General CRPG question

[Stofsk]

A conversation about Baldur's Gate with Vympel yielded an interesting perspective from our favourite Spetznaz representative: he refuses to play any character class other than a fighter. In practically every game he plays in.

This conversation began when I wondered how a game like BG could go if the main player character (ie you) were to play, say, a Bard. Vympel laughed derisively at me, stating he's a fighter for life. What about you? Do you break with convention and play some of the more weaker classes, or do you just put on plate mail and tell the world to 'bring it'.

[Imperial Overlord]

I'm a mage fan-whore, but I'm willing to try other classes.

[Netko]

I'm a fanwhore of the, to borrow a name, "Might & Magic" classes. In other words, Paladins, various Spellswords or in D&D multiclasses etc.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I make almost no consideration whatsoever toward game mechanical advantage or other 'powergaming' concerns when choosing race/class generally. It's all about character concept, and if the concept calls for a bard... I make a bard.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Magic Fan .
Both due to power fantasies ("Bwahaha feel the power of my lightning, obey my every word mind slave then bounce of my globe of prismatic power "), latent megalomania and the fact that its much more interesting (Seriously, someone swinging a sword faster and harder as he levels up compared to going from static electricity on your hands up to stopping time and bringing down a rain of meteors, how can you even compare the 2 ).

I do really like Monks as well, but Sorcerors are my perennial favourite. Clerics are nice but too Buff and lack raw "Oomph" despite having more over-all versatile power, and Barbarians are too bland, while turning into a Bear (Druid) can't compare with becoming a Dragon or Balor (Shapechange).
And Bards are lame buffers for others (Unless you're a "Dashing swordsman" )

[Ford Prefect]

I've always been a fan of 'monk' type classes. The kind that break heads with their bare hands and bald skulls. Wuxia calls me.

[Stofsk]

I make almost no consideration whatsoever toward game mechanical advantage or other 'powergaming' concerns when choosing race/class generally. It's all about character concept, and if the concept calls for a bard... I make a bard.

We heard the Vympel Method, now we've heard the Gaius Method.

By the way, anyone who has played BG: when do you dual-class Imoen into a Mage?

[Imperial Overlord]

By the way, anyone who has played BG: when do you dual-class Imoen into a Mage?

I didn't (enough mages in the party already. I needed her as a thief). You could if you wanted too, but BG2 just assumes that it happens.

[Stark]

I've always been a fan of 'monk' type classes. The kind that break heads with their bare hands and bald skulls. Wuxia calls me.

And the horribly broken rules only make it more attractive!

[Eris]

I'm going to have to join the growing legions of magic-whores. I can go pretty much any way with it - spellswords, pure casters, divine or arcane casters, druids, it's all fun - but exploring the supernatural is one of the primary reasons I play in fantasy worlds.

Even more particularly, half the time I end up playing a necromancer, or something like it. I have an undead fetish.

[Ford Prefect]

And the horribly broken rules only make it more attractive!

I mentioned to Imperial Overlord once that I appear to be drawn to broken classes. Mind you, I wouldn't care if the monk was the weakest class ever designed, because there is something beautiful about punching a dragon in the face.

As an aside, in Soul Caliber 3 I made a monk character, and yes it was broken. It had a staff ten metres long. And reading glasses.

[DarkSilver]

Dependant, I'll usually go for the Mage, or the Ranger type classes mostly.

[Stark]

I mentioned to Imperial Overlord once that I appear to be drawn to broken classes. Mind you, I wouldn't care if the monk was the weakest class ever designed, because there is something beautiful about punching a dragon in the face.

Especially when you're immune to fire and your fists are +5 weapons! Although I hear they sort-of fixed the 3E monks.

As an aside, in Soul Caliber 3 I made a monk character, and yes it was broken. It had a staff ten metres long. And reading glasses.

Fucking Kilik! KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

[lance]

And the horribly broken rules only make it more attractive!

I mentioned to Imperial Overlord once that I appear to be drawn to broken classes. Mind you, I wouldn't care if the monk was the weakest class ever designed

Well its not quite the weakest, but I think its in the bottom of the core classes.

