Do You Prefer to Play One of the Four Primary Base Classes (Clr, Ftr, Rog, Wiz)?

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted no- I play whatever class fits my PC concepts. Since I'm in a group that plays Core + Completes only (none of the other Complete base classes are allowed, no Psi), that means I'm limited to the PHB classes...but I'll play any of those. I have no preference.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

I usually play clerics. A mix of fighter capability and spellcasting capability with healing magic thrown in for "flavor". Mine usually aren't the "primary healer" even when they're the only cleric in the party. Also played a paladin which was fun until the campaign suddenly ended. Played a wizard but not really too thrilled with it due to the limiting to spellcasting only part. My idea of characters are the "melee happy" ones.

 

[genshou]

I usually prefer characters who are better at supporting the basic roles, like Bards, Rangers, Sorcerers, and various alternate base classes (lookin' at you, Shadowcaster).

 

[Li Shenron]

On the long run, I do prefer playing the 4 iconic classes (or Sorcerer, which is just the same) because they have a flexible concept compared to the other classes, and more space for variations. I enjoyed playing the other classes as well, but the second Ranger is rarely different enough from the first. OTOH you can make 100 wizard/sorcerers with strong differences in both tactical abilities and background. In fact Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, Bards, Monks and Druids originated from the basic 4 classes as a narrowed-down specialized concept. (Sorcerer is somehow different, if it wasn't for the "draconc blood" idea which could be easily stripped from the background, it could be anything the Wizard can be, just with alternative mechanics).

 

[Aikuchi]

I like playing support characters, regardless of whether they are of the quartet 4 or not.

Usually, however - there's a strong urge to just .... try out something different. Although the mechanix can be the same with different dressing, it still all simmers down to the fact that my characters will shy from the limelight, in battle or otherwise (regardless of Charisma rating / a shy sorcerer)

 

[Asmo]

Yeah, I like to play clerics. If I can´t play a cleric I will play a wizard.

Asmo

 

[MonsterMash]

Yes, I tend to find myself playing one of those four most often (with lots of clerics for some reason).

 

[GandhitheBFG]

Along with Gneech, mr_accipitres, and wmasters, I always seem to end up playing outdoorsy characters. Druids, rangers, barbarians and wilderness rogues. Or urban rangers or bards.

The core four don't really interest me; I suppose they take a lot more customisation to fit a given concept, whereas since I always tend to play druids and rangers, why play a naturey cleric or archery fighter?

I do like arcane tricksters occasionally. But I have a bad track record for my mages surviving beyond the first session, so tend to stick to the aforementioned classes

 

[Ron]

I tend to play rangers or wizards. From time to time I would play a rogue or rarely a bard.

 

[diaglo]

no.

the three base classes are Cleric, Fighting Man, and Magic User.

if you add supplements. then the thief is a possible option.

when i say base classes i mean those you qualify with any stat. thus a s 3 i 3 w 3 c 3 d 3 ch 3 PC could play them.

for me, anything that has a prereq to qualify (like a ch 17 for the paladin) disqualifies it as a base class. it becomes in newer terms a prestige class.