What is your favourite character type, (prof, class etc) And why?

[Sacrosanct]

Classes that have ties to animals. So druids and rangers with pets. Second to that are knightly fighters.

 

[JConstantine]

I try to play a variety of things so as to not typecast myself and stretch the roleplay muscles, but I'll admit I'm always drawn to the spooky options (edge optional). Necromancer, warlock, death knight, occultist; if it deals with the supernatural or dark forces, I'm a sucker for it.

Conversely, if it's designed to fight those same forces - paladins, witch hunters, etc. - that's also appealing. Ah, the duality of man.

 

[Ulfgeir]

I tend to prefer characters with lots of skills. Like sneaky thieves/bards or other support-characters.

 

[CleverNickName]

In fantasy RPGs, I prefer to play elf arcanists of some sort...usually a wizard or a warlock. I like mages who also know how to use martial weapons--you know, classic Sword & Sorcery. It's iconic for a reason.

In sci-fi games, I like to play psions (or psychs, mentalists, whatever the word for "person with psionic powers" is in that particular game franchise). Weirdly, I don't much care for psions outside of sci-fi settings...but in the vacuum of space, nobody can hear you complain about power points.

In eldritch horror RPGs, I like to play the role of the gritty, washed-up Investigator. Maybe a private eye, or a retired soldier, or a disgraced police officer--you know the type. I prefer to play as someone with sharp eyes, a revolver, and a terrible past.

And in weird west RPGs, I usually go for the "new preacher in town" character--the game's equivalent of a cleric or warlock who is trying to get to the bottom of whatever Weirdness is going on in this town, and genuinely wants to save these good peoples' souls.

 

[1QD]

My Usual Archetypes in Fantasy RPGs

• Paladins & Holy Clerics
• Necromancers and Death Clerics
• Storm & Weather Druids/Clerics/Shamans
• Arcane Rogues/Tricksters

In hindsight, I wonder how much of this came from Diablo 2, when I commonly played Paladins, Necromancers, and Druids. Even when I play World of Warcraft, my favorite classes are the original "hybrid" classes: Paladins, Shamans, and Druids.

Yes to diablo 2!!!

Back in the day, I got a brief taste of AD&D 1E before learning how to play and run D&D from the Moldvay/Cook B/X sets. Although I now appreciate the lessons I learned from B/X, AD&D gave me a lasting preference for games with a wealth of options in character creation. This was just as well, since almost everybody I knew and played with back then preferred “Advanced” to “Basic”.

AD&D had a fair number of race and class options even if you stuck with just the PHB, and many more if the DM allowed Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, or Dragon magazine “NPC” classes. We never formally banned any of the UA races and classes, but we tacitly understood that they were not really viable for our play style (UA barbarians can’t use magic items or associate with spellcasters? UA cavaliers must charge deadly foes and never retreat? LOL no ). I now wish we had used OA too, but somehow no one was really interested at the time.

It always seemed strange to me that given so many options, most people in my old AD&D group seemed to pick one or two character concepts and stick with them no matter what. One guy always played a female elf mage, another guy always played dual-wielding dark elf rangers and other overpowered “monster” types, etc. We always had plenty of warriors and spellcasters, but often I played a cleric or druid because no one else wanted to be the medic. I was the only one in our group who ever played a paladin, a dwarf (classic mountain dwarf axe fighter) or a gnome (surface gnome illusionist-thief). No one ever played a halfling, half-orc, assassin, monk, or that crazy 1E bard.

This may be armchair psychoanalysis, but to me it seemed that many people in my group built characters that appealed to their vanity or represented a particular teenage power fantasy. This might explain the popularity of humans and elves (tall and “hot”), and the unpopularity of “shorties” (dwarves etc), ugly and stupid types (half-orcs & gully dwarves), and religious classes.

I always wanted to try out new character options, and would have tried even more if our group had stayed together (we all graduated from school and moved away). So I never really developed strong favorites, although I did enjoy multi-class elves and/or wilderness themed classes like druids and rangers.

I am keen to try out some of the options that have appeared in newer editions of the game, such as sorcerers and warlocks, although it is a bit harder to get excited about stuff that does not quite feel like “classic” D&D to me (Dark Sun, Eberron, dragonborn, goliaths, psionics, gunpowder or steampunk stuff). Genasi and tieflings are a bit controversial with some grognards and OSR fans, but to me geniekin and half-demons seem like they could have fit just as well into the gonzo campaigns of the 70’s and 80’s as they do into modern games.

Interesting insite.....you not only roleplay but observe as well.

 

[1QD]

Spies, equal parts face and skill master. I prefer to drive change in the game/setting through obfuscation and plots, to outright stated intention. Political intrigue is my favorite part of RPGs with an emphasis on social and exploration play.

So would protecting a timeline appeal to you?

 

[Knaves Quill]

I love the archtype of a gish. A spellsword is such a strong image in fiction and feels great/useful to play in TTRPGs.

I also have a soft spot for the whimpy but smart character; be it wizard, professor type, or quirky inventor, in any setting. They're loads of fun to play as and using brains and wit to overcome physical deficiencies is nice to see play out.

 

[Tonguez]

I like using skills to circumvent combat -stealth, trickery, fast talk and explosions - so whatever class facilitates that whether frivolity of a gnome prankster or the dour seriousness of a shadowed assassin. Its the concept thats important, not the class

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It always seemed strange to me that given so many options, most people in my old AD&D group seemed to pick one or two character concepts and stick with them no matter what. One guy always played a female elf mage, another guy always played dual-wielding dark elf rangers and other overpowered “monster” types, etc. We always had plenty of warriors and spellcasters, but often I played a cleric or druid because no one else wanted to be the medic. I was the only one in our group who ever played a paladin, a dwarf (classic mountain dwarf axe fighter) or a gnome (surface gnome illusionist-thief). No one ever played a halfling, half-orc, assassin, monk, or that crazy 1E bard.

One of the guys I gamed with the longest played a human wizard 90+% of the time I played D&D with him. From AD&D to 3.5Ed, his PCs spell lists were identical. His 4Ed wizard was a departure- he was an elemental specialist.

IOW, he’s a real-world version of Brian Montgomery VanHoose from Knights of the Dinner Table, albeit not a 1-for-1 map. (The comic character isn’t based on him; my friend just seems to be an archetype within the hobby.)

 

[1QD]

I like using skills to circumvent combat -stealth, trickery, fast talk and explosions - so whatever class facilitates that whether frivolity of a gnome prankster or the dour seriousness of a shadowed assassin. Its the concept thats important, not the class

Interesting, oddly enough my system does not have thieves for pretty much the same reasoning. They pretty much boil down to roles, not professions. That said nearly any profession could be a thief, but any thief could not be any profession. The prof of your choice would help express which methods the character used to be thief like. So a mystic would be a great base, already possessing many thief like abilities. A fallen knight however, might be the one running a thieves guild. Room for both, and interpretation.