It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Falkenherz: As a Thief fan, I almost always play a sneaky character with some bow skills. As race I usually chose what supports this kind of character the most (Khajiit, I say).
Khajit! What, you gonna shit on their lawn and drop furballs everywhere. Dark Elf FTW! :o)

Have tried playing mage's before, my first run through of Baldurs Gate was with a mage. Ended up doing the final battle with Sarevok by using party members and summons to block routes to me, and then magic wanding him to death. After that I just couldn't get on with the whole dress wearing, run-away type characters. Much more fun to sneak up behind them and rip their throat out, a more personal, professional service if you ask me.
avatar
Wishbone: Yeah, I'm fond of Paladins for that reason. I tend to shy away from the "pure" spellcasters. I'm not fond of the "Congratulations, you're out of mana. You are now effectively helpless. Now be a good little boy and run away and hide while you wait for your mana to regenerate" scenario. I prefer classes that are not wholly dependent on limited resources.
Most of the time the mana regenerates automatically so I kind of would say it's an unlimited resource, except for the cases where you are trapped and have nowhere to hide and a horde of zombies/orcs/other monsters is right behind you.

Anyway it would be funny if a swordfighter character would say in between slaying hundred of monsters: "Sorry, out of breath. My arms are getting weak. Need a minute to recover...".

My class is typically the scout: some magic, lots of strength, and superb cloaking abilities. Basically I like to sneak into the home of the enemy and get just take I want, if possible without fight, if necessary with fight.
In any RPG that allows it, I like to make a human battlemage (mixed fighter/magic user), since I tend to mix up my play style by my mood. Sometimes I'm feeling like throwing fire balls, other times I feel like smashing me some skulls. Otherwise, I go with the elven rogue. You can never go wrong with sneaky and stabby. And pointy ears.
avatar
Matewis: I tried a crit-based human rogue in neverwinter nights once (original campaign). Didn't help that just about every 2nd enemy in the game was immune to critical hits though :P
Not too rare with creatures that some kind of immunity yet it's seldom the player finds something similar. :(
avatar
fortune_p_dawg: they seem to require the least amount of effort. and as the most successful of folks say "effort if for suckers!"
Successful folks with a lisp perhaps. :P
I prefer character class to race.
I replayed recently BG1 with TUTU improvements etc. for first time with a Fighter, human, (many years ago, the First time I played the game I made a cleric-mage elf character, multi class? I mean leveling both professions at the same time ) was pretty nice to play now like this, less effort in the character development, but now playing BG2 TUTU I changed the proffesion to MAGE, (I planned it like this when did the character in BG1 giving it a high Intelligence too) but still not reach level enough to use the fighter skills in the same character. I will post my impressions later.

I always been mostly in mages, in Morrowind I played a Mage, but in GOTHIC, I finished the 1st and the 2nd ones being a Fighter, pure one, no magic at all.
Post edited December 21, 2015 by YaTEdiGo
I'm not attached to any race, but I usually pick a warrior/fighter class. Not always, but almost. It comes down to one simple fact- they give me the best chance of not running into a fight I just can't win, game over. I don't like going through an RPG with brute force, but I hate being stuck even more. And with a pure spellcaster or someone like that, who really shouldn't fight on his own and only works in teams, there is always a chance of running into something you just can't possibly win. Even in games that have you in control of a team, there is often a point where you end up alone for a while, so it's better to have a character who can Rambo his way out of it.
Post edited December 21, 2015 by Breja
avatar
phaolo: In parties, however, my main character is always an human fighter, as the followers provide the missing skills.
avatar
timppu: In Baldur's Gate 1-2 I played a mage as it seemed there is a good selection of characters with good melee fighting abilities to choose to your party
Ugh, mages were hard in BG2.
I felt way safer with a fighter as my main.

.
avatar
Breja: Even in games that have you in control of a team, there is often a point where you end up alone for a while, so it's better to have a character who can Rambo his way out of it.
Ah yes, also that.
Post edited December 21, 2015 by phaolo
avatar
phaolo: ...snip
Ugh, mages were hard in BG2.
...snip
Actually it should be the other way round. Mages are pretty near impossible to play in BG1 as they never level up to the levels needed for the good spells. Its an underlying D&D issue, where fighters and such like rule at levels 1-10, then mages rule from around 10 onwards. I mean, try fighting Kangaxx the lich, he can wipe a party out in seconds!
avatar
Falkenherz: As a Thief fan, I almost always play a sneaky character with some bow skills. As race I usually chose what supports this kind of character the most (Khajiit, I say).
I thought wood elves were better archers, that's what I took.
avatar
phaolo: Ugh, mages were hard in BG2.
I felt way safer with a fighter as my main.
Did you play solo? Because I recall you get a couple of extra characters to your party right in the beginning, and at least one of them is an able fighter. So I don't think you had to play much (if any) only with your main character in BG2.

I don't recall having a problem in the start of BG2 with the same mage character I had finished the earlier BG. I played both at the hardest difficulty level.
avatar
Trilarion: Most of the time the mana regenerates automatically so I kind of would say it's an unlimited resource, except for the cases where you are trapped and have nowhere to hide and a horde of zombies/orcs/other monsters is right behind you.
I don't recall that many RPGs I've played recently where mana would regenerate constantly, only while you sleep.

In TES Arena that was quite often a problem because you couldn't sleep if there are still enemies around (ie. you have to either kill them first, or find another place to rest), and even if you did, enemies would interrupt your sleep. The only way to avoid this mostly seemed to be to find a place which was slightly elevated, then the enemies would not normally appear for some reason. Unfortunately many dungeons didn't have much of elevated spots.

In Daggerfall they seem to have lessened the frequency of interrupted sleep, so if you are able to start sleeping (no enemies nearby), then you can usually sleep until you are fully restored.

avatar
Trilarion: Anyway it would be funny if a swordfighter character would say in between slaying hundred of monsters: "Sorry, out of breath. My arms are getting weak. Need a minute to recover...".
That reminds me, in many RPGs warrior-types can also have a similar kind of "limited resource" that they have to sleep to get more of, namely fatigue. At least in Arena and Daggerfall you constantly lose your power even from mere running (let alone fighting), and sleeping will replenish it. Then again, unless you are very low level, it depletes much slower than e.g. spell points, or even health points.

In a way though, since warrior-types have to replenish their health anyway, I don't see the spell points as much of a problem. Quite often when I want to sleep in those TES games, both my health and spell points are pretty low (if for nothing else but using spell points to heal myself, at least a bit). So a warrior would have to either sleep to get more health anyway, or drink some health potions. Similarly a mage can either sleep, or drink potions, to get more spell points.
Post edited December 21, 2015 by timppu
avatar
fortune_p_dawg: they seem to require the least amount of effort. and as the most successful of folks say "effort if for suckers!"
I like to play the tortured, self doubting acrylic artist. The one who just can't get that church painting right.
I too usually pick out a human player character. I think it’s due to RPGs giving me no reason to do otherwise – it’s not like these games are going to react to it. Baldur’s Gate and the Elder Scrolls might give an incredibly rare line now and then, but for the most part an elf character is going to get the exact same dialogue as a human. That’s why the Dragon Age: Origins openings caught my eye – you get to interact with your race and engage in their culture.
I'm the exact opposite, humans - as well as elves - are the least interesting to me.
The weirder the creature I can play the cooler it is.

However I do usually play fighter or soldier classes, followed by ranger-type classes.
My least favourite class is any kind of caster. I get more excited over using a new axe than a new spell.