Why do you play the class that you do?

[Madscientist]

I play RPG games mostly for story and exploration. So I replay them very rarely because after finishing them I already know the story and there are so many good games. When playing, the relationship between the main char and the party members are importent for me. On the other hand, I like to have optimized chars. I am not an absolute power games ( I dislike dumping stats or using broken machanics), but I do not make chars that are delibirately bad.That means:

 

- When I know what companions will be in the game, I look at which of them I like most and select a main char that fits best to such a party. Usually that means my main char has different class or talents then party members.

- Usually I end up being lawful good (if you can change alignment duing play). I do not take options that feel really evil to me. So in PoE1 I did never sacifice somebody to the pool or sacifice the baby. Sometimes I play evil chars, but only for game mechanics. I finished BG1+2 with an evil fighter/thief, but I chose this alignment only because I wanted to equip some items. He had max reputation and I could never play with evil chars in my party.

- When I try to role play, I think of a cool concept and then I try to optimize such a char, which often changes the concept a lot because often game mechanics and my idea of a cool char are different. So I am not really a good role player

 

- In PoE1 I played a kind wayfarer to get the best possible ending in the game. In PoE2 I want Eder, Aloth, Pellegina and Takehu in my party. For me this is a conflict because Pallagina and I are paladins. But I chose that it is OK if I am kind wayfarer/beckoner and she is 5 suns/fighter.

 

I have some biasses against some classes. But most of them come from DnD games, so PoE helped me to cure this.

- A long time I did not want to be a mage as main char. Very weak in early levels, godlike in later levels, but only after an eternity of pre buffing

- BG1 made me hate bards (jack of all trades, master of none)

 

Usually I always use a typical party (fighter, mage, priest, rogue) even if the game could be played with many other parties. Those thing in the brackets are concepts, not classes. so my "fighter" could be a paladin and my "priest" could be a druid for example.

[Bionick]

I always have two main characters in RPGs.

 

The first is usually some form of fighter-mage (in PoE2, a warlock). This character is a Nietzschesque power fantasy, and I play him as confident almost to the point of insanity, relentless, and generally defiant.

 

The second is more of an insertion of myself. This is usually just a somewhat ordinary human thief. Playing him means trying to avoid danger, find non-combat solutions to challenges, and always trying to seek a greater good. Even though this character is a thief, ironically, he avoids stealing, though he will lie if it serves a noble purpose.

[the_dog_days]

I never do self inserts, all-in paragon of good or evil, or all opposite of me characters. I make a character, try to fit them in the world in a way that makes sense, and then I play.

[CoconutRouter]

As a black guy obsessed with telepathic powers in fiction, cant bring myself to play anything other than Ocean Folk/ Cipher. Send help ;_;

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I try to run three characters I really enjoyed in PnP over a decade ago.

 

The first is a male Warrior (Mage) who wears heavy armor and uses big swords, not evil but aggressive and vindictive. Usually go with human because it's my introduction character and I find humans are usually the most balanced or neutral races to play both in terms of story and mechanics. Mechanics play a big role for his class selection, like my order of preference is gish class then martial/magic multiclass then the best martial class.

 

The second is a female warrior-priest of a war god with severe devotion to faith and arrogant, if There's a special race like tiefling I'll go with that. In most fantasy games there's been a priest option and mechanics don't play as much of a role as the warrior because of that.

 

Last is a rogue type character that uses magic and is a weird race like orlan or pale elf, not a good guy but the least violent of the three and most prone to a diplomatic solution. Mechanics play a large role in class selection as many classes can work with the stealthy assassin thing I go for, like in PoE I found Cipher worked better due to the rogue being kinda bad.

 

Afterwards I'll try classes that seem cool or I'm in the mood for, but for whatever reason I don't enjoy Rangers very much.

[wahmann1]

 

<everything MaxQuest said> 

Wow! I was going to respond, but you basically said everything I would have said, but better. I favor wizards, with rogues as a second choice.  

[Valmy]

As a black guy obsessed with telepathic powers in fiction, cant bring myself to play anything other than Ocean Folk/ Cipher. Send help ;_;

 

Valians are awesome and so are Ciphers. So I think this is a fine problem to have.

