why are simple classes the most fun? In most RPGs I always play as the same character in slightly different variations:
>human
>male
>fighter or paladin or barbarian
Everyone else who just enjoying the simple but mighty warrior?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
barbarian is frequently jacked at low levels and can explode your enemies in a single blow, which is always satisfying.
Then you get to mid level and they are just a shitty half naked warrior
Simple classes for simple brains
Being human and male have nothing to do with simplicity however
IDK about barbarian or paladin but fighters are a good base class for extra feats, extra weapon proficiency and quick access to some advanced attack skills. Taking between one and ten levels on it before moving on to something more advanced is just knowing how to play the game. Extra points if you can justify it with your role play and are not just min maxing. Meanwhile humans are known to so allow for better stats distribution. Whereas other races may show proclivity to WIS, INT or CHA humans get extra points to distribute at will.
Why are you sperging out about the specific mechanic of a single edition of a single game so much?
OP just likes turning off his brain and hitting stuff no matter what the system is.
Fighter is usually safe bet for first playthrough. Other classes require some degree of metagaming (eg. Mage should know what resistances enemies have, what spells are noobtraps and what actually useful). Also low levels tend to be easier as melee character. Only exeption is Tyranny, where you gimp yourself hard by not playing spellcaster.
I usually go with Fighter on first playthrough, and then tinker with Mage or some multiclass build autism.
At the end of the day, fantasy is what makes RPGs compelling. Archetypes in its purest and simplistic form makes it easier to put oneself into or self-insert. A warrior male is a classic that anyone can relate with while hipster, last-of-its-own-kind, demon hunter vampire is moronic.
Suspension of disbelief and groundedness is also much preferable to
ostentatiousness.
Paladin and Barbarian are gay. Barbarian blows his load too soon and gimps himself on inventory choices, Paladins trade damage dealing potential so they can LARP as religious permavirgins with shittier heal spells than your dedicated cleric
Fighters have staying power without compromising damage dealing potential. My first run is always a plate/2H weapon, crank the INT down and the STR up, and once I've got the game sort of figured out I'll come back on a second runthrough and play a magic damage dealer
Usually simple classes are the ones that recieve the most developer consideration and playtesting because they expect people to play as that. The plurality of players is probably picking human male martials in any of these games so its a no brainer that developers would ensure the human male martial experience is fun.
I never saw it from this point of view. Interesting thoughts anon
With DND that kinda has to happen
Since if you don't do that, you get to a encounter, and your class is invalid because its by design the least bloated class.
But the upside is that if you pick a stronger class such as Druid or Cleric, you get to go ham by just being a better fighter if its some variant of 3e
Fantasy RPG's are pretty much all designed around the same core template of character classes, and balanced around it. If your bread and butter, a simple fighter, can't cope, you're doing something wrong. If a game were designed to be played as a mage, it would be the same thing, but most try to accommodate a variety, and there is nothing more casual than the knight in shining armor.
>and there is nothing more casual than the knight in shining armor.
That's what provokes a real sense of heroism in people. Thief type archetypes dress like edgelords and mage type archetypes dress like trannies, most people struggle taking that kind of person seriously but tolerate them in the supporting character role where they serve as a useful contrast to the alpha-male fighter's chiseled, rugged countenance
So the archtype of a hero, a Knight in shining armor, is offending modern people?
I think that's what the opposite of what that anon said
People trust the knight while everyone else in the party is an edge lord or weirdo
Basically this
Modern games basically let people define what the supreme "good" of their journey should be ("good" in this case not in a moral sense but in a desireable or entertaining sense) and it should not come as a surprise that most people's first play through is the good(ish) melee fighter, because they associate the physical activity and in-your-face style with courage and determination, and who may be rough around the edges or even deeply flawed, but still making the right decision at the end of the day. They save the villanous options for a second "what if" run-through.
Not everybody does this, but most people do
I almost never play the boring and simplistic meleetard classes.
The only exceptions I can remember are from ARPGs, like a melee sorc from Diablo II MXL and a few Path of Exile builds.
