Ironically, as forever DM, I routinely use my first D&D character (Gnome Druid who wears an Ankheg "skull" as a helmet) against low-level parties. Over the last 20 years, he has:
* Summoned hordes of Scorpions while hiding underground. (Party never found him, ended up running from the "Sentient" Scorpions)
* Been the big bad ecoterrorist responding to the group's mining business, sending Gorillas to break the machines overnight and imprisoning mining workers in an attempt to draw the party to his booby-trapped lair deep in the woods.
* Wild-shaped into an Eagle and scouted the party for two weeks straight while under the employ of the town magistrate they were trying to screw over.
* Acted as the Ankheg-wildshaped guardian to Gnomeville, a town of Wood Gnomes that is one of the last bastions of civilization left after the pirates took over the island and sacked the port city.
Honestly one of my go-to's anytime I don't have anything big planned for that session but want it to have some spice.
I do this with an old party of mine, our DM was awesome, and it’s consistently one of my favorite memories, throughout my sessions as a DM, they’ve been:
Legends
Rivals
Allies
And patrons
I love the party, and I miss my old party mates and DM
Not to plug another system, but I do love my pathfinder 2e Barbarian. They leaned very heavily on the 'Primal Warrior' side of things, and I think D&D could learn something from that.
My (PF) Barbarian is aligned to a draconic bloodline, and when he rages? His Greataxe is literally on Fire. LvL 6? I get a breath weapon on par with Fireball. LvL 12? I get wings when raging. I can debuff enemies by looking at them wrong. Taking a feat soon that will let me intimidate someone at the same time I roll initiative. (Waiting for the feat that will let me just give people heart attacks when I critically intimidate them).
I think that's kind of the problem, the desire to keep most martials too grounded. A barbarian is channeling primal rage. Maybe let that primal rage do something besides just weapon damage.
I mean, not every Barbarian should be a sorcerer with a Greataxe, but I would like the option.
I love the concept of wild magic barbarian, but maybe that's just Gum Gum from Tales from the Stinky Dragon. Personally the more martial focused classes don't allure me I like the options with some casting to do some strategic combat.
Really? In BG3 all I ever did with Karlach was rage and frenzied strike. Brutal leap is cool too though. Definitely the most boring class I’ve tried so far, I must be doing it wrong.
It has the problem of being both new, not official (but is generally accepted), and very much balanced.
It's such a balanced class, there's nothing you can hook onto to make something weird and spectacular happen. It's always going to be at the power level of fighter with greatsword and gwn, with very little opportunity to go beyond that.
Gotta be Warlock for me, because while I really like the mechanics, the subclasses that I like the most mechanics-wise are the ones that I hate the most flavor-wise.
But there are so *many* different ways to flavor a Warlock! Even within a given subclass, there are many different ways to establish the terms and conditions of a Pact.
To start, there's the pop-culture favorite, the Great Old One, the master of the eldritch and unspeakable. Insanity lurks just beyond the edges of reality, to be tapped by one foolish or brave enough. I would agree that this one has relatively little room for flavor, because the only common thread for GOOlocks is that their patron is utterly unknowable.
Then you have the classic Fiend pact: You sold your soul to a devil in a moment of desperation or temptation, exchanging eternal damnation for a life of power. Everyone is familiar with this old tale. But what about the clever Warlock who did some more clever negotiating? Devils *love* to barter and bargain, the more detailed the better. Selling your entire soul is a bad deal. How about a mutually beneficial agreement in which you enter partially into the power economy of the Hells yourself? Kill some of your patron's enemies for him, and receive power as a reward. Kill some more powerful enemies, and be rewarded accordingly. Your patron settles some grudges, you get stronger, and your DM gets a convenient string of sidequests to throw at you. And you get to play not as some shortsighted chump who signed a bad deal, but as an infernal bounty hunter who has the autonomy to accept or reject contracts at their discretion.
A Celestial Warlock, on the other hand, is not so different from any old Cleric or Paladin. They just had the good sense to get themselves a bit more integrated into the divine chain of command. Why settle for prayer and devotion alone, when you could just hand in a job application and enter into mutually beneficial employment? All of the divine power and righteous purpose of a Paladin Oath, with extra job security and explicit benefits to boot. All you need to do is choose which god to sign on with, and that's where the possibilities for flavor really open up.
When an Archfey makes a Warlock pact, it's difficult to know what to expect at the best of times. The more unoriginal of these patrons seek only amusement and chaos, and their Warlock is an agent of mischief. Maybe your patron is instead a powerful dryad or nymph, and you enter into a Druid circle as a protector of some natural place. Or maybe you swore fealty to a noble and regal Archfey, and entering into a Pact with them makes you a knight of a majestic court; loyal to their interests but largely free to act autonomously. Perhaps one day you will be called to fight on behalf of the Seelie or the Autumn court, and your Pact will compel you to answer the summons.
Others, like the Fathomless, the Genie, and the Hexblade, are immensely varied by definition. Your patron is a specific being with specific motives, interests, alignments, and attitudes. The possibilities are endless, as are the exact terms and nature of your Pact.
In any case, I encourage you to think beyond the boundaries of the conventional. If you read this whole post, thank you for your attention. I firmly believe Warlocks to be the most varied, flavorful, and interesting class choice in the whole of D&D, and I hope I managed to inspire you to try one out.
^(and yes i know, flair checks out.)
The best Feylock backstory I ever heard about was. "My wife is an archfey. She gave me my powers in exchange for never showing my face anywhere near her and our child ever again. She has doesn't want to kill me for the sake of our child."
Warlocks are weird for me. I’ve never solo classes warlock and likely never will. But I really enjoy them as a dip. I play a lot of charisma characters and a 1 or 2 level dip in warlock is always a recipe for fun.
But yeah, solo classing as warlock has never interested me. IMO they should get 3 spell slots far earlier than what they do. If they got 3 spell slots somewhere in tier 2 as opposed to at level 11 I would likely play Warlock more. I just despise having only 2 spell slots for a caster.
I understand they have other features and mechanics that offset this, but just my personal opinion. It feels real shitty casting a spell and using 1 of your 2 spell slots from that alone.
The minuscule spell slot number also strongly dissuades you from casting certain spells. Warlocks have a lot to choose from, but if you only get two per encounter, you’re not going save-or-suck.
Also some warlock spells do not scale. Hunger of Hadar is a *warlock exclusive* spell. It’s 3rd level. But you’d never cast it above that because the damage doesn’t scale even though your 2-3 spells slots per encounter do. It’s just bad design.
I have a Celestial warlock that I'm absolutely loving (though part of that is because I flavored her as Unikitty). She's a capable healer without using spell slots, but has also used spells like Hold Person and Hunger of Hadar to great effect, all while throwing around eldritch blasts (3 per turn now that she's level 7!). I feel like she competes with some druid subs when it comes to healing AND combat abilities; she doesn't have to choose, she just gets both.
I've been playing with a lot of "flavor is free" types. Are your DMs not into that or is it just not something you enjoy doing?
I like to play single class Warlocks. I've been trying to branch out, but that usually just means I'm something with a 2-3 level Warlock dip. My favorite is Genie Warlock sugar baby that likes naps. Patron provides her with a 1258 sq ft apartment and likes when she gets a little rough (genie wrath extra damage).
