[3.5]Most Enjoyable Core-Only Class?

[rmg22893]

I've been playing D&D for a long time, but rarely have I played a core-only game, core-only being PHB, MM, and DMG, no SRD. I know that a lot of classes become rather bland without having options from splatbooks available, so I wanted the Playground's opinion on which classes remain enjoyable (and useful) when restricted to the basics.

[kenjigoku]

I have no response besides my own opinion since you gave us no criteria on what you consider enjoyable.

I love playing a Ranger. Full BAB, Animal Companion, Healing Spells, odd but interesting class features. I have yet to play a core only game where an Elf Ranger did not provide fun gaming memories.

[rmg22893]

I have no response besides my own opinion since you gave us no criteria on what you consider enjoyable.

I love playing a Ranger. Full BAB, Animal Companion, Healing Spells, odd but interesting class features. I have yet to play a core only game where an Elf Ranger did not provide fun gaming memories.

Opinions are all I wanted. Didn't think generating criteria for "enjoyable" would be very easy :smalltongue:

[Mnemnosyne]

Personally, if restricted to Core, I tend to look at Druid first because it has the widest variety of core-only abilities available to it, is a powerful character no matter how you play it (as long as you build in support of your playstyle), and gives a lot of opportunities for interesting roleplay. Plus there's a rather wide variety of ways a druid can be played.

Wizard is probably my next highest choice for similar reasons - even in core only, the spell list is good enough to give me options for most things I might want to do.

However, one major reason I go with Druid over Wizard is that the Druid is harder to restrict - they automatically know all their spells and don't need any PrC's at all to shine (indeed, most PrC's make them weaker) while wizards are at the mercy of the DM allowing them additional spells, further at the mercy of the DM not stealing their spellbook, etc. And if a DM is restricting things to 'core only' I already have doubts about whether he's a good DM, so I try to hedge my bets to ensure I get to do the things I want to do, and therefore have fun.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Enjoyable to me is not boring, which means you'll need to be able to do something to contribute in any situation. For this reason, any of the four classes the get 9th level spells would be perfectly suitable.

Consider how much a given class gets in core-only. Then consider how much a given class gains from non-core sources relative to what you would get in core-only. By this comparison, the amount gained by the no-9ths core classes far outweighs what the tier 1-2 core classes get by using books outside of core. A core-only game heavily favors the classes that get 9th level spells, because the percentage of character options removed by going core-only is barely even noticeable to them, while the other core classes lose a vast majority of their otherwise available options. For this reason, I would only ever play one of the tier 1-2 classes in a core-only game.

[sonofzeal]

Jeez, that's a tough one.

I don't particularly enjoy Wizards. I find questions about when to use daily resources to be frustrating and I always second-guess myself. UMD Rogue gets around this problem, so they're right up there. Barbarians too - they may have daily Rages, but Rage is just a little extra boost and they're fine if you don't choose to use it. Rangers are tougher to play effectively, but I like them too, especially TWF with Improved Shield Bash.

I enjoy pretty much any class that has traits beyond straight combat, and which doesn't depend on expending daily resources.

[Grail]

Whatever class I can make an interesting character to roleplay, though Druids are my least liked class of all time, and the number of times I've played them over the years (in any rules iteration) is very minimal.

I like Paladins, Fighters, Rogues, Sorcerers in particular.

[Namfuak]

I agree with sonofzeal that while for optimization purposes wizards are very high-tier, I like sorcerers since the bookkeeping is so minimal. Sure, 10% of wizards will always get their prepared spells right, but the rest will prepare knock one day and never encounter a locked door, then the next day not prepare it and find a locked door that they have to let the rogue unlock manually.

[Verte]

Hmmm...I'd have to say bards would be my top choice. Sure, they aren't incredibly powerful, but they get a bunch of skills, they get fun illusions, and they get to buff the party. It's fun to roleplay a character with a lot of charisma-based skills, too. Plus, it just seems easier to improvise as a bard.

I also like clerics - I like buffing the party, and I like being effective even if I prepare the wrong line-up of spells. Plus, they get to carry around holy symbols and sermonize on occasion. They are also effective from levels 1-20 without too much effort, so they're good if I expect the campaign to last that long.

