Which core class has the best flavor?

[Redyak]

I'd have to say Cleric. Depending on what deity you choose, you can go pretty much any direction with a cleric.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

So enough "it depends on the player" copouts.

Won't get any of those from me. rolleyes: at people ignoring the point of the thread.) Druid is the most flavorific for my money, second place bard. But those are two of my favorite classes, so I may be biased. Still, the druid has an inherant coolness from the wildshaping and the class has a definite flavor even if some want to break out of the mold.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Nifft]

"Generalists"

Druid, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Aristocrat -- very flexible, very flavourful.

I've played a Druid, Cleric and Rogue once each, and seen Wizards who were very interesting.

As a DM, when I reach for my "broad stroke" brush, I throw on a few levels of some other class -- Fighter, Barbarian, Sorcerer, etc. When I'm making an interesting and ultimately frustrating enemy, I reach for one of the flavorful ones listed above.

I voted for "Wizard", since I think it's the class that most defines the flavor of D&D, which is held between them (as the ultimate PC powers) and Dragons (as the ultimate monsters).

-- Nifft

 

[A'koss]

As far a "flavor" goes you can make an argument for any of the classes with the exception of perhaps the fighter. "Drama" is all in how you portray your character...


Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[Psiblade]

I having recently campaigned with a very interesting bard. I am going to vote for them.



-Psiblade

 

[Umbran]

If the best player in the world played in 11 different campaigns, each with a different core class, and each class with equal enthusiasm and creativity, one class will come out on top.

I disagree.

In a well designed system, the flavor of a class can, should, and will be thoroughly swamped by the flavor a top-notch player can contribute, so that the class-contribution isn't really noticible.

Why? Simple - really top-notch players are, by definition, few and far between. Most players are, by definition, average. If a top-notch player cannot make you forget the differences inherent in the classes, then in the hands of a more average gamer, all members of those classes will be roughly the same.

Having all members of a class be the same is boring, and boring is bad game design.

 

[kiznit]

I say Ranger.

And everyone thinks it's broken. Well, it is. Mechanically, the 3.0 ranger does totally blow. I've hardly ever even played one. But as a concept? It's the coolest!

Almost all the best fantasy fiction has the hero playing a woodsy fighter with skills. We're talking skills here, not feats.
Sneakin' around into enemy forts, shooting arrows at impossible distances, silently disappearing into the wilderness, living off the fat of the land, tracking lost companions, sometimes befriending (after wrestling to the ground) some hefty beastie. Yes sir. The loner. The ranger. Out of the wilds and able to handle anything. Woman swoon at the sexy leather and the guards don't even know he's there.

And down the road you get a nifty spell or two without losing that BAB progression. The paladin is cool too, but is bound by that stick up his arse. The barbarian and the bard kinda have it going too for style, but I stand firm. The ranger always keeps his cool and never gets lost - put a dwarf in half-plate 20 feet out of his cave and he's wandering around in a daze, try to get the wizard's nose out of the spellbook, or the thief out of the city? ha.

The ranger? Yes sir. Studded leather and a longsword for me. I hope the 3.5 version gives this undervalued and overstylish class the respect it deserves!

 

[Remathilis]

Rogue was my choice after much deliberation.

Silent thieves, sly con-men, heroic treasure hunters (Indiana Jones?), cunning diplomats, rootless vagabonds, daring acrobats, deady assassins. All these and more from one simple core class. So much customability that no two rogues should be the same. That is why rogues have flavor like a Baskin and Robbins.

For Runners Up, I'd choose sorcerer. Innate magic sounds soo cool as a concept.

 

[Angcuru]

I say Ranger.

And everyone thinks it's broken. Well, it is. Mechanically, the 3.0 ranger does totally blow. I've hardly ever even played one. But as a concept? It's the coolest!

Almost all the best fantasy fiction has the hero playing a woodsy fighter with skills. We're talking skills here, not feats.
Sneakin' around into enemy forts, shooting arrows at impossible distances, silently disappearing into the wilderness, living off the fat of the land, tracking lost companions, sometimes befriending (after wrestling to the ground) some hefty beastie. Yes sir. The loner. The ranger. Out of the wilds and able to handle anything. Woman swoon at the sexy leather and the guards don't even know he's there.

And down the road you get a nifty spell or two without losing that BAB progression. The paladin is cool too, but is bound by that stick up his arse. The barbarian and the bard kinda have it going too for style, but I stand firm. The ranger always keeps his cool and never gets lost - put a dwarf in half-plate 20 feet out of his cave and he's wandering around in a daze, try to get the wizard's nose out of the spellbook, or the thief out of the city? ha.

The ranger? Yes sir. Studded leather and a longsword for me. I hope the 3.5 version gives this undervalued and overstylish class the respect it deserves!

What she said.

You can branch out in many directions with the ranger, more so than a lot of other classes. As well, you can generally do MORE than a lot of other classes. This opens a whole lotta possibilites, which when played out correctly, make the ranger a WHOLE lotta fun to play....not that I would now...with Blackshirt5 DMing, we only get 20 minutes of game time out of 6-hour session.

 

[Ravellion]

Other: Multiclass chosen through roleplaying instead of beforehand.