I am fond of all 4 core classes; but if nobody else wants to play a Cleric, I'll take one for the team. However, I'll be running my character. I don't want other players telling me, that I need to go heal so and so. I know what my character could do, but I may feel the need to deal out some Mace to the face. My character is not just a heal bot.
Gish, fighter/magic-user, whatever you want to call it. I love the flexibility of martial ability mixed with magic, even if I'm not even with the specialists in either skill set.
I usually liked to play an Elf Illusionist or 1e Assassin, but for some reason, I am always FORCED to play as a Ranger. This is why I hate the Ranger class, and why I started GMing full time.
If I was to play now, I'd play ANYTHING but a Ranger! >:(
When I played 5e it was usually a halfling ranger with a dog companion.
Now-a-days I'll go for the warrior or thief class if I have a choice and play them kind of ranger-y. I guess I just thought Strider was way too cool back in the day, and that's stuck with me.
Quote from: consolcwby on December 10, 2020, 12:15:00 AM
I usually liked to play an Elf Illusionist or 1e Assassin, but for some reason, I am always FORCED to play as a Ranger. This is why I hate the Ranger class, and why I started GMing full time.
If I was to play now, I'd play ANYTHING but a Ranger! >:(
Are rangers so essential that your group MUST have one?
Favourite 1e character classes in rough order: magic-user (by far the first choice, nothing beats the feeling of casting that first fireball), druid or paladin (cycles back and forth), cleric if nobody else will do it, and thief/rogue.
Very rarely ranger or illusionist. Might try bard as long as it's an independent class, not the fighter/thief/druid dual-classing grind, but otherwise no.
Never assassin (don't like evil), never monk (too complicated and dull), never fighter (too simple and boring). Those are all personal and subjective taste, freely admitted; more power to those who find more entertainment in them than I do.
fighter; used to play mages and bards in 2e.
I will usually try to play a swordsman of some kind, be it swashbuckling rogue, paladin, barbarian or plain 'ol fighter.
Quote from: Thread TitleWhen you get to play, what character class do you play?
ALL of them.
OK, maybe I tend to prefer mages and I'm iffy about lots of the newer made up classes, like "warlocks", but I always either play whatever is missing in the party or whatever I feel like playing that time around, which is somewhat weighted towards mages, but can be ANY class.
Quote from: Trinculoisdead on December 10, 2020, 12:55:37 AM
Quote from: consolcwby on December 10, 2020, 12:15:00 AM
I usually liked to play an Elf Illusionist or 1e Assassin, but for some reason, I am always FORCED to play as a Ranger. This is why I hate the Ranger class, and why I started GMing full time.
If I was to play now, I'd play ANYTHING but a Ranger! >:(
Are rangers so essential that your group MUST have one?
Pretty much my thoughts exactly. My impression has always been that rangers are one of the least "necessary" classes, mechanically speaking. It's basically a weak fighter with crappy sneaking abilities and no trap finding/disabling or sneak attacks, and eventually crappy druid spells no one even remembers exist.
Any of the old favorites are fine by me. I'm not even going to play in a campaign that has warlocks in them at all, let alone play one. Same with tielfings. A monk would not be my first choice for a character, but if I got handed a pregen for one, I'd roll with it.
My issue is that I play so rarely that it is very difficult for me to really play a character as a PC. I nearly always slip into playing it more as an NPC, deferring to the rest of the party. :P
Quote from: VisionStorm on December 10, 2020, 07:02:06 AM
Quote from: Thread TitleWhen you get to play, what character class do you play?
ALL of them.
OK, maybe I tend to prefer mages and I'm iffy about lots of the newer made up classes, like "warlocks", but I always either play whatever is missing in the party or whatever I feel like playing that time around, which is somewhat weighted towards mages, but can be ANY class.
Quote from: Trinculoisdead on December 10, 2020, 12:55:37 AM
Quote from: consolcwby on December 10, 2020, 12:15:00 AM
I usually liked to play an Elf Illusionist or 1e Assassin, but for some reason, I am always FORCED to play as a Ranger. This is why I hate the Ranger class, and why I started GMing full time.
