What do you play?

[Hogeyhead]

When I ask what do you play, the question is almost as general as it sounds, but to elaborate, what patterns appear in your play?

Some people play brutes exclusively, some will only ever play their own gender, some play naturey people, some play rogues and rogue-likes (not the computer game genre), some play exclusively good, and some exclusively evil. Others exclusively chaotic neutral (aka batshit crazy, an exaggeration, yes but one earned).

Personally my characters are quite varied in most respect save one, I always play a caster. 70-80% of the time a full caster, the rest a half caster, and only once a quarter caster (a paladin)

I just am not interested in pure martial, or pure skill (which are few anyways), I love magic, and I love the magic system in pathfinder, so that is what I play.

What about you guys?

[TriOmegaZero]

*looks at characters* Ridiculousness, apparently.

[PossibleCabbage]

I will play any sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

I will play any race or species, but if one is defined by a stereotype in the text of the game I will assiduously subvert it.

I tend to play good characters, am happy to play neutral, but I dislike playing evil characters and will only play the evil in the sense of "well, this is the only thing that works" or "I'm just looking out for myself" modes. I prefer every one of my characters believe that they are doing the correct thing for reasons I can understand. The Law/Chaos axis largely doesn't matter, though. I've played every alignment except CN and CE; I gravitate to NG, LG, and TN though.

I dislike prepared casters and pet classes because I feel like they're a lot of extra work. I'll play anything else, but I prefer to have lots of skills or lots of social skills. I probably play 9-level casters less than anybody in my group and non-casters more than anybody.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

I tend to play frontliners, CG-CN, darkvision as a racial ability

Though lately I've had a handful of prepared casters focused on battlefield control and utility. Trying to break out of the mold as it were. And ye gods is it hard.

[Steve Geddes]

Human men, almost exclusively. Generally melee characters, often conmen or charlatans.

[Dustin Heaton]

Generally, characters with lots of skills (especially knowledge skills) or some kind of shape shifting ability. I might be going to be breaking this pattern if I ever manage to get to play again instead of GMing because I keep going back to a melee kineticist when I'm building characters for fun.

The only other solid rule is no elves. Egotistical jerks, the lot of them.

[Meraki]

Everything, pretty much. It's my ambition to play every class in Pathfinder at some point. (Not every archetype. I don't have THAT much free time.) I deliberately try to play a wide range of characters-- class, gender, race, sexuality, personality, alignment...I think the only alignments I haven't played so far are LE and NE.

I like variety. Though if I had to identify any particular trend, it'd be that most of them tend to have varying degrees of Deadpan Snarker traits in one way or another.

[Klorox]

I play exclusively males, I don't trust myself to impersonate the other gender. Otherwise, I have a thing for Dwarves and Spellcasters (but not necessarily Dwarven spellcasters)

[DM Livgin]

Meraki wrote:

Everything, pretty much. It's my ambition to play every class in Pathfinder at some point. (Not every archetype. I don't have THAT much free time.) I deliberately try to play a wide range of characters-- class, gender, race, sexuality, personality, alignment...I think the only alignments I haven't played so far are LE and NE.

I like variety. Though if I had to identify any particular trend, it'd be that most of them tend to have varying degrees of Deadpan Snarker traits in one way or another.

Been thinking about counting the archetypes and making a randomizer for new character ideas, and I way to force myself out of any comfort zones. "You rolled 568, that is a Nam-Keeper Shaman! Go!"

[Nox Aeterna]

Pet classes mostly (Summoner/Spiritualist/Hunter). Sometimes i play other classes as long as they have a familiar/AC... by class feature or archetype.

I dont play pathfinder using PCs that dont have a "pet"... ever.

Outside this one restriction I can play pretty any race/build i can match and seems decent enough.

[supervillan]

I've played a wide variety over the years. Many of my characters in PFS currently seem to be melees with pets, often divine casters. That hasn't been a deliberately chosen pattern, it's just how characters have emerged.