I like wizards, too, in fact because they are most effective when they've had lots of time to prepare and plan - I like that they can come up with a good solution for almost any problem if they have enough time on their hands. Plus, the whole "super-intelligent scholar who studies a lot" concept can be fun to play.

I never actually liked 3.5 druids. They've always seemed like a mish-mash of different character concepts to me, what with wildshape and an animal companion and a bunch of spells that do lots of different things - it seems like it could be two separate classes to me, and all of the class features combined never fit any character concept that I had. It's weird, but I also was a little disappointed that they relaxed the alignment requirements from AD&D. I actually liked that there was only one 14th level druid in the world who had to be defeated to reach that level - not that I would implement that idea in 3.5 or anything :smalltongue:.

Edit: Yeah, I do agree that in actual play, it is harder to play a wizard really effectively. It is true that at low levels, they aren't as capable of preparing for lots of different scenarios. Plus, the party won't necessarily wait around for a while just because the wizard has a plan that might work more effectively, especially if it takes away from their own personal glory.

[Acanous]

Wizard or Barbarian, although Druid has strong points going for it.

[Balmas]

Well, sticking to core, I have three favorite classes: Barbarian, Cleric, and Wizard.

The appeal of clerics is that not only do you have a number of good class abilities, but you have some good roleplaying potential as well. How does your god look to you? How did you become a cleric? Do you like to convert people with your words or your sword?

Wizards = Gods. That's pretty much all there is to it. If you are willing to blow all your spells in one conflict, there is nothing that you can't take down.

Finally, we have Barbarians. They are, without a doubt, my favorite class. Sure, clerics and wizards would blow them out of the water, but could your wizard get away with insulting the king? Does he speak in a grunting monotone? Can he shriek at the table and still be in character? (I try to channel Hulk when I rage, just so you know.)

[Malachei]

Wizard....

[thisisnotspam]

Fighter, simple meele is enjoyable in itself if what leads to it is done right by the DM and the players.

[Eldariel]

In order, Druid, Wizard, Rogue, Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, Fighter. Mostly I enjoy versatility so I naturally prefer spellcasters to non-spellcasters since they have more to do.

Skills are my next favored attribute, the only reason Sorcerer and Cleric fall so far down (if SRD and Cloistered Cleric were allowed, it would be top 3 at least), though in Sorcerer's case I can't bear being locked to the same spell list every day either; again, keeping with the "having a lot of stuff to do"-angle.


So...yeah. That's about it.

[Kol Korran]

i like playing a cleric because i like the roelplaying interaction between deity- priest, and exploring religion in worlds where being highly religious gives you power- what would you do with such power? what is your responsibility due to being granted it?

i love bard for it's "jack of all trades, master of none" kind of feel. and it usually promotes more social interactions, which i like. and i like knowing stuff, in and out of character.

i also like the sorcerer very much. book magic isn't for me- i love the though of simple, powerful, instinctual primal magic. also- it's a fun caster to play without complications or headache (unlike the cleric).

those are my 3 favorite core classes. (though it really, really, really depends on the campaign. currently playing <don't shoot me> a fighter :smallwink:)

[Cespenar]

If out of core, I'd say Dungeoncrasher Fighter and ToB classes, but since we discount them, I guess... Druid?

Wildshaping into a bunch of stuff, reshaping the surroundings, ordering your personal assistant around... lots to do.

[willpell]

My answer, without even having to think about it, is Cleric. Choosing two domains from a list of, what are there about 18 of them, gives you 300+ potential characters. They may all have the same central class list, but at low levels their domain spells are about a fourth of the non-orisons they have, so the difference from one to the next is gonna be pretty significant. Much more variety than eight specialist wizards, a generous handful of meaningful spells-known choices for sorcerers, or a small number of fighter feat chains that can be bought into at level 1.

[Elfinor]

*shoots Kol Korran* Our opinions diverge too much:smalltongue:

Aside from Fighter (too boring), Bard (can't sing) and Monk (boring and difficult to break out of stereotype) I enjoy playing as every class - and I enjoy DMing NPCs of all non-Bard classes. I do not enjoy roleplaying Bards.

