What do you like to play

[Teaguethebean]

Hello friends I have noticed something (take what I know with a grain of salt I have only been playing for about a year now) players tend to gravitate towards a specific role in the party and I have devided the classes into 4 different roles
Tank-Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Striker-Rougue, Monk, Ranger
Support-Cleric, Druid, Bard, Artificer*
Caster-Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Mystic*
*The ua classes are a little strange but this is the main role I see them fill

Do you see players gravitate towards these types of roles what do you think

[strangebloke]

First to answer your question: I like 'em all. With a group of newbs I'll usually play a support character, but witha more experienced gang I like to play a striker.

...in all seriousness, though, I don't play that much these days. I DM a lot, but that's different.

And I'd classify things a bit differently. I'd go first by resource economy and then by role.

Resource Economy:
Long Rest: Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer, Druid (plays like a SR class) Paladin
Short Rest: Warlock, Monk
No Rest: Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian

Role:
Striker (single target DPR):Paladin, Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Monk, Warlock
AoE/Control: Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Warlock, Conquest Paladin, Certain sentinel builds...
Support/Utility: Cleric, Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Rogue, Warlock, Paladin.

[Arkhios]

Regardless of game (and/or edition) I find myself leaning towards melee warrior types, either with a "sword & board" style or with two weapons. That includes every class that can stand on their own in the thick of battle, toe to toe with their foes. In D&D that would mean barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers with occasionally monks and rogues.

When I decidedly want to play something else, I find myself drawn towards characters capable of sowing destruction with primal magic (anything related to storms, such as thunder, lightning, freezing cold, and fire. But not Acid for some reason). In D&D that would be either a sorcerer, wizard, or druid. In WoW that's either mage or shaman. And so on.

[Pelle]

How do you know players gravitate to a specific party role, and not just the classes themselves? If a player want to play a barbarian, there's typically not evidence that he wants to play 'tank' and not 'striker'. Do you mean that when the same players choose a different classes, they tend to mostly pick classes within the same role you have defined? That's not really my experience...

[Contrast]

Tank-Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Striker-Rougue, Monk, Ranger
Support-Cleric, Druid, Bard, Artificer*
Caster-Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Mystic*


I feel like you're forcing things to fit to a certain extent.

Why are rogues, monks and rangers 'strikers' when a well built fighter or barbarian can be pumping out the most direct damage? Paladin can time their damage as well for maximum effect.

I'd probably rename these categories according to archetypes - so what I assume you're meaning is does the player gravitate towards playing bruiser characters or are they more inclined to play finesse/utility characters. This falls apart as well though in terms of class division when you consider a strength rogue build is a thing and dex fighters are pretty much just as good mechanically as strength ones.

A sorcerer can be built to be amazing at support and my personal experience is that sorcerers and warlocks play completely different to wizards (who I feel are much closer mechanically to druids and clerics). I would expect someone who enjoys playing a wizard to enjoy the mechanics of clerics and druids more, though I concede archetype wise their may be a preference for those who are their own source of power like sorc or bards.

In summary - yes people have certain character types they'll tend to stick to. I don't think you can generalise those for the entire population though. I have tended to play rogues, barbarians and cha based casters for example.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I like to play the support, but I don't see it as you see it.

I can play:
A Tank.
A BFC caster
A Healer(the problem with healers is that they are only good out of combat).
A Buffer.
A Debuffer.

I see all as the support.

I have a friend that always play the ultra caster and other that play a high Cha one.

[Gastronomie]

I generally like to create a character that can fill in every one of those roles if he wants to. Half because I used to often found myself in situations where every time I go to the table, the party composition is a bit different, and I wanted my character to always be able to find a role. Half because thinking in combat is fun.

As a result I often multiclass, but recently I find myself leaning towards single classes, because I sorta got bored of all the mixing and started feeling like going more straightforward.

[DarkKnightJin]

I love playing 'magic knight' type characters. Whether that's a Cleric, Paladin, or Eldritch Knight Fighter makes little difference to me.

Currently, I'm playing an EK/Warlock at one table, and Cleric with just Healing Word for picking someone up from death saves at another.

And both are amazingly fun to play.

Though I have noticed that the Cleric is a bit more 'support' than the EK tends to be.

[Maxilian]

Mostly striker or tanks, and by striker i don't only mean what you have in the list, i would also include warlocks, as they are a class with a good at will damage (EB) and some spells (unlike other casters), i normally end up playing Fighter or Warlock, mostly because i normally go for concepts, and both classes work great with the idea of creating fun concepts (Fighter have enought ASIS to go for many feats or ability score improvement to make it viable and 2 lvl Warlock + good CHA means i will always have a good at will damage, regardless of whatever i do -I can MC into anything and get any weird feat or combo, and at least i will be an useful blaster), my third option is support, i have always been that player (but i'm also the guy who think that the requirement of healers in parties is silly)

[NaughtyTiger]

at my table:
1 of my players has played 3 variations of warlock.
1 of my players has played: socr, warlock 2x, bard 2x

when i play, i go support mage (druid or wiz)

[elyktsorb]

I like to play multiclasses.

Currently trying out Druid/Rogue

Did a Ranger/Fighter just before.

Played around with a, Barbarian/Bard/Life Cleric/Druid/Fighter/Monk/Rogue/Shadow Sorcerer, which was neat.

[viaFAMILIAR]

My three most memorable PCs:

Warlock, GOO patron, chains boon - a young girl who stumbled upon her master's spellbook somehow contacted another plane, met with a GOO, goes mad. The telepathic abilities mixed with some prestidigitation and the use of an invisible familiar made for some great RP moments.

Eldritch Knight/War Magic school - my first tanky build. I really liked the idea of playing a half-orc/drow, something about being the progeny of nemesis races(gruumsh/lolth). At this point access to magic and a familiar have become core to my play style.

Human Cleric, death domain - magic initiate for green-flame because one attack, chill touch for all necromancy cantrips, and again find-familiar(poisonous snake). Spare the dying, inflict/cure wounds are both cast through my familiar(snakebite), we've allowed the use of touch of death channel divinity option with this.

I did play the equivalent of a rogue in a Starfinder campaign. My sleight of hand was imperceivable.

[Oramac]

I'll play anything the party needs.

That being said, if I have a choice I will generally lean towards melee combatants with two-handed weapons. Barbarians, Vengeance Paladins, BM or Champion Fighters, etc.

That that being said, one of the most fun characters I ever played was a Storm Sorc / Tempest Cleric MC.

And like Arkhios, I love love love Storm based characters. Even wrote an Oath of the Storm for paladins. (in my sig, currently playtested up to 10th level)