I do like to play characters that are uniquely available in the game system I am using. So, I tend to make a lot of use of archetypes in Pathfinder as well as the character classes that only exist in PF.

I'll play any gender or orientation - whatever makes sense when I am making the character.

[The DM of]

Middle-aged white male trailer trash gnomes, just like in real life I guess.

[MageHunter]

I generally play martials with good skills. The more convoluted the multiclassing, feats, and archetypes, the better!

The masochist in me likes rogues. Like a rogue with a brawler dip to feint and two weapon feint to do drunken boxing. Then it picks up outslug style... It feels inadequate for me if it's too simple.

I also tend to just do either lawful good or chaotic neutral. I don't know why just those two of all things...

[Diachronos]

I avoid Wizards and Clerics like the plague because I don't like prepared casters who have to contend with "Welp, none of the spells I prepared are useful here. Have fun fighting without me, guys!" Syndrome. You run into that with Warpriest, Magus, and Druid, but they actually have useful things they could do aside from casting spells.

For some reason, I tend to play female characters unless they're far enough removed from being "human", like kobolds.

[Philippe Lam]

I play every kind of character. There will always be something needed everywhere for any kind of reason. It's much more a matter of it's simple to me to build it or not, and powerful at the same time for the better. If only one of the two requisites, I won't mind.

But I do primarily build melee combatants

[jocundthejolly]

I seem to play large-bodied casters. A very fat human wizard, a half-orc cleric, a centaur druid. A psychoanalyst would probably have something interesting to say about it.

[Just a Mort]

I play primarily casters. Prepared, spontaneous, it doesn't matter.

My non casters can be counted on both hands. Generally the more casty of my casters are female, and the more martial casties aka the archer casties are male.

My characters range from neutral to good aligned but lawful neutral also pops out quite frequently. Even my "neutral" characters are mildly good aligned.

I do not usually roll chaotic characters and I have rolled evil characters before and didn't like it - it left a bad taste in my mouth.

[Agent Eclipse]

I look around for interesting character builds. Usually finding something that hooks me into a concept that I can write about. I also tend to like variety so I try to challenge myself with concepts for each class and race.

[Lord Mhoram]

Gender and race vary a lot. I've played an man sized amoeba from the Andromeda galaxy in a superhero game, and a number of other types that are basically genderless like that.

I always play "good guys" - I could never play evil, and have a hard time playing neutral. Part and parcel of playing superhero games for decades I guess.

If martial arts are available, I tend to play someone with at least some martial arts training. I also love to play spell-casters. My most played gestalt type thing is a Monk/Sorcerer. Fast agile characters are most common. If I don't I tend to play larger characters - Half Giants, Goliath etc. I almost never play small races.

I've been playing since '77, so I tend to go to newer races and classes these days, because I've played so many of the "standard" races and classes over the years I've become tired of them.

I tend to avoid support characters. I just don't have fun playing them. The one time I played a bard she was an archeologist.

[J4RH34D]

I have no preference to race in my characters.
I also don't seem to mind classes so much, so long as I feel I can contribute out of combat.
Gender used to be only male but I have started trying to play Females and feel I do a decent job.
I play across pretty much all classes as well.

M Half Orc Rogue
M Human Fighter who became a Human Paladin I realised I wanted to be good out of combat and it was my first ever fighter build so hadn't learnt the tricks yet.
M Gillman Hydro/Aerokinetecist
M Human alchemist I think he ended up human because Ustalav and it just made more sence for the story
F Kitsune Sorcerer
M Gnome Druid
F Vesk Soldier

[PrinceRaven]

If you believe my regular playgroup I play exclusively bards. My dozen or so bard characters are, of course, bards. But also my druid is just a bard that likes nature a lot, my witch is a creepy debuff bard, my oracle was Princess Mononoke as a genderqueer bard, my swashbuckler was just a bard who really liked stabbing things with his sword (wink wink nudge nudge say no more). Even when I play other RPGs like World of Darkness; my werewolf, my vampires, my hunter; all bards.