If I was to play now, I'd play ANYTHING but a Ranger! >:(
Are rangers so essential that your group MUST have one?
Pretty much my thoughts exactly. My impression has always been that rangers are one of the least "necessary" classes, mechanically speaking. It's basically a weak fighter with crappy sneaking abilities and no trap finding/disabling or sneak attacks, and eventually crappy druid spells no one even remembers exist.
Rangers got nerfbatted a bit from 1E, but they've always suffered from being somewhat overspecialized. If you faced something they got bonuses against, they were amazingly effective. But if not, yeah, they were a second-tier fighter.
Mostly human clerics and dwarf thieves or fighter/thieves. Once in a great while a magic-user.
Of course it depends upon the system & setting - but I mostly play support classes like bards.
Partially it's because I enjoy power-gaming the heck out of a system, but I don't want to be THAT GUY. Power-gaming a support character makes everybody else better rather than overshadowing anyone.
Quote from: Slipshot762 on December 10, 2020, 02:48:21 AM
fighter; used to play mages and bards in 2e.
I never played 2e tabletop - but from Baldur's Gate the bard always felt like it was in an odd place in 2e. It got the same spell list as mages - but it was behind and got fewer spells. Except because it leveled faster, SOME of the spells were actually more powerful when cast by a bard if they scaled off character level - perhaps most notably Dispel Magic - which doesn't have a cap.
Bard got a few thief skills - but not the really useful ones to actually fill that slot in the group (no trap-finding), and it's combat skills were not good either. That, and unlike later edition bards, it couldn't do anything else when doing their bard song. Am I missing anything?
A few of the kits seemed to make them substantially better, but the base bard was just in an odd place.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 10, 2020, 08:15:02 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on December 10, 2020, 07:02:06 AM
Quote from: Thread TitleWhen you get to play, what character class do you play?
ALL of them.
OK, maybe I tend to prefer mages and I'm iffy about lots of the newer made up classes, like "warlocks", but I always either play whatever is missing in the party or whatever I feel like playing that time around, which is somewhat weighted towards mages, but can be ANY class.
Quote from: Trinculoisdead on December 10, 2020, 12:55:37 AM
Quote from: consolcwby on December 10, 2020, 12:15:00 AM
I usually liked to play an Elf Illusionist or 1e Assassin, but for some reason, I am always FORCED to play as a Ranger. This is why I hate the Ranger class, and why I started GMing full time.
If I was to play now, I'd play ANYTHING but a Ranger! >:(
Are rangers so essential that your group MUST have one?
Pretty much my thoughts exactly. My impression has always been that rangers are one of the least "necessary" classes, mechanically speaking. It's basically a weak fighter with crappy sneaking abilities and no trap finding/disabling or sneak attacks, and eventually crappy druid spells no one even remembers exist.
Rangers got nerfbatted a bit from 1E, but they've always suffered from being somewhat overspecialized. If you faced something they got bonuses against, they were amazingly effective. But if not, yeah, they were a second-tier fighter.
I've always loved the idea of rangers conceptually--kinda sorta "on paper"--but mechanically speaking they've always felt a bit underwhelming, particularly in more recent editions. Mechanically speaking I'd rather play a fighter/rogue and say they're a "scout" or something for "RP" purposes.
Quote from: VisionStorm on December 10, 2020, 08:50:51 AM
I've always loved the idea of rangers conceptually--kinda sorta "on paper"--but mechanically speaking they've always felt a bit underwhelming, particularly in more recent editions. Mechanically speaking I'd rather play a fighter/rogue and say they're a "scout" or something for "RP" purposes.
I do remember that in 3.0 they were used almost entirely as a 1 level dip for rogues and any martial who wanted TWF, as it was very top-heavy in class abilities/feats. Even in 3.5 it was primarily a dip class, but it wasn't as extreme.
Getting back on target here, if I'm new to a system I'll play something fairly uncomplicated, a fighter type or general kneebreaker.
