Let’s Talk RPG #1 “Character Classes”

Let's talk about Character Classes today. Give us the who, what, when, where, and why you pick the classes you play. You can share with us pictures of characters you play, as long as they are not copyrighted.

13 Responses to Let’s Talk RPG #1 “Character Classes”

  1. Perigros says:

    I always go with the quick and agile characters. In my opinion, speed and agility are vastly superior to full on strength, because you can dodge your opponent’s blows much more easily, therefore eliminating all importance of their strength. Since there is no tiring out in video games, one can dodge just as well quickly as they can slower. Furthermore, speed means more blows thrown, which increases the chances of hitting the target. Even if they aren’t quite as strong, it adds up over time. Finally, there is something much more engaging about flipping around the screen and using the environment to its fullest. I guess for me, speed has always seemed a much more viable option, regardless of what game one may be discussing.

  2. Jadebrain says:

    (C&P’ed from a post I made in the forums a while back)

    I tend to play mostly fighter types. They’re simple in both roleplay and mechanics yet diverse enough to cover a wide variety of fighting styles and cosmetic options. The latter point explains itself in terms of how objectively important it is, but roleplaying ease is more subjective, and as such more important in my case. By “Roleplaying Ease,” I’m not necessarily talking about making simpleton-type characters, but rather, making characters where it’s easy to roleplay in terms of making decisions that your character would realistically make.

    What I’m talking about is basically the reason for which I NEVER play Tactical/Resourceful/Insightful Warlords in DnD 4e. For those of you who don’t know, a Warlord in DnD 4e is basically a leader who leads his/her allies through strategy and inspiration – basically a field general. I am not good at all when it comes to strategy and tactics (I tried reading Sun Tzu’s Art of War to fix this, and it didn’t help). But whenever I see anyone play a Warlord or other “smart” character, it’s assumed that because the character is “smart,” the player will make his/her character do “smart” things during roleplay.

    The problem with this assumption is that the way the character is roleplayed in this regard depends on the player’s abilities, not the abilities of the character itself. The fact that your character has an 18 (pretty high for a starting score in DnD) or so in Intelligence or Wisdom or whatever has no reflection on your ability as a player to emulate those abilities for yourself, and if you as a player are not “smart,” you can’t think of doing the same things that a “smart” person would reasonably think to do, and if you can’t think of doing a particular thing, your character will not be able to decide to do it.

    Sorry for the tangent. My point is, I’m not “smart” in terms of my ability to make wise decisions, and that’s why I make characters that rely more on raw power than strategy; hence, fighter-types.

  3. TOOL says:

    Im not exactly sure how to answer but I guess I would say I am more of a Warrior Rogue type charater player. I enjoy using stong and tough characters who can duke it out up close, have the ability if needed for short range to long range attacks. I dont like to get too complicated in magic type or special clothing items. If I find anything that you could wear thats magical its merely by scavenging and will disguard it if I find anything better. I like to sneak a lil but its more fun to go all guns blazing per say. I recently played a game where I was kinda like my own blacksmith so I was able to make some bad stuff and keep it up. That was interesting. Yeah so scavenger, brawler, ranger type whatever.

  4. Renxin says:

    I’m one of those types that’s cool with playing almost anything. I do have some preferences though. The first is that there isn’t too much complication when it comes to playing that class (this applies to rp races as well). If, for example, casting spells in this class takes an uber amount of supplies, gear, and time, then it’s not really worth it. I also want to have a little bit of flexibility in my in-game abilities. Once you run out of spell components or ammo do you just wait around? Um…no. And if I have the ability to heal myself and others, so much the better.

    For these reasons I typically play clerics (or similarly powered classes). It offers a good balance of outright strength, wisdom/intelligence, and magic. I also like to play rangers because they’re like clerics with the woods on their side!

  5. Herr D says:

    These days playing is a rare thing–not nearly enough time. But I have successfully played fighters (human, elf,) various versions of enchanted humans, insane / possessed mages, mad scientists, rogues, halflings, one gnome, one bard, and a couple of cyborg-thieves. To date, I have never played without being surprised about mismatches. There’s usually one player who can’t act like the leader / tactician / healer / paladin etc. that they’ve chosen to be–it’s just not in them. I’m blessed with an inner diversity that allows me to overshadow lackings of my own with flavor that I DO have. I’m the only one I’ve met who actually sang as a bard. I’m the only one I know IRL who actually spoke another human language in-character. I’m the only one I know who ever made more money as a scavenger than the thief of the party did–the list goes on. I miss it quite a bit.

  6. Quezz says:

    I like cleric/fighters and any combination of divine or innate magic. Most fun I had was playing a sorcerer/bard. I’m a person who likes to dabble, so I tend to play dabblers myself. That and these combinations allow for very interesting personalities and backstories.

