't play a monk. I don't like the class, I don't think it fits the genre. I don't like the mechanics.
Also, I can't accept the idea of a character punching armoured monsters without breaking every bone in their hand.
Strangely, I have no issues with magic and giant insects and other stuff that violates basic laws of reality far more than "bare hands vs plate armour". Go figure...
I generally avoid playing clerics, but not just because they get relegated to the healer role; I also don't like how religion is portrayed in Dungeons and Dragons in general. I also am not a fan of paladins for the same reasons (also its a knee jerk reaction from my earlier D&D days when paladins were generally played as "Lawful Not-Fun"). Mechanically these classes just aren't engaging to me, either. I'm also not a fan of artificers, but some of that is the fact that I haven't had a chance to really look the class over (also, I'm not a fan of mixing science in my fantasy, even if its magical pseudo-science). All of the other classes have archetypes that I enjoy playing.
Unlike Yurei, I AM a musician, but I rarely play bards. I dislike the mix of wizard and cleirc feel. I 'main' gishes (Paladin, Hexblade, bladesinger (even more so after tasha's) etc.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I started playing in the old red box back in the mid 80s. I didnt play 1e, but I played 2e. My first character was a DW ranger. I played rangers and fighters nearly exclusively until 4e when I played a couple of sorcs. I went back to DW fighters in 5e. Twice. after ~30 years of melee characters, I am pretty much done with them. I want to play casters now. I like healing, I like blasting, I like CC. I'm done with swinging swords and shooting bows though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
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 could always focus in on the knowledge aspect and role play that the way that they memorize their spells is with meter. The actual performance of the material is not the important part for such a character, but treating it a bit like a mneumonic device. The character could even loathe the fact that they need that aid to help them remember. They put the barest effort into learning notes on instruments or into learning prose because that's not what interests them, it's the knowledge gathering that entices them and they treat all works of art like songs and poems as a way to retain knowledge. They may even choose dissonance when memorizing since it pleases them that NO ONE enjoys the "performance".
But there is enough other options that you'll probably never feel the need to try out a bard.
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.
I ignore that because I am not into the whole performance thing. You can ditch the instrument with either a component pouch or a ruby of the warmage. Fluff the character as a rogue-mage and that's that. Classes are just a chassis that provides me a set of mechanics for my abilities. *I* determine what I do with those mechanics and how I envision it playing out, not WotC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I’ll never play a Blood Hunter, because it’s not official and it’s insanely narrow thematically. And I’ll quite possibly never play an Artificer because they should only exist in more steampunk settings (Ravnica, Eberron) which I don’t play very often.
I’ll never play a Blood Hunter, because it’s not official and it’s insanely narrow thematically. And I’ll quite possibly never play an Artificer because they should only exist in more steampunk settings (Ravnica, Eberron) which I don’t play very often.
blood hunter is fair to just ignore entirely, but the artificer has a very broad range of aestetics to go for, from an hedge witch who brews potions in their cauldron spewing out weird magic others cannot replicate to basically an wizard who is more concerned with stuff than they are with the art to a weird magic sea captain/ pirate who is extremely good at navigating at sea and steering sea vessels thanks to tool expertise
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I don't get all the hate towards Clerics. In the D&D world, Gods exist. It's a fact. There is no reason to dispute this.
Being the Cleric of a deity means that you believe in that deity's cause and you're actively working to further that cause, whatever it may be.
If you look at all the deities and all of their causes, I don't see how you can't find a deity that you could roleplay being a Cleric of. If you can't find a deity that you can follow, how can you role play any character of any class? Whatever your character cares about, there's probably a deity for that.
Oh, there are plenty of deities I would love to have a character worship. The problem is more the relationship between cleric and god. The only way I'd play a cleric is if I had one with the trait from xanathars of 'sometimes I think I'm just a pawn etc etc'. Probably twilight or trickery domain then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I don't think I'd "never" play these classes, but they're def at the bottom of my list of classes I'd play.
Barbarian - I just can't think of a character that would be all about "getting angry", then I'd rather play a Fighter.
