Poll: Mage, Thief or Warrior?

[JohnnyDelRay]

Usually try to go the rogue/fighter hybrid where available, but usually leaning towards fighters. I love dual-wielded, high crit chance high DPS characters, usually using Dex and light armor to dodge rather than tank. Throw stealth in the mix to get the drop, and we're in business. Although if that's not so viable, then I usually lean towards fighter. But I loved ranged weapons too, thrown or bowed.

Something about magic use is unappealing, outside of the cool spell effects. I just don't like managing mana for some reason, prefer more tangible things like weapon durability and number of arrows or daggers.

 

[MeatMachine]

I usually prefer more supportive roles - though Fighters can support as tanks or paladin-like buffs, and Thieves can support in more indirect ways by exploiting covert weaknesses, Mages are certainly more tailored towards team-oriented roles (unless they are grossly overleveled.) Healing, nuking, disabling... whatever their forte, they can't do much on their own usually, and their powerful and versatile abilities are mitigated by their numerous, easily-exploitable weaknesses.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

You can't hit what you can't see and I have a strong preference to going about unseen, unnoticed, and allowed to roam about unmolested by the book nerd and the dumb jock. They can flash lights and bang their chests at each other all they want but I'll just stick to the shadows, stealing their things and drawing dicks on the photos of their loved ones. I'm not much for archery though...funny enough, I enjoy the challenge of walking up behind my mark and either slitting their throat or just taking their pocket money...unless this is Skyrim, in which a guard will find himself suddenly standing around unarmed and completely nude.

Like Yahtzee, I like to know that my mischief will lead to somebody losing their job. Also like Yahtzee, I love to fantasize about being invisible.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Warrior because there are few things better than leaping into the melee clad in plate and dual wielding an axe in one hand and the arm of the the last guy you fought in the other.

Of course the best is Monk. Because you get to go bare knuckle. I always played my Monk as He olde timey boxer, complete with handlebar mustache. His battle cry was "For the Marquis of Queensbury!" And then he would promptly begin punching Golems into rubble

 

[K12]

It's annoying that many games which have the Mage/Warrior/Thief choice seem to have developed the game with warrior in mind so the other two are inconsistent and fiddly. Warriors are often the most fun mechanically even though they are the least interesting thematically since they basically just twat everything with a bit of metal until it stops moving.

I always play mixed classes when they're available but pure classes, I tend to go Mage and then get really disappointed that I just spend all my time spamming the fireball spell and the lightningbolt spell that are the only spells versatile enough to be worth upgrading all the way.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

It really depends on what sort of game I'm playing:

-If it's a RPG where you primarily play as a single person running around (Skyrim, Kingdoms of Amalur, etc.) I basically always play as a Stealth/Assassin character. I just find it way more believable as being someone who uses sneaking and stealth, and in combat uses dodging and finesse, considering you're basically a single person killing so many baddies, plus I just generally find it a lot more fun (especially in Skyrim).
-For games where you're in a party (Baldur's Gate, Pillars of Eternity, etc.) I pretty much always play a straight warrior. I figure since you're the de facto party leader, you need to lead from the front and be willing to put yourself in peril to inspire your colleagues.
-For ARPGs (Diablo, Torchlight, Grim Dawn, etc.) it varies largely depending on what character classes are available (or masteries, in the case of Grim Dawn or Titan Quest). In Torchlight, I basically always played as Hunter/Tundra Berserker, in Diablo 2 I always played as a Necromancer or Druid, I played as pure Nightblade in Grim Dawn, and a warfare/spirit guy in Titan Quest (also warfare/dream). Basically just whatever I think sounds particularly cool

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Of the the basic three, I've always felt warrior was my go-to since it takes a truly inept developer to fuck up "Swing weapon, hit man" routine. That said, in less shitty games, I like using hybrid classes.

Take the Paladin, why be just a Knight when you can be a Magic Knight? It's one thing I missed in DA2 that was in DA:O and DA:I, the Arcane Warrior and Knight Enchanter respectively, although they're more mages that use weapons than warriors who use magic. Either way, I love my hybrids.

 

[Sewa_Yunga]

Battlemage all the way, but Warrior if that's not possible

- Rift: I played a warrior with my main soul being Riftwalker as a DD, and Void Knight as a tank. When I played mage, the melee soul (Archon, I think?) was my first choice.

- WoW: I started as a Rogue, then switched to Warrior. When it was possible to play a Frost Deathknight as both tank and DD, I played that, but switched back to Warrior when blizz decided to allow Blood as the only tank spec.

- AoC: Conqueror (Warrior) and Dark Templar (Warrior utilizing dark magic), later on Herald of Xotli (Mage with 2h sword and fire magic)

Progress Quest is the odd one out, I'm playing a Mage Illusioner in that one.

 

[dangoball]

I like helping others, even if that "help" is smacking kobolt with my shield so they stop bothering class-cannon mages. Pure dmg play style never appealed to me so I tend to go for support roles.

As for this trinity?
Well, I like to keep my options open, and as videogames tend to limit warriors quite a bit and rogues tend to be more utility and/or burst damage, I gravitate towards magic classes. There's just something about being able to reverse the tide of battle with one well placed haste and a blessing.
The most fun is with "non-combatant" characters in PnP RPGs, as that is a great way to creatively terminate hostilities through originally non-violent magics/devices. Or an intelligence based warrior, if the game permits (playing one in Numenera right now, good fun).
In games where I have to basically murder everything (Skyrim, Fallout 4) I tend to play mage/rogue hybrids, though early game always forces the "kick it till it's dead" gameplay, stealth sucking and spell selection limited, so that's the warrior stage I guess.