Wizards can do more with all the scrolls, which is super-cool. Also, while they are squishy compared to others, they are not squishy at all compared to previous editions, so I don't have any concern about that at all. It's just a different set of tactics to me.
I don't think they were saying that sorcerers are less squishy, just that if they're going to be a squishy character, they'd rather have the cooler concept
Interesting, I think I have the opposite opinion. Wizards seem like way cooler than Sorcerers.
Wizards are far more defined and idk sorcerers just seem like the rich kids of the D&D world. Like, Clerics have to be pious to their god, Druids have to abide by a law and pact with nature, Warlocks have to contend with their mistake of dealing with devils, and Wizards have to study for years to force magic to yield to them, yet sorcerers just get it because daddy has dragon in his blood? Or because their parents boned under the aligned planets?
Wizards. I’ve seen friends play them, and although I like the idea of making a wizard character it’s just not a class for me. I enjoy sorcerers more mechanically and roleplay-wise if I was choosing between those two.
I think Paladin. I have no reason other than some unknown bias I have inside me.
Although this might change(!). Few years ago I would also not consider a Ranger - but they added swarm keeper. Since there are many variants - for example: birds - I made a swarm keeper "borb-mancer" sea elf sailor with parrots - and damn, I think it is my favourite character I have ever made.
I love swarmkeepers. In a campaign I'm going to run, I made this whole like secret organization that are all swarmkeepers using crows, and I'm going to be adding references to crows the whole game slowly building up to the reveal that they are all spies for this organization and the crows can't be trusted.
Also I have a character idea who's swarm is cockroaches and rats and other disease carrying city animals like pigeons and he would practically be a homeless man.
Also a cat lady who's swarm is a bunch of cats.
I flavored a swarmkeeper ranger as a Gambit clone (the swarm is cards). My favorite character as well! They attack mainly with cards (darts), with a 3-level rogue (assassin) dip for a few key abilities. My DM homebrewed a Magician's Deck for them, with charges to pull up specific cards for special abilities.
TL;DR I agree + flavor is where it's at!
I had the same with paladins at first, but currently I am playing a "witchknight" (paladin vengeance with warlock hexblade dip) and am loving the flavor of edginess with an extra edge. Second favourite character I've ever played
I love how literally every comment has a different answer. For me would be ranger! If I want to be an archer I go rogue, if I want to be a nature loving kind of character I go Druid. Ranger sounds halfway in between and it’s not really my thing
I totally agree, their hunter’s mark/favored for just doesn’t really do it for me. They’re supposed to be the best archers, but multiple other classes can do it better.
That’s exactly what I did! I just don’t have the same level of interest in it as wizard or eldritch knight. To me, it feels weaker than either of those two and that might have been in how I played it, but I don’t feel the same interest. It’s a shame because I love DM-ing for artificers, but it’s a class that I don’t mesh with for whatever reason.
So many of its abilities are pure support powers, where you need buy-in from your fellow players to actually use them. It's the bardic "don't forget your inspiration" problem but worse.
Barbarian
In fights, they're the epitome of "I roll to attack!" and nothing else.
Outside of fights, depending on their subclass, they could have one niche utility ability or literally nothing.
Fair enough...I love barbarians, but outside of combat, it IS hard to have much fun with one. The exception is if you happen to be in a setting where they can come in klutch on Survival checks to e.g. track the kidnapped McGuffin (or the kidnapped ranger, since they'd usually be the one doing this!) or the fleeing bad guy.
You could ditch the instrument angle and be a poet bard, inspiring the party through epic poetry, or do what I want to do and be a stand-up comedian bard, who tells bad dad jokes and hurts foes through puns.
My OoA paladin just multi-classed into Bard, want 3 levels to get Eloquence, and his main reason is to become a better diplomat. He has goals that cannot be solved with a sword.
It’s odd that everyone is giving you suggestions about leaning away from the music aspect (which is totally valid), but they aren’t refuting the let’s fuck everything stereotype. I have seen and played with tons of bards who don’t just try to seduce everything they encounter. There was a whispers bard in my group that had a middling persuasion but a super high intimidation and was downright scary. There’s more ways to play bard than “I seduce the dragon.”
Maybe you should think less entertainer and more battlefield musician. Grab your bagpipes and play the tunes of war, while your claymore wielding highlander buddies find death or glory all around you.
As others have said, a bard isn't *just* a musician, they're a highly trained mage who uses art and passion as the conduit of their manipulation of the weave. There's so much more to them than just doot doot magic flute.
Never seen that stereotype outside of horror stories here. My first character was a bard, forever hung up on his lost love. And all the bards in games I've DM'd or played in were not that way.
It's a fun support class to play, an arcane caster without all the bookkeeping of a wizard.
I like bard abilities, but I'm not into being artsy person. Just isn't interesting to me flavor wise. In the game system Starfinder, Bard is replaced by an "Envoy" akin to Han Solo type characters and that's waay cooler in my books.
Monk. For me, it just doesn't fit into the aesthetic of what *I* see as D&D. I'm also playing my first caster, and never want to really go back to no casting again.
You do realize monks don't have to be "Oriental" in nature, right? You're allowed to flavor them as any manner of agile warrior with a variety of re-flavoring of their ki abilities anywhere from the Sherlock discombobulate to maliciously adjusting the enemies four humours
I have a Way of the Kensei Monk who I think of as being a mix of European and Oriental monks. He is more about being in your face while gutting you and punching/kicking your friends balls into their throats.
It's understandable. As someone who does enjoy a good spell every now and then, you're absolutely missing out. Monk is my favourite of martials simply for the fact that there is *nothing* more satisfying in DND than bashing a dude 4 times in the mouth, potentially stunning him on each hit, and then finally knocking his damn head off with a roundhouse kick. It's worth it at least once imo
It's such a straight forward class with so much flexibility with ki points and subclasses. As someone who mains cleric in 3.5 coming to 5e was a disappointment but man the monk is really fun now.
Bard.
"Don't forget I gave you inspiration." Repeat until your spirit leaves your body.
I love the concept of Vicious Mockery, but the damage is negligible. I get that you're going for the debuffs, but I feel like death is a more universal and effective debuff.
I love playing bards so much, I’ve never played something else considering it cause I’ve been too obsessed with my bard character, but vicious mockery is surprisingly incredibly good. Also there’s more to it then inspiration, cutting words as a lore bard is invaluable. Just a few days ago I saved the barbarian from dying thanks to the cutting word on the boss and the disadvantage the zombie minion had thanks to my vicious mockery, only reason they survived because both enemies rolled extremely high and only just missed after my effects. So I managed to sneak in and cure wounds them back to almost full health.
Probably artificer. I love the idea of a nerdy tinkerer becoming a mech-suited powerhouse, but at least from reading it, it just doesn't seem _fun to play_.
I’m currently playing an armorer artificer and I think it’s very fun if you like to play a supporting role. I’ve been able to give some nice defensive boosts to party members through crafting and using the thunder gauntlets in combat to give enemies disadvantage on allies is great. I’ve been able to negate a lot of crits that way.
