By far I play the druid the most. I guess I like playing a loner, quiet type that draws on the forces of nature to smite its enemies.
I don't enjoy playing clarics or bards very much.
|
Re: what character classes do you find yourself tending to play, and from a role playing perspective ( I am thinking more fluff then crunch) why do they seem to be a good fit? what classes do you tend not to play, or have never played? why?
I'm sure this post has been done before. I'm not terribly interested in the various (crunch arguments) just in what people like to play, and why they enjoy "role playing" that class.
thanks.
Inquisitors. I enjoy the combination of martial and divine with a smattering of utilitarian abilities thrown in.
Rangers is usually my go to class half the time. I just enjoy the survivalist/tracker/lone wolf characters...-Vaz
Skillmonkey with figthing capability and a few special abilities/spells or full caster, also I prefer speed over strength.
Psychic Warrior (3.5)
Fighter/Rogue/Shadowdancer (3.5)
Ranger/Assasin (3.5)
Magus/Rogue (PF)
Inquisitor (<- even if I played him only to level 6, then he died, Inquisitos is, together with Magus, my favorite)
Wizard/Rogue/Loredelver (3.5)
At the moment I'm playing a Magus (will probably CC with rogue for flavor) and a dwarven cleric (no idea what brought me to him, but I dont like him atm very much)
|
Thank you all for your posts. I apologize for the long thread name.
I tend to play clerics. I like them for the role playing. I usually go for the monk type cleric: tonsure and manuscript illumination. I also like playing bards. For some strange reason i enjoy playing support characters.
I also like playing spell casters, wizards and sorcerers.
I like playing but rarely get the chance to play paladins, I also like playing a psion, but again, can rarely find a game where i can.
I rarely if ever play fighters or rogues.
In the rare occasions I get to play, I generally play fighter, fighter/rogue, or ranger types. I would sometime like to play my little halfling utility wizard character, but since my chances to play instead of GM are so rare, I don't often get to choose.
-The Gneech
I tend toward wizards. I like magic because it gives me opportunity to be exceptionally clever. I like being Int based as well as having all the knowledges. If I know something out of character I can just roll the appropriate knowledge and either act on my actual knowledge (if I succeed) or not (if I fail).
Also I'm just not the "bash in the face" type of player. Fighters are great, I just don't enjoy them as much as caster types.
|
|
I never played a fighter. Just seems too basic to me somehow. In fact, I enjoy my character being able to move during the fight and I have this image of the unmoving Fighter hacking away at minions while the BBEG is calmly preparing to unleash his Attack of Death. I much prefer surprising the BBEG by moving up to him and dealing some unexpected damage or condition.
Never played an arcane caster either. I feel that Magic is complicated and having a character centered on this aspect of the game makes me nervous for some reason.
I enjoy breaking the mold of the rules, so I often play a DEX-based combattant, for example a TWF Rogue or an archer.
I tend to prefer prepared spellcasters, because when making a character, i find myself hating having limited options. Playing a wizard type allows me to potentialy be prepared for anything. In addition, it seems to let me be more creative. I can usualy think of a lot of ways to use magic in a situation, but a sword is a lot more limited.
+1 (This is my feelings as well.)
I find spontanious casters to be just too limited (especially at lower levels).
Paladins and fighters, almost exclusively. I love playing the righteous champion, and LG is my favorite alignment.
I like to play arcane casters, some support, and some martial characters. I like to be versatile and have options on my turn that involves more than holding my ground and doing rinse and repeat actions. I am only attracted to playing sneaky characters if I can come up with a backstory and associated (i.e. well-matched) abilities and on the rare occasions when I do it that usually leads to me wanting to make a sneaky faceman type of character with high charisma. Historically, all this means is that I usually end up playing monks, rangers, sorcerers, and wizards more so than any other out of the core 11 classes. I really like the concept of playing a druid, but can never bring myself to do it for some reason I don't understand. I have also enjoyed psionic characters like the psion, psychic warrior, and soulknife, but they are rare for many campaigns.