The "buff dude smacking monsters with a stick" aesthetic never appealed to me in the slightest, but if a character has interesting gameplay mechanics or fun skills I don't mind melee.
They aren't.
Mage only. Fighters are shit and have no options.
Depending on game paladins aren't simple and have assloads of abilities that need micromanaging but yeah i get what you mean. idk ig it's what you enjoy out of it.
Because you're a moronic Nazi who can't be bothered with more complicated classes.
I usually play as mages because of the sheer amount of things they can do. Instead of hitting enemies, you're exploding them. You can send enemies flying, levitate things, summon things, reality is your playground basically. To me, any magic using class is far more compelling than mundane classes like fighters and rogues. If I wanna hit people I'll play an action game. If I wanna be a tumor to others without them knowing I'll play a multiplayer. But fantasy role playing games are fantasy, and in fantasy I can do whatever the frick I want.
For me it's Dwarf rogue
The shorter height than humans while more jacked than halfings etc is the perfect combination of stealth and power. Or at least that's how it should work.
i'll just take the warlock
I love playing as a god of punching things.
I really enjoy watching Kevin get destroyed on social media due to his dumb views and opinions
He makes a lot of christmas movies and has a good life. I enjoy watching parasocial trannies seethe about him.
>and has a good life
Shame about the strokes killing half his brain.
Probably 10,000 leftists rot and die of STDs for every good man with genetic dispositions beyond their control.
>stupid lefty seethes when other people post opinions
It's almost like its out of the "how to be a mental headcase" handbook.
I too think it's hilarious when midwits lose their shit at his nothingburger takes.
Because they're generally the most efficient.
Because they're not so bogged down with minutia and bullshit that you don't know what the frick you're supposed to be doing. If I play a wizard and I see a problem my immediate instinct is to light it on fire.
Because they are just a good class. Simple, but strong and loved by everyone.
Heck even my wife things that classes for men are things like fighter, etc. and classes for women are things like priests, etc.
I don't want to sound like I'm against innovation but it feels like way too often we just end up with excess for the sake of excess and a result classes are either overly specified to specific niches, absolutely redundant to other classes or hybrids which never excel at anything.
>play pathfinder kingmaker
>spends hours reading super detailed build guides on how to make the most autistically efficient and powerful sorcerer build, requiring carefully min-maxing every milisecond of your playthrough and writing extensive plans for how to level up 150 hours in advance
>or play a barbarian and do more way damage right away without having to think about it whatsoever
build autists btfo
switch Barb for Bloodrager and you're pretty much right. It wasn't min-maxed and I did 600+ dmg per hit, killing Deskari in 1 turn
I might do that for my upcoming Chaotic Evil playthrough
Because games doesn't want to burden the players too much. This is why physical attacks are always viable (even if the enemies is a huge dragon or a armored guy, just whack him again and again), magic resistance is a thing and why sometimes magic is actually weaker than physical attacker (BoF3 comes to my mind).
>one game I can think of ,,, is Neverwinter Nights
Wow! How daring.
Because WRPGs are on the whole poorly designed so anything more complex than the simplest possible playstyle invariably ends up being no fun at all
In crpgs I usually go some sort of front liner, or at least a magic user that can emulate front liners, because I'm the main character so I have to lead the formation and a squishy character can't do that
I have always wanted to try a rogue in a crpg, but every crpg I've played has massively gimped stealth so I never bother. It's more viable with single character rpgs usually
no min maxing bs
i just like melee stuff since hitting someone with a big axe always feel stronger than hitting someone with colored light
tought my favorite classes are hibrids like paladins
Obscure race, obscure class, special snowflake background focused on one specific skills is always the way to go if your goal is breaking the game in half. If you don't know what you're doing in a blind playthrough though you could really gimp yourself.
So vanilla vanilla vanilla is the way to play it safe.
Buff dudes using swords and axes to chop enemies apart are just cool. Whenever I think of a fantasy hero I think of a warrior type character be it a knight in badass armor or a jacked barbarian. Mages can be fun mechanically but a nerd who fights by throwing spells at people will never be as cool thematically or aesthetically.