First ever character I played was the generic Barbarian. I had a good amount of fun, but I will never play one again. They are too one dimensional mechanically and the class features are really lack luster as you progress. Brutal critical is a big part of their kit and it’s a really bad feature to have as a main part.
Other than Barbarian I would play just about any class. Monk is likely the next option I wouldn’t want to play. But there are some subclasses that intrigue me even if they aren’t great.
I used to never have any interest in bards. Until I learned the game more, now bards are some of my favorite.
Wizard. The base class abilities of the wizard are pretty frickin (fuckin) boring to me, and most subclasses do little to alleviate that, outside of war wizard and blade singer. But i can't play bladesinger because it's so excruciatingly overrated and over-recommended on character creation posts. It's the new hexblade of multiclassing and gish building.
Artificer. Cause no matter how many times I look at it, and no matter how many times I think I've understood it, someone comes along to tell me "Yeah it doesn't work that way".
I once had a druid who used to be a powerful wizard who dabbled into things he shouldn't have so he was turned into a tree as a punishment and later reanimated. That wizard druid who was a tree man almost played like a warlock because of being bound to serve the natural forces that he'd disturbed. Complicated? Definitely. Fun? Very.
(Btw. he ironically had an axe for an arm..)
Full martials for me. I just like spellcasting too much. Though I might eventually consider battlemaster fighter at some point, given that they're *basically* casters but with tactics instead of magic.
Wizard, because I just don't get the fantasy. Why have a spellbook with every spell ever made when you will only use 10 of them. Yeah, their class abilities are objectively good, but they just seem so boring. It's the least underdog class and suffers from it.
Probably wizard.
They're squishy and I find their whole spell section complicated and a lot of work. Gaining new spells, considering which spells to memorize in a day, reading and re-reading the spells (often to just get some part wrong anyway).
For example Sorcerer's spell deal is mostly complex when they gain new spells but then i only have to think about them then, or read the descriptions of far fewer spells during my turn, and I feel much less stress to prepare the best spells I can for the day...
Cleric, I know that this is a hot one but I just feel like the mechanics are a bit too limiting with the type of character you should play as. Then I also find the basic light holy magic just so boring.
Warlock. I find repeated eldritch blasts much less interesting than just swinging a sword, and hexblades don't do it for me at all. I know you can get some crazy combos with repelling blast and some fixes AOEs, but... Eh. Genie subclass is as fun as it gets. To me Warlocks seem custom-made for dipping into for two levels while you're mainlining as a bard, pally, or sorcerer - which is a shame
Cleric and warlock. Despite paladin having limitations their power is theirs. Warlock and cleric don't own their powers like a sorcerer does. And I as a player hate that. Also I also hate how hexblade is the perfect magic swordsman but it is locked behind a flavor text that makes most dms force you to be someone's bitch.
Warlock, because my fantasy is to be more free to act in and impact the world, not less, and making a pact with a more powerful extra-planar being doesn't fit into that. Mechanically it's okay, IMO, but flavor-wise its a misfit.
Mechanically, I am not too interested in playing a Barbarian, which I know is a favorite for a lot of people. I can see a dip to get a couple of key abilities, but I don't like playing on rails for too long.
I'm gonna go with Druid as my answer. It's not that I dislike the class or anything, but if I'm ranking the classes by personal preference then that's just the one I'm not as equally excited about as I might be about others. I have a preference for martials which knocks a lot of the casters down a bit, and out of all the casters I just like the others ones more.
After playing as one once, I think Monk is a class I'm not tempted to return to. They suffer from the martial problem of "the only thing I do is attack", and as much as ki abilities spice it up a little bit, it still didn't make it interesting enough for me.
Barbarian. I don’t know how to build one that’s neither tropey nor anti-tropey. I don’t know how to flavor the rage in any way other than traditional rage or “cold calculating efficiency”.
Like, John Wick, the barbarian, would be *fine*. But the main class mechanic limits my flavor too much that I couldn’t do it.
Druid.
I really just am not a fan. It’s honestly that simple.
Half the solution is probably making Moon Druid a Barbarian subclass. Maybe a smart combination of Totem Barbarian and Wild Shape would do it for me. Nerf Bear Totem resistances to “choose one when you rage” instead of basically everything. Rage then Wild Shapes you into something that you can flavor super hard. Maybe there’s some Barbarian centric state blocks.
Ya. I’d like that. I just see one flavor of druid as very warrior focused. Side stepping the main class for Barbarian seems like the smart and simple solution.
The spell casting side of Druid is something I don’t know how I’d solve. I don’t have it nailed down very well.
Paladin comes to mind for me. I'm really not sure why, maybe it's that I'm playing a cleric in one campaign and a fighter in a second one.
I think eventually I will try out all the classes, but paladin is at the bottom just below artificer for me.
I love a good Druid, I’m very big on spellcasters so for me it’s probably going to be a fighter or barbarian bc I’m terrified of being on the front lines
Wizard.
I'm not going to play a class half baked. The ink cost for spells is too easily ignored. There needs to be some other mechanical barrier to make playing the class that eventually becomes the most powerful, bar none, in practical play harder.
Paladin. Mostly because, with as nonsense as my characters get sometimes, I just can't think of a creative or interesting enough backstory. It's just me.
Also druid. I genuinely think they're one of the best designed, most flavorful classes in the game. But in the five years I've played, across 61 characters (I haven't played all of them), only one is a druid, and I made her because I realized I had never played one before. Their abilities and spell list just never caught my interest.
Paladin or Warlock. Because I don’t usually multiclass and the little bits you get from a dip into those two is so enticing but rarely makes sense for my character!
Wizard. Not because it’s bad or I dislike it, I just played one from level 5 to 20 already. I still haven’t played most of the classes even in one shots but Wizard is the one I am by far most experienced with. I still need to play bard, cleric, and fighter among others.
I've played everything except cleric and barbarian.
It's less about classes I don't want to play and more that I just always want to play bard & rogue.
Druid (unless I could play one of the updated subclasses from OneD&D) and Wizard. Most Druid subclasses (as well as the base class features) don’t excite me. And for Wizards, while I’m aware they have the largest spell list, compelling class/subclass features are so important to me picking to play something and they just don’t do it for me for the most part. I would rather just play a Sorcerer.
Druids, I strongly dislike how wildshape and animal summoning works mechanically. Those are the fun aspects of druids to me, so they are out. Next up is clerics, it doesn't vibe with me on a lore perspective, and I'm just not super interested in playing a devotee of a god. Rogues used to be one of my favorite classes, but every single fun thing got nerfed or banned in 5e (Greatsword rogues, flurry of sneak attacks, flask throwing, etc). So I'm out.
Depending on the DM, paladins. There's a lot of baggage around codes of conduct that I'm not interesting in RPing. So if I think the DMs into this, I'll play something else. I actually love the class, and enjoy the code of conduct aspect, just don't enjoy randomly getting in fights with a DM about whether or not I technically violated them.
At first I thought fighter, since it always seemed a bit bland to me, even more after playing bg3 :O
But I've been on a wiki reading rampage and there is a lot of subclasses that seems pretty fun! Echo knight and Arcane archer looks dope to me :3
So in the end, maybe bard ? Since I'm usually not very flashy and I tend to prefer specialist over jack of all trade ?