 

[Poetic Nova]

I'm never able to play subtile for long enough, so Thief is something that automatically falls.
Mages can be terribly fun, but considering my playstyle I always end up with the warrior.

Let the sword of justice speak the truth!
*ahem*

 

[bauke67]

Videogames have this nasty habit of "balancing" things out, but realistically, how can shooting fireballs from your hands at will not be the strongest option? Without the constraints of videogames a mage should be able to wipe out armies with their unlimited power, whereas the other classes might be good in videogames, realistically, a figther would be the weakest since a stray arrow could potentially take them out, while they can only fight one person at a time. The rogue is also useful since, if he remains undetected, he can beat many people, but that advantage will hardly ever last beyond one or two kills.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

Whatever I play as, I normally end up stealing shit anyway. Like my most recent character in Divinity: Original Sin. Playing as a mage, but I've stolen just about everything of value from every place I've visited. And quite a few things with no value, too.
So, thief, I guess.
Plus, I enjoy sneaking around in Bethesda games.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Videogames have this nasty habit of "balancing" things out, but realistically, how can shooting fireballs from your hands at will not be the strongest option? Without the constraints of videogames a mage should be able to wipe out armies with their unlimited power, whereas the other classes might be good in videogames, realistically, a figther would be the weakest since a stray arrow could potentially take them out, while they can only fight one person at a time. The rogue is also useful since, if he remains undetected, he can beat many people, but that advantage will hardly ever last beyond one or two kills.

Yeah, this is something I've long noticed in many videogames, though I certainly understand the need for the balance. One game that did a good job of it was Baldur's Gate. Mages (especially high level Mages) had spells that were definitely more powerful than what the fighters could do, but magic took time to activate. If you tried to do it without some sort of Fighter protection, enemies would just run up and beat the tar out of them before they got the spell off. So it was balanced in the sense that you sort of needed everyone to make your party function well.

 

[shirkbot]

I tend to play as a thief as a simple "path of least resistance" deal. I'm always more than willing to throw myself into the fray, but it's much more efficient to stab your opponent in their sleep. Emphasis on that stabbing bit. I've always found ranged rogues to be too easy/logical.
That said, I would gladly play as a mage if both blood magic and illusory magic weren't often woefully underrepresented.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Depending on the mechanics I'd say either a Warrior/Mage or a Warrior/Rogue. TES is great for Battlemages and Spellswords, armoured mages wielding fireballs, summoning Daedra from Oblivion and co-incidentally laying about themselves with colossal battleaxes, and this is all good fun. But if we're talking tabletop gaming like 3.5 then a Fighter/Rogue character specialising in combat maneuvers such as Feint, Disarm and Trip can be amazingly effective.

 

[bauke67]

Videogames have this nasty habit of "balancing" things out, but realistically, how can shooting fireballs from your hands at will not be the strongest option? Without the constraints of videogames a mage should be able to wipe out armies with their unlimited power, whereas the other classes might be good in videogames, realistically, a figther would be the weakest since a stray arrow could potentially take them out, while they can only fight one person at a time. The rogue is also useful since, if he remains undetected, he can beat many people, but that advantage will hardly ever last beyond one or two kills.

Yeah, this is something I've long noticed in many videogames, though I certainly understand the need for the balance. One game that did a good job of it was Baldur's Gate. Mages (especially high level Mages) had spells that were definitely more powerful than what the fighters could do, but magic took time to activate. If you tried to do it without some sort of Fighter protection, enemies would just run up and beat the tar out of them before they got the spell off. So it was balanced in the sense that you sort of needed everyone to make your party function well.

Yeah that's true, it also depends somewhat on the lore surrounding the magic and what powers it gives you exactly, but that sounds like a really nice system.

 

[Malfrun]

Warrior, sword and board.
I can't get more boring, right?

I like to get in on the action and like my hits to have some impact so it's the natural choice. I usually go in light armour as I enjoy some movement. I also like archery a lot in games but it's usually so boring or trivialises a lot of situations i.e. Skyrim

 

[happyninja42]

Warrior, sword and board.
I can't get more boring, right?

Nah, nothing boring about it. It can be really fun depending on the game. Some games are built so that you feel like a total badass playing a sword/board. Others, not so much. I personally enjoy all 3 playstyles, but it varies from game to game. Like Dragon Age 2, for all it's story faults, had a fun combat system that I really enjoyed. And it was one of the times in recent history, where I preferred to play a warrior instead of a mage/thief. I think it depends on how much combat momentum you have when you are diving into the thick of it. If you are constantly engaged, with some kind of attack, or defensive maneuver, triggering a reaction attack, etc, it feels really damn fun, and engaging, and leaves me wanting more.

But, since most games, well I won't say most, but a lot of games, don't balance it well, it tends to feel 1 Notey as a warrior. At least with the thief, I have more agency on how to deal with a problem, if the mechanics are sub par overall.

 

[CaitSeith]

Personally, I lean towards stealth in most games to start off with. Being sneaky, gaining info, and thinking things out before I take action is the way I operate.

Spoiler: As an aside, all paths in Elder Scrolls lead to Sneaky Archer.

I went Argonian Spellsword in my first time. It was pretty fun to interrupt the dragons' shout with a double-handed lightning bolt. But yeah, I sneaked all the time (to the point it reached the 100 skill points) and shot arrows to unsuspected enemies whenever I had the chance.

 

[Bocaj2000]

I play my rogues like brawny and my warriors light. Something about dexterity and medium armor appeals to me. But when I do decide to play a mage, he's either a hybrid (a la the Witcher), an anti-mage, or dark arts (in order of availability).