Which core class you never play?

[der_kluge]

Ranger for me. I've just never gotten into the ranger class. I've only played one, ever, and that was one game, I think - in 2nd edition.

Barbarian is a close second. I could never get into the idea of playing a hulking, low-intelligence barbarian. It's just so far away from who I am. I would get bored with that, very quickly, I think.

Monk is also a big one. I don't care for the class, and even banned them from my CS. I would never play a monk. Ever.

 

[Henry]

I edited the poll for you, and answered "I like 'em all equally."

While I have not yet played a Sorcerer, a Ranger, or a Paladin, I like both just as much and one day plan to play one when they fit in. As it is, I only get maybe two characters a year to play, and each one burns out after 4th or 5th level most of the time, because we're playing something else at that point.

My least favorite is the PHB Ranger, because I'm not an "outdoorsy" type (yet I love playing Druids, go figure) but I do like what they've done to the class in 3.5.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I voted for Bard, Druid and Ranger.

I have never ever played a Bard. I guess I could see myself playing one, the right occasion just didn't pop up.
I have played a Druid once and hated it. I retired that character quickly.
I have never played a ranger, although I've considered dipping in that class (we play 3.0) on numerous occasions (never did). The closest thing I have played to a ranger is my current Rogue/Barbarian character.

AR

 

[pdkoning]

A pox upon those that would denigrate the bard. 'Tis a noble calling, bringing joy to the unwashed masses, and a bit of coin (legit or otherwise) to the entertainer.

How can you not like the guy that can talk you out of trouble when the dumb barbarian hits on the mayor's daughter? Or find the only shop in town that has that rare material component the wizard needs?

Who else can embarrass the haughty noble by using a little legerdermain to make him choke on his drink, and then write a song that the whole town is singing the next day?

And when the Gatekeeper arrives and asks 'Are you a god?' who do you want to answer the question for you? The bard, that's who.

Monks, on the other hand, are a waste of the paper they are printed on

The bard is in my opinion the coolest class, in the party my bard plays in, he leads the others to battle blowing his horn, he sings songs to cheer others up when they are in a bad mood, he does the talking to hostile individuals, he is the diplomat, he tells stories in inns, and that way he earns free dinners, and useful information, he was until recently even the healer of the party, but recently a druid joined us, who gladly fullfill this role now.
The bard has avoided many difficult encounters just by talking and hearing people out.

I've read a few threads about 'what class do you (dis)like?' and it appears that almost all monk-lovers hate bards and bard-lovers hate monks. just coincidence? Don't think so: The bard only fits in a medieval-europe themed campaign, the monk only in a asian themed campaign.

 

[Xath]

I've tended to avoid playing Paladin, Barbarian, Bard, and to some extent Druid. I view that these classes (with the near exception of druid) are specialized versions of combinations of the various other core classes. Almost to the point of being stereotypes.

Wow. Frankly I'm amazed at this statement. I would go to the point that saying that anyone who thinks a core class is a Stereotype is suffering from a severe lack of imagination. Sure, there are stereotypes for each class, but that doesn't mean that the rules limit you to playing them.

For example, Batman, for all intensive purposes is a paladin. No, he's not the shining mail, god worshiping, smite-all, stereotype, but he is a paladin.

As for Bards (and here is where my real gripe comes in). Bards were specifically designed to give the most diversity in play. They are one of my favorite classes. Sure, there is a stereotype of the all around incompetent, who spends valuable skill points on singing. But you know what? Spending those skill points on Perform didn't keep my bard from having at level 10, having a bluff check of +49 (with glibness). I specialized my bard. She's really good at lying, and infiltration. A natural spy, as it were. And when she spends points on song, it's because it's just as much ROLE playing as ROLL playing. But bards are diverse enough that you could make a bard with no musical talent at all, no dancing ability, and no acrobatics. A storyteller is still a bard performance type. You could make a Noble have a bard class and have it still fit in with the character.

Bards are incredibly diverse. You can do almost anything with them.

Now I've ranted. Please continue.

 

[JoeBlank]

I would go to the point that saying that anyone who thinks a core class is a Stereotype is suffering from a severe lack of imagination. Sure, there are stereotypes for each class, but that doesn't mean that the rules limit you to playing them.

Good point. Same goes for all those who have said they don't want to play a barbarian because they don't like the low-intelligence, hulk stereotype. So, play a high-INT barbarian. In fact, do that but keep the character illiterate. A character can be intelligent without being a literate bookworm. Have him use smart tactics, and only rage at when all-out bashing is the best option.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I have no interest in the Barbarian class whatsoever, closely followed by the monk. Having said that, I love Oriental Adventures, but prefer to design my own "monk" type class using feats from the d20 Rokugan supplements and Oriental Adventures.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I picked Bard. It isn't that it is a bad class or anything though. When I play I like clearly defined "niches" in the party that a player can fill and be the best at. Wizards or Sorcerers fill the Arcane Spellcaster Niche. Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers fill the Warrior Niche. Rogues fill the Thief niche and Clerics & Druids fill the Healer Niche. Bards & Monks to me fill the "Nice to have if you have everything else filled" niche. Bards are the exact opposite of my playing style... I want to specialize in something while Bards are generalists. Monks (IMHO) are simply Caster Killers. They don't have the AC, HP, or BAB progression to be good Warriors and they do make decent scouts but they really shine in tumbling through a defensive line and putting the hurtin on an enemy caster thus saving his comrades from nasty area effect spells.

Just my personal opinions...

 

[Patlin]

For example, Batman, for all intensive purposes is a paladin. No, he's not the shining mail, god worshiping, smite-all, stereotype, but he is a paladin.

Batman's a ranger/rogue, not a paladin! he's all about stealth and skill. Also, he's definitely not lawfull. Justice, yes, law, no. Now Superman, there's a paladin for you.

But I agree with your broader point. Look past the stereotypes! A character class is a skill set, not a straight jacket.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I haven't played a paladin, but would consider a Joan of Arc type in the right kind of campaign. The class I haven't played and likely won't play is a wizard. If I need an arcane caster (who isn't a bard) I always go with sorcerer. Partly because I dislike the spell preparation mechanic, and a lot because I dislike being tied to a spellbook. Of all the magic using classes, the wizard just has the most dreary feel to me. You know magic because you studied magic in a structured setting and you know the spells you studied and wrote in your spell book. And if you lose your spellbook, you don't know the spells anymore until you get a new one. I very much perfer the spontaneous, self generated magical feel of, well, any of the other magic using classes. I won't deny its mechanicly a good class, but thematicly I can't envision playing one.

Kahuna Burger