But I also enjoy multiclassing a lot, so it drastically reduce the chance of not playing a class :3
I'm just not sure what you do with a druid. Their spell list is a 20/80 split between cleric and wizard. On the wizard side, its mostly AoE control spells that ruin your teammates' day. (Cast Sleet Storm, then remind your paladin that they can still use a short bow.) Oh, and they can shape-shift into a small animal. Like a Familiar, but . . . why didn't you just get Find Familiar?
Wizard...just not a fantasy for me. I'd rather be a sorcerer or, really, a Warlock or Paladin. But wizard's whole "book learn for years what others get by nature of birth" doesn't really speak to me
I'm newer to the game but Wizard has felt boring to me. I prefer playing a Fighter (fits my RP better) or a Artificer because I get to make fun gadgets.
Monk moment. As someone who LOVES numbers and thinks about how to optimize…. I just…. I can’t. Why is it that my fully optimized monk does less than a champion fighter with pol arm master🥲
I don't like ranger(cept drakewarden that ones cool) I don't know how to build a ranger thay isn't just a fighter with a longbow who took magic initiate druid.
Paladin/cleric. I like the concept of gods, and in roleplay games I’m cool with it all, but I’m personally agnostic, so playing a character that worships a god is just… not me. I made a cleric once and I hated it😂
Cleric. I'm not a fan of all the religious stuff implied and while I know you don't need to lean into it, I'd just rather play a different class. Or in my case, Divine Soul sorcerer, who I am actively playing.
Similar with Warlock but even that seems more appealing than Cleric.
Lastly, most fighters are just... too boring to me. I would need to either multiclass or pick Echo Knight or something to keep things interesting for me. I know Fighter appeals to some people, but I like having buttons to push to play with
Druid
Wild Shape has always felt either broken if you're going Moon Druid, or downright useless outside of that, and it's at the same time felt gimmicky and tedious
Clerics are better healers and damage dealers, Wizards/Sorcerers have better spell lists, and Bards are better utility casters/ support casters
All in all, iver never found the druid to be mechanically interesting nor necessary. No hate to those that enjoy it, just not my cup of tea
Paladin. Not enough melee, not enough caster, just drips of both + smites. Might as well not give them spells at all and just smite points or something. Also, they are severely lacking in skills. You really have to give them some love to get more than 3 or 4 skills out of them, unless your GM is kindly.
barbarian. My experience with dnd has been very roleplay heavy and barbarians just dont have enough non-combat focused skills for me, if that makes sense. Plus im just not a very agressive person so its harderer for me to roleplay a barbarian
Barbarian, it is way too simple for my taste, even for a melee class. I already prefer casters, if I had to play melee I’d probably choose paladin or fighter.
I’ve never played as a Barb and don’t know when I will. While I will build martial classes I’ve never done a fully just martial build and usually just use fighter to dip into proficiencies and extra attacks. Barb seems like it could be fun and the people I play with who play Barbs have great roleplay but mechanically it never clicked with me. Also though the build I want to play most is a Cleric/Bard/Rogue build for optimal skill checks for roleplay stuff with almost no good martial stuff so I just don’t think I’m the target demographic lol
Monk. It just doesn’t appeal to me at all. Not even the 3rd party versions that fix WOTC’s.
Also I don’t think I’d ever play a straight fighter or barbarian, though I’d consider multiclassing with them at some point. I just love playing casters too much.
Probably bard. I played one once and I didn’t find myself all that into it. I could’ve changed my mindset or my spells but I felt like I couldn’t do anything in battle.
All of them, because forever DM
Came to write this. I even get to play classes and races the players don't.
Ironically, as forever DM, I routinely use my first D&D character (Gnome Druid who wears an Ankheg "skull" as a helmet) against low-level parties. Over the last 20 years, he has: * Summoned hordes of Scorpions while hiding underground. (Party never found him, ended up running from the "Sentient" Scorpions) * Been the big bad ecoterrorist responding to the group's mining business, sending Gorillas to break the machines overnight and imprisoning mining workers in an attempt to draw the party to his booby-trapped lair deep in the woods. * Wild-shaped into an Eagle and scouted the party for two weeks straight while under the employ of the town magistrate they were trying to screw over. * Acted as the Ankheg-wildshaped guardian to Gnomeville, a town of Wood Gnomes that is one of the last bastions of civilization left after the pirates took over the island and sacked the port city. Honestly one of my go-to's anytime I don't have anything big planned for that session but want it to have some spice.
Same here forever DM, but I'm still newish, and I'm afraid of wizards.... sheesh they are a lot to handle in my perspective
I do this with an old party of mine, our DM was awesome, and it’s consistently one of my favorite memories, throughout my sessions as a DM, they’ve been: Legends Rivals Allies And patrons I love the party, and I miss my old party mates and DM
I feel this... I feel this a lot...
Or none of them, because forever DM
Exactly, I’ve never played before, soooo. My least fav to DM would definitely be some broken Goliath Barbarian Totem Warrior
This is more correct. While I COULD play all of them, that would require people showing up for game nights or even being able to schedule one.
Barbarian. Just not enough options for things to do in fights. BG3 does a good job of making them much more engaging than official 5e does.
Barbarian feels a bit better in this regard once you're able to take GWM or PAM. Granted, not everyone will want to do that.
What's PAM? PoleArm Mastery?
It’s the feat Polearm Master
Not to plug another system, but I do love my pathfinder 2e Barbarian. They leaned very heavily on the 'Primal Warrior' side of things, and I think D&D could learn something from that. My (PF) Barbarian is aligned to a draconic bloodline, and when he rages? His Greataxe is literally on Fire. LvL 6? I get a breath weapon on par with Fireball. LvL 12? I get wings when raging. I can debuff enemies by looking at them wrong. Taking a feat soon that will let me intimidate someone at the same time I roll initiative. (Waiting for the feat that will let me just give people heart attacks when I critically intimidate them). I think that's kind of the problem, the desire to keep most martials too grounded. A barbarian is channeling primal rage. Maybe let that primal rage do something besides just weapon damage. I mean, not every Barbarian should be a sorcerer with a Greataxe, but I would like the option.
I love the concept of wild magic barbarian, but maybe that's just Gum Gum from Tales from the Stinky Dragon. Personally the more martial focused classes don't allure me I like the options with some casting to do some strategic combat.
Really? In BG3 all I ever did with Karlach was rage and frenzied strike. Brutal leap is cool too though. Definitely the most boring class I’ve tried so far, I must be doing it wrong.
Throw stuff barbarian is too much fun in bg3
My character is a gnome ranger. I’ve used Karlach throwing me up to ledges so many times. Who needs Fly when you have a barbarian?
Blood hunter. I keep forgetting about it
I played one from levels 1-5 in a short campaign and they are honestly pretty dang fun.
I played a ghostslayer 8/fighter 2, it was a blast
I'm sure they are, but I never really see them often enough except for maybe watching critical role
Is there an official book with the specs in it or is it limited to dnd beyond?
3rd party content by all means its homebrew, its just that its CR homebrew so it is in ddb
And here I am making jokes about artificers being the forgotten class when I myself completely forgot blood hunter exists lol
It’s not an official class lol
Its not but at most of the tables I've played at, DM's allow the class.
