D&D 4E In 4e, why do you play the Race/Class you play?

[Mad Hamish]

Generally I try and pick a character late in the party development so that we have all the roles filled reasonably well.

I'll commonly figure out characters for each role before making a decision and I reasonably commonly have a couple of different strikers for ranged or melee sitting around as options.

As yet the only long term character I've played in 4th ed is an elven archer ranger/Battlefield Archer/Demigod (the party has just hit level 27) and we've got another couple of campaigns that will start when that one finishes. I went archer ranger because a) I like bows, b) the party was short on ranged options, I largely went elf because I like maneuverability

The characters I've got planned for the next campaigns are
goliath polearm fighter
Half Elf Ardent for a dark sun campaign

commonly I pick a race which is at least reasonably matched to the class, I'm likely to pick one with a stat mod for the main attack stat (or a human putting it there) but enough feat support or good racial abilities that fit the concept can make another one attractive.
Alternatively sometimes I just have a mental image of a character I want to play.

 

[Phat Lute]

Primarily the 4e Bard (no surprise there), followed by a Ranger / Rogue multiclass or just a Rogue, then Wizard. I briefly played a Ranger | Seeker hybrid that I loved and I've been tempted to return to that design. If I had to play a defender, though, it would be a Warden. I've been severely disappointed with the 4e Psionics classes.

• I like both themed characters and versatility, two things which would seem to contradict one another but I find usually results in a fun and interesting build. In terms of versatility, I find that I don't optimize for damage or anything like that, but I do like to optimize for a broad array of options. I guess it could be summed up as "utility belt characters with a gimmick."

• I like mobility characters. One of the things that always bothered me about earlier editions of D&D was the way that you could almost be assured of where you'd be standing in almost every encounter based on your class. I loved that original 4th Edition seemed to assume that everyone was moving tactically around the grid for the duration of the encounter.

• I like problem solving characters with big toolboxes... skills, rituals, flexible powers or powers that could have unconventional uses without offering an "I Win" button. I also like having those abilities available for use when they're needed (rather than, "I am the master of mental discipline and can move objects with my mind*! (*Once every five minutes, with a rest in between.))

• I like seeing things evolve and change with advancement: new tactics and ways of doing things, new abilities. (Hence another part of my disappointment with Psionics in 4e, since it seems the most effective way to play a Psion is to keep the same powers for 30 levels.)

• I like to have lots of options and freedom when building characters.

• I like having combat options balance with other combat options, and non-combat options with other non-combat options. I've come to expect that things go pear-shaped when you try to balance the two together.

• I seem to prefer ranged characters and/or swashbuckling characters and/or magic characters.

Looking at that list, I realize I had been waiting for about two and a half decades worth of D&D gaming for something that looked a lot like 4th Edition pre-Essentials, and saw it realized in publication for just three years.

Sorry for that digression. Just an observation, not looking to start anything.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I'm a person who mostly DMs and a player who mostly likes to try different things.

When I am looking at a character, I'm usually willing to play nearly everything, so I pick late and try to fill a hole. Luckily in 4E, even being "stuck" with the leader role allows several vastly different ways of doing that. So I can play msot things, though I will avoid controllers the most, and as I beleive it is the easiest class to ignroe, that is not a problem.

With races, human is always a strong choice, but many races attract me and let me play different things. I do not optimize, but I like to be effective and that does limit my choices. I like the stat bonuses to help at least a bit, and the racial powers and feats should add to the character class.

So I like to go for different things, and luckily D&D accomodates that quite well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just wanted to clarify something: I'm happy with my Dwarf Starlock/Rgr, and I'm not pissed off at the system on that level. I was merely describing the process as to how I got what I wound up playing.

I had other PC concepts in mind, however, and had the campaign not been limited to PHB1, I might have played something else, like:

Hellbox: A warforged made by devils to be a sentient gateway to Hell, an ambulatory LeMarchand Box. Only thing is, he rejected his makers' plans, and now actively fights against their diabolical designs.

Hybrid Battlemind/Infernal Pact Warlock


SKILLS:

Arcana
Athletics
Intimidate

Power Points: 2

LVL 1 POWERS:

Eldritch Blast (W)
Iron Fist (B) (Augmentable)
Bull's Strength (B) (Augmentable)
Flames of Phlegethos (W)

But...no Psionics, no Warforged, so no Hellbox.

