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.