What do you play?

[Klorox]

On that side I tend to favor high Int and/or high CON characters, because those attributes are just too interesting to dump. (and yeah, I'm an intellectual snob with sub par health, so I craft my characters from there)

and there's one race I'd like to test ; drow

[Decimus Drake]

I haven't played many different characters but spell casters have been a more or less consistent feature regarding my choice of characters whether I'm playing tabletop or a crpg; so much so that one of my friends branded me 'the forever wizard'. I'm not sure why but I've never played a divine caster. It could be that I like to play INT based characters and divine casters are either WIS or CHA.

I've often tended to eschew direct damage evocation spells with a preference towards necromancy and divination. It might not be the best spell list but I do love some witchcraft.

I did once experiment with a monk; it was only for a session or two and I'd be willing to give it another go. I've also played a single session with the kineticist but this was to help me understand the class better as one of my players was one in the campaign I was running.

My characters have always been male as I don't think I could do a good job rping a woman. My characters have all possessed some degree of sexual fluidity; one of my previous characters was a pansexual hedonistic three eyed ifrit arcanist and my current half-orc witch has a preference for fey.Orientation wise they tend more towards the rainbow end of the spectrum regardlless as to whether I specify it as such because "watching you try to rp a heterosexual would just be awkward".

Race: Numerically it's been humans but my favourite race would be half-orcs.

We don't use alignments but my characters tend to be morally grey with a small spark of good buried somewhere deep. They are usually ambivalent where the law is concerned.

[Jason Wedel]

Male, Good, Jack of all trade types who specialize in being support/back ups

[Lucy_Valentine]

Hogeyhead wrote:

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?

I don't have strict limits as such, but:

In terms of powers I tend to favour characters who move fast, do stuff in combat besides just hit things, and have lots of options outside combat. I like flexibility. Given how PF works that tends to push me towards multiclass builds with casting components, or single caster classes.

I don't really like characters who are beholden to other powers, so I tend not to play divine casters or pact-based casters. Nature casters I'm fine with.

Statwise I lean towards dex and int, and elves are my comfort zone, though separating cause and effect there is tricky. Starfinder androids also good :) I don't play human unless there's no other options, that doesn't excite me.

In alignment terms I tend not to go lawful (unless it's for the challenge), otherwise I roll with it. I've no objection to playing evil or chaotic (or both), but I'll make them fit within the game or not use them. EG, in PFS I would interpret chaotic as "considering responsibility to lie with individuals" rather than "just do whatever you like".

I don't play male characters. Female, non-binary, agender, all fine. I also don't play heterosexual characters, though that rarely comes up in-game.

Some of my favourite characters are rogues, conceptually. But PF rogue is defined by its mechanics and therefore its own thing, and I don't think I like it enough to bother. I'd love to play an unchained Eldritch Scoundrel, that looks a lot like my cup of tea, but also it's not legal in PFS.

[Flas-Lomain]

In my old 1e days, I began to avoid arcane spellcasters like the plague, thanks to a Killer GM that thought the goal was TPK. As a result, I felt forced to focus mostly on generic meat shields and clerics with slight healing abilities (at lower levels.) Any alignment. Races most often human and dwarf. Almost never half-orc.

Most recently, I tried my hand at a CG ranger and discovered I seem to be better suited to playing ranged attack characters (they tend to live longer.)

Any time I can throw in something unexpected, so much the better, although the outcomes can be interesting. Example - wizard is allergic to cats, time to find a familiar which is ... you guessed it. An EXTREMELY friendly feline.

[UnArcaneElection]

^I haven't read this yet, but somebody wrote at least 1 whole novel about a Wizard who was allergic to magic (sorry, no Wikipedia link, so Amazon will have to do).

[LadyGrayRose]

I play almost exclusively female characters and favor those with spellcasting abilities (although one of my all-time favorite characters is a human ranger with 0 spellcasting from another, non-Pathfinder system.)

In terms of morality I prefer delving into darker themes and 'morally complex' decisions, so I usually play characters who wind up in the gamut of LE, NE, or CN, although they do not always start as those alignments. That's not to say I dislike Good characters or think they're uninspired or boring; I just prefer my own characters to be the sorts who ultimately succumb to their own selfish or vindictive natures.*

But give me a Good tiefling or Evil aasimar lady anyday.

* = within reason, of course. I'm not gonna be an absolute jerk to my own party.

[avr]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^I haven't read this yet, but somebody wrote at least 1 whole novel about a Wizard who was allergic to magic (sorry, no Wikipedia link, so Amazon will have to do).

That was a series IIRC, not just 1 novel. I'm sure I read two of his books.

Anyway, in PF I prefer a spellcaster who can change their style over a campaign if required. I've played martial-only goons, I've played spontaneous casters who are stuck in the straightjacket of their build, but I eventually come back to prepared spellcasters or one of the more flexible spontaneous ones.

[CraziFuzzy]

Kobolds - when I can make it fit - and sometimes when I can't.

For class, typically something stabby and partially casty.