[Gromnir]

 

As a black guy obsessed with telepathic powers in fiction, cant bring myself to play anything other than Ocean Folk/ Cipher. Send help ;_;

 

Valians are awesome and so are Ciphers. So I think this is a fine problem to have.

 

regardless o' their awesomeness, ciphers did receive the most extra class-specific dialogues in poe.  thus there were/is a practical reason for choosing cipher.  'course obsidian admitted a few cipher dialogues were mistakes due in part to a misunderstanding resulting from numerous poe writers confusing cipher and watcher qualities.  even so, an orlan cipher were benefiting from the bestest number o' additional poe dialogue options resulting from class and race choices. more isn't always better, but...

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 8, 2018 by Gromnir

[MountainTiger]

I like dwarves, and I like casters, so usually some combination of those two. Most games seem to expect and make more sense for a conventionally heroic character, so that pushes the personality.

[George_Truman]

For some reason I try really hard to make characters look like their portraits. So usually I pick a portrait, and then I pick a class/build that can use in-game equipment that resembles the portrait. I also try and pick classes that go well with per/int/res so that I can have good speech options.

[Elkor_Alish]

The first video game which really changed my perception, expectation, and play style was Deus Ex. In the opening, some terrorists have taken over Ellis Island and as a newly recruited member of a UN peace keeping force, you are sent in to take them out. My first playthrough I killed them all with typical run and gun tactics. . .At the end, I was remonstrated for not trying harder to find a more humane solution. I had failed missions before, I had had my balls busted by NPCs in other games, but for some reason, that stuck. So I restarted, and Splinter Cell'ed my way through the game, knocking out every enemy. Tasers on the ones in tech suits, gas to immobolize agents then a bludgeon to the back of the head, tranq darts on the humans.

 

And it was really satisfying. In the process of sneaking around, I also found a lot of content you would never see any other way, Little conversations NPCs would have with each other, phone calls they would answer, behaviors they had been coded with. Sometimes I would see things really revealing and impactful. It allowed me to really immerse myself in the game and enjoy it. It was just hugely rewarding.

 

A couple years later, I played through the first Halo sneaking and using mostly just my gun butt except where I had company. And, as strange as that sounds, you can do it. 70% of the enemies are idle or literally asleep, even the huge behemoth guys go down in one hit if you slap them in the orange patch on their lower back. . .Until, of course, you reach the Flood, and then it becomes a whole different game. But even in Halo, there are lines of dialogue and interactions in the game which you would never see unless you go in quiet. But I also like to save everyone, I can't tell you how many times I reloaded on Legendary playing the same scenario over and over again until I would save every soldier in every scene. . .But as tedious, time consuming, and ultimately frustrating as the process was, the results were always deeply satisfying.

 

So that is what I like to play. Stealthy super heroes. Whether it is Deliverance Kingdom Come, or Fallout or the Elder Scrolls, my approach is pretty consistent. For games like this, which force you to play a determinate class, I almost always opt for offensive rogues (melee as opposed to gimmicks and gadgets), except where I find the experience lacking. I hated the rogues in POE and opted for a paladin instead. The sheer lack of skillpoints just made rogues completely unfun. I had to choose between infiltration and a variety of dialogue options, and in the end went with the latter because I like options and will always go with whatever approach gives me more of them. Rogues were just way too limited, ironically, as they are usually the class which relies most upon their abundant skills. Of course, when I read that the number of achievements one unlocked in the first game would result in options for the second installment, I went through a played a variety of classes and styles I would never have otherwise considered, and while some of it was fun, I can't really say I enjoyed any of it.

 

So yeah, hope that answers your question. This all seems really personal though, I can imagine it is very interesting to snyone other than myself :D

Edited March 8, 2018 by Elkor_Alish

[ShadySands]

I always tend towards mages or any kind of high damage caster regardless of anything else. In D&D it's warlock or sorcerer and in Mass Effect it's adept and in Pillars it's wizard or cipher. It gets iffy in non-magical/fantasy settings.

 

As far as characters go, I tend to just put myself into the games. 