I like the idea of the paladin and barbarian, but often shy away from them, though I have played them before. In my early gaming days the ranger was my clear favorite, but as I have gotten older I am liking the spellcasters more and more. I always want to mix my martial with my spellcasting, but haven't found anything to really satisfy me yet. You would think I would love the heck out of the bard with everything I have said about wanting options, liking arcane spellcasting, and having a high charisma type of character, but the fact is that I cannot stand the class for my own character. I might be able to play a heavily altered one with archetypes, but I just plain do not like the straight up bard for reasons I can't even articulate to myself. I don't know why and I even feel bothered by that.
I have always liked the idea of trying out the new classes that get made as they have come out. In 3.5 that meant playing things like the warlock, the binder, and the crusader. In Arcana Evolved, which I played at least as much as 3.5 if not more, I really enjoyed playing the mageblade, the ritual warrior, and the witch. In Iron Kingdoms, I liked the gunmage.
Of the new Pathfinder classes, I find that I am loving the heck out of playing a witch. I haven't had the opportunity to try any of the other classes yet, but I can't wait to try the alchemist, inquisitor, magus, and the summoner. I think the alchemist, inquisitor, magus, and witch classes could be my new all-time favorites if they work out well in play. The cavalier appeals to me almost not at all and the oracle seems cool on the surface, but I am unsure I would enjoy playing it (which is kind of the same issue I have with the druid). I think the gunslinger could also become a new favorite, but that will depend on how it looks in the next iteration of playtests and, of course, the final version (as is also the case with the magus, though I was pretty satisfied with the most recent version).
I think the new ninja alternate class could be the solution I am looking for in a charisma-based sneaky character once it gets its final tweaks. I am anxiously awaiting its final version to make a verdict, but if it will let me make a convincing assassin/bodyguard seductress/femme fatale that can pull a hidden weapon out of her hemline or hair or and use improvised weapons, then it will become a new favorite character.
My favorite classes to play are the fighter-types. I don't particularly enjoy the tank as much as a fighter who can move around a lot in battle, so I tend to lean more toward high dex than high strength types.
I'm also very fond of skill use and combat manuevers over brute damage dealing. One of my favorite characters of all time was a modified monk whose primary action in combat was to disarm enemy wizards of their wands, scrolls and potions. Grapple was a favorite action as well.
I've never particularly cared for wizards, primarily because I don't like high level resource management. That and I hate trying to predict what spell I'm going to need today. The only times I've ever enjoyed a caster is when we created a homebrew magic system that was point based.
The duskblade in 3.5 was a blast though.
Re: what character classes do you find yourself tending to play, and from a role playing perspective ( I am thinking more fluff then crunch) why do they seem to be a good fit? what classes do you tend not to play, or have never played? why?
I'm sure this post has been done before. I'm not terribly interested in the various (crunch arguments) just in what people like to play, and why they enjoy "role playing" that class.
thanks.
Martial, unlimited per encounter(like Binder, Truenamer, etc), and psionics.
I'm not big on daily useage. Psionics while daily, let you choose how you spent the daily reserves (unlike Sorceror who is trapped in vancian).I've never played a Druid past level 3, never got to see Wild Shape. Only recently played a psychic warrior (level 2 campaign).
Haven't played the Cavalier or Witch or Summoner.
Over the years, I've probably played more rangers than any other class - fighters probably next and then maybe druids and rogues. I've actually played a lot of variety because I don't think I've played any particular character class more than 3-4 times.
|
|
My first character (AD&D 2E) was a Ranger. Probably the most common classes for me are Rangers, Rogues and Bards. I remember that what drew me to the Ranger the first time was the "menagerie". I've always been an animal person. I think in 2nd edition part of what drew me to these classes was the greater variety of non-combat abilities they had. Non-Weapon Proficiencies were a favorite part of the game for me because they helped me flesh out the character.
A lot of those factors translated over into the new editions. I still tend to play skill-heavy classes and classes that have more non-combat abilities.
Graywulfe
My first character was a Lawful Neutral cleric of the god of death, who I played as the hand of his god for the most part. That was in 3.0, and his Pathfinder successor is merely lawful good.