[Lady Ladile]

Hum...there are some definite patterns if you were to look at all my various characters:

I always play my own gender (female).

I favor casters over martials.

Of the casters, I favor spontaneous over prepared.

Nearly all of my characters trend NG/CG with the occasional LG, N, or LN.

Most of my characters have at least a 12 Charisma or better, no matter what their class.

I apparently enjoy pet/buddy classes as I've got multiple PCs with familiars, three different summoners, a spiritualist, and a couple of PCs with animal companions.

In my pet/buddy choices, I strongly favor felines or things I can shape to a feline appearance :3

I tend to favor humans and half-elves as far as race choices go but I've still got a decent variety (an elf, a kitsune, a gnome, a halfling, a couple of sylphs, etc.)

[David knott 242]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^I haven't read this yet, but somebody wrote at least 1 whole novel about a Wizard who was allergic to magic (sorry, no Wikipedia link, so Amazon will have to do).

If I recall correctly, Varian Jeggare in several Pathfinder Tales stories had the exact same problem.

[Vlaeros]

CraziFuzzy wrote:

Kobolds - when I can make it fit - and sometimes when I can't.

What are you talking about? They're kobolds. They're small. They can always fit.

(And you can always fit more, too.)

[IfritSlasher]

First off, I LOVE playing against type. An agile and intelligent Barbarian, a frail finesse fighter, and a Bard specializing in melee combat come to mind. Secondly, NEVER Lawful, due my own personal disdain for strict authority and formality. Finally, they're young characters who place great value in their friends.

Other commonalities are being male, of a primal/tribal aesthetic, glass cannon playstyle, and focus on melee combat, though I have broken these with a couple concepts, namely a tanky female Bloodrager and son-of-a-succubus Tiefling Sorcerer. Playing against my OWN type can be fun too. XD

I have run the gamut of personalities though, ranging from hyper energetic to socially timid, from undying optimism to deep cynicism.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

I try to play a character who ties into the themes and story of the adventure I'm playing in. That way even my backstory and sidequest stuff propel the overall narrative forward for the party.

[Klorox]

last time I tried that, it fell so completely off the shelf I don't think I'll try again.

[ccs]

I play a lot of halflings, a lot of humans, a lot of fighter types & a lot of bards. Most of them not-evil & most of them male.
And I'll often have the most interesting character at the table.

[Ancient Dragon Master]

F2F I always play males. Most are some kind of evil the others are CN. All of my characters must have a good role in combat or i can’t play them. Theorycraft, sure but never play.

Online it is different. I have more time to think about my actions and decide i’m not going to kill the civilian for lieing to me, murder the tiefling for existing, general murderhobo, etc, etc

Wich us why i love online play.

[UnArcaneElection]

David knott 242 wrote:

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^I haven't read this yet, but somebody wrote at least 1 whole novel about a Wizard who was allergic to magic (sorry, no Wikipedia link, so Amazon will have to do).

If I recall correctly, Varian Jeggare in several Pathfinder Tales stories had the exact same problem.

Not exactly the same -- he suffers nausea when "retaining" (preparing?) and casting spells, but apparently he's fine if he casts by means of Riffle Scrolls.

[Thunderlord]

Most of my characters were human fighters. Not just martial but the actual fighter class. My notebook of builds has no fighters but I've never put any of them onto a character sheet.

I have a friend who only plays viking characters so Ulfen any martial.

Neither of us would play a woman role playing is huge in our group and playing woman seems too hard for such "manly" men. No one takes a fake girl voice seriously.

[Albatoonoe]

I don't play any particular gender, but I never lay straight characters. I trend towards homosexual characters, but still frequently play bi (as I am that).

As far as mechanics, I never really play support/healer types. The closest I get to playing support is Illusionist-types. I tends toward either stealthy characters or direct action characters, like front-liners and blasters. I tend to play aggressive characters, all-in-all.

[Zhayne]

If an anthropomorphic animal race is available, I'll play that. Yes, I'm a furry, sue me. If not, I'll take one of the races and make one that subverts or reverses some common stereotype of it.

Class-wise, to use Overwatch terminology, I fill-pick. I let everybody else pick what they want to play, then fill any gaps I perceive in the party lineup. This usually puts me in one of two roles ... the healer/supporter or the bruiser. The players in our group have a general fondness for high-DEX characters, you see, and not many of us really enjoy being the guy who just hands out the +1s.

However, I loathe 'prepared casters' and will always play a spontaneous caster (or, if possible, a psionic) if I'm doing a spellcaster.

[PodTrooper]

More often than not, I'm also a 'fill-pick' player, who makes sure there isn't an obvious hole that needs filling. <giggety>
Otherwise, I've still been pretty varied as far as character choices go, and don't gravitate towards a particular type.

If there is a theme to my choices, I tend to go for a concept when building a character, and not worry too much about maximizing everything.

Some of my fellow players over the years (like many in this forum), fully optimize their race/class builds, and look at me sideways when I would make choices to "fit" my concept. Like spread skills/feats/abilities around, rather than focus on the cost/benefits and get the most out of game-system mathematics.