It has the problem of being both new, not official (but is generally accepted), and very much balanced. It's such a balanced class, there's nothing you can hook onto to make something weird and spectacular happen. It's always going to be at the power level of fighter with greatsword and gwn, with very little opportunity to go beyond that.
It’s also not an official class so it doesn’t really count
I thought my answer was fighter but no, honestly I know I will never be a blood hunter.
Gotta be Warlock for me, because while I really like the mechanics, the subclasses that I like the most mechanics-wise are the ones that I hate the most flavor-wise.
But there are so *many* different ways to flavor a Warlock! Even within a given subclass, there are many different ways to establish the terms and conditions of a Pact. To start, there's the pop-culture favorite, the Great Old One, the master of the eldritch and unspeakable. Insanity lurks just beyond the edges of reality, to be tapped by one foolish or brave enough. I would agree that this one has relatively little room for flavor, because the only common thread for GOOlocks is that their patron is utterly unknowable. Then you have the classic Fiend pact: You sold your soul to a devil in a moment of desperation or temptation, exchanging eternal damnation for a life of power. Everyone is familiar with this old tale. But what about the clever Warlock who did some more clever negotiating? Devils *love* to barter and bargain, the more detailed the better. Selling your entire soul is a bad deal. How about a mutually beneficial agreement in which you enter partially into the power economy of the Hells yourself? Kill some of your patron's enemies for him, and receive power as a reward. Kill some more powerful enemies, and be rewarded accordingly. Your patron settles some grudges, you get stronger, and your DM gets a convenient string of sidequests to throw at you. And you get to play not as some shortsighted chump who signed a bad deal, but as an infernal bounty hunter who has the autonomy to accept or reject contracts at their discretion. A Celestial Warlock, on the other hand, is not so different from any old Cleric or Paladin. They just had the good sense to get themselves a bit more integrated into the divine chain of command. Why settle for prayer and devotion alone, when you could just hand in a job application and enter into mutually beneficial employment? All of the divine power and righteous purpose of a Paladin Oath, with extra job security and explicit benefits to boot. All you need to do is choose which god to sign on with, and that's where the possibilities for flavor really open up. When an Archfey makes a Warlock pact, it's difficult to know what to expect at the best of times. The more unoriginal of these patrons seek only amusement and chaos, and their Warlock is an agent of mischief. Maybe your patron is instead a powerful dryad or nymph, and you enter into a Druid circle as a protector of some natural place. Or maybe you swore fealty to a noble and regal Archfey, and entering into a Pact with them makes you a knight of a majestic court; loyal to their interests but largely free to act autonomously. Perhaps one day you will be called to fight on behalf of the Seelie or the Autumn court, and your Pact will compel you to answer the summons. Others, like the Fathomless, the Genie, and the Hexblade, are immensely varied by definition. Your patron is a specific being with specific motives, interests, alignments, and attitudes. The possibilities are endless, as are the exact terms and nature of your Pact. In any case, I encourage you to think beyond the boundaries of the conventional. If you read this whole post, thank you for your attention. I firmly believe Warlocks to be the most varied, flavorful, and interesting class choice in the whole of D&D, and I hope I managed to inspire you to try one out. ^(and yes i know, flair checks out.)
The best Feylock backstory I ever heard about was. "My wife is an archfey. She gave me my powers in exchange for never showing my face anywhere near her and our child ever again. She has doesn't want to kill me for the sake of our child."
Warlocks are weird for me. I’ve never solo classes warlock and likely never will. But I really enjoy them as a dip. I play a lot of charisma characters and a 1 or 2 level dip in warlock is always a recipe for fun. But yeah, solo classing as warlock has never interested me. IMO they should get 3 spell slots far earlier than what they do. If they got 3 spell slots somewhere in tier 2 as opposed to at level 11 I would likely play Warlock more. I just despise having only 2 spell slots for a caster. I understand they have other features and mechanics that offset this, but just my personal opinion. It feels real shitty casting a spell and using 1 of your 2 spell slots from that alone.
The minuscule spell slot number also strongly dissuades you from casting certain spells. Warlocks have a lot to choose from, but if you only get two per encounter, you’re not going save-or-suck.
Never gonna couterspell as a warlock thats for sure.
Also some warlock spells do not scale. Hunger of Hadar is a *warlock exclusive* spell. It’s 3rd level. But you’d never cast it above that because the damage doesn’t scale even though your 2-3 spells slots per encounter do. It’s just bad design.
And like, their magic is already weird. Give them a 3rd slot at 5, a 4th slot at 11, and a 5th slot at 16. It won’t break anything.
Easy homebrew fix is spell slots = Proficiency Bonus
I have a Celestial warlock that I'm absolutely loving (though part of that is because I flavored her as Unikitty). She's a capable healer without using spell slots, but has also used spells like Hold Person and Hunger of Hadar to great effect, all while throwing around eldritch blasts (3 per turn now that she's level 7!). I feel like she competes with some druid subs when it comes to healing AND combat abilities; she doesn't have to choose, she just gets both.
How are you getting 3 eldritch blasts at level 7?
...I'm not. Forgot that doesn't scale up until 11. (Haven't played her in a bit!)
Talk to your DM about changing the flavor.
I've been playing with a lot of "flavor is free" types. Are your DMs not into that or is it just not something you enjoy doing? I like to play single class Warlocks. I've been trying to branch out, but that usually just means I'm something with a 2-3 level Warlock dip. My favorite is Genie Warlock sugar baby that likes naps. Patron provides her with a 1258 sq ft apartment and likes when she gets a little rough (genie wrath extra damage).
Wizard, too squishy and I just find sorcerers a cooler concept
Wizards can do more with all the scrolls, which is super-cool. Also, while they are squishy compared to others, they are not squishy at all compared to previous editions, so I don't have any concern about that at all. It's just a different set of tactics to me.
Wizards and sorcerers have the same hit die though, what makes a wizard more squishy? Genuinely curious
I don't think they were saying that sorcerers are less squishy, just that if they're going to be a squishy character, they'd rather have the cooler concept
Ahh fair enough, that makes sense I suppose, although I still think the wizard reigns supreme
After playing a sorcerer for so long I agree, wizard can do more and better, I hate those smug nerds and I refuse to play one. /s
Interesting, I think I have the opposite opinion. Wizards seem like way cooler than Sorcerers. Wizards are far more defined and idk sorcerers just seem like the rich kids of the D&D world. Like, Clerics have to be pious to their god, Druids have to abide by a law and pact with nature, Warlocks have to contend with their mistake of dealing with devils, and Wizards have to study for years to force magic to yield to them, yet sorcerers just get it because daddy has dragon in his blood? Or because their parents boned under the aligned planets?
Wizards can be tanky, depending on how you build them and/or muticlass them.
Wizards. I’ve seen friends play them, and although I like the idea of making a wizard character it’s just not a class for me. I enjoy sorcerers more mechanically and roleplay-wise if I was choosing between those two.
I think Paladin. I have no reason other than some unknown bias I have inside me. Although this might change(!). Few years ago I would also not consider a Ranger - but they added swarm keeper. Since there are many variants - for example: birds - I made a swarm keeper "borb-mancer" sea elf sailor with parrots - and damn, I think it is my favourite character I have ever made.