[Civil War Man]

I personally love Bard as a class. The class is less useful in large parties (in that case, I just take one of the standard party roles), but in small parties it is one of the ultimate utility/support classes. I played a Bard in a 4 person party (it was a newbie D&D game, and as the only experienced player I chose Bard for the Hell of it). I was the backup party fighter, backup party thief, backup party healer, and primary party arcane spellcaster. My character knew just about everything about everything, and was such a smarmy bastard that he could sell just about anything to anyone at an inflated price.

[The Grim Squeaker]

As an aside, in Soul Caliber 3 I made a monk character, and yes it was broken. It had a staff ten metres long. And reading glasses.

Fucking Kilik! KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

Not as bad as Nightmare. 11 metre sword and once you got the first hit in unless you're facing someone very fast (Such as Raphael, the second most broken character) then they're boned in the face of a constant combo of 2-3 types of fast hits and overhead swings. (In SC2 at least, is Kilik worse in 3?)

[Argosh]

I do Necromancers of all types (Diablo 2, Heroes 2-5 etc.)

[Darth Garden Gnome]

I do Necromancers of all types (Diablo 2)

You poor, poor soul, I do feel your pain. Lv. 60 Necro before I could bear it no more (pre LoD and v1.10, mind you).

Dwarf warrior at any opportunity for me. Paladin's are OK too. I'm definitely of the fighter mold, but there's room for everyone across the spectrum.

[Stofsk]

Now I remember why I gave up on BG years ago: you have to walk everywhere. Not run, walk. That, and the bullshit AD&D 2nd ed. system.

[brianeyci]

I'm an attention whore. I usually pick a "charismatic" or sneaky class. I also do not like staring at a guy's ass for a hundred hours, so I pick female usually since there's no difference in games other than looks. If there's support or healing classes, I usually pick them.

[The Nomad]

I'm a mage fanwhore as well. Aside from the fact that I like the style of the arcane researcher training and studying among heaps of tomes and strange devices in his high tower (I find it reassuring to have books near to me, the mere holding of a book has a soothing effect on me), the variety of their abilities is just too appealing, though stereotypically they lack healing powers .

[Sharpshooter]

To be honest, I can't stand playing as anything that doesn't resemble a fighter either. The thought of playing as a character that can attack decently three times before being left to the mercy of the enemy just gives me the willies. Paladins I like, Rangers are OK, and I think Clerics have enough meat on 'em to not be totally defenseless (never tried thieves or bards) but I'll pass on getting killed by one bite from a rat, thank you very much.

[Stofsk]

Generally I prefer to play as the skilled character. Not the fighter, not the caster, but the guy who can hack the computer, open the locked door, detect the trap, as well as persuade the guard to let me by. To use the KOTOR analogy, I'm more comfortable playing a Scout/Sentinel than anything else in the game.

Second to that though would be fighter. Casters are generally third on the list, but they would tend to be buffsters with fighter/skill combos than offensive magic users. I'm a big fan of multiclassing, and if I'm not allowed to do it I wanna know why.

Casters are easily my least favourite class. They're weak pushovers, and they get barely any skills. Their claim to fame is wielders of arcane power - which can be more trouble than it's worth, and it's one of those things that takes many levels to achieve a real solid power base. I never played as a Bard - mainly because I disliked the 'music as magic' motif that was intimated in the game - but I'm curious about playing one.

[Master of Ossus]

I generally try to create the most powerful character of each class that I can.

Since fighters are, generally, the simplest classes to play, I often play with them until I am familiar with the game system and then play through, again, with the other classes.

In the case of Baldur's Gate, IWD, etc., I played through the games literally dozens of times to try and perfect each of the character classes and party combinations available. I did, eventually, find bards to be quite powerful after ToB came out for BG (the improved Bard Song was dramatically better than even the Skald version, and allowed the Blade to become crazy powerful), but my favorite characters usually become the sorcerer or mage and the fighter who anchors the party.

[Darth Raptor]

I like to do everything. In games where you can change your class I'll play every class. In games where you're stuck with one from the beginning, I'll pick the one with the widest array of skills- no matter how over/underpowered that class may be. In AD&D, I'm usually drawn to the bards and sorcerers. In Elder Scrolls, spellswords and battle mages. In Final Fantasy, it's usually the red and blue mages I like best. Also any job that interacts with wildlife. Controlling amazing monsters is great for the ego.