Friend: "Why the heck do you have 2 ranks in profession-sailor?!!! You should put those ranks in (_____) to max out that skill!"
Me: "Because he grew up on the coast, and his father was a fisherman. He would know something about sailing."
Friend: .......

Not saying anything is wrong with optimized builds.
My style has just leaned towards flexibility over specialization.

[RealAlchemy]

I usually play good characters. I like dwarves, elves, and half-elves.

I like to have intelligence, wisdom, or both above 10. I dislike having a statistic below 10 without a really good reason (exceptions being the occasional size S caster with an 8 strength.) Looking at my PFS history, I am a big fan of 4 level and 6 level casters including the paladin, magus, ranger, warpriest, summoner, and bloodrager. Wyldblooded sorcerors are pretty fun, especially when they bring something unusual to the party such as wisdom based arcane casters or a full animal companion.

[UnArcaneElection]

I don't like dumping either, although sometimes it's unavoidable. Except that in the unlikely event that I play in an Evil campaign, then I will dump Intelligence and have the character say all sorts of outrageous, mangled, and otherwise nonsensical things. You don't have to be stupid to be Evil . . . but it helps.

[Wolin]

Looking through my assortment of characters, looks like I favour non-human, small sized characters with a bias towards melee. Despite my dislike of prepared casters I've played more of them than spontaneous casters. Same deal for full casters vs all other casters (Call me odd, but I like to have actual class features and spells only doesn't really cut it). Done more psychic casters than arcane, and somehow never done a plain divine caster at all. Several monk/kineticist/natural attack type characters.
Usually go for more unconventional builds or ones that could be considered downright terrible, notably a kobold Champion of Irori on a 15 point buy. Tend to come up with a personality or background and pick what feels appropriate for them from that which tends to be the reason.

Haven't done the full alignment spectrum, but hit a lot of it. Let the game go a few sessions to let the character settle before I pencil in an alignment, and have in the past finished campaigns without ever formally putting in an alignment at all. I prefer law/chaos conflicts to good/evil ones since the moral grayness conflicts like that tend to involve interest me more, so that tends to be a focus in my alignment.

I dump wisdom and higher charisma characters more than I should, largely because I find characters who make dumb decisions are more fun to play, particularly when they can be convinced they're right. A trend I may have passed on to the rest of my group...
Mostly otherwise I try to avoid a dump stat at all.

Finally, a very even split between characters whose background could be summarised by "Just fine, thanks!" and "I am doomed and horribly unlucky."

[Zhayne]

I like having a dump stat, because I think characters with obvious strengths and weaknesses are more interesting and memorable than Jack-Of-All-Trades sorts. As such, I tend to specialize as well, making something of a one-trick-pony, but that helps stop me from toe-stepping on other players.

[Klorox]

I hate characters with bad weaknesses, dump stats are such a weakness.

[Marius Castille]

Generally male with a positive charisma modifier (even if the class itself isn’t charisma-based). The character often has some innate magical capacity (e.g. drow, gnome). Usually a prepared caster (I like having options). If an arcane caster, is likely a gish (bard, eldritch knight). If the class has low skill points, the character often has a positive intelligence modifier and uses FCB for extra skills (especially at low levels). Very rarely dumps stats; if I do, I’m probably rolling up a monk or a debuffer witch. If I start lawful good, then I’ll likely slide into something more “practical” unless there’s also a code of conduct to keep me honest.

[Slim Jim]

Klorox wrote:

I hate characters with bad weaknesses, dump stats are such a weakness.

<dwarf slides up at the bar>

"Buy ya a drink, bruh? I know which bottles here are the good stuff!"

1st-level Diplomacy modifiers:

-3 (Cha 5)
+2 (Affable trait)
+1 (1 rank in Diplomacy)
+3 (class skill bonus)

= +3

[Daedalaman]

commenting so I can find this later

[WatersLethe]

I like to play mechanically complex builds that support ultimately simple concepts.

Two I've played most recently were:

Aasimar Kobold Shaman Dragon Disciple, which represents my desire to play a holy, silver scaled kobold that really loves Apsu.

Tiefling Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight/Arcane Archer, which represents a studious, gentle pickpocket who loves magic but has trained with the bow because magic gets her in trouble.

I'm also planning to play:

Human Cleric/Pathfinder Savant, which represents a physically frail apprentice wizard who's career got derailed when he became obsessed with Pharasma, but still has a high opinion of his arcane aptitude.

[Madokar Valortouched]

I always play Good characters, though they can be rough around the edges at times. Good is not soft, after all.

I play as males since that is my RL gender. I'm not wholly comfortable constantly trying to play as different gender identities.

I seem to favour the CHA stat. All of my characters have had at least 14 CHA as a starting score.

I like characters with at least proficiency with medium armour. I also like to have full BAB.

The only time I do the opposite is when I'm being the GM. But since I'm constantly going through character types, I consider it part of the fun.