If I'm more familiar with the system (say, D&D or PF) then I feel more comfortable playing spellcasting classes or something exotic. I tend to prefer spontaneous casters over spell-prep classes because there's less paperwork involved.
Quote from: VisionStorm
I've always loved the idea of rangers conceptually--kinda sorta "on paper"--but mechanically speaking they've always felt a bit underwhelming, particularly in more recent editions. Mechanically speaking I'd rather play a fighter/rogue and say they're a "scout" or something for "RP" purposes.
Agreed. I'm less interested in the Tolkien Ranger more interested in the Army Ranger.
Regardless of system I run either a human or very-near human (ex. Half-elf); which may sound funny coming from the guy who regularly champions including the oddball races, but I recognize the difference between personal preference and allowing everyone to have options they will enjoy.
As to classes, that depends on the system.
- In my own system I gravitate to Captains (a fighter path) and Mystics (typically interdictors).
- In 3e/5e I tend towards Bards and Warlocks. The bards in both cases leaning very martial in theme (in 3e my preferred instrument was "shouting orders") with deliberately subtle buffing spells that could almost just be "charismatic inspiration" instead of magic. College of Swords is my goto for 5e.
My warlocks by contrast generally go Celestial pact (5e) or equivalent (3e) with a focus on utility magic (Eldritch Blast with the damage boosting invocation is the only attack spell you'll really need) for the "lateral solutions" approach to problems and Celestial to be able to provide healing (and not too shabby healing either provided you can get at least one short rest in per day).
- In 4E I skew heavily towards Warlord (basically the 3e/5e Bards are the closest you can get to a 4E Warlord) and Wizard (specifically for their many non-combat at-will utility spells).
One final bit of trivia for character choices; unless the table is biased against it, my overt spellcasters tend to be female (my "Bardlord" builds being a major exception) while my warrior-types are always male. I just find the notion of "magic as equalizer" and the concept of the "sacred feminine" to be more in line with myth and legend than an already physically more powerful male having magic on top (I also tend to self-gimp male casters; physically weak, elderly, has an unpleasant aura about them, playing up the feared and hated angle for warlocks especially, etc.).
Since my default tendency is to game in the third person (i.e. "Jon does this" or "Kalla says that") the female casters don't generally result in any more weirdness than writing about a female character in a story.
Hmmm, depends on edition. Ad&d, usually fighter or magic-user. 2e, a gish or magic-using class. 3e, just about anything, but gishes were my favorite. 5e, just about anything, but this edition finally seems to get monk right, so I've played a few of those to go with my gishes (my favorite so far has been a fighter1/abjurer x. Was the king of Nope, with a high AC, shield spell, extra hp via class feature, counterspell, etc. I could tank the big badguy and drop fireballs on his minions. Lots of fun!).
Wizards, Sorcerors, Rangers, Bards, Fighters, in that order. Once in a great while Thieves, or Clerics.
WOTC editions? Fighters. Clerics (speaking 4E here, 3E and 5E leave me feeling..ehh)
T/OSR editions- completely depends on the edition and how it's house-ruled (or not).
But if I have my druthers I'd rather play something without classes, ala RQ- where I prefer martial types with a hint of spirit magic/items to enhance my weapons/prowess.
Human fighter (or Fighter subclass), or human magic-user (or magic-user subclass). If not one of those, maybe a human druid.
I have been eyeing up the Swashbuckler. It looks pretty sweet.
Paladin, if available. If not, then a Fighter or Cleric who acts like a Paladin.
Quote from: Trinculoisdead on December 10, 2020, 12:55:37 AM
Quote from: consolcwby on December 10, 2020, 12:15:00 AM
I usually liked to play an Elf Illusionist or 1e Assassin, but for some reason, I am always FORCED to play as a Ranger. This is why I hate the Ranger class, and why I started GMing full time.
If I was to play now, I'd play ANYTHING but a Ranger! >:(
Are rangers so essential that your group MUST have one?
I asked that once, and all but one said: "No, but WE want one. We just don't want to PLAY one."
And then they pick on me... >:(
I usually DM but when I'm a player I prefer fighting classes or sub classes.