Wizard - I love love love spell casters, it's why I'm currently playing a Circle of the Land Druid (Coast), cause I get so many spells, and I would love to play a Wizard, yet the way Wizard's work just has me go... Õ__ô
has to "buy" new spells to learn them
if you don't have your spell book you can't cast (ok, I guess you could also write the spells on cards if the DM lets you, but still you need to search through them to find the spell you need and who has time for that in a fight?) <-- they use INT = they're smart, yet they can't remember their spells without looking them up.
No one disputes that the gods don't exist. In most settings, anyway. Eberron or Dark Sun are different in that regard.
Even if you agree on a cause with them, most people are more complex than being able to 100% agree with someone else on something. And are also more complex than to just care for the cause of a single god.
But the concept of worship itself is just absolutely revolting to me. It's just might makes right with extra steps. It also devalues the character and people in general. It's all about the god and what they think. Your character is just an accessory, a footnote in the cosmic struggle. You're not the protagonist of your own story, you're a pawn.
Pawn or Avatar. Different views by different people.
Spell resources (beyond material components) tumble around in my head. That's the only reason why I avoid Clerics and similar spellcasters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
No one disputes that the gods don't exist. In most settings, anyway. Eberron or Dark Sun are different in that regard.
Even if you agree on a cause with them, most people are more complex than being able to 100% agree with someone else on something. And are also more complex than to just care for the cause of a single god.
But the concept of worship itself is just absolutely revolting to me. It's just might makes right with extra steps. It also devalues the character and people in general. It's all about the god and what they think. Your character is just an accessory, a footnote in the cosmic struggle. You're not the protagonist of your own story, you're a pawn.
Does this mean that you refuse to play a character that is a member of the Lord's Alliance, the Harpers, the Zhentarim, or the Emerald Enclave? Do you refuse to play a Druid because that would devalue people too much when compared to the importance of nature and maintaining the ecosystem?
The characters are just pawns in the D&D world when they're in tier 1 and tier 2. You can be the protagonist, but still be a mortal serving a god. You don't have to be a god to be the protagonist. It sounds like you're only interested in playing one shots where you start at level 20 and you're basically godlike in power.
Can we please stop having an argument about god's and such? Some people have different views, but we all play together. Please stick to the topic of the thread, or make your own to continue this debate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I suppose if a large number of people start with video games before coming to d&d ...
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I'm not interested in playing any type of Barbarian, Bard, Monk, and probably Ranger. They just don't interest me, and I don't find them engaging with the current themes and subclasses for the. I could see myself playing one of those classes if they made a subclass of them that I did like, but I'm just not interested in playing them right now.
I have nothing against being a tank or supporter, I would readily and gladly play a protection-focused paladin or battlefield controlling wizard. However, I don't find it engaging and interesting to play a barbarian tank or support bard, so for the foreseeable future, I will not be playing either class. The same applies to rangers and monks, I just don't find them interesting or fun to play.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I won't play a monk. I don't like the class, I don't think it fits the genre. I don't like the mechanics.
Also, I can't accept the idea of a character punching armoured monsters without breaking every bone in their hand.
Strangely, I have no issues with magic and giant insects and other stuff that violates basic laws of reality far more than "bare hands vs plate armour". Go figure...
I generally avoid playing clerics, but not just because they get relegated to the healer role; I also don't like how religion is portrayed in Dungeons and Dragons in general. I also am not a fan of paladins for the same reasons (also its a knee jerk reaction from my earlier D&D days when paladins were generally played as "Lawful Not-Fun"). Mechanically these classes just aren't engaging to me, either. I'm also not a fan of artificers, but some of that is the fact that I haven't had a chance to really look the class over (also, I'm not a fan of mixing science in my fantasy, even if its magical pseudo-science). All of the other classes have archetypes that I enjoy playing.