Wizard/Loremaster is probably my single favorite core class combination. I enjoy trying to figure challenges out ahead of time (fan of Vancian casting) and having my character know everything - it's the only core way to get 'Bardic' Knowledge without being a silly Bard. You can also grab UMD as a class skill. Wizard spells are, hands down, the easiest way to get weird NPC reactions. Even just with Cantrips.

[willpell]

I dislike standard bard flavor myself, but it isn't too hard to change it. In my campaign bards are basically freelance newspaper reporters, sans an actual newspaper. They travel from city to city collecting news and carrying it to the people, and their Perform ability represents oratory. They do very little singing.

[Marlowe]

I dislike standard bard flavor myself, but it isn't too hard to change it. In my campaign bards are basically freelance newspaper reporters, sans an actual newspaper. They travel from city to city collecting news and carrying it to the people, and their Perform ability represents oratory. They do very little singing.

That's pretty much what Bards are supposed to be in standard flavour. And you don't have to say the Perform ability "represents" Oratory. It's right there in the skill list. "Perform:Oratory". A core bard doesn't need to sing a note, pluck a string, or bang a drum or blow a strumpet.

[Hanuman]

Depends on you, the campaign/level and the DM.

Level 1-7 will always be more fun to be a combat class, 7-15 will be slightly if not greatly more fun to be a caster, and 15+ will not be fun for combat simply because of the "i attack again 10 times" trend of huge BAB lategame.

Skillful characters are balanced from early to late game, but really excel at taking down humans and low HD low weirdness creatures, so it depends on the DM.

My advice is always have either a survival or knowledge check so you can interact with pretty much anything all the time. Parties have needs, they need water, food, shelter and security, they also need to navigate dungeons, not die from injuries and to be able to subdue threats to any of those. Achieving this directly, or indirectly, will always be a rewarding experience if the DM is good, if she isn't then try to go for the direct approach.

[willpell]

"Perform:Oratory". A core bard doesn't need to sing a note, pluck a string, or bang a drum or blow a strumpet.

Right, they only do those things for fun. :biggrin:

[Elfinor]

...or blow a strumpet.


Right, they only do those things for fun. :biggrin: And this new category of Perform checks has just made roleplaying Inspire Courage more awkward than ever.

[Marlowe]

And this new category of Perform checks has just made roleplaying Inspire Courage more awkward than ever.

Please nobody tell him about Inspire Greatness.

[prufock]

Tough question. I generally have fun with all the characters I play, which might have more to do with character than class.

Of the core classes, though, I tend to prefer spellcasters to non-casters, except the paladin class which I find quite boring - well, it's barely a spellcaster anyway. Wizards, druids, and clerics are all very fun for the sheer amount of options you have available, but it can sometimes be overwhelming, particularly at higher levels.

I'd say the most fun character I ever played was a sorcerer... but he only had 5 levels of sorc and the rest in PrCs outside of core (Dread Witch/Nightmare Spinner/Mage of the Arcane Order/Mindbender).

I like characters that can do it all, so if we're talking core-only, levels 1-20, I'd say druid. I can tank, I can do battlefield control, I can heal, I can buff, I can debuff, I can blast, I can sneak, I can summon.... About the only thing I can't do well is fill in for the rogue when it comes to trapfinding, lockpicking, and the like.

[Rogue Shadows]

Rogue. I'll always love it.

(Are we surprised? I'll be disappointed if we're surprised).

[Lactantius]

I agree with sonofzeal that while for optimization purposes wizards are very high-tier, I like sorcerers since the bookkeeping is so minimal. Sure, 10% of wizards will always get their prepared spells right, but the rest will prepare knock one day and never encounter a locked door, then the next day not prepare it and find a locked door that they have to let the rogue unlock manually.

and


Wizards, druids, and clerics are all very fun for the sheer amount of options you have available, but it can sometimes be overwhelming, particularly at higher levels.


Both quotes reflect my own thoughts:

I like the spell versatility of wizards, but I hate the preparing and planning stuff (at least, if if MUST be done on a daily routine base).

So - even if this tools are out of core - I am always looking for some ways to get more spontaneity on the wizard class.

