Which core class you never play?

[Seonaid]

I've never played a Druid or a Monk, and have no desire to. I'd rather be a Ranger than a Druid, and I think the Monk is ridiculous, often overpowered and almost always not fitting into a group. I'd be willing to play one, if I had no other option, as someone else said, but that's about it.

My favorite class is sorcerer, but I don't often play it because I'm always afraid I'll overdo it. My most played classes (either core or solo) are rogue, fighter, and sorcerer. Those three encompass my most basic role-playing desires.

 

[Gort]

I misread the thread to mean "which core class have you never played" so I picked barbarian. I'd like to try a high-int barbarian, cause I've never seen it done. He seems to have a fair few decent skills that never get used.

 

[Perun]

I'm not overly fond of barbarians. They're good at hitting things - I'll give them that - but they're also extremely good at requiring enormous amounts of healing (courtesy of their low AC). I don't think I'd ever play one. Too limited for my tastes, I suppose. Or, as someone said a couple of pages ago, too predetermined.
Paladin is close behind. I tried playing one, had a lovely character concept, played it for a couple of sessions, and was eventually bored to tears. Not my type of class. Besides, I never can pull LG right.
I never played a bard, but I think it might be a fun class to play. In a good gaming group. Most of my group don't care much about predominantly role-playing sessions (most of the role-playing involes merchants and attempts to haggle ).
The 3.5 ranger seems like a fun class to play. I'm not a front-line-fighter type of a guy, so I can appreciate the archery feats and the number of skill points. Never played it.
Rogue might be fun, but somehow I always decide against playing one. I love the number of skills.
Fighter is another class I never played, and probably never will. Although I like it much more than the barbarian. More options. But I don't like the limited skill selection.
Monks - I love them. Never played one in 3.X, however - there was always something else the party neede more. But I'm looking forward to it.
I like clerics in theory, but in practice they always fall short. I like sage-type characters, and it's hard to make one with cleric. Too few skill points. That's why I'm really looking forward to trying out the Cloistered cleric from the UA.
I played druid for 8 levels in 3.0, and loved the class, even though all the spells my character prepared came form sources other than PH. The core druid spell list in 3.0 was awful. He also didn't have the animal companion(s). Too much of a hassle. OTOH, the 3.5 druid seems really high-powered. We have a druidess in our party, and she is nothing special ability-wise (Str, Dex and Con are all in 10-12 range), but with her spells, animal companion and spontaneous summoning, she rules the game. Quite literally. The other characters (two wizards, and a ranger) seem pityfully underpowered compared to her.
I like both wizards and sorceres. Wizard has been my favourite class for ages, ever since I started playing. Haven't played sorcerer so far, but I'm planning to, at some point in time. On on hand, the limited spells available make playing him seem challenging, but then I remember the agony I'm having with daily preparation of spells with my wizard, trying to guess what spells will be useful, whether to take damage-dealing or defencive or utility spells...

In short I vastly prefer spellcasters to other classes. The only non-spellcasting class that I really like is the monk. I can do LN, N and NG, but am having trouble with all other alignments.

I voted for barbarian, fighter, paladin and rogue.

 

[ForceUser]

I voted "all," though I tend to gravitate toward classes that are focused on being extremely good at one or two things than more broadly versatile or skilled. At this point in 3E, I have played all the core classes except for the ranger at least once, the psion, and several prestige classes. Although the ranger was my favorite class in 2E, the 3E interpretation of it has never appealed to me in any incarnation. I'd much rather play a barbarian or a druid if I want to do the wilderness warrior thing.

 

[Thanee]

Yay! Finally the monk takes the lead! Go monk!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Pyrex]

The answer (for me anyway) really depends on the DM.

For example, are some DM's under whom I would never play a paladin.

 

[Kalendraf]

I chose barbarian and sorcerer as the two classes I don't like to play.

Barbarian - If I'm going to play a warrior, I would so much rather play a Fighter, Paladin or even a Ranger instead of a Barbarian. I don't like the rage ability, even if it can be quite powerful. I'd much rather have extra feats or other abilities than that.

Sorcerer - If I'm going to play a spellcaster, the Wizard wins over this. So does the Bard, Druid or Cleric. Sorc's are just too limited in their spell choices for me and the pathetic BAB and hit points reduces them to no other real options. I also dislike the fact they get their spells a whole level behind wizards. Wizards are much more versatile and those other classes have better attack rates or other cool abilities to make them far more interesting to play.

From a DM-standpoint, I will populate my adventure with Barbs and Sorcs as adversaries. They make nice, quick, disposable NPCs.

 

[Epametheus]

I've never played a ranger or a sorcerer.

I've played as a monk once, and have no desire to ever play as a monk again.

 

[ph0rk]

Druids. I've never been much for the sorts of archetypes that class lends itself to, and while powerful the theme just doesn't work for me.

I would say the same for the cleric, but I can see playing a cleric before a druid.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think I've only had three characters in total so far!

So I've played a 3e ranger/monk
A 3e Paladin/Sorcerer
A 3.5e Sorcerer.

The sorcerer has a cohort who is a 3.5e Ranger.


My "backup characters" in no particular order are a druid, a monk, a barbarian.

I guess I'm least likely to gravitate towards a pure fighter, wizard or rogue as it stands at the moment.