It's good class, but nobody plays it!
- Thread starter Number47
- Start date
AegisEversoaring
First Post
"Is there a doctor in the house?"
I've been DMing for the same group of guys for about 14 years now, and in all the campaigns, one-shot adventures, I can count on one hand how many times someone has played a single class cleric. I could use my second hand and no thumb for multiclassed clerics.
Our campaigns typically involve a lot of resting, returning to towns, and doing missions for the temples in exchange for healing!
Oh, and potions, lots of potions!
Aegis
I've been DMing for the same group of guys for about 14 years now, and in all the campaigns, one-shot adventures, I can count on one hand how many times someone has played a single class cleric. I could use my second hand and no thumb for multiclassed clerics.
Our campaigns typically involve a lot of resting, returning to towns, and doing missions for the temples in exchange for healing!
Oh, and potions, lots of potions!
Aegis
2WS-Steve
First Post
Cleric, wizard; you know, the "weak" classes... I'm thinking I need to run my current group through modules one lower than their average level.
Edit: actually I even wrote an article about it called Anti-Munchkins.
Edit: actually I even wrote an article about it called Anti-Munchkins.
Last edited:
jmucchiello
Hero
We're actually only a little short on Wizards. We've had two Bards and both players hated them. (I was always a bard in 2nd ed and I've avoided the 3rd ed bard completely. I almost played Monte's bard in a game but it didn't start yet.) It's funny our long time Druid hasn't touched the 3rd ed Druid class. Our longtime Ranger has a Paladin and a Bard but no rangers. Not even a one-level switch away ranger. We have monks and fighers. A ranger and the afore-mentioned paladin. A barbarian or two. General other class coverage.
Actually, the thing we haven't got is a Fighter/Wizard (or Sorcerer). That was so common in 2nd ed but seems non-existant in 3rd ed. I think it's because spellcasters get hosed if the multiclass evenly. My favorite 2nd ed combos (besides bards) were mage/cleric or druid combos. Can't do it and be even remotely useful at high level anymore.
Joe Mucchiello
Throwing Dice Games
Actually, the thing we haven't got is a Fighter/Wizard (or Sorcerer). That was so common in 2nd ed but seems non-existant in 3rd ed. I think it's because spellcasters get hosed if the multiclass evenly. My favorite 2nd ed combos (besides bards) were mage/cleric or druid combos. Can't do it and be even remotely useful at high level anymore.
Where are you at in NJ? And where did you find a group of non-munchkins in NJ?2WS-Steve said:
Joe Mucchiello
Throwing Dice Games
Kershek
Sci-Fi Newshound
Our group has seen all classes in play in our campaigns except the bard and any form of telepath. One of our players hates the idea of seeing telepaths in a medieval fantasy game (he feels it's sci-fi-ish) so we don't allow the Psionics Handbook (of which I'm the only owner and love psionics). I'm planning on playing a Bard at some point, since I appear to be the only one interested in them and want to see how they play.
Graf
Explorer
Its a DM thing
The basically depends on the DM. If you describe the world and talk about the different roles that people take in it then its pretty easy for your biases (concious or unconcious) to influence your players.
I love Paladins and Druids in the Scarred Lands. I also love wizards (in general).
Though players had the lattitude to do whatever they wanted I don't think its a concidence that my top three classes are all represented.
Enthusiasm feeds enthusasm and a DM who likes a certain style of class or style of play will "feed" that player. (The wizard has actually found a
load of spellbooks with weird spells from supplements, I find it much easier to include subplots for the druid and the paladin for me).
I'm not staying that people's sterotypes don't play a role but the DMs biases and their relationship with the players (whether they see you as an advisor or as an adversary)
Having said that
I have to second the rogue thing. There's a simple reason for this: Rogue skills get very little time. Sneaking around sucks for the group in a way that little else does. Even killing time while the wizard identifies is a spectator sport. I've played a 'rogue type' in a number of different games. People hate-hate-hate the rogue going off to sneak around and explore, it eats up game time and if the rogue roles wrong the party basically has to go save them (and often the group has lost surprise).
The rogue who's more of a thief and less of a scout is often even more of a problem. If the rogue gets away with their thiefts the group often benifts very little but if their caught the group pays.
The basically depends on the DM. If you describe the world and talk about the different roles that people take in it then its pretty easy for your biases (concious or unconcious) to influence your players.
I love Paladins and Druids in the Scarred Lands. I also love wizards (in general).
Though players had the lattitude to do whatever they wanted I don't think its a concidence that my top three classes are all represented.
Enthusiasm feeds enthusasm and a DM who likes a certain style of class or style of play will "feed" that player. (The wizard has actually found a
load of spellbooks with weird spells from supplements, I find it much easier to include subplots for the druid and the paladin for me).I'm not staying that people's sterotypes don't play a role but the DMs biases and their relationship with the players (whether they see you as an advisor or as an adversary)
Having said that
I have to second the rogue thing. There's a simple reason for this: Rogue skills get very little time. Sneaking around sucks for the group in a way that little else does. Even killing time while the wizard identifies is a spectator sport. I've played a 'rogue type' in a number of different games. People hate-hate-hate the rogue going off to sneak around and explore, it eats up game time and if the rogue roles wrong the party basically has to go save them (and often the group has lost surprise).
The rogue who's more of a thief and less of a scout is often even more of a problem. If the rogue gets away with their thiefts the group often benifts very little but if their caught the group pays.
ConcreteBuddha
First Post
Mr Fidgit said:
Me.
ConcreteBuddha
First Post
Fast Learner said:
I'm currently playing a single-classed Lizardman Barbarian.
Yes, it would have been more powerful to play a Fighter/Barbarian, but I really don't care. I'm going to stay single-classed until the end of time.
ConcreteBuddha
First Post
After 3rd Edition came out, we had a rash of people attempt to play a single-classed Ranger...
...no one has played one since.
...no one has played one since.
Similar Threads
