I personally always enjoyed magic characters in video games. Though I tend to enjoy sci-fi settings like Fallout, where I tend to make my character smart and agile at the expense of endurance and strength. I also prefer long-range skills (e.g. small guns) over melee skills. Which actually maps nicely to wizards in the fantasy equivalent.
All of that to say: Go for monk, sorcerer, or wizard.
Oh man, I played *a lot* of AD&D in my youth--the version pictured in your illustration, in fact, is the one most familiar to me. (I still own those books, too!)
I would typically go for the magic-wielding types, though I did play a female cleric once. Bard could be fun too, though I don't think I ever tried one (but totally would if I played again now).
Bard would be fairly natural for me, I think. I mean, I come here to write every day and try to do something creative, educational, or entertaining. That's us, right?
It sounds like it's too late, but I want to say, *you don't have to use the latest rules.* (I like 2nd-ed. AD&D plus selected old Dragon magazine supplements.) (BTW, your photo includes the book that officially introduced the 1st-ed. version of the Barbarian.)
But the ruleset isn't the most important thing, unless it's *getting in the way* of the kind of game you want. Some of my best players, once upon a time, were TTRPG neophytes and had no idea how anything worked mechanically, but were steeped in fantasy fiction and improv theater.
I liked rolling for attributes before choosing class because it invited players to consider characters as people, before deciding on their career paths.
It is not that I always played paladins, rogues or fighters, but I discovered they were the ones which allowed me to pull off the most engaging and oftentimes, challenging roleplay. Wizards, sorcerers, and bards, though complex and capable of various magics, are probably the most slow and boring for me.
I like it! They are like goody-two-shoes, but that's just how they aspire to be. Paladins can be really interesting - if I play one, I'll be filled with struggle and angst. Perversely, that'll be.. fun?
A paladin type can be great, but you need close cooperation from the GM to create strong context. You'll want to know some details about the religion or code they're supposed to be upholding.
I personally always enjoyed magic characters in video games. Though I tend to enjoy sci-fi settings like Fallout, where I tend to make my character smart and agile at the expense of endurance and strength. I also prefer long-range skills (e.g. small guns) over melee skills. Which actually maps nicely to wizards in the fantasy equivalent.
All of that to say: Go for monk, sorcerer, or wizard.
Excellent advice! I like those three. Will consider along w/the other picks here.
Paladin just because it narrows your character decisions down if you really want to play into a role.
Rogue if you want to have a bazilion actions later on as you level up.
Bard if you want to be able to buff your party. Plus you get to sing!
Thanks, Adrian!
My vote is Bard or Rogue.
I play a Bard, and the GM has me write songs mid-game that I can then play to persuade others, get them fired up, or some emotional effect.
This would be a cinch for me. It's on the (semi) short list!
This article is brought to you by the law offices of Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User and Thief.
I love it. They're still the core basis!
Any thoughts on class?
er, rather - what class I should be. You've already provided a nice thought-nugget on character class!
Oh man, I played *a lot* of AD&D in my youth--the version pictured in your illustration, in fact, is the one most familiar to me. (I still own those books, too!)
I would typically go for the magic-wielding types, though I did play a female cleric once. Bard could be fun too, though I don't think I ever tried one (but totally would if I played again now).
Bard would be fairly natural for me, I think. I mean, I come here to write every day and try to do something creative, educational, or entertaining. That's us, right?
Clericcccccc
I have been clerics before, and enjoyed them!
It sounds like it's too late, but I want to say, *you don't have to use the latest rules.* (I like 2nd-ed. AD&D plus selected old Dragon magazine supplements.) (BTW, your photo includes the book that officially introduced the 1st-ed. version of the Barbarian.)
But the ruleset isn't the most important thing, unless it's *getting in the way* of the kind of game you want. Some of my best players, once upon a time, were TTRPG neophytes and had no idea how anything worked mechanically, but were steeped in fantasy fiction and improv theater.
I liked rolling for attributes before choosing class because it invited players to consider characters as people, before deciding on their career paths.
That's how we used to play. I'm trying to embrace the class-first approach openly here. Thanks for diving in with some expert feedback here!
It is not that I always played paladins, rogues or fighters, but I discovered they were the ones which allowed me to pull off the most engaging and oftentimes, challenging roleplay. Wizards, sorcerers, and bards, though complex and capable of various magics, are probably the most slow and boring for me.
Paladin (don’t know what it is, sounds cool)
I like it! They are like goody-two-shoes, but that's just how they aspire to be. Paladins can be really interesting - if I play one, I'll be filled with struggle and angst. Perversely, that'll be.. fun?
A paladin type can be great, but you need close cooperation from the GM to create strong context. You'll want to know some details about the religion or code they're supposed to be upholding.
I'm absolutely very respectful of the work the DM has put in here, and I'll be sure to keep her informed!