Which core class you never play?

[Herpes Cineplex]

The only class I really don't ever want to play under any circumstances is the druid.

It's not that the druid is a bad class from a mechanics standpoint. Far from it--they're ridiculously powerful and versatile and can do lots of fun things within the game, and I love it when someone else is playing one. Everything's cool with having a druid in the party, as long as I don't have to be the one who plays it.

It's the druid philosophy that puts me off, really; who the hell wants to be nature's defender, anyway? Who wants to be off squatting in the forest living like an animal and being bored to tears when you could be in a city surrounded by exciting things to do and all kinds of cool NPCs to interact with? And yet, that's the druid schtick in a nutshell: loving all of nature to the exclusion of nearly everything else. Honestly, I'm gaming to have fun, and I wouldn't enjoy having to pretend to be that devoted to the environment.

I mean, at least you can urbanize a ranger to make them cool; then they're almost like a rogue who joined the Green Berets or something. But druids are so closely intertwined with the nature-loving mindset that you really can't do anything to make them more interesting to me.

--
even paladins have more philosophical flexibility than druids, for crying out loud
ryan

 

[Crothian]

I've never played a Barbarian, Druid, Paladin, or Wizard. None of them particuliar apeal to me right now, but I imagine I'll get to them eventually. I have played them in earlier additions before.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

The only class I really don't ever want to play under any circumstances is the druid.

It's not that the druid is a bad class from a mechanics standpoint. Far from it--they're ridiculously powerful and versatile and can do lots of fun things within the game, and I love it when someone else is playing one. Everything's cool with having a druid in the party, as long as I don't have to be the one who plays it.

It's the druid philosophy that puts me off, really; who the hell wants to be nature's defender, anyway? Who wants to be off squatting in the forest living like an animal and being bored to tears when you could be in a city surrounded by exciting things to do and all kinds of cool NPCs to interact with? And yet, that's the druid schtick in a nutshell: loving all of nature to the exclusion of nearly everything else. Honestly, I'm gaming to have fun, and I wouldn't enjoy having to pretend to be that devoted to the environment.

I mean, at least you can urbanize a ranger to make them cool; then they're almost like a rogue who joined the Green Berets or something. But druids are so closely intertwined with the nature-loving mindset that you really can't do anything to make them more interesting to me.

--
even paladins have more philosophical flexibility than druids, for crying out loud
ryan

I've seen a lot of people saying "druid," and I suspect many have reasons like yours. I'm playing a druid for the first time in my current game. I'm consciously *not* playing the dedicated environmentalist. Jerrin is happy hiking in the woods or socializing in a town. He likes people and his riding dog companion, but realizes that most animals are really quite stupid and make for poor conversation (has since grown less fond of Speak With Animals). Jerrin has his own goals and will call upon the spirits of nature for power to accomplish them. If the spirits tell him that they need something done, he'll do it - but he doesn't live for the sake of protecting any one patch of woodland.

Now, I see your point. If my DM said that was wrong and I have to play a one-dimensional nature protector, I'd retire the character. I suppose I envision a shaman/priest type who channels the power of the spirits of the world to protect his people (the goal of most priests, including druids, throughout history) and fight evil (the goal of most D&D characters I play). Who was that cartoon character that would call on the "Strength of the bear" or the "Speed of the puma"? Kind of like that, maybe.

The class I'd never play? Monks. Don't think they fit in the medieval Europe-inspired settings, and I'm not interested in OA. Did anybody see the Sci-Fi Channel movie "Dragon Storm"? For some reason, the writers felt compelled to include an Asian martial artist in the dragonslaying party... weird.

 

[Grapeshot]

I really can't believe the monk was so high. My last monk, lvl 19 3.5, was amazing. A 1 man fighting machine.

My move was 100 and w/ spring attack I could 50 in 50 out w/ no AOO (tumble). Don't forget about MR, it saved me more times then I could count (bad rolls by the dm helps too). Deminsion Door, a great way out of grapple's, big worm mouths. Stunning Fists, FLURRY!! (I have flurried for over 200 points of damage w/ 3 confirmed crits)

Seriously the monk is fun. I really can't believe it was so highly voted. My last monk was more of the Viking Boxer.

 

[DragonLancer]

For me, I can't bring myself to play a Druid under 3.X, that class is rather dull and boring in my eyes. The don't really do anything, especially if you are not interested in going the shapeshifter way with them.

 

[iceifur]

I've played all the core classes, and I have to say that the Barbarian was my least favorite. I hate having a character who goes ape-nuts for a paltry amount of time before becoming useless to the party for the rest of the encounter (at least until 17th lvl, IIRC). Of course, part of my bias is due to the fact that said character was a gnome...

To the tune of "When Johnny Comes Marching Home"

Which is the race
We hate the most?
The Gnome!
The Gnome!

Which is the race
That ends up toast?
The Gnome!
The Gnome!

Which is the race
That all should fry?
Which is the race
That, by and by
Should die!
Die!
Die!
Die!
Gawd, I hate the Gnome!

And, as always, YMMV.

-B-

 

[MacMathan]

I voted for The Bard, Monk, Ranger and Rogue.

Of those I could see myself playing a Bard most likely if I was forced to choose.

I never really liked the "lighter" fighter types so that is why the last three are there.

I have enjoyed the Half-Ogre Ranger that is a companion(read body guard) to the Enchantress in our current campaign so that may change my mind eventually.

 

[Sarellion]

Bards don´t have to be the singing dandy.

The skald in Nemmerle´s storyhour was a fine example. A bard from a celtic culture greeting the morning naked as on the day he was born.

 

[Impeesa]

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.

And for all non-intensive purposes, he reverts to the Bruce Wayne persona, which is probably an Aristocrat or Expert. Some multiclass CG aristocrat/paladin variant would cover him for all intents and purposes, though.

There I go again suggesting odd multiclassed builds... I guess that's what I get for hanging around on the WotC Character Optimization boards, though. A byproduct of multiclassing strictly for power is that you can start mentally bending core classes into amazingly diverse concepts. To be honest, I find the concept of a straight 20-level build of just about any of the core classes somewhat boring. However, with just a bit of multiclassing here and there, maybe a PrC or two, any one of them becomes the basis for an enormous variety of cool stuff. For what it's worth, I voted rogue, simply because I've never worked on (or played) any sort of rogue-related build - and I can still think of three or four rogue-based characters that I'd like to play if (for example) someone started a campaign based around a thieves' guild.

--Impeesa--

 

[DonaldRumsfeldsTofu]

I only seem to like to play Rogues, Bards, and Wizards. I kind of thing playing as a fighter is a bit boring. Druids are pretty fun, but only because of their abilities relating to animals.

Although I'm quite in the minority, I think bards are awesome.