  7. NateThePrate says:

    At the risk of sounding like The Most Interesting Man in the World:
    I don’t often play RPG games, board or electronic, but when I do, I play the heavy classes. I’m a man of simple tastes, so I like to just wail on things with my mighty battleaxe or what-have-you until my enemies stop moving. I’m not big on strategy.

    Even in non-RPG’s, I tend to be the Tank of the team, wading into the thick of it and soaking up most of the damage (which – let me tell ya- isn’t a great strategy for say, L4D)

    In terms of alignments I will usually go for Neutral, so I can try the perks of both sides…

  8. Late to the adventure party… I always liked playing thieves because I like stealth ops. It fits my personality. At work, I’m the guy who gets things done off-to-the-side. You know I’m there, but you’re not quite sure how I get things done. Just be happy with the results.

    Problem was, my Dungeon Masters were outrageous SOBs. The type that would throw a party of five 1st-level characters against 20 skeletons, four bugbears, and a black dragon all at once. Yes, he really did that! What a flipping pr1ck… Suffice it to say, the only real joy that I had RPG’ing was creating the characters, painting the miniatures, and the opportunities that I had as a GM to imagine new worlds.

  9. Calvary_Red says:

    i don’t have a lot to add here. Generally i like to play Tank type characters that can take hits for their team. It feels kinda cool to block a big hit and then proceed to deal some damage back.

  10. barbario says:

    if its an option then human fighters. always a badass and always the leader.

  11. WillyPete says:

    Personally, I prefer the Character Classes (any of them) from “Progress Quest” {Feel free to Google, download it, and let it run… No actual playing needed!} 😉

  12. punkjay says:

    I usually pick thieves and my characters are usually the comic releif in the party. One of my characters even drank himself into a stuper and spent the intire fight unconcios

  13. Prime Paladin says:

    I always go with the quick and agile characters. In my opinion, speed and agility are vastly superior to full on strength, because you can dodge your opponent’s blows much more easily, therefore eliminating all importance of their strength.

    Hey there, I’m a history major and I see this A LOT. Truth is, ninjas (who were vastly overrated and mainly preformed reconnaissance , espionage and weren’t always killers, and when they were they preformed unskilled, cowardly backstabs or poisonings) and the hashish-in, are the only completely stealth/agility based fighters in history and for good reason, while the vast majority of successful warriors were heavy based (samurai, knights, spartans). This is because what you say works in theory, but not in actuality. Strength usually also results in endurance, and agility also usually results in being weaker (this isn’t an assumption, it’s just observed fact) and thusly, when an agility based warrior lands a strike, it usually is reduced to a deflection/scratch due to the strength warriors armor/natural resistance. Whereas when a strength based warrior lands a hit (which no matter how much you train, humans can never get fast enough to avoid every attack) which he eventually will, the agility warrior will be either killed, or severely injured. Weapons matter to an extent, armored foes require blunt/heavy weapons to hurt due to their plate/chain armor which renders almost all bladed weapons (like ninja swords etc.) useless. Thing about maces and heavy weapons, heavy warriors are the ones equipped with them due to agile warriors not able to wield them effectively. Only real threat is well aimed, well focused hits to weak areas (as in dagger to the pits or eyes) but such an opportunity is very rare and would require multiple allies on one heavy to allow such an opportunity to present itself (for example, if a knight wasn’t downed by bow/crossbow bolt, concussion or broken limb, or a heavy axe/blunt sword/poleweapon cut [european swords tended to be a good bit more blunt then you’d think but it made it good for getting through most armor] they could only be downed agility wise by being hooked down from their horse by a pikemen and [given he isn’t wearing armor cumbersome enough for him not to continue on foot and you can close the distance]an agility warrior stabbing them in an unprotected spot.) And bows are troublesome too, but nearly everyone can use them, they take a good amount of strength to pull (at least the long bows), the reload time is killer, accuracy is an issue, if you run out you are usually left with a very low-profile side-arm, and lastly, you take in the x-factor of most civilizations (at least western ones) saw ranged fighters as cowardly. All in all, stealth/agility based play in most games is very viable (if not the only viable option) because most games are too unrealistic and/or pander to that stealth/agility demographic (which is unfortunately becoming quite big), so nothing against that. It’s just don’t let what you can do and what playstyles you can preform in video games prevent you from realizing the ones that actually worked in real life.

    Tl;dr: Agility is incredibly overrated
    Oh yeah, I always play the paladin/knight class in games. I play them in just about every game, except for the ones where tanking is broken and or non existant and i’m forced to go heavy into damage .