[Ciaran Barnes]

I try to paint a figurine for every character I play, and if you look at the PC section of my figurine shelves you would see a lot of them carrying shields. I alternate though between a frontline warrior and some other type, Such as a caster, ranged warrier, sneaky type, etc.

[ChaiGuy]

My first characters tended to male and have a strong LG and divine casting tendencies. I think gradually they diversified, melee focused characters being the second most common. I have played few female characters, and only with groups I knew well.

One thing common among all of my characters is that none of them emphasized let's say, romantic relationships. I remember a fellow player saying romance is a driving force in the real world, so it's natural for PCs to focus on such activities. For me though, I don't find having my imaginary character court another imaginary character as a fun activity.

[JJMJester]

I always play male characters (As a Forever GM it's not a long list of Characters) and they are usually Good aligned. When I first started in the 3.5 days, I would always go Half-Orc but I tend to really any race at this point.

Most of my characters will be religious to a particular god, even if they are not a cleric/paladin. I'll have my character have a holy symbol and say prayers to their God in time of need.

Not too long ago I discovered a passion for playing the Starscream scheming coward type of character, it's SO much fun to play a character like that. I was worried it would be a problem in a group setting but when I had my character scream in a high pitched voice after failing a fear save while trying to run away, I had the other players falling over laughing.

After playing a full caster for two years of Rise of the Runelords, I think I'm done with playing them for a long time (Feels like work keeping up with all the spells) and skill based characters is where my heart is anyway.

[Bladelock]

I play cloth or light armor melees with big swords. Amazing how much diversity I still get with that.

[Daw]

In Pathfinder games I tend to play support characters, because they are so often needed. My male characters tend to expect their companions to be honorable, competent and worthy. My female characters expect their companions to be exactly the reverse. They have a longer life expectancy, and are far less likely to walk away in total disgust. I have played numerically more male characters overall in Pathfinder, but most of my time is spent playing females, because the game does tend to draw a more narcicistic player. It is just better to play a character with low expectations.

[djdust]

I always seem to be concurrently playing a deeply spiritual, wizened LG or NG character and a troubled, angsty CN youth on the verge of a deep dive into evil territory.

This actually says a lot about me as a person...

[djdust]

It's like, one can't exist without the other.

[MrCharisma]

Paladin is my favourite class, and in fact:

1. I prefer good characters.
2. I prefer front-line combat.
3. I prefer Full BAB or 3/4 BAB characters (ties in with point 2).
4. I prefer a character who helps others (in or out of combat).
5. I prefer to play my own gender - male (Totally unrelated to Paladin but it's there). I am playing a female character in our upcoming Kingmaker campaign (she's a Paladin).

All of these are preferences, and you would find a pattern that shows these are my most favoured traits. I have played evil characters, full casters etc, but I always come back to these types of characters.

[Tim Emrick]

For most of my history as a gamer, I have GMed more than played, so in that way, I get to try out a lot of interesting characters that I wouldn't necessarily play long-term as a PC. As a player, I want something with an interesting schtick and fun opportunities for roleplaying. Sometimes I'll pick what I'm playing completely independent of the other players, but other times I'll try to identify the biggest hole that the party needs filled, and play that--especially if I'm joining a game that's been running for a while before before I was recruited.

Some of my most memorable PCs (across numerous RPGs) have come from filling that missing niche, then finding some meaty roleplaying hooks to make the character become much more than just that role:
* In a GURPS Fantasy game that needed a combat-capable character, I built a weapon master--who ended up being both Muslim (in a mostly Christian land) and a woman masquerading as a man.
* For a v.3.5 game that had no healers in the party, I played a half-orc druid, with a much more savage upbringing than the mostly-human party.
* In a New England-based Buffy/Angel game that had lost its two witch players, I built a spellcaster--who was only half human, and very much inspired by Lovecraft's Deep One hybrids.