Most times, I will stick to spellpool, uncanny forethought, spontaenous divination (though not that strong with core-only divinations).

Furthermore, I have build a tool for wizard specialist, combining both the specialty and the versatility.
What do you guys think about it?

School Versatility

You have mastered the spells of your speciality school.
You can spontaenously cast spells of your specialty school by sacrificing a prepared spell of equal or greater level.
For example, an abjurer could suddenly need the 2nd-level abjuraton spell arcane lock. She can sacrifice a prepared 2nd-level (such as scorching ray) or any prepared spell of a higher level to cast it on the spot.
You can use this ability a number ot times per day equal to your Intelligence modifier.


I know that this is slightly off-topic, but would'nt that be a good feat (or class feature of a specialist-focused class)?
It gives more flexibility, but only in your specialist school.
Plus (and what I really like), specialist advantages are not only "+1 slot/level." It gets more like a theme, a real difference to other generalists.


Thoughts?

[ericgrau]

I like sorcerer as it's a caster that gets a lot of options each round of combat yet without the book-keeping. I likewise like fighters to select lots of feats to use, even if limited to core feats. i.e., I like options when making a character that I don't have to mess with later.

[sol_kanar]

I like having options, so...spellcasters. Cleric and Bard uber alles, in my opinion. Then, Druid, Wizard and Sorcerer.

[willpell]

Please nobody tell him about Inspire Greatness.

cracks the **** up

[Midnight_v]

Core only... Look...I really want to play the "melee guy" so in core?

Cleric.
I only say that because well my favorite class is a melee guy and in core cleric is "Real" melee guy.
Druid
Same Reason as above really except I dont' always wanna bother with transforming. The hippy sterotype, I have to pass on some what so If I'm playing a druid it's the one class I want to play as evil. Either, I'm something like an eco terrroist, or Namor the sub-mariner, aka druid of a variant invasive ecosystem. Though in the end the this is the other melee guy.

There are very few options beyond that unless we get into multiclass/prc mastery, cause that can actually work. Horizon Tripper forexample...

If both of those options are off the table, depending on circumstance I... I think I'd play a Ranger ;(
I'd wanting to say Barbarian, or fighter but theres just not enough for them to do in core, except live in an item shop.
Ranger, I'm thinking I'd keep a high str, and take archery as my fighting style, at low levels: A greataxe/Spiked chain, At high levels an archer.
Thats not very good but It'll do.

[Marlowe]

Mechanically, the most important stats (disregarding character class) are Dex and Con, with Wisdom being a close third.

All three stats govern a save, Dex and Wis effect a number of skills that everyone will generally have to use at some point (even if its just to see how badly they fail), Con effects hp and Dex your Armour class. It's not surprising that classes that are heavily based on at least two of those three are getting a lot of mentions.

[etrpgb]

Druid. Lots of powers, lots of versatility, no challenges can scare you and let the rest of the party survive.

[Silva Stormrage]

I think an enchanter wizard is my personally favorite core only class. Incredibly fun to play and I love minions :smallbiggrin:. And since most of the good necromancy abilities aren't in Core enchantment is the best way to get minions :smalltongue:

[Raimun]

The Cleric.

The class can offer you the complete fantasy experience if you play your cards right. You can fight in melee with a weapon and armor and cast spells... and you can excel in both. The spell selection will be lacking if it's core only but it's still more than enough to get the job done. In core, the Clerics seem to have the most options.

If not the Cleric, I might play a Bard. Even the core ones could be made to be respectable Diplomancers with Glibness included. This could be fun.

Since I have already played Clerics, playing a Druid hasn't really interested me, because they have too much similarities for my taste. However, Midnight_v's post had one cool idea: Namor Druid! I might now consider a Druid if I could make an aquatic Druid work. That would be a change from all the bear Summoning, bear riding Druids in bear-form with a bear Animal Companion.

[Seharvepernfan]

Rogue. I'll always love it.

(Are we surprised? I'll be disappointed if we're surprised).

If we're surprised, you'll get a handful of d6's.

OH SNAP RIMSHOT!!!

...

