Do you have a preferred class that you play?

[Whisper-Kitten]

I tend to mix it up. If I'm playing a new system I will gravitate towards options that are new-to-me either in whole or in part. When playing an existing system where I've done most of the options I will often pick last and fill in gaps in the party, or if someone else wants to pick last I'll do an option I haven't played in a campaign for good chunk of time. (Playing a class in a one-shot doesn't invalidate it.)

That said, I'm one of the talkers-to-others in my group, so in systems like D&D where certain choices have mechanical support for how I like to play, those get tiebreaker votes when all else is equal.

Oh, and I stay away from classes that don't match the GM's style. For example I played D&D 5e with one excellent DM for years but once the action was started it was almost always breakneck with no chances for a short rest. I didn't play a Monk or Warlock in their games, and stayed away from subclass choices like Battlemaster for Fighter. Mind you, this is staying away from disadvantaged classes, not heading for advantaged classes. He had a tendency to do short adventuring days (1-3 encounters max), last character I played with him was a rogue, even though a caster type would have advantage. I'm not looking to be the most powerful, I'm just looking not to put mechanical barriers in my way because of GM style not matching designer expectations.

I had a gm like that to. Every fight was always an epic fight. We had to have some discussions with him.

 

[Incenjucar]

I mix it up. I'll play anything that gives me interesting decisions to make during play. Not a fan of characters who just repeat the same actions round after round, combat after combat. I will multiclass my way out of a rut if needbe to mix things up.

 

[Blue]

I had a gm like that to. Every fight was always an epic fight. We had to have some discussions with him.

Ours wasn't quite that bad, but it would be things like "okay, the first battle has alerted the temple, and they are now searching for intruders."

But I did have a talk with him and he agreed to try "short rests are 5 minutes, max twice a day". I tried a warlock, but that particular campaign broke down in three sessions because two of the players (a couple) were moving out of state. This was an in-person game, pre-pandemic. He hasn't done that short rest rule again, he wasn't particularly happy with it. So I guess it's good that campaign ended.

 

[Desdichado]

I love the archetype of the ranger. Perhaps because I love the archetype, I've rarely been happy with any specific implementation of it in decades. I used to like the old Midnight Wildlander class from 3e as my preferred alt.ranger. One of my favorite characters, from my 1-23 level Age of Worms run, was archetypally a ranger, but in reality he had levels of Barbarian, Ranger, and the Reachrunner prestige class, which was a shifter specific class from Races of Eberron, I think. I may have even dipped into some other prestige class before I was done, I don't remember.

I don't really play a ton of 5e, and I don't know it very well, but the ranger in particular seems to have been done dirty. Other than ranger, other fighter-adjacent classes are my favorite, or fighter/rogue adjacent classes, like some kind of duelist or swashbuckler. Right now I'm playing a 5e sorcerer, which is pretty different for me, but I joined an already started campaign, so I had to look at what was missing, and there wasn't much arcane magic in the group. Wasn't any, in fact. It's fine. I'm having a good time, but not because I love the class.

 

[Fenris-77]

When I'm fresh to a system I prefer fighter and thief type characters. Digging right in to the spells or whatever always seems like too much cognitive overhead for my first few kicks at the can. I'm far more likely to play a wizard after I'm comfy with the system.

 

[Retreater]

In OSR-style games, I like thieves/rogues to sneak and solve problems/traps/secret doors. In more modern games (3e and up) they're just DPS classes, so I'm not drawn to them.
I guess in modern games I like playing clerics.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I don't play much... in 5E I played Fighter the most. A handful of Clerics and when I felt spicy I would pick Sorcerer. Sorcerers are quite fun.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Not really.

I generally come up with a concept and then fit the class to that. So one of my longest-played classed character I'd describe as a very drow-focused drow. She was a Bard (with some Assassin). Next in played length would have been my 50-50 mix of fighter/wizard.

Currently I've got a pure wizard, a pure fighter and a pure cleric I'm playing in PFS.

It's probably easier to say that I don't generally play fighter-like classes that are not fighters -- barbarians, swashbucklers, that sort of thing. No strong reason, just a general feeling that these classes aren't much more than "fighter with a shtick" which may not be fair, but it feels like it to me.

 

[Duke_]

I lean towards support types and skill monkeys. Obviously, in D&D derivative games this inclines me towards bards, and that's furthered by the fact that I absolutely love music and can play a few instruments IRL.

When I finish my Daggerheart campaign, someone in the group wants to run Foundry's Ember setting. I already told the group that if we play 5.5e and not Foundry's Crucible system, I was probably going to roll a valor bard or a stars druid.

 

[Thierry-Advent]

Thief-illusionist.