As far as Pathfinder goes specifically, most of my own PCs have been created for PFS. I have tried to make each of the characters I play there as different from each other as I can, so that I get a wide variety of play experiences. My first (and still primary) PC, Ansari, is a Kelishite rogue who ended up dipping into cleric. My second was a dwarf stonelord paladin, and my third was a nagaji sorcerer. I also have an oread brawler from Osirion; Neferanu was conceived when I read the living monolith prestige class, and I chose brawler because I hadn't played a hybrid class before (and that seemed the least complicated one).

[Soulgear]

Most of my characters have been melee. I really enjoy the divine melee combo and have only ever played one pure wizard. One evil character, all others were neutral/good/lawful/chaotic males of varying races.

The most memorable ones:

Human male barb/oracle/rage prophet lvl 16(the beastiest beast that ever beasted) -- Pathfinder
Bhuka male cleric/walker in the waste lvl 15 -- D&D 3.5
Human male rogue/ranger (the rogues always die young!) lvl 5 -- D&D 3.5
Dwarven male battlerager lvl 9 -- D&D 2nd edition
Human male paladin lvl 10 -- D&D 2nd edition
Elven male wizard (conj/summoner) lvl 18 -- D&D 2nd edition

[Tacticslion]

Weirdly, I play tricksters of various kinds. Even more weirdly, they're mostly lawful good ones.

While they tend to be mages, it's often because that's the only way to accomplish whatever thing I want to do (which is usually some variant of helping everyone). The other option is skilled characters. Rarely do I play martial characters.

Regardless, I tend to play people who are striking or unusual in various physical ways. Also flirtatious or extremely friendly and warm or both.

They tend toward communal-minded endeavors and betterment.

As a result, they tend toward intelligence and charisma. I think I tend to play them less wise than they should are.

Also, they tend to be craftsmen of some sort.

All of these are tendencies, though and not axioms.

[Jiggy]

Tacticslion wrote:

less wise than they should are.

*snicker*

I generally tend to play characters with options, such that I have some means of contributing meaningfully in most situations. In Pathfinder, that required playing spellcasters (or sticking to very low levels with non-casters). Same goes for 5E, though less rigidly. Outside of the D&D tradition, it depends on the system. For instance, I recently started a Mutant: Year Zero game, where versatility mostly means having well-rounded stats, but I'm also a Gearhead maxed out on Jury-Rig so I can build tools/equipment for whatever we want to do.

[Creon Vizcarra]

To my knowledge, in tabletop games I always play male characters.

When playing a spell caster, I prefer spontaneous casters to prepared casters simply for ease of use.

I like to play characters that have at least one or two knowledge skills or their equivalent. I will take traits, merits, flaws, or whatever is needed in order to be able to do this. Because of this, in the d20 ecosystem, I frequently have to play humans because of their extra skill points and feats.

In terms of character types, unless I try very, very hard not to create such a character, I always end up playing a dispossessed aristocrat or émigré.

[UnArcaneElection]

Due to life issues, I haven't gotten to play yet unless you go all the way back to 1st Edition, but I've been trying to spread my character concepts around (you can see them in my profile, although only a couple are statted up -- but I plan to change that when I get past my current crunch).

[Nodrog]

I am working on playing other classes when I get the chance to play. Though I tend to enjoy the smash skulls classes over the spell casters or sneaky/face classes. They are all fun, but some times the brutal approach keeps the group moving in a time crunch.

I will also play male or female characters of any race. So far my favorites are a female Ifrit Rogue with a couple level of Sorcerer or a male half giant Gnoll fighter.

I usually stick with NG or CG, though have played two LG just to offset a few groups murder hobo tendencies.

[born_of_fire]

Virtually all my characters are spellcasters of some sort as I find straight martials mostly boring. I prefer divine over arcane by far and often end up being the most healing capable character in my group.

I’ll play male or female, straight or queer, about equally.