My second character was a neutral good dual-weapon ranger which eventually took horizon walker. I enjoyed that character just as much as my clerics.
In 2e it was principally wizards and rogues
In 3e I quite like clerics, and have tried every so often the melee types (fighter, barbarian)
I generally end up playing casters of some sort- usually full casters.
To me- I play to do things that I can't do.
If I wanted to, I can learn swords.. I could learn to be a thief or sneak around, I could learn mounted combat and all that jazz.
I can't learn magic. Nothing I ever do or study will allow me to snap my fingers and open a portal to some other planet, plane, universe or dimension. I'll never be able to summon demons or angels or elementals or cast Guards and Wards. For that- there is magic and only magic. It isn't so much about "Wizards are gods who dominate the game" as it is wizards, clerics, and druids can do things we literally -can not do-.. and I find that very interesting and engaging.
When you need to cross the planet with you and your whole party and their familiars, pets, and mounts.. nothing really beats magic :)
-S
I generally end up playing casters of some sort- usually full casters.
To me- I play to do things that I can't do.
If I wanted to, I can learn swords.. I could learn to be a thief or sneak around, I could learn mounted combat and all that jazz.I can't learn magic. Nothing I ever do or study will allow me to snap my fingers and open a portal to some other planet, plane, universe or dimension. I'll never be able to summon demons or angels or elementals or cast Guards and Wards. For that- there is magic and only magic. It isn't so much about "Wizards are gods who dominate the game" as it is wizards, clerics, and druids can do things we literally -can not do-.. and I find that very interesting and engaging.
When you need to cross the planet with you and your whole party and their familiars, pets, and mounts.. nothing really beats magic :)
-S
I agree completely. I like casters the best.
The GM.
But seriously, I don't know. I've played a cleric, a paladin, an oracle, a rogue, and a dragon disciple. Three of those were in one campaign. So far I've played two characters past level 10, one character that came in above 10, and one character that went from 7-13.
I guess I play divine characters? Mostly because the group needs someone to heal them.
|
I find spontanious casters to be just too limited (especially at lower levels).
I personally find prepared casters to be too limited for my tastes. Yes, spontaneous casters are locked into a smaller subset of spells overall (but they can still use scrolls, wands, etc), but prepared casters are locked into an even SMALLER subset every day.
Always a spontaneous caster with a nature bent. I especially like Sorcerer/Druids. Even the one time I started with a Ranger, to try out a martial class, I got bored and he multiclassed into a Warlock... and then Pathfinder came out, we redid our characters to try out the Pathfinder rules, and now he's a Sorcerer/Druid :)
I love Monks, Rogues, and Arcane casters. I can't get enough of being sneaky and surprising enemies or always having the perfect spell or skill for a situation.
Druids, Clerics, and Rangers seem interesting too, but something about Divine casting--and having all your spells be on the whim of some god--turns me off.
|
High charisma characters who love diplomacy. Even if the character doesn't have a high charisma, I usually take the leadership role.
Only a couple times have I played completely against my type.
I like high charisma casters, wether full or partial. I usually don't play the same classes, however. We roll stats (except for PFS, of course), so I have to work with whatever I roll up.
I like a high charisma because I like having influence in the party and if I'm a better sweet talker than the other party members, they'll let me speak. Which kinda says I'm a little bossy. My first character was a bossy brat, but I've toned it down a lot.
[Edit -add] I like classes that I can work with UMD or that already allow a range of abilities. I like to be able to heal & buff the party, or at least myself. I have always multiclassed my sorcerers, even the one where I took a one level "dip" into cleric (though I started at 2nd level, cleric 1/sorcerer 1, so not really a "dip")
|
Fighters, or Clerics. Fighters primarily because I like a bit of "reality" in my characters, whatever that means. I'm a low-magic kind of guy. Clerics get some great deity stuff to work with in terms of role-playing, so they're usually my second choice, despite their role as a caster. I often play down their spellcasting, for better or worse. I almost never play a non-human, I often feel hampered by stereotypes and like to use the more "blank slate" humans to explore a culture in game.
|
|
I have always* liked monks. I am now playing a Zen Archer in a campaign setting. In PFS, I run either a rogue or a cleric. I really prefer to play the rogue, but I often play the cleric if no one else in the party has a cleric or paladin. I have never been attracted to the fighter class, although the feats make the class more interesting to me now than in the "old days". The only class that really does not interest me is the ranger.