I personally love rogues. I hate not having high init, perception/stealth/detective/acrobatic skills, and ref/evasion. I love sneak attack. I'm usually tempted to take a level in wizard for familiar and a few trans/illu spells, and wand proficiency.

Besides that, I like rangers and sorcerers. Rangers are pretty solid, in my experience. They are pretty good all around. Sorcerers, especially with eschew/still/silent/heighten are pretty fun.

[Curmudgeon]

For a core-only class with non-core support (ACFs and whatnot) it's the Rogue for me. The class can be built in many ways to create different types of characters, and I like the variety. Also it's boring to play a character who just stands around (or rests and meditates) waiting for the type of action where they can do something. A Rogue can contribute usefully pretty much all the time, and won't overshadow other characters except against non-creature opposition (traps, locks, and the like).

But if you're looking for a single class with only core material allowed, the Rogue isn't it. There are too many deficiencies in the basic design, which were largely addressed one at a time in many splatbooks. For that I'd pick Druid. It's a strong class both in spellcasting (with Natural Spell) and wild shape forms with what's in core. Druids get better with splatbooks (of course), but not to nearly the extent of other classes.

[MrRigger]

Purely in core? Druids get my vote. Great spell list, solid chassis, and you can turn into a spell slinging dinosaur. What's not to like?

MrRigger

[Amphetryon]

For my tastes, in Core, I'd pick Ranger: Useful archery platform at low levels, with scout, skillmonkey, and auxiliary spellcasting built in to make it feel like I'm participating as the game advances. I'd be even more inclined to pick Ranger if allowed to use the better casting ACFs and the "fix" of swapping Ranger's and Druid's Animal Companion progression.

[Tvtyrant]

Druid or Cleric. Both are capable of playing both melee and caster roles, and doing all the cool stuff like flying (okay, so cleric can only airwalk, but still).

[Midnight_v]

Since I have already played Clerics, playing a Druid hasn't really interested me, because they have too much similarities for my taste. However, Midnight_v's post had one cool idea: Namor Druid! I might now consider a Druid if I could make an aquatic Druid work. That would be a change from all the bear Summoning, bear riding Druids in bear-form with a bear Animal Companion.
I wanted to mention that I meant "Attitude of Namor", A D&D Druid is just way more powerful that namor... so that makes it even more cool. I've done atlantis attacks at home D&D once and its one of the more enjoyable adventures I've run ever (sahugin were the bad guys) but I did have a Namor.
Also I wanted to share this... its not mine it Kaeliks, buuut for all the people who don't get that there's more going on with the druid than "I speak for the trees" there this excerpt from the tome of trees... ;)

Wow... I can't post that here I'll have to link you to it. . .
Not that this link is to the den. Read the tome of trees then high tail it back here. you've been warned.:smalltongue:
Tome of Trees (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50318)

[Talionis]

Assassin.

Seems like people hear Core and think only Players Handbook. I like the playstyle of Assassin. You do get some spells of your own. They also tend to make for good role play.

[eggynack]

I have to go with druid on this one because it works in any book situation. They only really need natural spell to work, and most good wildshape forms, summons and animal companions are in core. In a campaign I'm in, about halfway through the dm gained access to a pile of books to supplement the srd only game we were playing. My build was pretty much identical to how it would have been if the extra books had been in play the whole game. The next morning in game I had a whole new spell list and some cool wildshape forms I didn't have before. There's really not much a dm can do outside of outright fiat that can make a druid incompatible for a game.

[Marlowe]

Assassin.

Seems like people hear Core and think only Players Handbook. I like the playstyle of Assassin. You do get some spells of your own. They also tend to make for good role play.

It think it's more like people hear Core and think "base classes".

[willpell]

Mechanically, the most important stats (disregarding character class) are Dex and Con, with Wisdom being a close third.

I would rank Intelligence way higher than Wisdom; maybe even higher than Dexterity. There is no class that can't be improved with extra Skill points; at worst you dump them into cross-class Speak Language and the GM has to tell you what those two shady-looking characters in the corner are saying. Wisdom is fairly useless except to divine casters; ultimately a Spot or Listen check is not necessary, as the GM will show you what he wants you to see and hide whatever he wants you to remain ignorant of, and if he wants you mind-controlled for plot purposes your Will save isn't likely to help you. Intelligence gives you something you can proactively use, and over time the extra skill points from Intelligence, if dropped into Wisdom skills even at cross-class rates, won't take too long to be more beneficial than the Wisdom would have been.

