Whether it's Pathfinder, 3.x, 2e, or whatever version of D&D, which classes saw the least play at your table, or seemed the least beloved?
For us (Pathfinder/C&C), we almost never see bards or paladins. I think the only time we see a bard is if I'm playing Pathfinder, as I'm the only person who will run one.
Clerics. The cleric is always a henchman or DMPC.
Quote from: Zachary The First;767601Whether it's Pathfinder, 3.x, 2e, or whatever version of D&D, which classes saw the least play at your table, or seemed the least beloved?
For us (Pathfinder/C&C), we almost never see bards or paladins. I think the only time we see a bard is if I'm playing Pathfinder, as I'm the only person who will run one.
That's funny, I had a bard player...his character got killed.
His next character? A paladin.
Even more funny is the Runelords adventure coming up has stuff just for bards (sheet music? Really!)...I decided just to skip it and move on to more ogre-bashing, which any paladin can get behind.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;767734Clerics. The cleric is always a henchman or DMPC.
Seriously? Man, we have clerics running out of our ears.
Always used to be Bards for us. They just seemed daft, somehow - never been able to get past the "brave, brave Sir Robin" idea. Not sure if Bards just are seen differentially culturally in the States.
We did have one Bard once which was very much influenced by the years our group spent playing EverQuest. But other than that no-one's ever tried.
We've never really got in to non-core classes at all either. I played a (3E) Warlock once, but that's the only one I can ever remember.
Single class Fighters seem next to non existent, oh and single class Rangers for that matter.
Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Bards, Clerics, Rogues, Barbarians, Paladins all seem to get a lot of love.
Classes outside of the PG tend to suffer from being perceived as unneeded and hence unpopular.
Quote from: Grymbok;767748Always used to be Bards for us. They just seemed daft, somehow - never been able to get past the "brave, brave Sir Robin" idea. Not sure if Bards just are seen differentially culturally in the States.
In my experience, making the bard an appealing choice is all about finding the right piece of awesome bard art to shake people's unflattering preconceptions.
I'll probably never see a Barbarian, Monk, or Druid. I'm not fond of any of them and neither is the person I play with.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;767777In my experience, making the bard an appealing choice is all about finding the right piece of awesome bard art to shake people's unflattering preconceptions.
http://e.asset.soup.io/asset/0349/2302_c3ac.jpeg (http://e.asset.soup.io/asset/0349/2302_c3ac.jpeg)
Quote from: Zachary The First;767745Seriously? Man, we have clerics running out of our ears.
I know, right? The 3.5 cleric is the class with the best options in terms of both chargen and tactical flex.
I have long imagined a party made up entirely of bards and cantors. Like, four Links running around.
of revised 3rd Edition, Pathfinder, and 4E the answer for my group would be....
Bards (though 4E made me want to play one rather than rolling my eyes at bad acting, terrible jokes, and poor singing some Bard players attempting to do or felt obligated to attempt for their Performance [insert thing-y here] checks).
I haven't seen any Monks in any Pathfinder game. My impression is that they're even weaker than in 3e.
There's a Bard in my current Pathfinder game. Bards are/were very popular in my 4e D&D game; the 4e Bard is a pretty cool class.
In Pathfinder Rogue and Fighter seem rare unless we're playing the Beginner Box and/or using the Merisiel & Valeros pregens. By contrast the other two BB classes, Cleric and Wizard, are popular. It's pretty easy to make a Cleric who fights as well as a Fighter with plenty spells left over, & Channeling.
I was told that, other than the full casters, Paladin and Rogue were OP in PF.
I'm not a fan of 3.5e by any stretch of the imagination, but I really wish I could play on my gaming group's weekend PF games. The PF trade dress and art looks way better than 3.5e, and I like some of the things they did to some of the classes (e.g. Sorcerer bloodlines) and some of the new classes (Alchemist, Oracle, Summoner)
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;767777In my experience, making the bard an appealing choice is all about finding the right piece of awesome bard art to shake people's unflattering preconceptions.
Got any examples to share?
I've jus remembered that the one bard we had was actually an NPC that was given to one of the players to control for some reason (the PC was incapacitated somehow - this was in the Banewarrens adventure I think). So in terms of actual PCs, we've never had one in any D&D game I've played.
Quote from: Grymbok;768100Got any examples to share?
I saw this one on DeviantArt, thought it was pretty cool:
http://th03.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2013/119/5/b/bard_by_gerezon-d63hucw.jpg (http://th03.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2013/119/5/b/bard_by_gerezon-d63hucw.jpg)
I kinda like this guy, too:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OxBya3fYnxM/ULtpXBXb2cI/AAAAAAAAAwE/A-GKSayhbQo/s400/Dwarf+Bard+2.jpg)
There's always this: :)
http://www.kraproom.com/pacman/aod/gallery/d/3204-2/bard.jpg (http://www.kraproom.com/pacman/aod/gallery/d/3204-2/bard.jpg)
Seriously, though, when I see the bard played as more of a traveling tale-teller and troubadour, I think that's been a better fit in a lot of our groups.
Bards, paladins, barbarians for the most part, although I've played all three myself. In fact, one of my favorite 3.0 characters ever was a half-orc Bard/Barbarian whose goal in life was to make enough money to open a bakery. Had to be there I guess, but man was he fun to play, and roleplay - his mom was an orc, his dad was a human fighter she captured in battle. They had a small farm and... well, trust me, it was awesome.
His band was called the "Ban(ne)d From Many Places". His preferred weapon was, of course, a battleaxe.
Quote from: Grymbok;768100Got any examples to share?
(http://i.imgur.com/uqmGFdx.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/2jL5TFa.jpg)
The first one up there reminds me a bit of Keith Thompson's Skald.
(http://www.keiththompsonart.com/images/full/cobbledskald.jpg)
1e and 2e Illusionists always seemed like a cool idea, but nobody I played with ever played one a second time. They always seemed to make better NPCs.
1e "triple lindy" bards never even made an appearance in our groups if my admittedly foggy memory serves. Despite the nearly continuous eye-rolling (which some mistook for a years long seizure) induced by 4e, that period produced my favorite bard. The player's choice for the bard's performance was off color monster jokes. You only ever heard the setup, and never the punchline.
"Have you heard the one about the paladin of Pelor and the zombie prostitute?"
I don't suppose that has anything to do with 4e bards themselves, though.
Also, the standalone Cavalier (UA?) was largely ignored.
The 4e warden was unfortunately, in my opinion, a bit of a wallflower.
Being old fashioned I tend to prefer the base single class characters. Cleric, fighter and rogue being my favorites.
Illusionists and monks were always NPC characters. Cavaliers and Paladins had too many prerequisites and role-playing limitations to be popular. Can't remember the last time I've seen a bard.
I know a guy who plays nothing but barbarians though.
We've never had a monk in any of our 3.x/PF campaigns, they just don't fit our idea of fantasy. We've also never had anyone multi-class.
I'm the only one to have played a bard in RoR (Shoanti "Thundercaller"), but I have fond memories of the character. It's true that past double digit levels, they play second fiddle to full-on fighters and wizards, but they are very versatile and fun.
In our current Kingmaker campaign, we've tried out the Oracle and Cavalier but are underwhelmed with both. Our most popular classes (featured in every one of five campaigns) were fighters, clerics, wizards and rogues. Very traditional.