EDIT: Sadly, I saw this thread only after the title was shortened. What was the original title?
*"always" = "since the class appeared in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons"
LOVE me some Dwarven Ranger wielding a Hammer in one hand and an axe in the other ... charging into the Fray ... with his Red Wolf at his Side ... VERY fun.
I am more into being able to get in and get out if things get hairy so I like to roll with rogueish types, alchemist is fun so far as well.
|
9 times out of 10, it's Cleric. A Cleric of Tymora is 100% a different character than a Cleric of Torm or a Cleric of Loviatar, and every setting has a dozen or more dieties that are just fascinating to me. It was way, way more fun in 2nd edition, when specialty priests and spheres were in the mix, but 3.X/PF is still nicely diverse.
I haven't played any sort of Rogue for twenty years. I just can't get into that sort of class.
|
|
I too often take up clerical work (I know it's not funny). While clerics often make good combatants (my current one certainly does), I often find myself in the support role. Maybe it's because I don't like taking credit, even for things I've done, but I'd much rather heal and support and leave the flashy stuff to the fighters and wizards. The one bard I played ended up doing much the same (though she was decent at melee too). It also helps that I don't mind of taking care of the "med kit" so everyone else can have more fun with their characters. Cleric may be a role I was initially forced into, but it didn't take a lot of shoving.
If I had to pick a favorite, Iomedae kind of gives it away. The noble knight was a favorite archetype of mine since grade school. I rarely get to play them (most parties don't much care for that Lawful part) but they have a special place in my heart.
My tertiary choice would be a wizard but I'd play most likely an abjurer or conjurer. In fact, I did play the latter. Abjuration is by far my favorite school of magic. Defensive abilities? Awesome. The power to even out potent foes? Wonderful. Outright banishing powerful foes is also high on the list. For reasons, see the first paragraph.
My preferences are kinda two-step:
Starting from scratch:
I tend to have a flair for the dramatic, and as such prefer the charisma-oriented classes. My current character is a oriental Paladin/Monk, my previous one was a Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple who was a bit of a megalomaniac, before that I played a Cleric/Ordained Champion (PrC in Complete Champion) with high cha. Next character I will make will likely be a creepy CN lovecraftian summoner. Or maybe a bard, depending on the needs of the party.
Making character mid-game:
I have never experienced being taken seriously if I make a high-cha character late in play, and ends up being ignored for the plot or defaulting to the bottom of the pecking order in a well established party due to the fact that I am the newcomer. So I tend to make all my non-charismatic dudes when this happens. Also because we tend to do APs, and parts 4-6 tend to be the ones where the story is set and all the social interaction take a backseat to action in my experience, so I don't really feel motivated to make a charisma dude then.
I tend to play melee characters with roguish twist. Spellcasters are fine, but they sooner or later get me thinking on what spell would be perfect for the situation rather than thinking out some mundane solution. I avoid things divine though most of the time, although Pathfinder does have some deities for which I'd stomach playing a cleric.
I'm kinda decided on my next character. A dwarven warrior an wrestler without much concept of fighting fair. Dirty tricks, improvised weapons and lopsided fistfights as I don't really want to enter them without a good layer of steel on my skin. Of course that It will look suspicious that my head is clearly shaven until I catch your beard and tear you down and then land on your belly ironclad feet first.
|
|
Re: what character classes do you find yourself tending to play, and from a role playing perspective ( I am thinking more fluff then crunch) why do they seem to be a good fit? what classes do you tend not to play, or have never played? why?
I seem to gravitate towards full BAB classes. My first Pathfinder character was a Fighter, my next (and current) is a Ranger, and while I really want to play a Wizard at some point, right now I have a hankering to a play a Paladin as my next character.