I stick to the good and neutral end of the alignment spectrum but have no particular preference between lawful and chaotic. My home group and PFS both disallow evil characters but I wouldn’t play evil even if I could; I’m not conniving or ambitious enough as a person to play it as anything other than selfish, bratty and ill-equipped for the long con.

I like humans the most because they don’t get pigeon-holed into to embodying a racial stereotype to its fullest or being the anti-thesis of that stereotype like the unusual races tend to. I’ll play the occasional elf, halfling, dwarf or half-orc but I don’t “get” gnomes, mechanically or flavour-wise, and have never played one in over 30 years.

[Dracala]

I tend to play female characters of various races, particularly beasty ones. I tend to play chaotic neutral characters and go with more Martial options.

My Scaleheart was a Hunter/Fighter w/ a croc companion
My Ratfolk was an Alchemist(Vivisectionist)/Unchained Rogue
My Half-Orc is a Bloodrager(Abyssal Bloodline, Bloodrider (w/ Beast Rider feat), & a Bloodline/Mauler Familiar)
My Kitsune is a Vigilante(Teisatsu)/Slayer
My Vanara will be an Unchained Monk/Brawler(Shield Champion)
I also can't wait to make a Vine Leshy Shifter x3

[Heather 540]

I'm fairly new to the game, so I've only been able to use a few characters in actual games. But I do like making characters and have made one for each core race, plus two extra humans. Each is a different class, though one of the extra humans is a third party archetype. Only one is an archery build, most are melee. And only one is multiclass, mostly so the build works better faster, and it's only a single level of the second class.

No full casters like wizards but I do have some partial casters - bard, druid, hunter, and inquisitor. The inquisitor is the archer. Is a Warpriest considered a partial caster or full? No evil characters, and it's a fairly even split between Chaotic/Lawful and Good/Neutral. I don't think any of them are Chaotic Neutral.

All of the characters are female as I make them, however I do have some ideas for stories to use them in, and some will be males for those stories.

I actually need to redo some of my characters like my warpriest and druid.

[Slim Jim]

I gravitate toward pole-arm martials with Combat Reflexes.

- What can I say? I like rolling dice, and the more different types all at once, the better.

[Aaron Bitman]

In recent years, I keep feeling compelled to play pure martials, because I feel that having at least one such character is important in a party, and no one else in my gaming group seems to want to play one. In past campaigns, I would often play the cleric for the same reason.

It's a pity. There are many more types of characters I would love to play. But I feel it's more important to take one for the team.

I usually play Neutral Good, which I regard as the default attitude for a typical hero of this sort of story. And I regard gender as a trivial point.

[Rub-Eta]

Durable and socially capable are my two common denominators for pretty much all my characters.
When it comes to classes and builds, I play everything from full martial to full caster, damage and utility, generalist and specialist. Lawful Evil to Chaotic Good. Stupid, Intelligent. Strong, weak.
But I always make sure that my character won't die too easily and that I'm able to impact social encounters.

[Tinalles]

Gender: I play PCs of both genders, but tend to play females more often than males. I'm not sure why, but I just find female characters more interesting than males. The very first book I ever read for myself was The Wizard of Oz -- perhaps I imprinted on Dorothy.

Class: I'm generally good with any class, but have never really been happy when playing a bard. I think this is because being a really good bard player takes a certain dedication to being somebody else's +2 bonus that I just lack.

Race: I'm fine with any race. I've also had a blast as most of the core races, plus I had an awesome mermaid sorceress with a ridiculous AC for a level 20 one-shot.

Good vs Evil: I tend to play good alignments, but one of the most rewarding characters I ever played slid dramatically and thoroughly into evil. I find it difficult to play characters who are neutral on this axis. I just don't get them. What, you don't care whether the ruler is good or evil? The stakes of good versus evil in a game world seem so stark that I don't understand how anyone could not declare for one side or another.

Chaos vs Law: I've played all along this spectrum. I tend more towards lawful or neutral, but I can also appreciate the chaotic desire for freedom above all else.