Oh, and if we're discussing PrCs now, I love the Horizon Walker for its fluff and variety of options for terrain mastery (most of them aren't that exciting, true; it's a class that could use a bit of homebrew love, but I still like it).

[Marlowe]

I take it you've never heard of saves. Also, you assume a lot of dependance on the DM mollycoddling you. You assume the DM will twist his plot to allow the skills you've chosen to be relevant and just give you a pass on the stuff you've neglected.

[Eldariel]

Wisdom is fairly useless except to divine casters; ultimately a Spot or Listen check is not necessary, as the GM will show you what he wants you to see and hide whatever he wants you to remain ignorant of, and if he wants you mind-controlled for plot purposes your Will save isn't likely to help you.

Uhm, so basically you're saying nothing the PCs do ever makes a difference and DMs only ever railroad? 'cause every written module has tons of treasure and side stuff you'll miss, and extra enemies you have to deal with if you fail observation rolls. And a huge bunch of creatures have Will-save effects that can be used in combat.

Besides, what you're saying is akin to saying "No point in having any character stats since if DM wants you to lose, he'll kill you and if he wants you to win, you don't need to roll." That's just not how D&D works; there's absolutely no reason to have rules (or even play; what you're suggesting would be storytelling) if you wish to play like this. The whole point of rules is to act as an intermediary between the players and the DM to create a story together, and the whole point of players is that they can make decisions that decide what happens (together with die rolls which bring the random element to the story).


Whether or not Int is better than Wis has nothing to do with whether DM railroads you past Spot/Listen-checks and Will-saves. You could say the same about any other stat but the statement wouldn't have any substance anyways; what point are skills if DM gives you the info he wants you to have anyways?

[Curmudgeon]

ultimately a Spot or Listen check is not necessary, as the GM will show you what he wants you to see and hide whatever he wants you to remain ignorant of

Also, you assume a lot of dependance on the DM mollycoddling you. You assume the DM will twist his plot to allow the skills you've chosen to be relevant and just give you a pass on the stuff you've neglected.
Agreed. To me, low perception skills are pretty much a guarantee that you'll be on the losing end of a lot of surprise rounds. I've seen TPKs happen due to enemies planning an ambush and taking out a spellcaster in the surprise round, leaving the party with greatly reduced magical support. And I've seen carefully-planned ambushes thwarted and enemies easily wiped out due to good PC scouting.

Unless the DM is purposely disregarding the rules and following a story script which only allows for minor deviations along the road to PC victory, the PCs' destiny is in their players' hands. If the players build their characters to be clueless, those PCs are going to die.

[Invader]

I always liked clerics. There's something satisfying about being able to wade in melee and if things start going poorly you can just start blasting.

[Spider_Jerusalem]

I usually try to play a character who is completely different from the last one I've played. I think it's nice to try different kinds of concepts, you know. The sad part is that, for the last six or seven years, I've been DMing to my group. We tried to start a few adventures with one of the other guys DMing, though, but they usually last three or four gaming sessions, which means I don't usually get to play for long.

On the other hand, DMing means I can try tons of different characters at once!

From the characters I played, my favorites were usually rogues. The one I enjoyed the most, though, was my favorite 3rd edition character (which was the character I used for the only complete campaign I played), a barbarian who lived all of his 20 levels adventuring and retired alive, well and rich enough to open his own roadside inn.

As Assassins were mentioned, though, I have a question. Have you ever, as DMs, used an assassin in a nice way without suffering from the "Boba Fett syndrom" (which means the character is feared and is said to have committed many incredible deeds offscreen, but when the time comes for him to act, he just fails miserably)? I mean, if the assassin is effective enough, the group just dies without even noticing. If he's not that effective and gives the group time to retaliate, either he has to run or he is usually easily defeated. I always found it very hard to use assassins in a way that could be fun for the players and that didn't rely on them acting strictly "offscreen".

