Classes or races you don't play as in RPGs

[Gorilla Gunk]

I rarely play as an elf or human. If I can play as an Orc or something like it, I'll choose that.

I mean, you're in this big fantasy setting full of awesome stuff. Why go through it playing Nondescript Aryan Male #12749 who just has a passing resemblance to you?

 

[Scar05]

Mage, druid, paladin ...
Pretty any class with an element of 'magic' to it. If I'm going to role-play might as well go all the way and play as something you couldn't possibly be irl (often non-human so long as they're not butt-ugly to look at). I'll play the occasional rouge here and there, but nothing beats a mage - sure they may be puny and weak with their pathetic health and pitiful hand to hand combat but there is that certain elegance to the occasional fireball or frost bolt as u stand back out of arms reach, rather than the repetitive hack and slash of the other classes.

 

[TheKruzdawg]

I haven't played many DnD type games, but in general in RPGs I like to play as either a warrior/some kind of skilled fighter or a rogue-ish sneaky person. I'll use my Oblivion character as an example: I was hardcore stealth and I was a master at it pretty early on in the game. Made things a lot easier. Archery was fun as well, although not as useful. I used magic, but mostly the touch-based spells that I would mix in with sword slashes.

I don't think I would ever go mage with a character. I like being able to fight too much and I find being sneaky far too much fun to give that up.

 

[ecoho]

I never play as rangers (hunters or whatever). Being able to shoot a bow and owning a pet just doesn't sound that impressive to me. Also there is this hippy vibe to it which is the exact same reason I don't play as elves. Seriously each time I hear shit like "I sense an unrest in the forest the trees are trying to tell us something" I want to grab a bottle of bleach and pour it into a river.

Also I hate this stupid races exclusive to a particular world. The dude is blue, has horns and comes from an ancient mystical race which is really talented in magic? Woah! Fucking woah! Give him a barely pronouncable name or an apostrophe in the middle of it and I think I might shit my pants.

ok first the guys your playing with take their RPGs way too seriously.Now i usually play rangers and basically i do 2 things 1.i beat people to death duel wielding swords or 2 i shot them with my bow really far away and let the dam fighters/warriors/barbarians do all the up close crap. i personally hate that we can now get a pet its just stupid. finally neither elves nor rangers are automatically "one with nature" personally i play the antisocial prankster that uses his dam head. Oh and i tend to roll for luck allot

 

[Javarock]

Well it's kind of diffrent for me

If I'm a class I Will never Buff or Debuff

It's just not me

 

[RuralGamer]

Straight up mages, because I find they get really repetitive in combat.

Wait wait wait . . . a plethora of different spells with wide-ranging styles from damage dealing, to healing, to buffs\debuffs, paralyzing, AoE vs. direct attacks, and creature summoning is more repetitive than stab, slash, stab?

Straight up mages, because I find they get really repetitive in combat.

And how is having a crapload of spells to choose from repetitive?

OT: Cleric. For some reason I don't like to play healer. And i wouldn't be good at the religious roleplaying perspective either.

Ah, but the reason I find this is that you usually end up doing the same combination of spells every single battle, unless its a boss fight, then its just spam the same ones and that's no better than spamming melee attacks or arrows or such. It's not always the case, but DA:O felt quite dreary; I ended up using three or four spells in combat and little else; WoW (waaay back when it stole two/three months from me) was worse; my mage ended up only needing about 3 spells in combat, with the exception of dungeon bosses. Besides, I don't really like pure roles anyway and pure magic is my least favourite, so the one I rarely, if ever use.

 

[Xaio30]

Ah, but the reason I find this is that you usually end up doing the same combination of spells every single battle, unless its a boss fight, then its just spam the same ones and that's no better than spamming melee attacks or arrows or such. It's not always the case, but DA:O felt quite dreary; I ended up using three or four spells in combat and little else; WoW (waaay back when it stole two/three months from me) was worse; my mage ended up only needing about 3 spells in combat, with the exception of dungeon bosses. Besides, I don't really like pure roles anyway and pure magic is my least favourite, so the one I rarely, if ever use.

My friend, you need to play Baldurs Gate 2. 180+ spells, spell levels and Mage vs Mage counterspells makes it an absolute blast to play!
You'll find that with the right combination of spells and sequencers, you can complete the game solo.

The reason they had to strip away so many spells from DA:O is sadly because of the more advanced 3D graphics.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

i don't play elves (rare exceptions in some videogames(i wanted to see everything of Dragon Age)) they are either unlikable for me in most games, or in the games that handle them well, they are damn hard to play believable. I just don't think that i have what it takes to play an elf like it should be done.
Apart from this i played every class except a witch.And i hate witches as a GM i forbid those in my campaign atm, nothing says FUCK YOU to a GMs preparations as a character with unlimited flight abilities.
(talking mostly about The Dark Eye here(the basis for the Drakensang videogames), i don't play DnD)

 

[Steampunk Viking]

I tend to avoid full blood Elves in RPGs (the only exception being Dragon Age Elves as they are somewhat interesting and aren't "look at me, I'm immortal and all powerful") as well as Dwarves as they just aren't interesting to me.

