I'm wondering what other people don't see at their table. For ours it's things with mounts and druids. The last time I saw a druid was a year ago and it was a Japanese loving girl that played her character like an anime character.
Bards and monks, thats about it. I don't count the newer classes yet because we have not played enough yet with them to get a good feel.
I feel a lot of the newer classes are good! You guys should try them out they all have great roleplaying potential!
|
Haven't seen a bard in ages; sorcerers are rare too, at least in Atlanta PFS (I've heard other places they are more common than Wizards).
And thinking about tables of late; Rangers haven't been around... kinda odd for one of the game's best DPS classes. I see most others repped, though melee classes and clerics seem to be the bulk of what people play here.
Bards and Druids, I have never played a 3.5 or PF game where someone was playing one.
The reports of people not seeing bards distresses me.
I must work harder to fix that.
Monks are few and far between in our games.
i am trying cheap, thats virtually all i play!!
I have never seen a cavalier.
Oddly enough our group has not had anybody playing Wizards and Paladin is also not played.
|
The reports of people not seeing bards distresses me.
I must work harder to fix that.
Well, it's not for nothing that I wrote 6 bard archetypes with some having their own variants so people may find what the rules don't provide yet. Funniest part is that I never saw one being played, nor have I played one myself...
Archaeologist is the most interesting IMHO, but losing Inspire Courage and gaining Trapfinding sucks for our games. I prefer the bateleur, but I may be a bit oriented... :D| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only class that has never appeared in my game is summoner, probably because I banned it
|
|
Bards and monks, thats about it. I don't count the newer classes yet because we have not played enough yet with them to get a good feel.I feel a lot of the newer classes are good! You guys should try them out they all have great roleplaying potential!
We have, but we have not had enough new characters to really get a good sampling yet if people will keep playing them or not. Pretty much everyone in my group has played all the old classes at least once. They all plan to try all the new classes at least once. But until that has come to pass and I see if they start playing the classes more or some not at all I couldn't say, if any of the new ones will get no play or not. Each of the new classes has at least one player intrigued by them though.
The reports of people not seeing bards distresses me.
I must work harder to fix that.
I got banned from playing bards (and sometimes all magic users) which can be explained in 4 words Chaotic Neutral Bard Glitterdust
Killed over half the party.
Lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have, but we have not had enough new characters to really get a good sampling yet if people will keep playing them or not. Pretty much everyone in my group has played all the old classes at least once. They all plan to try all the new classes at least once. But until that has come to pass and I see if they start playing the classes more or some not at all I couldn't say, if any of the new ones will get no play or not. Each of the new classes has at least one player intrigued by them though.Bards and monks, thats about it. I don't count the newer classes yet because we have not played enough yet with them to get a good feel.I feel a lot of the newer classes are good! You guys should try them out they all have great roleplaying potential!
Bards can have nothing to do with music, and the only thing they lose is countersong or distraction. Aka, nothing.
Read the class through, it's very different from the 3.5 one.
Nobody in my group has ever played a fighter, most of us think they are just too plain. Paladins are rare too.
|
Rather than telling what class I don't see, I will say the only one that I see too much to care about. Barbarian. Nothing wrong with the class, I just see it too much to like it all that much. As the great Bill Cavalier said "I only know one 5 syllable word: BARBARIAN RAGE!!!" On the contrary, I see too few rogues that the class seems to shine when I see it. Granted, Fighters make a better trapfinder than a rogue... Ask me how I know. I dare you.
I think Inquisitor is the only class that's never been played at our table (even the Antipaladin is beating it in terms of usage for crying out loud).
I rarely see alchemists, caveliers, and gunslingers either, though considering that the samurai and cavelier are technically the same class, I suppose the cav' isn't doing too badly.
And after seeing how awesome our current game's new alchemist looks, I'm considering playing one myself next time I get a chance.
On the other end of the scale, Rogues are by far the most-used class in my group. Bards are popular too.
I see almost solely fighters rangers and barbarians in my games, I have a martial party, albeit in high fantasy games. We do get wizards and clerics sometimes. I have a player that was talking about playing a bard in the next game, although he may have been joking (no insult to bards, in was the context and material of the discussion that make me unsure if he was serious).
|
with weekly william, the only commonly played classes are fighters and rangers. and the most popular races are humans and dwarves. it's usually up to me to cover a missing role or few. which is usually some form of caster or skill monkey. so i tend to build characters with some level of diversity, like branching off into a secondary function for example.
Rather than telling what class I don't see, I will say the only one that I see too much to care about. Barbarian. Nothing wrong with the class, I just see it too much to like it all that much. As the great Bill Cavalier said "I only know one 5 syllable word: BARBARIAN RAGE!!!" On the contrary, I see too few rogues that the class seems to shine when I see it. Granted, Fighters make a better trapfinder than a rogue... Ask me how I know. I dare you.
How do you know a Fighter is a better trapfinder than a Rogue?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than telling what class I don't see, I will say the only one that I see too much to care about. Barbarian. Nothing wrong with the class, I just see it too much to like it all that much. As the great Bill Cavalier said "I only know one 5 syllable word: BARBARIAN RAGE!!!" On the contrary, I see too few rogues that the class seems to shine when I see it. Granted, Fighters make a better trapfinder than a rogue... Ask me how I know. I dare you.How do you know a Fighter is a better trapfinder than a Rogue?