So far I've been scientist, wizard, barbarian and vampire/spy.
If there's anything I'd gladly play in D&D like style - that's pact based warlock because pact magic <3
I'm playing a monk at the moment. But I usually roll randomly, so I'll get to play most classes eventually.
Bard. I love the Jack-of-all-Trades aspect of them.
Fighters.
Since D&D 3e, a lot of nonsense that doesn't profit Fighters as AD&D did.
When they made all classes equal in combat, they destroyed the Fighter.
Quote from: Theory of Games on December 11, 2020, 09:02:57 PM
Fighters.
Since D&D 3e, a lot of nonsense that doesn't profit Fighters as AD&D did.
When they made all classes equal in combat, they destroyed the Fighter.
I feel you. I hate it when designers make all classes equal to the specialists in the name of "balance" or "equality." Like in World of Warcraft where my mage glass cannon became all glass and no cannon. One of the reasons I quit.
I default to cleric when playing with a new group, no one backstabs the healer. :-)
Quote from: Theory of Games on December 11, 2020, 09:02:57 PM
Fighters.
Likewise.
QuoteSince D&D 3e, a lot of nonsense that doesn't profit Fighters as AD&D did.
Yet another reason to play AD&D1e.
Quote from: Mishihari on December 11, 2020, 09:36:19 PMI hate it when designers make all classes equal to the specialists in the name of "balance" or "equality."
The rot set in early by removing all distinction between the sexes. Now with Tasha's they've done their best to remove all distinction between races. I fully expect classes to be next.
Quote from: mightybrain on December 12, 2020, 06:43:22 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on December 11, 2020, 09:36:19 PMI hate it when designers make all classes equal to the specialists in the name of "balance" or "equality."
The rot set in early by removing all distinction between the sexes. Now with Tasha's they've done their best to remove all distinction between races. I fully expect classes to be next.
Maybe D&D 6E will have a single "Adventurer" class? They'll allow Pcs to change their sex after a long rest; and all Pcs will be spellcasters, with magic swords and colorful hair.
Quote from: Razor 007 on December 12, 2020, 04:43:07 PM
Maybe D&D 6E will have a single "Adventurer" class?
RuneQuest has no classes, just skills, nor any game-mechanics distinction between genders, races, etc. It was written in 1978, the larger 3rd edition in 1984. Notice the cover art.
AD&D1e in 1978 made no game-mechanical distinction between genders for humans save for limiting female Strength, a rule widely-ignored, and no distinctions between human races, nor sexualities. Notice here the Foreword by Gygax. Traveller in 1977 likewise made no such distinctions, and made a point of saying so.
Perhaps in time modern roleplaying games will become as inclusive as were those forty years ago.
Thieves that can fight (so not D&D thieves).
Fighter (battle master) in D&D. When I get to play GURPS, either a two handed sword weapon master, or a sword+shield+spear weapon master. So fighters for me as well.
Quote from: mightybrain on December 12, 2020, 06:43:22 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on December 11, 2020, 09:36:19 PMI hate it when designers make all classes equal to the specialists in the name of "balance" or "equality."
The rot set in early by removing all distinction between the sexes. Now with Tasha's they've done their best to remove all distinction between races. I fully expect classes to be next.
That seems to me to sort of having happened to a degree, fighters and barbarians have abilities that border on the magical. The ranger is much more overtly mystic powered. The mages are MUCH tougher to kill than they were back in the good/bad old days.
Well linking barbarian to shamanistic/totemic ideals is quite good idea to make a claim he should not be just a subclass of fighter
usually thief or fighter, maybe mage/thief or fighter/thief
in skill based games (RQ, etc.) it would mostly be the scout type (ranger or fighter/thief sort), or occasionally a mage
very rarely play a cleric...although I usually have a lot of fun with them when I do.
While I've recently run class & level games, I don't tend to play them anymore. In skill-based games, I tend to go for either face-types or tech support roles with combat skills being second- or third-rate compared to most of the group. I tend to avoid vehicle-based characters in most games though, despite my love of techie characters, and hackers/netrunners/deckers have never appealed to me. If it's more of a fantasy game (like WFRP), I tend to enjoy priests (including, but not limited to, warrior priests) but rarely wizards.
