Which core class you never play?

[shilsen]

Personally I could have fun playing any class. If I absolutely had to choose one I'd least want to play, it would be the sorcerer, simply because I try to get creative with my spellcasting characters, and the sorcerer's limited spell list would make that difficult. Then again, that would be an interesting challenge, so put me back in the "I'll play any of them" category.

 

[Buttercup]

I have no interest in playing a druid, monk, paladin or ranger. However, were I at a convention and faced with the prospect of playing one of those or not joining the game, I'd gladly grab the character sheet and do my best.

My favorite classes have always been clerics and arcane casters, although right now I'm playing a dex based fighter in Steve Creech's game, and having a wonderful time with it.

Speaking of which, anyone who thinks a bard is useless should watch our game. The bard is wonderful! (His hare-brained schemes will probably end up getting us all killed, but at least we won't be bored. ) Our last session ended up with my character disguised as a prostitute, walking on the arm of his character as we followed the bad guy through the city at night. See, the bad guy had just ransomed one of our party for a keg of what he thought was gunpowder. It wasn't, but the contents were explosive anyway. Jean Luc the bard lit the guy's robe on fire with a spell, which caught the fuse and... BOOM! And we all know that every game session is made better with a good explosion.

 

[MerricB]

Sorcerer is the class I'd never play - the Wizard is so much more to my liking. (Specialist Wizards I also don't like much, though I would be interested in an Illusionist variant)

I prefer versatility and adaptability in my classes.

Cheers!

 

[Nightfall]

Honestly? Fighter. I'd rather play something other than them.

 

[diaglo]

there are only 3 core classes.

fighting man
cleric
magic-user


all the others are derivatives.

 

[Zappo]

Hmmmmmm.... what with being the usual DM and all, I actually haven't played most classes, not because I don't like them but because I just haven't had a chance.

Barbarian: haven't played it, but I'm playing a SW wookie which is pretty much equal a D&D barbarian.
Bard: played it, enjoyed it.
Cleric: never played it, and I haven't felt like playing one. Not that I don't like clerics, but there are more appealing options.
Druid: see cleric.
Fighter: played it, enjoyed it.
Monk: never played it, but I just might now that it's a bit more customizable.
Paladin: never played it, but I want to try it when I get a chance.
Ranger: see cleric.
Rogue: played it, enjoyed it.
Sorcerer: played it, enjoyed it.
Wizard: never played it, but the next time I make an arcane spellcaster, I'll make a wizard.

 

[Sammael]

I've played all classes at some point or the other, and the one I'm least likely to play again (using RAW) is the sorcerer.

 

[JoeBlank]

My votes went to monk and druid. I don't mind monks too much from a setting perspective, most campaigns I have played in are not Euro-centric, but are more of a mish mash of influences, so the monk fits fine. I just don't like the idea of running around smacking dragons and traditional D&D monsters with bare hands. Also, I have a hard time playing the lawful alignment. Same reason I have not played a paladin in 3.x, but if I could convince a group to go lawful I would be willing to try paladin.

With druids, my only problem is the shape changing. For some reason, I just don't go for being able to change into all kinds of animals, one to fit every situation. I especially don't go for shape changing before every fight. I don't mind others doing it, but don't think I would enjoy it.

Also, I played a sorceror once in 3.0, and found it far less stimulating to play than a wizard. They'll have to drag me down, kicking and screaming, before I'll play another sorceror - it seems a class designed for the lazy man to use, or for those that have little forethought and/or imagination.

(emphasis added)

No sense in opening up a wizard v. sorcerer debate here, but I found the sorcerer I played to require far more forethought and imagination than any other character. If you just search message boards and pick the "ideal" spell list, then I guess no planning is required. But if you have a character with a personality and a theme to his magic then you can spend a great deal of time picking the right spells and feats to fit the theme and still be useful and versatile.

To me, playing a sorcerer is like building a car (note: I am not mechanic, the analogy just seems to fit). You spend countless hours getting the right parts and fitting them together perfectly, and when it is time to race then you stop worrying about all that, run it wide open and have fun. If you notice kinks or something that does not work quite right, then after the race (game day) you get back in the shop and tinker some more (level up, pick new spells, maybe swap a spell). So lots of work for to occupy your down time, but when it comes time to play the work is done and you can just have fun.

 

[Mac Callum]

The only class I can never get myself excited about is Sorcerer. Just the thought of all those spells out there that I will never get to use ... depressing. Wizards are so much better, and Masters of the Arcane Order are da' bomb.

But then, I own 5 different Swiss army knives (standard, Rollerblade, Computer, mini and Extra-wide). I like being able to choose what I'm competant at on any given day.

 

[Azazyll]

I have never felt any desire, since I first picked up the game ten years ago almost, to play anything resembling a Rogue. I wondered frankly why anyone would play any non-magical class, since to me that's the root of fantasy, but I could possibly see my way to playing a fighter. But after hearing that one of my friends preferred rogues and didn't like spellcasters I was just shocked, and finally realized that this game is about bringing together people of different tastes. A party full of wizards would be pretty dull.