As for classes, never played a Monk for the reason that they're so ridiculously overpowered and I avoid Paladins like the plague, unless I'm doing it as a joke, purely because they are the least felxible class in any setting ever. I don't want to play a perfect warrior who's all goody-two-shoes, I'd prefer to play a character with flaws as they are more interesting in my opinion. Oh, and I don't really like playing Druids either, they've always struck me as a class that can't make it's mind up whether it's a ranger or cleric, both of which do the job better.

I do, however, have a friend who won't play anything at all apart from Elven Paladins. Go figure. At least we won't have samey characters I suppose.

Edit: Oh yeah, I rarely play warriors either... I guess I just find that everyone plays them. I have a thing for playing more unusual characters. Unlike the other races/classes I've mentioned, I don't actually have a problem with them, they're just not me.

 

[Lt_Bromhead]

I always play as Dwarves if available, and always as a defensive warrior/tank class.
Examples;
In Dragon age, it's a sword n' board Dwarf warrior.
In Wow, it's a Prot-specced Dwarf paladin.

I never, literally NEVER play any other combo.

Mostly because I enjoy tanking - it's fun watching an enemy use their most deadly attacks on you and you barely take any damage. Sure, we're not great at causing damage ourselves - but we don't really need to.

I just don't find any other playstyle attractive or appealing.

As a tank, you can work out a solid order of defensive and threat generating spells that are multi-purpose and work in any situation.
And you're durable enough to take punishment if you make a mistake. It's a forgiving class.

Mages, rogues, archers... I just don't like the style.
I love the appeal of heavy armour. It looks cooler.

Anything other than a dwarf tank and I'm not interested.
Mostly because the Dwarves are usually stoic, honourable and laid back. And drunkards.

Humans are almost always massive pricks, and elves are all mystical and deep, but somehow aloof and arrogant in a flawed way. (There will of course be exceptions, this is only a generalisation...)

So yeah. Warriors are cool, Dwarves are cool. Anything else is outside my COC. (Cone of Caring)

 

[Zeema]

The Warrior:

im not much of a tank. i prefer shooting Fireballs and Stabbing Fleshy backs

The Good Natured NV: you avoid fighting and max out Speech, barter, Repair Science, Lock pick and Sneak

 

[darthotaku]

I normally play classes that suit intelligence. in DnD I generally play warlocks or warlords, because I just like using clever and creative solutions to problems instead of relying on magic or physical strength.

 

[Ampersand]

I don't like the overly magicy ones, like wizards and sorcerers, for two reasons. They're kind of shit at the beginning and they're too powerful/ game breaking later on. I'm playing a druid at the moment because they let you be a bit clever in how you use your power and they never become too ridiculous.
I generally wouldn't play a fighter but part of me wants to try one, just because they seem a bit shit and I want to see if I could make one awesome.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

Straight up mages, because I find they get really repetitive in combat.

Wait wait wait . . . a plethora of different spells with wide-ranging styles from damage dealing, to healing, to buffs\debuffs, paralyzing, AoE vs. direct attacks, and creature summoning is more repetitive than stab, slash, stab?

Straight up mages, because I find they get really repetitive in combat.

And how is having a crapload of spells to choose from repetitive?

OT: Cleric. For some reason I don't like to play healer. And i wouldn't be good at the religious roleplaying perspective either.

Ah, but the reason I find this is that you usually end up doing the same combination of spells every single battle, unless its a boss fight, then its just spam the same ones and that's no better than spamming melee attacks or arrows or such. It's not always the case, but DA:O felt quite dreary; I ended up using three or four spells in combat and little else; WoW (waaay back when it stole two/three months from me) was worse; my mage ended up only needing about 3 spells in combat, with the exception of dungeon bosses. Besides, I don't really like pure roles anyway and pure magic is my least favourite, so the one I rarely, if ever use.

If you're talking about DA:O you have even less excuse. There was so many different combinations, you'd have to play the game at least twice to get to them all (I never did).

How about grease with a fire combo? Or storm of the century? Or finding a way to freeze your opponents and follow up with your companions' critical hit attack (which shatters them for an insta-kill) to wipe out 4 guys in 2 seconds. Did you know the glyphs could be combined to create extra effects?

I have a 24" monitor so my quickbar at the bottom as at the longest length you can possibly have it, and I barely had room for all of my go-to spells, (which didn't count the ones I had but didn't use regularly.

On top of that, you can be an arcane warrior and you can STILL be a warrior on top of all that and swing a big ass double-handed Starfang around.

If you feel mages are repetitive, you're not doing it right.

 

[Zantos]

It's easier for me to list the things I do play as. Human, warrior. The only real question is will I have one gigantic fucking massive sword or 2 slightly smaller fucking massive swords. I've tried all sorts of other combos, but that's always the one I enjoy more.