I was really itching to play a Swashbuckler, but that desire seems to have faded slightly. Still, I make my choices based on the campaign world and what the game needs.
.
..
...
....
.....
Any character that is utterly different from the last one I played!
At the moment I'm loving playing a pure-healer Oracle of Life
He does the 'other stuff' - rescue the captives, grab the loot, hold the 10' pole while the rest of the party flip out and kill things.
''Where are you going?!''
''Just popping over to unshackle the captive!''
''That wasn't the plan! You're meant to be Lawful!''
''Don't worry, I have a plan!''
''...but we had a plan!''
''..yes, and I didn't particularly like it..''
''...but but why didn't you say something?!!''
''I didn't want to be impolite!''
I tend to play LG or LN classes - with a high preference for monks :)
I've had concepts that run the gamut, but I'm particularly drawn to skill monkeys. Rogues and bards particularly, but even classes like the ranger and I tend to play them emphasizing their skills.
Heck, even the Int 10 Fighter Cleric I played, I tried to milk those 2 skill points a level for all they were worth. ;)
Combat-wise I tend to be drawn to finesse and TWF... which is probably not a good thing since those are tricky builds to put together--you really have to focus on them to the exclusion of everything else with feat choices, and I tend to get distracted by other shinies and not build the characters as "tightly" as I should.
Alignment's almost always NG or CG.
If inspiration strikes I'll play just about anything though.
|
|
I try to play something different every time. I do however, have the ability to unintentionally choose a character unsuited to the adventure. It's always a great concept (I generally think so, anyway) but turn out to be very underwhelming in combat, sometimes even just crap.
I'm sure I could play a guaranteed combat monster and still suck. :)
|
|
Here is the break down. When people picked either x or y i took the first one. I did my best to tease out what people liked, for example a cha based arcane spell caster, i assumed was a sorcerer, or an int based arcane spell caster i assumed was a wizard.
Alchemist 1
Barbarian
Bard 4
Cavalier
Cleric 10
Druid 4
Fighter 10
Inquisitor 1
Magus 4
Monk 6
Oracle 1
Paladin 3
Ranger 7
Rogue 9
Sorcerer 6
Summoner 1
Witch 3
Wizard 10
Psychic warrior 1
ah well it looks like the computer wont let me line my numbers up.
I noticed the four most common classes people tended to play were the cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard. I was suprised at how many people picked cleric. I was also suprised that no one picked barbarian. perhaps their smoke signals haven't gotten on the internet yet.
On an aside note, i noticed i think 4 people liked psionics. ( i would make the 4th)
thanks for the posts. I have enjoyed reading the thread. I will be happy to read more posts.
I almost always DM, but when I get the chance to play my characters are all over the place. My favorite class to play is probably the barbarian, though I usually get strong-armed into being the cleric because, well, I play a mean cleric and nobody else in our normal group wants to be one.
I enjoy playing monks (poor, poor monks), and I absolutely love playing bards. I've also been known to play a barbarian on more than one occasion.
|
|
Back in 3.x, I used to play Druids and Monks exclusively. There just wasn't anything else that interested me.
Pathfinder has sparked something in me (or maybe I've just matured into a better role-player?) and now I look through the core rulebook and for every single class I can come up with a concept that I'd be excited to play.
My process now tends to be a little bit different, and much thanks to Paizo's APs. Now I look at the player's guide, consider the setting and campaign traits, and come up with a character concept and backstory that would fit. Once I have that, I decide what class would best fit my concept.
By using this method, I've come up with classes that I never would have dreamed playing before, such as a bard and paladin, and they've become some of my favorite characters.
I've played most classes, really. Although, the only class I took the distance was a 3.5 cleric of Pelor in AoW.
Currently I'm playing a greatsword fighter in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft under pf rules. Then we're gonna do STAP with pf and I'm gonna play an aristocrat/Witch. Hopefully I'll be able to play that character to the end but if not I'm kicking around the idea of playing a rogue/fighter or a ranger.