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

[zypherillius]

yeah, after having my share of exotic classes in the various races books, ill stick with the the wizard, or a variant thereof.

sometimes it is more fun to run a sorcerer backup for a wizard in a campaign, so you can compliment his firepower with some ass kicking of your own, or if the sorcerer is the primary magic user, run the metamagic one out of the phb2. most of the metamagic feats i would say are designed for sorcerers anyway, the higher availability of casting, and you dont have to study the spells for certian metamagic feats, like energy substitution.

and as far as all the other classes go, arent they just twists of the core three or four classes, stringing two or three of them together?

 

[Airboy]

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.

Here here!!

My last one was in the FRCS. He was a follower of Ogma the god of knowledge. Too bad the campaign ended. I was looking to make him a undead hunter. Oh well , maybe next time.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Usually I try to multiclass the primary base classes into my vision of the character I want to play, because usually there isn't a base class that completely encompasses that vision.

 

[GreatLemur]

The best damn thing about D&D v.3.5 is the tremendous wealth of interesting new classes.

 

[Set]

The best damn thing about D&D v.3.5 is the tremendous wealth of interesting new classes.

Yes to this.

In 1e and 2e I was all about multiclassing Cleric/Wizard somehow (even I had to strap some Fighter in there).

But in 3e, it's been Cleric, Druid, Warlock, Barbarian, Ranger, Wizard, etc. Straight Fighters and Rogues don't really interest me, but neither do Sorcerers or Paladins.

 

[EATherrian]

When I would actually play, I think the Fighter was my favorite class to play. I could just enjoy myself with moving up and hitting something. I'm finally going to play (not DM) a 4E game and none of the classes have that simplicity. It saddens me.

 

[drothgery]

I like experimenting too much. I've run clerics, rogues, fighters (though see below), and wizards, but I've also run rangers, bards, scouts, psions, warmages, and artificers. And archivists and swashbucklers if PBP counts.

Heck, the reason why my current tabletop PC is a fighter is because in 12 years of tabletop D&D before the current campaign, I'd never played a heavy armored tank type.

 

[Mad Mac]

I rarely play the primary classes. I've been a big fan of Monks since I started playing the game, (My first D&D character was a 1st edition Monk) but otherwise I like trying out new classes and such. Even with the 3rd edition core classes, I tilted towards Monks, Rangers, Druids, Sorcerers and Bards over the standard options.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I don't like playing Clerics either. But I have no problem with the healer or buffer role, on the other hand.

I think I have a special love for the Fighter. I always go back to that class. That's why I voted yet. But I'll play basically anything and can make it enjoyable and compelling. I usually try to experiment with the classes, so while I like the Fighter, I will never limit myself to him alone. I have to play other classes, too.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I mostly play Wizard, Paladin then Cleric and NEVER multiclass. So I'd say yes.