[VGLordR2]

You'll all laugh at me, but my favorite class has always been the Monk. I know that they are horrible mechanically, but the flavor is too cool to pass up. Monks have spent years honing their minds and bodies. They are disciplined. They have looked deep into themselves, and have found greater meaning to the world. Even before I heard of BoED, I used to play a Monk who gave up all material wealth and devoted himself to preventing conflicts. I really wish that Wizards had given the Monks half-decent abilities. The Unarmed Swordsage is a good substitute, though.

[Seharvepernfan]

my favorite class has always been the Monk.

Rabble! Rabble rabble!

Pitchforks and torches!!

Tar and feathers!!!

[Eldariel]

As Assassins were mentioned, though, I have a question. Have you ever, as DMs, used an assassin in a nice way without suffering from the "Boba Fett syndrom" (which means the character is feared and is said to have committed many incredible deeds offscreen, but when the time comes for him to act, he just fails miserably)? I mean, if the assassin is effective enough, the group just dies without even noticing. If he's not that effective and gives the group time to retaliate, either he has to run or he is usually easily defeated. I always found it very hard to use assassins in a way that could be fun for the players and that didn't rely on them acting strictly "offscreen".

A high-power party with proper magical and observational tools can make for a fairly interesting encounter with a proper assassin. Of course, if the party has some of the less versatile classes like Fighter or Pally, those might have trouble doing anything useful. But make no mistake, the burden is on the party in an encounter like that; it's a matter of if they have the tools and the wits to fight an opponent they have trouble finding. If they do, a skilled assassin can be a very interesting opponent; if not, it'll just murder the party.

[sonofzeal]

As Assassins were mentioned, though, I have a question. Have you ever, as DMs, used an assassin in a nice way without suffering from the "Boba Fett syndrom" (which means the character is feared and is said to have committed many incredible deeds offscreen, but when the time comes for him to act, he just fails miserably)? I mean, if the assassin is effective enough, the group just dies without even noticing. If he's not that effective and gives the group time to retaliate, either he has to run or he is usually easily defeated. I always found it very hard to use assassins in a way that could be fun for the players and that didn't rely on them acting strictly "offscreen".
Yes. Twice. Neither one used the Assassin class though.

The most successful one was a Cliffwalker Shifter Ranger/Rogue, ECL 3 or so. Good Climb speed, Rapid Shot, and Sneak Attack. He'd Track the party with Ranger skills, climb up to some advantageous spot, then ambush them with multiple arrows against flatfooted AC, all carrying Sneak Attack (and sometimes poison). With the party thus softened, he'd continue raining down arrows while benefiting from cover bonuses and denying them to the PCs, and when a PC finally managed to engage him in melee he'd escape via climb speed. He became a bit of a recurring villain, and always managed to cause serious trauma every time. I think the PCs hated him more than the actual BBEG.

[Telonius]

I love playing the party face. Bard, Rogue, Sorcerer; as long as it's a charismatic scoundrel, I'm all over it.

[thompur]

Low point buy(25 or less) or roll poorly- Druid
Mid/High pb(28-36) or roll well - Bard or Rogue

[Bard for Kicks]

I like bards. You can be as lazy as you would like and still be relatively useful with IC. Also, I LOVE Binders.

[Bahamut Omega]

I like druids, rogues, and psions (not sure if they're considered core, they are in the SRD).

Druids I enjoy moreso for the animal companion than anything else. I rarely go uber optimal with a druid, instead focusing on making my animal companion a beast and the druid more or less its mouth piece.

Rogues I enjoy simply for the skill points. One of my favorite rogues was a changeling whom was sort of the head of his own small thieves' guild in Sharn. He wasn't much for combat, but he was fantastic at disguises, diplomacy, bluffing, intimidation, picking pockets, forgeries, etc. He didn't do everything, but what he did do (mark identification and interaction) he did extremely well.

I've only played one psion (currently in a game on another forum) and have enjoyed it pretty thoroughly thus far. Overall, I think it's a much simpler class to play than wizard or wilder, but still is pretty versatile.

[eggs]

I'm partial to Assassin, especially with Outsider type for maximum Alter Self fun, and a Dragon Disciple cap for its various casting/shapeshift/sneak attack-friendly abilities.