What about rogues
Meh. The look can be cool and they're usually fun to play but they don't really make sense. The idea of "fighting dirty" or being an "agile rather than strong" fighter is childish, it's just fighting. If you're not quick and agile or you're too honorable to fight properly then you wouldn't be a good fighter in the first place.
Spellblade characters are cool but mechanically they tend to require a specific build to be viable which brings up problems other people have mentioned in this thread. But yeah a wizard with a sword is pretty badass.
I think the real problem is that reality that stuff that looks cool in a film or book doesn't always translate well to a game.
True but it still bugs me just about enough to drop rogues down a tier from warriors
>words bad
Eat a dick
>words bad
not at all. you just get off to muscles, i.e. homosexualry.
>you just get off to muscles
Sounds like projection. Imagine how much of a gay you have to be to read "strong dudes with swords look cool" and immediately think of homosexual shit, homosexual.
>aesthetically: in a way that gives pleasure through beauty, with regards to beauty.
no it isn't projection, i'm a gay too. it's gaydar. welcome, brother.
>"the buildings and gardens of the factory have been aesthetically designed and laid out"
I see you missed out the example used that is specifically non-sexual. Just because you appreciate the beauty of something doesn't mean you want to frick it.
you appreciate the beauty of half-naked men, anon. it's okay to be gay, it's 2023, after all.
>doesn't mean you want to frick it
ah, a bottom, eh?
>you appreciate the beauty of half-naked men, anon
Powerfully built men using medieval weapons objectively looks cool as frick. Why do you think stuff like Conan and the 300 are so popular? It's not because of women and gays are too small a minority to make stuff like that popular.
submissive men often feel a repressed homoerotic attraction to these things. it must be the muscles for you, because the actual fight choreography is quite lame, i think it's the narrative of iron wills and courage that make them attractive to most straight people.
>i think it's the narrative of iron wills and courage that make them attractive to most straight people.
That is the main thing but the look goes with it. That's why I mentioned in my first post that it's both the idea and the look. It is also why I mentioned armored knights. I think proper armor looks absolutely beautiful but again, I don't want to frick it.
Same for vehicles like tanks. Raw power is just awesome!!!
Gandalf is a cleric though.
What about a wizard that hits things with a sword?
>aesthetically
homosexual
>but a nerd who fights by throwing spells at people will never be as cool thematically or aesthetically
There is plenty of good designs for sorcerers. But since it's personal preference. I don't see point of arguing with that statement. DD got sorcerers right. It should be about spectacle and absolute magical carnage. Unfortunately RPG's is mostly about mimicking lit tropes and follow specific pattern.
Because they don't require you to think and allow for some mindless relaxation.
There's just no bullshit tacked on.
Like, arcane/divine casters in DnD/Pathfinder games have so many random ass spells for very specific situations that you need a guide to figure out which ones are actually worth using. Not to mention the pre-buffing.
Also, scaling. You get a new weapon and your fighter is stronger. For mages/clerics your gear doesn't do shit.
It just seems so lame to sit back and fire spells instead of getting into the fray and risking everything on your strength, reflexes and wits.
true. everyone is talking about how strong F/M/T is... but all the buffing, using spells is so exhausting and boring.
I have more fun with a pure fighter.
Anyone who never plays as fighter is a homosexual.
My main fighters are
>two handed sword
>halberd with shield
>longsword with buckler
>why are simple classes the most fun?
They aren't.
homosexual who thinks that he is smarter than he is.
>n-n-n-no uuuuuuu!
lel. Called it.
You will never be as smart as you think you are and everyone can tell.
This is why they avoid you.
The point
----------------
(You).
Why is a thread like this triggering leftists and incels so much?
This website is, first and foremost, culture war outrage farm.
Topic of each specific board is secondary to that purpose.
the perfect handjob hands... for a big warrior wiener
i like to play druid becasue i wanna play with friends so i summon them
ehhh, depends. I like warrior classes if the game actually has an in-depth combat system. If it's simply "spam button to mash weapon" and nothing beyond that I usually prefer magic classes.