[Aaron Bitman]

Tinalles wrote:

Class: I'm generally good with any class, but have never really been happy when playing a bard. I think this is because being a really good bard player takes a certain dedication to being somebody else's +2 bonus that I just lack.

Hah! You put that very well!

Tinalles wrote:

Good vs Evil: I tend to play good alignments, but one of the most rewarding characters I ever played slid dramatically and thoroughly into evil. I find it difficult to play characters who are neutral on this axis. I just don't get them. What, you don't care whether the ruler is good or evil? The stakes of good versus evil in a game world seem so stark that I don't understand how anyone could not declare for one side or another.

Maybe for the same reason a lot of people try to stay neutral on other matters, even in the real world: to avoid making powerful enemies on one side or the other.

[necromental]

Race:I play mostly humans, played a couple of elves and half-orcs and a lot of dwarves. I have no interest in nonstandard races (although I've run a homebrew with savage races like orcs, goblinoids and stuff).

Gender: My first character ever was a female, all the rest have been male.

Class: I used to play almost exclusively fighters (with a splash of barbarian or ranger or rogue), now I play magical martials (they have to have spells, concentrating more on divine list rather than arcane, but I like to hit things, pure spellcasters have never interested me).

Alignment: I lean heavily on lawful characters, usually neutral on good-evil axis. I like order, and ordering people, and while I play mostly like a good character I like to be able to be an a**hole when the situation demands.

I play characters as mostly myself (with maybe a couple of quirks relating to the race, class or campaign), as a super-fantasy character. Although, I like playing religious character, while not being religious myself.

[Klorox]

To complete the data stated above (which I can't edit anymore) I have little interest in nonstandard races (except tieflings, which I homebrew into fiend descended humans)

and while I have played my share of evil characters, that's a phase I've grown out of, especially since a lot of DMs frown on them.

[Brother Fen]

I try to come up with a different character idea for each campaign. If I can't think of anything, I dust off my original PF character and roll with that instead.

[SamuraiTsumo]

I've pretty much played everything. I've played male and female. Caster, non caster, chi user, etc.

I have a preference towards more stout races such as dwarf or orc. I prefer stealthy classes like ranger or rogue. I don't like playing good characters so I'm usually neutral or evil.

Right now I"m playing a human male investigator, neutral good. bla, should have gone LN.

I play him very egotistical about his intellect. He's often the speaker of the goup (except when I personally don't want to and pass it off onto someone else) I"m also the investigator (duh) and planner for our group. Once he's figured out what needs to be done he'll often sit back and let the meat shields swing their big swords in all their barbaric glory. It was his intellect that led to the party negating the opponents abilities and preying upon their weaknesses. Any idiot with a stick can win the battle once I've properly prepared you for it.

He also doesn't like to be messed with. Some gate guard was extorting my caravan so I poisoned the gold I gave him, giving him the runs for days.

Oh I'm also not too keen on playing a wizard. Have yet to ever play one.

[Philippe Lam]

Tinalles wrote:

Good vs Evil: I tend to play good alignments, but one of the most rewarding characters I ever played slid dramatically and thoroughly into evil. I find it difficult to play characters who are neutral on this axis. I just don't get them. What, you don't care whether the ruler is good or evil? The stakes of good versus evil in a game world seem so stark that I don't understand how anyone could not declare for one side or another.

Lots of players are playing these like Lawful A**h****. So I'm not really inclined to play good myself. Mostly neutral unless it fits the character concept, and even then putting the group above everything else unless going my own way suits better. I don't like when the paladin dictates what the others should do. When I play one, I'm following its ethos but I'm not overbearing the other players.

[Telodzrum]

I almost always play a character with high Cha. I find it more enjoyable to be able to roleplay like this. This has lead to a lot of Oracles, Bards, and Paladins.

I always find myself in the realm of LN, even when I plan out a different sort of character. I like the flexibility that is afforded to Law alignments when creating the character and then the framework that leads to when playing.