[M4xw0lf]

I actually hardly ever play casters. In party-based DnD-style RPGs I always go for the primal 'take the biggest stick you can find and then smash them', if it comes down to fighting.

(Rare exceptions: PS:T, TToN, and KotOR II - caster classes/high Int and high Wisdom builds tend to get the deepest dialogue options there, and I absolutely want those).

At the same time I mostly play on the chaotic good side of the spectrum, so diplomacy comes before violence, and outsmarting and outtalking your opponent is always the goal. PoE's high-Int Barbarian is therefore maybe the most perfect fit of a player character for me, ever.

I always wanted the cipher-specific dialogue, though, and even if there isn't any in PoE2, I'm rather convicted that Barb/Cipher will be my spirit animal preferred class combo... close combat with additional psychic powers also has a nice Jedi feel to it, now that I think about it. :D

[omgFIREBALLS]

Because it functions well with pumped "conversation" stats, so usually tanks that can dump might and dex for int and resolve while keeping perception high enough that I can buff it up if I really need it. I don't subscribe to con being a dump stat for anyone.

 

I always play full merc so there are lots of ways I can vary the party even if the Watcher tends to be a paladin or fighter.

[VincentNZ]

I usually make a ranger first in every game, but in PoE I hit the companion bug within the first act and had to restart. I then made a barbarian, which is somethin I never played but I liked the AoE focus and the fact that in PoE every attribute was affecting every class in some way, because:

 

I just hate restricted and limited characters, which is why I always played Bard in BG, I just hate playing dumb characters or being "forced" to put my points in something else than intelligence to be effective. So in that context I really enjoyed the way PoE handled stuff, although I did not grasp the meta enough, nor do I really want to make the most effective character possible.

 

Companion choice is valid, though. I was not a huge fan of Durance, although the character had an appeal, but you can not really do without a priest. At the same time I liked Eder, so I would have been rather bummed out, had I made a tank myself. However if the game allows you to think out of the box and complete the game with different setups then this is also very nice.

 

I just hope in PoE 2 (having no idea of the mechanics yet) that the mechanics are more transparent than before.

 

That said, I really do not know if I would carry over my barbarian from a save that is 30 months old by now. Do we know what is being carried over with the savegame? Does it matter if I have not bought the White March? Do I miss out when starting new, like companion interaction through done quests?

[Frog Man]

 

Great question. For me I think I tend to look at the information that I already know about the game such as the companions that appeal to me the most and then choose my class / race to best fit in with the companions that I have decided to take.

 

For example, for my first playthrough I intend to take:

 

Maia Rua as a scout (Ranger Gunhawk / Rogue)

Aloth as a pure Wizard

Xoti as a pure Priest

Pallegina as a Herald (Paladin / Chanter)

 

And myself as a Crusader (Fighter Unbroken / Paladin Shieldbearer)

Hogging all the female romances for yourself eh pal?

[George_Truman]

What we all mean to say is that we pick rogues and barbarians because we like to play white dude assassins.

[SonicMage117]

My go-to class for all games with classes available have always been the stealthy, cunning type. I guess it's because I have always been catagorized as mysterious by people in real life.

 

Aside from that, sometimes it's smarter to be stealthy than to fight. It's better to use head than muscle. Using shadows to evade is always fun, finding traps ahead of time is even more rewarding - moreso if you can manage to predict where they will be set before npc's can think of where to deploy them.

 

Having 2 thief type characters in your party can be more advantagous than people reckon and this is likely if you are maining a thied to begin with (since these types of games have at least 1 thief type character as an important companion anyway).

 

But I wouldn't do more than 2 thieves in a party, personally.

[Elkor_Alish]

But I wouldn't do more than 2 thieves in a party, personally.

 

In IWD I would run a full party of thieves. It depends largely upon the system, but with mechanics like flanking and sneak attacks, in addition to being general skill monkies. . .Rogues are just the best.

