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

[steenan]

I prefer the classes that benefit from high charisma - sorcerers are my favorite, followed by bards and paladins. In most cases I end up as a party leader even if I actively try to avoid it. Thus, playing a character with strong personality helps to roleplay him consistently.

I have played rangers and barbarians, it was fun and interesting. But it was in one-shots. I don't think I could play such character in a long campaign.

I think I would find playing a cleric interesting, but I had no opportunity to play one in many years.

 

[Runestar]

With the 3e multiclassing system offering you virtually unlimited freedom in customizing your PC the way you envision him, it seems like a waste to just stay in one core class, with all the myriad of base classes, prcs and variants floating around. But to each his/her own.

With the release of ToB, I can't picture myself ever playing a fighter again, when the warblade does everything the fighter can, and more. The rogue faces stiff competition in the beguiler and factotum (my factotum/warblade was quite fun). Wizard, cleric and druid have no equal alternatives, so it is them or do without.

 

[delericho]

Unfortunately, I only get to DM these days. If I got a chance to play, I think I would gravitate to the Cleric class.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm seriously considering a game that has only those four classes. Sure, there will still be druids and paladins and whatnot, but they will be more like prestige classes.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I've generally always gone Paladin when I want sword and armor.
I play Monks a lot, when available.
In third I went with Sorc over Wiz.

I never play Rogues, and almost never play fighters. I tend to Clerics though - but usually as a multiclass - Paladin/Ceric.

I play Wizards occasionally.

I voted no.

 

[FallenTabris]

The ranger has always been my favorite class. A close second would be the druid. I guess I just love roleplaying the rugged outdoorsman and his faithful hound. I hope that 4e eventually gives us pet rules before I start playing a character instead of running a campaign.

 

[Andor]

There are few classes in 3e I really dislike, the CW swashbuckler and Samurai are the only ones that spring to mind.

Other than those few classes I'll play anything.

When I sit down at a new table I first always ask the GM if there is anything I could make that would help further the plot or work smoothly into the game.

The answer is pretty much always no.

Then I ask if the party needs anything.

If so I'll fill the missing role.

If not I usually pick some interesting new mechanic I'm curious to try out and build a character for it.

The last character I really enjoyed the hell out of was a Knight 1/Dragon Shaman (Bronze) X. Devon the Bronze Knight was an absolute blast to play, since he both filled the front line and made everyone else shine a little brighter with his auras.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

I've never even referred to these as the "primary" base classes, and refuse to do so now. Get these old farts offa mah internets and back on their porches where they belong!

Their legacy earns no favor from me, and actually these were probably my least favorite classes in core 3.5. I enjoy them a bit more in 4e, I suppose; I'm still getting those legs under me.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I usually play a ranger, but if I'm playing 2nd edition or later, I play a barbarian or fighter or sometimes druid and just call him a ranger.

 

[lutecius]

No. I would if these so called primary classes were actually generic and covered more archetypes. Also, multiclassing would have to be much more viable and flexible than 3e or 4e multiclassing. Something à la True20, I guess.

It depends a lot on the edition you play, too. The wizard used to be generic enough, even without healing spells (but I still preferred the 3e Sorcerer and Bard, ie non-bookish, non-vancian casters, even if they were underpowered.)

The 4e Blaster-Wizard is just too narrow to be the only arcane caster. The builds and paths are nowhere near varied enough (on a side note, the 4e Warlock may be mechanically different but thematically doesn’t add much variety either)

The cleric is but one specific fighter/caster combination. Pure casters (healing, anti-undead, light spells), other themes (druid/nature mage) and other viable caster/fighter combinations (swordmage) or caster/rogues (ninja) are at least as interesting archetypes as "holy warrior".

As for pure Fighters, I always found them boring and preferred Paladins. The 4e Warlord’s powers would have been better used to extend the fighter’s repertoire beyond "does extra damage".

Same for straight Rogues. Their really distinctive and interesting abilities have always been out-of-combat skills anyway and sneak attack alone isn't appealing enough to me. When I wanted to throw things, I would always pick Ranger.
I know i am in the minority here, but I actually liked the Ranger's spellcasting too.