>Do all your characters have to be mages?

Nope, they don't, but they're what I like best.

Orcs and warriors are too gear dependant for my taste. The low-int varieties (which are otherwise the ones I'd usually pick) also require way, way more skill practice (just to get to the mid-80s) than I can begin to tolerate. Bear in mind, my 300 hour bard didn't even perfect trip, or get staff skill to 85%. I *really* can't stand skill practice just for the sake of skill practice and warriors have a crapload of skills that you really should get up to at least mid-80s or so.

Thieves are okay, but they're not really my style.

Assassins are generally fine. Somewhat gear and practice dependant, but not too bad. They're too vulnerable to bash for my taste. I've played a few and they went okay. Would play another.

Rangers are okay, but I find their wilderness-dependence very frustrating. They share much of the same gear dependence situation that makes warriors unappealing. Overall, not my cup of tea.

Healers can't PK except with leet gear I don't play conservatively enough to hold on to. One of my favorite character ever was a healer, and I'd play another, but not really to kill with.

Paladins are fine, but can't seal kills worth a damn, something I have terrible problems with anyway. Also their skillset is a bit lackluster and the high exp penalty turns me off. I will play a paladin at some point.

Druids and Shaman are solid and fit me well. I recently played one though. Generally with empowerment classes I have a bad habit of biting off more than I can chew and deleting when I can't live up to my role.

Bards are currently the class I'm most suited to, but I just played one and while I do have another idea in the wings it'll be too obvious it's me if I play it right now.

Mages generally appeal to me most.

I'm sure this was all very boring to you, but eh, you asked.