 

[lutecius]

I usually play cha-based, non-bookish casters but I dislike 4e's "charismatic" races, mostly for aesthetic reasons, ironically. So I ended up with eladrin wizard, for the cool racial power and because it's an obvious choice stat-wise.

I haven't played much 4e though, and don't have the latest options, but the floating bonus seem to open up new possibilities and I'll probably try other classes, probably warlock or sorcerer if I go Essentials.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Ryk Tavishny - halfling beastmaster ranger - because it's Eberron, and a Talenta needs a dinosaur (incidentally, there is a feat that lets you use your beast companion as a mount - but I haven't taken it yet).

Chizz - halforc ranger/ rogue - for purely mechanical reasons. Exploring the cheese (chizz) of finding ways to get a ranger and a rogue attack in each round, so as to score both types of bonus damage.

Grigo Stickbug - gnome illusionist wizard - for RP reasons, though the mechanical fit is solid. The personality came first, the race and class were what fit it.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I mostly DM, but I have had the chance to play a few characters.

Human Fighter from 1st to 5th (died when party TPK'd when I missed a session). Sword and Board specced; this was my first character for 4E, and was nasty hard to move away from.

Human Taclord from 2nd-4th (also played a version of him from 2-3 at Gen Con for their big tourney). My favorite class is probably warlord and my favorite warlords are Taclords. My turn basically consisted of moving to flank and having someone else attack. Except for nova turns, in which solos or elites got blown up (lead the attack with a luckblade ftw!). Campaign ended due to group wanting to play a different game for awhile.

Half-Elven Starlock from 3rd to 5th. Based off Luna Lovegood from Harry Potter. Really fun to play, annoying enough to hit or lockdown that she was basically ignored and allowed to freely ruin peoples days. Campaign ended when the party turned on itself (ok, so I turned on the assassin in our party for selling us out).

Human Cleric from 1-5. I picked this class because we only had 3 players, it was a skype game without maptools, and everyone else was new to 4E. I figured Laser cleric could keep most people alive, and he did. I dropped out of game when they switched game days.

So, in general, 3 out of 4 characters have been human. Probably because humans are just really, really flexible and have great support.

 

[fba827]

I always start with a concept (based on the campaign setting) and a class (something I'm interesting in trying out).

Only after I've fleshed out concept and class, do I start to get into race.

I look at races that have a stat bonus to either the class' primary stat or secondary stat.

Also, if my concept is more "normal person thrust into unsual circumstance" type concept, then it's the more typical races like humans, elves, etc. that I look at. Or, if I'm trying to a more "unique chosen one" type concept, i veer towards the more unique races.

 

[erleni]

First 4ed character was a Paladin, because my first character in any new RPG is the most paladin-esque. Race was Dragonborn because I wanted to try something new on that side and because of the good stat match. Campaign on hild (at level 19).

Second one is a Revenant Assassin. Loved the race since the first moment I read the description. Unfortunately stat-wise there was no match until the assassin came out and then I fell in love again with the class too.
2 campaigns ongoing (one at level 28 and one at level 16).

 

[Caragaran]

Baa'lek Tiefling Rouge.

I chose Teifling because I wanted that a haunted personality that had to fight the temptation to join the dark side. I choose rogue because his back story is about him escaping enslavement to goblins during which terrible rituals were used on him leaving magical scarring on his back. Though he is unaware of it he sold his soul to an Arch devil to save the city he used to live in. His soul was taken in this previous life but before he went to hell he created a permannent but weak simalcrum of his self (my current charecter who is programmed to survive until his soul can return from hell) so I have a demonic imp(my wizard familiar) following him around who constantly tries to kill him, while I hunt for the key to control/destroy the imp this will ultimately lead him to free his soul and of course cause an emnity with the devil

The story of the charecter is what is most important and in this case the race fitted perfectly the class was just a choice for a surviver until he gets his soul back and becomes a Wizard.(which fits the party as we lack a controller or any AOE damage)

So plot and story normally determine my charecter, sometimes my charecter (if needed to complete party mechanics) will insipre a story.