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

[Hussar]

Silly Diaglo.

I tend to pick classes based on concept. But, to be fair, my concepts are usually best served with the base 4 classes. The fact that the base four are probably the most versatile of the classes most likely is the reason for this.

Really, unless your fighting guy character wants to be a tree hugger, religious nut-job or beserker, fighter is the way to go.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I voted no, because since 3e appeared I have played:

1 Sorcerer
1 Druid
1 Monk/Psychic Warrior
1 Paladin/Sorcerer
1 Ranger

That is all. I've not managed to have any characters die, so it is pretty much 1 character per campaign, and that's it!

I might try one of the standard 4 eventually, but it isn't likely in the near future (next would probably be bard or barbarian or something)

Cheers

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I'll take variety and flexibility over expertise and focus. I'll play a rogue or wizard, rarely a fighter, and nary a cleric.

Bards rule, of course.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I tend to play fighters (when I have the chance to be a player instead of DM that is), but even then I like to try out some of the new classes. Variety is the spice of life, but I've always been the kind of guy that likes to wade into the frontlines of combat and kick ass.

 

[FolcoTook]

I have tended towards rogue ever since they were thieves. Specifically, I tend to play halfling rogues. However, I think the next chance I get, I would like to try out the Scout class with a Scout/Rogue multiclass. That could be fun.

-FT

 

[derelictjay]

No, for starters I absolutly hate the cleric, and would never intentionally play one. Of the four only the Wizard and Rogue would I play exclusively. The fighter I usually take as an extra class to gain a couple of feats along the way.

 

[B9anders]

I prefer the primary classes, except clerics. They are flexible and basically allow me to create any kind of character I want. It doesn't take much to make a fighter a woodsman or knight if I want that.

Likewise I have never felt much need to take prestige classes.

It all just feels very non-D&D to me. If you want archetypes and character classes, stick to a few solid ones that allow you to mould them into a number of variations with a minimum of fuzz. If you want multiple choices with spefific benefits for any particular niche, go with a classless system like GURPS (which I like more than D&D tbh, but that's another story). I hope 4th edition realises what the core strengths of D&D are and builds on those instead of trying to reach for the same variety as the classless systems with an engine that ultimately isn't particularly suited for it.

 

[KB9JMQ]

If a cleric is available I like to take that more often than not. A fighter is ok also.

 

[Umbran]

I don't find I have much preference one of the classes presented in the PHB over others. I think they're all good fodder for play. Primare base or non-primary, it's all fun

 

[Henry]

Go, Clerics!

Clerics are probably my favorite class - from stalwart protector, to wizened holy man, to obnoxious zealot, there's so much range with them that they're my favorite class.