D&D General 50 Years. The Least Popular Class Is......

[Oofta]

But even if you have illusions which can affect all senses, you run into that problem (touch being a sense, it should feel like a real wall to the touch).

If there's a wall that keeps your hand from going through it, then it's no longer an illusion.

I mean, I want illusions to be a viable option, I really do. Every once in a while it is. But it's still just a magical hologram, which brings certain limitations.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nah. Spoony bards sucking was a meme in 3e too, though some not terrible bard prcs were really fun too.

But I'm saying that the 4e bard was gold, and the 5e bard rocks. That's 33% of dnd's lifespan with a good illusionst style class.

Which is probably better than the monk's record. I hear lots of sad things about monks in every edition, from 2e til now. 2024 is possibl the first time I heard monk called good

3.5 bard was good wrong edition though relative to codzilla.

Best one I saw at levels people actually play was better than everything else except the Druid.

2E bard was also good.

Think the art was mocked and the concept.

 

[Zardnaar]

If there's a wall that keeps your hand from going through it, then it's no longer an illusion.

I mean, I want illusions to be a viable option, I really do. Every once in a while it is. But it's still just a magical hologram, which brings certain limitations.

Depends. If the illusion is quasi real save required. Fail you think the wall is real.

Low level illusions yes that's a problem a lot of players don't realize.

 

[Zardnaar]

Lots of people have (mistakenly) called the Monk good over the years. You can prove how bad a Monk is with a Power Point presentation and people will still be like "nuh uh, there was that one time the Monk won initiative, ran 300 feet, and stunned the BBEG, busted!" or "Look at all those special abilities! What a broken class!" or "Monks don't need weapons, armor, or even magic items!".

I don't know what it was like on ENWorld, but back on the GitP forums, we basically had "Monkday", that day of the week some new poster would show up to complain about how OP the Monk was, get told the truth, and refuse to believe it for 20 pages.

Or someone would pop in with their big theorycraft about how Monks really are awesome, they just need to max Charisma, take Use Magic Device cross-class with Skill Focus, and purchase partially charged Wands (you can find Wands partially charged, so they must be available for sale, you know) to have a 50% chance of spending an action to buff themselves to be equal in combat prowess to a Druid's animal companion. Not the Druid. Just their companion.

My favorite instance of this was Big Eyes Small Mouth d20, where the designers tried to break down the power level of classes based on how many abilities they got, and, after seeing Monks get stuff at every level, concluded that they were the most powerful class by far.

I have seen good 3E and 5E Monks.

In all cases really high rolled stats. They're bad with default array. Better than internet assumes though if the players good.

Bad monk player in 3E used weapon finesse. Good one roled really high but keyed things off strength.

They benefit more than most classes with high stats. I had a 2014 fist one with 18 and 20 at level 1. Level 1-4 and 14+ they're decent.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Nah. Spoony bards sucking was a meme in 3e too, though some not terrible bard prcs were really fun too.

But I'm saying that the 4e bard was gold, and the 5e bard rocks. That's 33% of dnd's lifespan with a good illusionst style class.

Which is probably better than the monk's record. I hear lots of sad things about monks in every edition, from 2e til now. 2024 is possibl the first time I heard monk called good

Q. How many dead bards does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A. More than 57, because my basement is still dark.

 

[Oofta]

Depends. If the illusion is quasi real save required. Fail you think the wall is real.

Low level illusions yes that's a problem a lot of players don't realize.

Even the 6th level spell programmed illusion states "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be illusory, since things can pass through it."

 

[Zardnaar]

Q. How many dead bards does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A. More than 57, because my basement is still dark.

Young and stupid our group had a weird obsession with bard abuse.

Eg tie the bard to a 10' pole. Use the bard to open a stuck door. Throw the bard down corridor to check for traps.

 

[Ancalagon]

1E though control spells get worse as game goes on vs boom. 5E other way around.

This in itself is a fascinating concept. (pardon me as I take a tangeant, I swear I will answer your main point in another post!)

2e (and 1e?) had saving throws based on the level of the target. The competence of the caster or the power of the spell had no impact (although the type of spell could make a difference - save vs death, or save vs spells for example).

So under that paradigm, as a caster, at low levels almost all your save spells would hit , and a high level caster would see most of their save spells fail.

In 3e, it was much better, because the save odds were based on the level of the spell, the competence of the caster, and the level of the target. It meant however that low level save spells eventually became obsolete.

4e = ?

In 5e, save odds are based on the competence of the caster and level of the target, but not by the spell level.

This has the consequence that low level save spell do not become obsolete. A web spell still works fine in a high level fight.

What is the "best" system? I guess it depends on what outcome you prefer. I really do like the 5e "end state", but I readily admit it may not work the best for everyone.

 

[Ancalagon]

I was reading an old Dragon or Dungeon magazine and they mention this Class being the least popular.

It may not be the literal least popular Class of all time but I am referring to a Class that saw wide release across multiple editions. Not one limited to a single edition or obscure splat book or dragon magazine.

In 30 years I have seen this Class 3 times iirc. Maybe 4. Rarely used even as an NPC.

Once in Castles and Crusades
Once in 3.0 (with shadow adept in 2002)
Once in 2E (maybe once more in 1E or 2E).

The Class? The poor neglected Illusionist. It's probably more popular than some other wizard subclasses pre 5E at least but they were excluded from pre 1989 D&D and 4E so somewhat understandable.

I have my suspicions why. Main reason you need a creative player and co operating DM. And post 1989 they lost niche protection with critical spells eg chromatic orb, greater invisibility, phantasmal killer or hypnotic pattern. There's also a fine line between creative and hogging the spotlight and arguing over subjective interpretations and what a spell can do vs 10d6 psychic damage.

I might see another one in soon in C&C. The class seems to be an occasional one in pre 3E and OSR games usually a gnome. At least in 1E and C&C they have exclusive spells and the 2024 one looks good.

I played a gnome thief/illusionist in a high level 2e campaign. But I haven't played once since.

The 5.5e illusionist looks preeety good I must say... but it still requires the right player/dm combo.

 

[Zardnaar]

Even the 6th level spell programmed illusion states "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be illusory, since things can pass through it."

Depends on edition and spell though.