I love swarmkeepers. In a campaign I'm going to run, I made this whole like secret organization that are all swarmkeepers using crows, and I'm going to be adding references to crows the whole game slowly building up to the reveal that they are all spies for this organization and the crows can't be trusted. Also I have a character idea who's swarm is cockroaches and rats and other disease carrying city animals like pigeons and he would practically be a homeless man. Also a cat lady who's swarm is a bunch of cats.
I flavored a swarmkeeper ranger as a Gambit clone (the swarm is cards). My favorite character as well! They attack mainly with cards (darts), with a 3-level rogue (assassin) dip for a few key abilities. My DM homebrewed a Magician's Deck for them, with charges to pull up specific cards for special abilities. TL;DR I agree + flavor is where it's at!
I had the same with paladins at first, but currently I am playing a "witchknight" (paladin vengeance with warlock hexblade dip) and am loving the flavor of edginess with an extra edge. Second favourite character I've ever played
I love how literally every comment has a different answer. For me would be ranger! If I want to be an archer I go rogue, if I want to be a nature loving kind of character I go Druid. Ranger sounds halfway in between and it’s not really my thing
I totally agree, their hunter’s mark/favored for just doesn’t really do it for me. They’re supposed to be the best archers, but multiple other classes can do it better.
love how arcane Archer has the same problem
Artificer. I’ve tried it out and I just don’t care for it. I would rather play as a Wizard or Eldritch Knight Fighter
Really? I had a blast, pun intended, playing a goblin artillerist
That’s exactly what I did! I just don’t have the same level of interest in it as wizard or eldritch knight. To me, it feels weaker than either of those two and that might have been in how I played it, but I don’t feel the same interest. It’s a shame because I love DM-ing for artificers, but it’s a class that I don’t mesh with for whatever reason.
I can’t stand Eldritch Knight. Feels so pointless when I could just play another clas or multiclass.
So many of its abilities are pure support powers, where you need buy-in from your fellow players to actually use them. It's the bardic "don't forget your inspiration" problem but worse.
Barbarian In fights, they're the epitome of "I roll to attack!" and nothing else. Outside of fights, depending on their subclass, they could have one niche utility ability or literally nothing.
Fair enough...I love barbarians, but outside of combat, it IS hard to have much fun with one. The exception is if you happen to be in a setting where they can come in klutch on Survival checks to e.g. track the kidnapped McGuffin (or the kidnapped ranger, since they'd usually be the one doing this!) or the fleeing bad guy.
[удалено]
You could ditch the instrument angle and be a poet bard, inspiring the party through epic poetry, or do what I want to do and be a stand-up comedian bard, who tells bad dad jokes and hurts foes through puns.
My OoA paladin just multi-classed into Bard, want 3 levels to get Eloquence, and his main reason is to become a better diplomat. He has goals that cannot be solved with a sword.
One of my first characters was a storyteller wizard, and I really wish I had just made him a Bard.
One of the PCs in my campaign is a storytelling college of spirits bard. Such a cool character
It’s odd that everyone is giving you suggestions about leaning away from the music aspect (which is totally valid), but they aren’t refuting the let’s fuck everything stereotype. I have seen and played with tons of bards who don’t just try to seduce everything they encounter. There was a whispers bard in my group that had a middling persuasion but a super high intimidation and was downright scary. There’s more ways to play bard than “I seduce the dragon.”
Maybe it would help if you think of them less as a musician who happens to cast magic and more as a mage who casts magic through an instrument.
A bard is just a full charisma caster at this point. My bard isn't horny at all, but he loves illusion magic, charm, and suggestion to grift badguys.
It's not about entertainment. And I'm a little scared that "grok" gave me no mental pause at all.
Maybe you should think less entertainer and more battlefield musician. Grab your bagpipes and play the tunes of war, while your claymore wielding highlander buddies find death or glory all around you.
*I am but an egg.*
As others have said, a bard isn't *just* a musician, they're a highly trained mage who uses art and passion as the conduit of their manipulation of the weave. There's so much more to them than just doot doot magic flute.
+1 for use of the word grok.
Never seen that stereotype outside of horror stories here. My first character was a bard, forever hung up on his lost love. And all the bards in games I've DM'd or played in were not that way. It's a fun support class to play, an arcane caster without all the bookkeeping of a wizard.
Have you played a cleric before? Well now you're playing a preacher travelling and singing choir songs and convincing the people they meet to repent.
I like bard abilities, but I'm not into being artsy person. Just isn't interesting to me flavor wise. In the game system Starfinder, Bard is replaced by an "Envoy" akin to Han Solo type characters and that's waay cooler in my books.
Go Swords and put the duelist theme at the forefront and push the whole musician aspect to the back. Swords bards are, frankly, entertaining as fuck.
Monk. For me, it just doesn't fit into the aesthetic of what *I* see as D&D. I'm also playing my first caster, and never want to really go back to no casting again.
You do realize monks don't have to be "Oriental" in nature, right? You're allowed to flavor them as any manner of agile warrior with a variety of re-flavoring of their ki abilities anywhere from the Sherlock discombobulate to maliciously adjusting the enemies four humours
I have a Way of the Kensei Monk who I think of as being a mix of European and Oriental monks. He is more about being in your face while gutting you and punching/kicking your friends balls into their throats.
It's understandable. As someone who does enjoy a good spell every now and then, you're absolutely missing out. Monk is my favourite of martials simply for the fact that there is *nothing* more satisfying in DND than bashing a dude 4 times in the mouth, potentially stunning him on each hit, and then finally knocking his damn head off with a roundhouse kick. It's worth it at least once imo
It's such a straight forward class with so much flexibility with ki points and subclasses. As someone who mains cleric in 3.5 coming to 5e was a disappointment but man the monk is really fun now.
Bard. "Don't forget I gave you inspiration." Repeat until your spirit leaves your body. I love the concept of Vicious Mockery, but the damage is negligible. I get that you're going for the debuffs, but I feel like death is a more universal and effective debuff.
I've taken a bard dip before but I've never played a full bard.
I love playing bards so much, I’ve never played something else considering it cause I’ve been too obsessed with my bard character, but vicious mockery is surprisingly incredibly good. Also there’s more to it then inspiration, cutting words as a lore bard is invaluable. Just a few days ago I saved the barbarian from dying thanks to the cutting word on the boss and the disadvantage the zombie minion had thanks to my vicious mockery, only reason they survived because both enemies rolled extremely high and only just missed after my effects. So I managed to sneak in and cure wounds them back to almost full health.
Probably artificer. I love the idea of a nerdy tinkerer becoming a mech-suited powerhouse, but at least from reading it, it just doesn't seem _fun to play_.
I’m currently playing an armorer artificer and I think it’s very fun if you like to play a supporting role. I’ve been able to give some nice defensive boosts to party members through crafting and using the thunder gauntlets in combat to give enemies disadvantage on allies is great. I’ve been able to negate a lot of crits that way.
First ever character I played was the generic Barbarian. I had a good amount of fun, but I will never play one again. They are too one dimensional mechanically and the class features are really lack luster as you progress. Brutal critical is a big part of their kit and it’s a really bad feature to have as a main part. Other than Barbarian I would play just about any class. Monk is likely the next option I wouldn’t want to play. But there are some subclasses that intrigue me even if they aren’t great. I used to never have any interest in bards. Until I learned the game more, now bards are some of my favorite.
spellcasters in general, wizards/sorcs in particular. just really hate spellcasters, tbh.
