For me it’s druid. I love the flavor. I love the idea of natures fury incarnate. Just every time I play one I feel more like natures light tickle. I feel like they have so many options and so many potential builds that I get lost in the weeds (no pun intended) and end up with someone that’s not super great at anything https://xender.vip/ .

For me its a tie between Artificer and Bloodhunter. I think it's to do with the way they're written, after a paragraph I've just lost the inspiration to try and do anything with them and mentally throw in the towel......Paladin is a close second but at least I can read through the options without falling asleep.

Bard. It’s a good designed class. Just don’t like the limited spell list. 

Druid. I just can’t get into the whole tree-hugger/closet furry thing.

Wizard. Which annoys me because they get heaped with cool items. But the class itself is boring.

For classes I have not played and have no desire of playing - Artificer. Neither the mechanics nor the flavour interest me, and it further suffers from a lack of subclass support. A lot of this stems from its existence as a non-Handbook class—that makes it incredibly difficult for Wizards to produce additional subclasses and hampers their ability to otherwise improve it.  

Which is a shame—the Artificer fills an important fantasy niche no other class does and should be something playable. It is consistently a class where my players express interest in playing it, only to have their interest vanish once they realise how limited of a class it is.

For classes I have played and will not play again (at least until the edition update) - Paladin. I find them rather linear in terms of both play and build, with slow spell progression, limited out-of-combat utility, and a rather dull manner of play within combat.  

From a flavour perspective, I find holy knight with armour to be promising (though it also is probably the archetype most likely to lead to Lawful Cliché problems)… but even in that, they are outclassed by Clerics, who can do that whole schtick while also having a more dynamic set of spells and utilities. 

Paladins are my number one least favorite class, followed by Druid. With druids I can at least visualize fun ideas for the class, but neither of their concepts interest me very much. 

Paladins, bore me to death RP and game mechanics wise.

I can totally see Artificer's appeal to the right kind of player, but for me it's just not there.  Theoretically I find the concept of an enthusiastic, eccentric gnome Artificer in particular a really fun idea, but there is a 0% chance I would ever actually choose to play that over any of the other 13 classes.  

Perhaps somewhat ironically I have an engineering degree and really enjoyed the old d20 Star Wars games that combined the fantasy aspects of the Force with futuristic tech.  Mixing technology and engineering with classic high fantasy is not my thing though.

Wizards.

They are boring, the themes and inspirations are uninspiring, and despite everyone telling me that you have so many different spell options to flavor them with everyone picks the same 10-15 spells and if you don't pick those spells yourself, you are "playing the game wrong". There is exactly one subclass that I fine kind of interesting which is the Bladesinger, and even that isn't enough to get me to actually play the class.

Cleric. Theism as a character motivation is often difficult for me to access.

I have had some fun concepts for wizard, but never seem to end up playing them for whatever reason.  The theory of Ranger is cool to me but unless using the optional features for it I find them disappointing.  Those are probably my biggest although sorcerer hardly pegs on my radar either.

Bards.

I'm not a charismatic person and the musical themes are of absolutely no interest to me. Trying to play a class which incorporates both is pure condensed pain to me, so I'm not willing to touch bards with a 10 foot pole.

Saying that, I absolutely love bards when played by someone who can pull it off.

Paladin, from 1e on I’ve found it very one dimensional and limited. It’s capable of being very powerful damage wise but after that what? I’m not a fan of warlocks either but that’s more because I just don’t get into the whole “ Boyd to a powerful being to get my powers” shtick. About the most I ever really do with it is magic initiate- warlock ( tempted by the granted powers but never signed off on the deal) . The bard seducing everything trope turns me off as well, but there are enough alternates ways to play a bard that I don’t mind too much ( I’m not a singer so lute and song jus aren’t getting done, but a drum for pacing and a story to “chant” as well as just good olde witty conversation are a lot more fun for me). Like others I find the concept of the Druid interesting but the mechanics in need of a deep makeover. I’ve been playing one on ad off since 1e and he has become less interesting with edition conversion. I’m scared to see what 2024 does to him after the UAs. I’m also not a fan of the rogue as a (wannabe) martial, the D8 helps but to me the skill monkey aspects are what I like better. The monk is another class where the concept is much better than the mechanics making it hard to make a decent monk although playing the monk isn’t always that hard, but may be disappointing because of the mechanics.

Rogue, because the subclass features are so sparse.

I'm trying one soon though!

I've never been the slightest bit interested in Bard. I feel like all the other classes have strong fictions behind them that mesh pretty well with the mechanics, but the fiction behind the Bard combined with mostly regular spellcaster mechanics doesn't do it with me. I know, I know, "dnd lore, Words of Creation, yadda yadda" all that, but the idea of a Bard to me doesn't feel like a caster. I think the movie definitely got that right not making Ed feel more like a sorcerer or a wizard than an inspiring speaker. 

If I had free reign to re-design the Bard, I would make them into someone who's adeptness with word or song inspired people to fight harder, stay on their feet when the going gets tough, make people believe in themselves. I would keep the Bardic Inspiration mechanic and focus on giving it support mechanics on top of a more rogue/fighter chassis. Maybe one or two spells like Cutting Words or Confusion can be retained or the effects adapted into abilities, but I'll say it again, I never liked the Bard as a caster.

I can't get into Artificers. Unless the campaign environment is right they just don't fit.

Warlocks. I don't want my power to be tied to some other entity. I also fear that some GM will f with it in order to "improve" role play. You could say the same about Clerics but they are not even close.

For me it's druid, I love the idea of having a animal companion but ranger does it better, and it seems like druid is all about wild shape, which is very powerful but just not my style. My favorite classes is monk and wizard, wizard has so many options for subclasses and I really enjoy how with monk you can add flavor to basically anything you do.

Honestly, Fighters, Rogues, Monks and Barbarians for the following two reasons:

- They just don't have enough interesting options to use. It's attack action after attack action with the occasional feature which modifies attacks. Open Hand Monk and Battlemaster Fighter do give some nice options, but not at all enough

- The adventuring day, being what balances out the classes for the most part is rarely being run a lot of the time. In a 1-2 encounter environment, the above classes just suck since spell casters and paladins to a lesser extent are just so much stronger. 
(Side note: TBH I'm not blaming DMs for not running the adventuring day. Unless the game is run in a very specific way, and you have players not trying to exploit 5e's horrific resting system, it's near impossible to run. I'm starting to run a revised resting system just so the adventuring day can be run)

-----------------------------------
I'm also going to nominate the Druid class as a class I wouldn't play for the following reasons:

- It's just an absolute thematic mess centered around the very vague theme of "nature". "I'm a plant mage, but also a shapeshifter, but also a summoner, and I have armor proficiency, a familiar, but also I have the epic powers of (insert subclass here)!" I think reflavoring can fix these problems to a degree but the class is just so hard to reflavor with the mess of powers they have, since there's no thematic cohesion in all of said powers

- To play a druid optimally you have to pretty much give your DM an aneurism with some of the worst designed spells in the game. I like having a powerful character, but not one which annoys the DM. Don't get me wrong, a lot of casters have that one annoying spell on their spell list, but druids I feel have that problem to a much bigger degree. Spells like Conjure Animals basically break the game the instant their cast.

Monks.  I've tried playing a monk a few times in various editions and have never actually liked the class.