[Silvestre]

In Pillars 1 I started the game with a rogue to get a feel of the world. And then I restarted with a priest, because it's a class I rarely use in other games. It was fun to use it, although Durance was also a priest, and not very good one at that up to my standards. Or having the same class in party seemed like a waste, and I never got to appreciate him very much. I don't usually make characters as ideal self inserts or anything, so this time I tried to follow the party reputations that fit Wael's choices and it turned out to be a fun unexpected way. As opposed to playing a "perfect playthrough" as I do in most games. Either choosing the best/good or worst/evil choices.

 

Before the White March I & II content, there was no rogue companion in the party. So I simply remade my first test character and had her around until I finally reached the part where I could recruit the Devil of Caroc. For Deadfire I am still looking at the multi-classes and searching for something that is a good compromise between what seems fitting to my character, and good mechanic-wise. Might be Priest/rogue if that's useful, or Cipher, who knows. By the end of the game, I used the AoE spells a lot so she was one of my main damage dealers with the obvious healing spells and buffs for the situations that called for it.

[Yosharian]

What we all mean to say is that we pick rogues and barbarians because we like to play white dude assassins.

 

> white

 

> dude

 

wat

[Yosharian]

I usually make a ranger first in every game, but in PoE I hit the companion bug within the first act and had to restart. I then made a barbarian, which is somethin I never played but I liked the AoE focus and the fact that in PoE every attribute was affecting every class in some way, because:

 

I just hate restricted and limited characters, which is why I always played Bard in BG, I just hate playing dumb characters or being "forced" to put my points in something else than intelligence to be effective. So in that context I really enjoyed the way PoE handled stuff, although I did not grasp the meta enough, nor do I really want to make the most effective character possible.

 

Companion choice is valid, though. I was not a huge fan of Durance, although the character had an appeal, but you can not really do without a priest. At the same time I liked Eder, so I would have been rather bummed out, had I made a tank myself. However if the game allows you to think out of the box and complete the game with different setups then this is also very nice.

 

I just hope in PoE 2 (having no idea of the mechanics yet) that the mechanics are more transparent than before.

 

That said, I really do not know if I would carry over my barbarian from a save that is 30 months old by now. Do we know what is being carried over with the savegame? Does it matter if I have not bought the White March? Do I miss out when starting new, like companion interaction through done quests?

 

> At the same time I liked Eder, so I would have been rather bummed out, had I made a tank myself.

 

To be fair Eder can be made into an extremely effective damage dealer as well

[Silvestre]

 

I usually make a ranger first in every game, but in PoE I hit the companion bug within the first act and had to restart. I then made a barbarian, which is somethin I never played but I liked the AoE focus and the fact that in PoE every attribute was affecting every class in some way, because:

 

I just hate restricted and limited characters, which is why I always played Bard in BG, I just hate playing dumb characters or being "forced" to put my points in something else than intelligence to be effective. So in that context I really enjoyed the way PoE handled stuff, although I did not grasp the meta enough, nor do I really want to make the most effective character possible.

 

Companion choice is valid, though. I was not a huge fan of Durance, although the character had an appeal, but you can not really do without a priest. At the same time I liked Eder, so I would have been rather bummed out, had I made a tank myself. However if the game allows you to think out of the box and complete the game with different setups then this is also very nice.

 

I just hope in PoE 2 (having no idea of the mechanics yet) that the mechanics are more transparent than before.

 

That said, I really do not know if I would carry over my barbarian from a save that is 30 months old by now. Do we know what is being carried over with the savegame? Does it matter if I have not bought the White March? Do I miss out when starting new, like companion interaction through done quests?

 

> At the same time I liked Eder, so I would have been rather bummed out, had I made a tank myself.

 

To be fair Eder can be made into an extremely effective damage dealer as well

 

 

Yeah, I made him my tank since everyone else was better suited for damage dealing such as my rogue. Now I'm interested in this fighter/rogue mix Éder could have in Deadfire.

[George_Truman]

 

What we all mean to say is that we pick rogues and barbarians because we like to play white dude assassins.

 

> white

 

> dude

 

wat

 

Pls try and keep up with my sick references.

[jf8350143]

When choosing classes, my first character almost always is a heavy armour front line character, and from a more different race. 

 

so my first character in PoE 1 is a paladin godlike.

 

But since I have lost that save, I'll have to go with my second character, a elf dual wielding barbarian.