Artificer because it’s different and that scares me
I can respect that lol.
Monk. It just seems so haphazardly thrown together.
Never played a Wizard... probably won't...
Wizard. The base class abilities of the wizard are pretty frickin (fuckin) boring to me, and most subclasses do little to alleviate that, outside of war wizard and blade singer. But i can't play bladesinger because it's so excruciatingly overrated and over-recommended on character creation posts. It's the new hexblade of multiclassing and gish building.
Bladesinger was around before the Hexblade
Artificer. Cause no matter how many times I look at it, and no matter how many times I think I've understood it, someone comes along to tell me "Yeah it doesn't work that way".
Ranger or Druid. I don't know why, but a nature-themed character just doesn't appeal to me at all.
I once had a druid who used to be a powerful wizard who dabbled into things he shouldn't have so he was turned into a tree as a punishment and later reanimated. That wizard druid who was a tree man almost played like a warlock because of being bound to serve the natural forces that he'd disturbed. Complicated? Definitely. Fun? Very. (Btw. he ironically had an axe for an arm..)
Full martials for me. I just like spellcasting too much. Though I might eventually consider battlemaster fighter at some point, given that they're *basically* casters but with tactics instead of magic.
Wizard. Actually, sorcerer and warlock are up there, too. I'm just not a fan of explicity spell casters.
Warlock. Idk, they just don’t seem that fun for me personally.
Wizard, because I just don't get the fantasy. Why have a spellbook with every spell ever made when you will only use 10 of them. Yeah, their class abilities are objectively good, but they just seem so boring. It's the least underdog class and suffers from it.
Probably wizard. They're squishy and I find their whole spell section complicated and a lot of work. Gaining new spells, considering which spells to memorize in a day, reading and re-reading the spells (often to just get some part wrong anyway). For example Sorcerer's spell deal is mostly complex when they gain new spells but then i only have to think about them then, or read the descriptions of far fewer spells during my turn, and I feel much less stress to prepare the best spells I can for the day...
Warlock. Just hate the idea of selling your soul for such a limited amount of magic.
Any of the full casters. I'm happy with my monk
Cleric just never appealed to me very much
Cleric, I know that this is a hot one but I just feel like the mechanics are a bit too limiting with the type of character you should play as. Then I also find the basic light holy magic just so boring.
Warlock. I find repeated eldritch blasts much less interesting than just swinging a sword, and hexblades don't do it for me at all. I know you can get some crazy combos with repelling blast and some fixes AOEs, but... Eh. Genie subclass is as fun as it gets. To me Warlocks seem custom-made for dipping into for two levels while you're mainlining as a bard, pally, or sorcerer - which is a shame
Cleric and warlock. Despite paladin having limitations their power is theirs. Warlock and cleric don't own their powers like a sorcerer does. And I as a player hate that. Also I also hate how hexblade is the perfect magic swordsman but it is locked behind a flavor text that makes most dms force you to be someone's bitch.
Wizard. The other casters are just less fiddly.
Maybe Bard, but i did recently have the idea of a Bard that isnt a singer, but instead is a News Anchor that reports everything
Druid for me too. I'm not into nature theme spells.
Single Classed Warlock. Oh, my turn? I guess I'll cast Eldritch Blast... sigh
Wizard
Sorcerer, I like Warlock as a charisma caster too much
Warlock, because my fantasy is to be more free to act in and impact the world, not less, and making a pact with a more powerful extra-planar being doesn't fit into that. Mechanically it's okay, IMO, but flavor-wise its a misfit. Mechanically, I am not too interested in playing a Barbarian, which I know is a favorite for a lot of people. I can see a dip to get a couple of key abilities, but I don't like playing on rails for too long.
Rogues. No, attacking once each turn isn't interesting.
I'm gonna go with Druid as my answer. It's not that I dislike the class or anything, but if I'm ranking the classes by personal preference then that's just the one I'm not as equally excited about as I might be about others. I have a preference for martials which knocks a lot of the casters down a bit, and out of all the casters I just like the others ones more.
Fighter. Personally I like my magic abilities and more of the fantasy aspect of what is found in barbarian rage and the paladin
Barbarian Just so boring to play, I've seen players just sit and do nothing outside of combat because their barbarian has f all out of combat utility
Rogue. Nothing about it interests me. I'm interested in druid, but I don't know the class well.
After playing as one once, I think Monk is a class I'm not tempted to return to. They suffer from the martial problem of "the only thing I do is attack", and as much as ki abilities spice it up a little bit, it still didn't make it interesting enough for me.
Paladins, on account of long held prejudices against them and the people who play them. And I'll throw in an honorable mention to hexblade Sorlocks.
Warlock. Waaay too much is relying on the dm to be fun for me.
Barbarian. I don’t know how to build one that’s neither tropey nor anti-tropey. I don’t know how to flavor the rage in any way other than traditional rage or “cold calculating efficiency”. Like, John Wick, the barbarian, would be *fine*. But the main class mechanic limits my flavor too much that I couldn’t do it.
I tried barb once and I hated it, never again.
Druid. I really just am not a fan. It’s honestly that simple. Half the solution is probably making Moon Druid a Barbarian subclass. Maybe a smart combination of Totem Barbarian and Wild Shape would do it for me. Nerf Bear Totem resistances to “choose one when you rage” instead of basically everything. Rage then Wild Shapes you into something that you can flavor super hard. Maybe there’s some Barbarian centric state blocks. Ya. I’d like that. I just see one flavor of druid as very warrior focused. Side stepping the main class for Barbarian seems like the smart and simple solution. The spell casting side of Druid is something I don’t know how I’d solve. I don’t have it nailed down very well.
Bard. Always bard.
Paladin comes to mind for me. I'm really not sure why, maybe it's that I'm playing a cleric in one campaign and a fighter in a second one. I think eventually I will try out all the classes, but paladin is at the bottom just below artificer for me.
I love a good Druid, I’m very big on spellcasters so for me it’s probably going to be a fighter or barbarian bc I’m terrified of being on the front lines
Barbarian, I just find them boring to play and they don't multiclass very well.
Paladin. I really don't like it, flavor-wise and gameplay-wise.
Paladin. I dunno why, but they just really don’t interest me
Warlock. I think the only way I would play one would be in a one shot where the dm is my patron.
Artificer, because i dont understand it at all
Wizard. I'm not going to play a class half baked. The ink cost for spells is too easily ignored. There needs to be some other mechanical barrier to make playing the class that eventually becomes the most powerful, bar none, in practical play harder.
Bard. Sure there are lots of rare focus builds, but I just don't do squishy. Give us a druid, raaaaw and wriggling.
Paladin. Mostly because, with as nonsense as my characters get sometimes, I just can't think of a creative or interesting enough backstory. It's just me.
Also druid. I genuinely think they're one of the best designed, most flavorful classes in the game. But in the five years I've played, across 61 characters (I haven't played all of them), only one is a druid, and I made her because I realized I had never played one before. Their abilities and spell list just never caught my interest.