Unlike Yurei, I AM a musician, but I rarely play bards. I dislike the mix of wizard and cleirc feel. I 'main' gishes (Paladin, Hexblade, bladesinger (even more so after tasha's) etc.)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I started playing in the old red box back in the mid 80s. I didnt play 1e, but I played 2e. My first character was a DW ranger. I played rangers and fighters nearly exclusively until 4e when I played a couple of sorcs. I went back to DW fighters in 5e. Twice. after ~30 years of melee characters, I am pretty much done with them. I want to play casters now. I like healing, I like blasting, I like CC. I'm done with swinging swords and shooting bows though.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I play all classes, but my least favorites are probably monks and barbarian. i mainly play gish classes / subclasses.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
You could always focus in on the knowledge aspect and role play that the way that they memorize their spells is with meter. The actual performance of the material is not the important part for such a character, but treating it a bit like a mneumonic device. The character could even loathe the fact that they need that aid to help them remember. They put the barest effort into learning notes on instruments or into learning prose because that's not what interests them, it's the knowledge gathering that entices them and they treat all works of art like songs and poems as a way to retain knowledge. They may even choose dissonance when memorizing since it pleases them that NO ONE enjoys the "performance".
But there is enough other options that you'll probably never feel the need to try out a bard.
I ignore that because I am not into the whole performance thing. You can ditch the instrument with either a component pouch or a ruby of the warmage. Fluff the character as a rogue-mage and that's that. Classes are just a chassis that provides me a set of mechanics for my abilities. *I* determine what I do with those mechanics and how I envision it playing out, not WotC.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I’ll never play a Blood Hunter, because it’s not official and it’s insanely narrow thematically. And I’ll quite possibly never play an Artificer because they should only exist in more steampunk settings (Ravnica, Eberron) which I don’t play very often.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
blood hunter is fair to just ignore entirely, but the artificer has a very broad range of aestetics to go for, from an hedge witch who brews potions in their cauldron spewing out weird magic others cannot replicate to basically an wizard who is more concerned with stuff than they are with the art to a weird magic sea captain/ pirate who is extremely good at navigating at sea and steering sea vessels thanks to tool expertise
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Yeah wand makers and potion brewers fit in nearly every setting.
I don't get all the hate towards Clerics. In the D&D world, Gods exist. It's a fact. There is no reason to dispute this.
Being the Cleric of a deity means that you believe in that deity's cause and you're actively working to further that cause, whatever it may be.
If you look at all the deities and all of their causes, I don't see how you can't find a deity that you could roleplay being a Cleric of. If you can't find a deity that you can follow, how can you role play any character of any class? Whatever your character cares about, there's probably a deity for that.
Oh, there are plenty of deities I would love to have a character worship. The problem is more the relationship between cleric and god. The only way I'd play a cleric is if I had one with the trait from xanathars of 'sometimes I think I'm just a pawn etc etc'. Probably twilight or trickery domain then.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
Barbarian and Wizard.
I don't think I'd "never" play these classes, but they're def at the bottom of my list of classes I'd play.
Barbarian - I just can't think of a character that would be all about "getting angry", then I'd rather play a Fighter.
Wizard - I love love love spell casters, it's why I'm currently playing a Circle of the Land Druid (Coast), cause I get so many spells, and I would love to play a Wizard, yet the way Wizard's work just has me go... Õ__ô
No thanks, I'd rather play a Sorcerer.
No one disputes that the gods don't exist. In most settings, anyway. Eberron or Dark Sun are different in that regard.
Even if you agree on a cause with them, most people are more complex than being able to 100% agree with someone else on something. And are also more complex than to just care for the cause of a single god.
But the concept of worship itself is just absolutely revolting to me. It's just might makes right with extra steps. It also devalues the character and people in general. It's all about the god and what they think. Your character is just an accessory, a footnote in the cosmic struggle. You're not the protagonist of your own story, you're a pawn.
Pawn or Avatar. Different views by different people.
Spell resources (beyond material components) tumble around in my head. That's the only reason why I avoid Clerics and similar spellcasters.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Does this mean that you refuse to play a character that is a member of the Lord's Alliance, the Harpers, the Zhentarim, or the Emerald Enclave? Do you refuse to play a Druid because that would devalue people too much when compared to the importance of nature and maintaining the ecosystem?
The characters are just pawns in the D&D world when they're in tier 1 and tier 2. You can be the protagonist, but still be a mortal serving a god. You don't have to be a god to be the protagonist. It sounds like you're only interested in playing one shots where you start at level 20 and you're basically godlike in power.
Can we please stop having an argument about god's and such? Some people have different views, but we all play together. Please stick to the topic of the thread, or make your own to continue this debate.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
I don't like the Artificer. I find the cannon extremely underwhelming.