Quote from: moonsweeper on December 13, 2020, 11:58:28 PM
usually thief or fighter, maybe mage/thief or fighter/thief
in skill based games (RQ, etc.) it would mostly be the scout type (ranger or fighter/thief sort), or occasionally a mage
very rarely play a cleric...although I usually have a lot of fun with them when I do.
With a d8 hit die, a mace for their face, and healing magic; Cleric is a well rounded class. That is, until the other people at the table expect your character to heal one of their characters every turn in combat. Nope, sorry. Maybe if they are about to drop?
A Cleric can be half fighter, plus magic. If I truly get to play out a balance of the two parts, then I like playing Cleric. There is ample room to RP a Cleric, too.
Play an evil cleric. Works every time. ;)
Quote from: Chainsaw on December 15, 2020, 07:02:32 AM
Play an evil cleric. Works every time. ;)
Plus, you get to scream "crushed skulls and souls for my Lord Arioch!".
Quote from: Pat on December 15, 2020, 07:15:24 AM
Quote from: Chainsaw on December 15, 2020, 07:02:32 AM
Play an evil cleric. Works every time. ;)
Plus, you get to scream "crushed skulls and souls for my Lord Arioch!".
Haha! Exactly!
Invariably? I end up playing the Cleric.
I tend toward magic-using classes because I see more play potential over the long run with them. 8)
Quote from: consolcwby on December 10, 2020, 11:52:07 PM
Quote from: Trinculoisdead on December 10, 2020, 12:55:37 AM
Quote from: consolcwby on December 10, 2020, 12:15:00 AM
I usually liked to play an Elf Illusionist or 1e Assassin, but for some reason, I am always FORCED to play as a Ranger. This is why I hate the Ranger class, and why I started GMing full time.
If I was to play now, I'd play ANYTHING but a Ranger! >:(
Are rangers so essential that your group MUST have one?
I asked that once, and all but one said: "No, but WE want one. We just don't want to PLAY one."
And then they pick on me... >:(
I don't have any strong preferences in character class (for systems that have one). I usually pick last, and I'm happy to pick a character that fits well with the rest of the group.
I'd be happy to play a ranger once, but if the group were to *demand* that I always play a ranger - I'd rebel. Stick up for yourself, consolcwby!
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 12, 2020, 05:19:03 PM
RuneQuest has no classes, just skills, nor any game-mechanics distinction between genders, races, etc.
It did, however, have a distinction between male and female snakes. And dryads were female only and could only reproduce by interbreeding with elves.
And although it didn't have classes, it did have guilds which played a similar role in steering a character along a particular path.
Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 03:45:43 PM
Quote from: consolcwby on December 10, 2020, 11:52:07 PM
Quote from: Trinculoisdead on December 10, 2020, 12:55:37 AM
Quote from: consolcwby on December 10, 2020, 12:15:00 AM
I usually liked to play an Elf Illusionist or 1e Assassin, but for some reason, I am always FORCED to play as a Ranger. This is why I hate the Ranger class, and why I started GMing full time.
If I was to play now, I'd play ANYTHING but a Ranger! >:(
Are rangers so essential that your group MUST have one?
I asked that once, and all but one said: "No, but WE want one. We just don't want to PLAY one."
And then they pick on me... >:(
I don't have any strong preferences in character class (for systems that have one). I usually pick last, and I'm happy to pick a character that fits well with the rest of the group.
I'd be happy to play a ranger once, but if the group were to *demand* that I always play a ranger - I'd rebel. Stick up for yourself, consolcwby!
Mr. Kim,
LOL - THAT happened over 30 years ago! and, fyi I am always sticking up for myself. I am a one-man army, armed with books, my brain, and the sword-of-Damocles hanging over my head!
I also have the work I've been hammering on, namely - a new system I call a WARPLAYING GAME.
You see? I'm insane after all! 8)