As a DM, which class do you wish your group played more?

[the Jester]

I think I'd enjoy DMing a campaign of all bards, assuming they could live past 1st level.

When 3.0 first came out, I ran a huge group and about half of them started as bards. It was very interesting stuff- eventually a lot of them multiclassed, but they really made for a versatile party fair at everything.

 

[Sephiroth no Miko]

I DM'ed a large group that multi-classed all over the place, so they wound up hitting all the classes... except cleric. No one was particularly interested in that one. I eventually had to send an NPC cleric with them... but even he lost his clerichood because one of the PCs tempted him into break his sacred vows...

But it really depends on campaign, I think. Right now, in my current campaign, I can't get anyone to be a warrior-type: fighter, paladin, ranger, barbarian... whatever. And we still don't have a cleric.

 

[Wraith Form]

If I wind up coming to Austin (and I might should my daughter get a role in a film that's shooting there) I would love to run a game for some folks there.

YOU have a daughter?

You're old!

 

[Kalendraf]

I must be pretty lucky. Between the 2 groups I DM, every class has been covered at some point. Currently there is no wizard among either group, but there was one a while ago.

Weekly group: Fighter/Barbarian, Monk, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Rogue
Monthly group: Fighter/Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, Monk, Bard, Sorcerer

 

[Drommon]

I voted for rogue. Although the party does have rogues in it, but it is usually just a couple of levels of rogue. Rarely has a player played a rogue in the role it is intended for which is scouting and trapfinding for dungeon style campaigns (of which our style is).

Drommon

 

[MDSnowman]

I'm fine with all character classes, i just wish, people would play less multiclass characters and less prestige classes. Would make adventure design easier (especially with my AD&D group *ack*).

See that's always been one of my few gripes about 3.x D&D there's no real reason to stick with any of the non-major spellcasting classes for all twenty levels. That's why you see so much multi-classing and prestige classes... people like to get cool abilities.. something they're not going to get when they take their 15th level as a fighter (the biggest offender in this as I see it, who in their right mind wants to go all 20 levels as something as vanilla as a fighter?!?!?)

That's one of the reason I'm all aboard the Arcana Unearthed Band Wagon... you see some of the high level abilities for the likes of Warmains or Totem warriors and you realize that you WANT to stick with this class. That's why you'll never see a 20th Level Rogue, Fighter, Ranger, or Barbarian.

 

[Gundark]

Hmmmm we have lots of rogues, but NO spellcasters at all.....cleric is the one that we always seem to be without....cleric is my favourtie class to play

 

[Creamsteak]

See that's always been one of my few gripes about 3.x D&D there's no real reason to stick with any of the non-major spellcasting classes for all twenty levels. That's why you see so much multi-classing and prestige classes... people like to get cool abilities.. something they're not going to get when they take their 15th level as a fighter (the biggest offender in this as I see it, who in their right mind wants to go all 20 levels as something as vanilla as a fighter?!?!?)

That's one of the reason I'm all aboard the Arcana Unearthed Band Wagon... you see some of the high level abilities for the likes of Warmains or Totem warriors and you realize that you WANT to stick with this class. That's why you'll never see a 20th Level Rogue, Fighter, Ranger, or Barbarian.

I played a fighter up to 12th level (started at 6th though, so it wasn't as incredible as starting at first). We were just using the core rules too, so I didn't have much to choose from for feats. I think the only reason I stuck with the class was because I still didn't have Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization for my ranged weapon (longbow/longsword fighter). After I finished that chain, I would have went into some prestige class, almost definitely.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Our group is always short on clerics.

The thing is, the people in our group who don't mind playing clerics (from a strictly roleplaying perspective) hate managing the clerical spell list and consequently don't have much fun with them. The people who don't mind managing spell lists hate playing clerics, so there's no fun to be had there, either.

But man, the game makes it hard to scrape by without a cleric. Published adventures often require them, you're always short on healing, undead become much more challenging...it's sad. There are other classes we get less of (druids and barbarians, for example), but the only one anyone ever really misses is a cleric.

We also tend to run short on straight-up, tank-style fighters (or near equivalents like paladins). Fortunately, it's easier to work around that gap than it is to adjust for a no-cleric party.

--
lots of rogue types, lots of arcane casters
ryan

 

[MDSnowman]

I played a fighter up to 12th level (started at 6th though, so it wasn't as incredible as starting at first). We were just using the core rules too, so I didn't have much to choose from for feats. I think the only reason I stuck with the class was because I still didn't have Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization for my ranged weapon (longbow/longsword fighter). After I finished that chain, I would have went into some prestige class, almost definitely.

I know I was speaking from experience... I started a campaign as a 12th level fighter... I was bored to tears in no time, even with Tactical feats from the complete warrior (really those were the only perks my big guy had.) I begged to my DM and by the time I hit 13th level he let me Retcon my guy to a 10th Level Fighter / 3rd Level tainted Warrior (from Dragon #302) those three levels gave him enough depth where I was much happier playing this character, even after I gave up great cleave (which I never used because the DM never siced hordes of mooks on us )