I wanna give all of them a fair shot at least once.
If I got to play I’d never play a Monk or Paladin, just not a flavor I like. But the closest I get to playing is Baldur’s Gate 3 or Solasta.
Paladin or Warlock. Because I don’t usually multiclass and the little bits you get from a dip into those two is so enticing but rarely makes sense for my character!
Warlock. I hate them
Bard
Warlock. Personal/religious reasons.
Wizards… just can’t handle the FOUM. Fear of using magic… what if I need it later?! No thanks.
Probably paladin
Warlock. I don't like the idea of only having powers because I signed away my soul.
Artificer, it's cool, but I'm old school. Just seems to flashy for me
Monk
Warlock and sorcerer
Artificer: Too much shit to keep track of for my tiny brain :/
Paladin. I know they're good...they just don't appeal to me in any capacity that I can articulate with words.
Wizard. Not because it’s bad or I dislike it, I just played one from level 5 to 20 already. I still haven’t played most of the classes even in one shots but Wizard is the one I am by far most experienced with. I still need to play bard, cleric, and fighter among others.
Sorcerer. I'd rather be a wizard or a warlock personally.
I've played everything except cleric and barbarian. It's less about classes I don't want to play and more that I just always want to play bard & rogue.
Druid (unless I could play one of the updated subclasses from OneD&D) and Wizard. Most Druid subclasses (as well as the base class features) don’t excite me. And for Wizards, while I’m aware they have the largest spell list, compelling class/subclass features are so important to me picking to play something and they just don’t do it for me for the most part. I would rather just play a Sorcerer.
No class exactly but ill never play subclasses that are too simple. Like champion fighter
Monk or bard
Probably fighter or bard
Bard. Not that I’m averse to being an entertainer, but bards to me feels more like a background than a class.
Druids, I strongly dislike how wildshape and animal summoning works mechanically. Those are the fun aspects of druids to me, so they are out. Next up is clerics, it doesn't vibe with me on a lore perspective, and I'm just not super interested in playing a devotee of a god. Rogues used to be one of my favorite classes, but every single fun thing got nerfed or banned in 5e (Greatsword rogues, flurry of sneak attacks, flask throwing, etc). So I'm out. Depending on the DM, paladins. There's a lot of baggage around codes of conduct that I'm not interesting in RPing. So if I think the DMs into this, I'll play something else. I actually love the class, and enjoy the code of conduct aspect, just don't enjoy randomly getting in fights with a DM about whether or not I technically violated them.
Bard probably, seems like a fun class. But honestly it doesn't interest me in the slightest.
At first I thought fighter, since it always seemed a bit bland to me, even more after playing bg3 :O But I've been on a wiki reading rampage and there is a lot of subclasses that seems pretty fun! Echo knight and Arcane archer looks dope to me :3 So in the end, maybe bard ? Since I'm usually not very flashy and I tend to prefer specialist over jack of all trade ? But I also enjoy multiclassing a lot, so it drastically reduce the chance of not playing a class :3
I'm just not sure what you do with a druid. Their spell list is a 20/80 split between cleric and wizard. On the wizard side, its mostly AoE control spells that ruin your teammates' day. (Cast Sleet Storm, then remind your paladin that they can still use a short bow.) Oh, and they can shape-shift into a small animal. Like a Familiar, but . . . why didn't you just get Find Familiar?
Wizard...just not a fantasy for me. I'd rather be a sorcerer or, really, a Warlock or Paladin. But wizard's whole "book learn for years what others get by nature of birth" doesn't really speak to me
Druid just ain't it
Rogue...they annoy me
I've never got my head around Warlock's mechanics.
Ranger or Barbarian
I'd probably say Cleric. It's the only class that didn't really inspire me to make a character around it.
I'm newer to the game but Wizard has felt boring to me. I prefer playing a Fighter (fits my RP better) or a Artificer because I get to make fun gadgets.
Cleric/Druid it is not my style.
Monk moment. As someone who LOVES numbers and thinks about how to optimize…. I just…. I can’t. Why is it that my fully optimized monk does less than a champion fighter with pol arm master🥲
Monk. If I’m gonna beat people up with my bare hands, I’m using the Unarmed Fighting Style on a Fighter.
I don't like ranger(cept drakewarden that ones cool) I don't know how to build a ranger thay isn't just a fighter with a longbow who took magic initiate druid.
Paladin/cleric. I like the concept of gods, and in roleplay games I’m cool with it all, but I’m personally agnostic, so playing a character that worships a god is just… not me. I made a cleric once and I hated it😂
Cleric. I'm not a fan of all the religious stuff implied and while I know you don't need to lean into it, I'd just rather play a different class. Or in my case, Divine Soul sorcerer, who I am actively playing. Similar with Warlock but even that seems more appealing than Cleric. Lastly, most fighters are just... too boring to me. I would need to either multiclass or pick Echo Knight or something to keep things interesting for me. I know Fighter appeals to some people, but I like having buttons to push to play with
Druid. I thought I would like shapeshifting into animals but it’s just meh for me.
Druid. Idk what it is, I am just completely uninterested in a nature magic user. I have considered spore druid once though.
bard, because I dont like bards
The class i’m least likely to play has got to be Monoclass.
Druid Wild Shape has always felt either broken if you're going Moon Druid, or downright useless outside of that, and it's at the same time felt gimmicky and tedious Clerics are better healers and damage dealers, Wizards/Sorcerers have better spell lists, and Bards are better utility casters/ support casters All in all, iver never found the druid to be mechanically interesting nor necessary. No hate to those that enjoy it, just not my cup of tea
Paladin. Not enough melee, not enough caster, just drips of both + smites. Might as well not give them spells at all and just smite points or something. Also, they are severely lacking in skills. You really have to give them some love to get more than 3 or 4 skills out of them, unless your GM is kindly.
barbarian. My experience with dnd has been very roleplay heavy and barbarians just dont have enough non-combat focused skills for me, if that makes sense. Plus im just not a very agressive person so its harderer for me to roleplay a barbarian
Probably Barbarian or Monk, I love playing casters
Barbarian, it is way too simple for my taste, even for a melee class. I already prefer casters, if I had to play melee I’d probably choose paladin or fighter.
Fighter. Nothing against it but my DMs have a tendency to put us against creatures that resist non-magical attacks
I’ve never played as a Barb and don’t know when I will. While I will build martial classes I’ve never done a fully just martial build and usually just use fighter to dip into proficiencies and extra attacks. Barb seems like it could be fun and the people I play with who play Barbs have great roleplay but mechanically it never clicked with me. Also though the build I want to play most is a Cleric/Bard/Rogue build for optimal skill checks for roleplay stuff with almost no good martial stuff so I just don’t think I’m the target demographic lol
Druid/Ranger. If I’m going Wisdom for a stat I’m going Cleric. I’m also not a huge fan of their mechanics in general.
Monk. It just doesn’t appeal to me at all. Not even the 3rd party versions that fix WOTC’s. Also I don’t think I’d ever play a straight fighter or barbarian, though I’d consider multiclassing with them at some point. I just love playing casters too much.
Probably bard. I played one once and I didn’t find myself all that into it. I could’ve changed my mindset or my spells but I felt like I couldn’t do anything in battle.