Guys! I found the TRAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............
The spikes broke his fall. Does that answer your question?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reports of people not seeing bards distresses me.
I must work harder to fix that.
I got banned from playing bards (and sometimes all magic users) which can be explained in 4 words Chaotic Neutral Bard Glitterdust
Killed over half the party.
Did you get their stuff?
|
Haven't seen a bard in ages; sorcerers are rare too, at least in Atlanta PFS (I've heard other places they are more common than Wizards).
And thinking about tables of late; Rangers haven't been around... kinda odd for one of the game's best DPS classes. I see most others repped, though melee classes and clerics seem to be the bulk of what people play here.
Yes, Sorcerers are more common than Wizards, in Denver at least. I see a lot of low level bards and most who are not music based (oratory or Archeologist for example), but never high level bards.
I've seen two Cavaliers, ever, and one is multi-class and the other I saw once and never again. That's in contrast to a lot of Summoners, Alchemists, Oracles and some witches.
Fighter and Rogue seem to be classes people dip into, rather than play.
While I haven't played enough for all the classes to have gotten a chance to shine, I can at least come up with a list based on what I know of the people I play with.
Bard: with one exception, most of us don't like to play the roll of the buffer. It's too passive for most of our play styles.
Paladins: Tends to be a hard one to do considering that one of the players regularly goes for the evil overlord fighting against evil to get rid of the competition concept and many others prefer moral flexibility. I'd love to try one, but don't see it happening.
Cavaliers: Simply for being based around mounted combat.
Oracles: mostly because Sorcerers have a more versitile spell list.
Gunslingers: While we do use guns in some of our games, I don't see anyone taking the class. Normally most of the players go for full casters rather than anything that resembles a front line fighter.
Barbarians and cavilliers rarely get played. Orales hav'nt yet, but when a new campaign starts or an existing charater dies that may change. Druids are rare but not unheard of. I don't see gunslingers, summoners or alchamists getting a lot of play.
Only class that has never appeared in my game is summoner, probably because I banned it
Why would you ban one of the most flavorful classes in the game? Oh yeah some people can't properly prep summoners or properly interpret the rules on them.
Nobody in my group has ever played a fighter, most of us think they are just too plain. Paladins are rare too.
I don't like fighters either.
Surprisingly my groups lack clerics. Usually getting round the healing deficit with an alchemist, bard, paladin, Druid or oracle. Probably the most most common pc is the Eidolon. No I don't mean the Summoner, they pretty much get ignored at the early levels.
Not seen monk, samurai or ninja yet. But only cause they make no sense in the setting I'm running.
|
|
We see billions of fighters, in Atlanta PFS they are the most prevalent class. Monks went from non-existence to taking fighter's place after Ultimate Combat; it's rare I sit down at a table without at least one monk. Clerics/Oracles/Witches are also around; and while wizards used to be popular, and many retired (especially conjurers), I haven't seen them as much anymore. I haven't seen a sorcerer in quite a while, and never have seen them past low levels.
I've seen many low level cavaliers, but they disappear around 4. We've had a surgence of paladins running around too; none using the archtypes oddly.
Rangers, Bards, and Druids have never been played in our group. All the new classes have been tried accept the stuff from Ultimate Combat (Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai)
|
|
We have, but we have not had enough new characters to really get a good sampling yet if people will keep playing them or not. Pretty much everyone in my group has played all the old classes at least once. They all plan to try all the new classes at least once. But until that has come to pass and I see if they start playing the classes more or some not at all I couldn't say, if any of the new ones will get no play or not. Each of the new classes has at least one player intrigued by them though.Bards and monks, thats about it. I don't count the newer classes yet because we have not played enough yet with them to get a good feel.I feel a lot of the newer classes are good! You guys should try them out they all have great roleplaying potential!Bards can have nothing to do with music, and the only thing they lose is countersong or distraction. Aka, nothing.
Read the class through, it's very different from the 3.5 one.
Poor choice of words to say the fact. I should have said that's the perception my group has about them. But then I think a lot of it is a carry over from AD&D and 2e, since all of my current players started with one of those.
|
Hrm, let me think, games I've been part of over the last 2 and a half years:
Shackled City: paladin, monk, rogue, cleric, sorcerer, ranger, druid
homebrew: wizard, rogue, fighter, barbarian/sorcerer/DD, cleric
Serpent's Skull: alchemist, summoner, fighter, 2x cleric, rogue, wizard
Carrion Crown: wizard, oracle, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, rogue
homebrew: magus, oracle, rogue/cavalier, ranger, rogue
homebrew: inquisitor, ranger, summoner, fighter, bard
witch 0
alchemist 1
barbarian 1
bard 1
cavalier 1
druid 1
inquisitor 1
magus 1
monk 1
oracle 2
paladin 2
summoner 2
fighter 3
sorcerer 3
wizard 3
cleric 4
ranger 4
rogue 6
So there we go, rogue on top, witch on the bottom. Not a very large sample size unfortunately.
|
|
Yeah in our group at least one person always plays a fighter in every campaign. The only other class that gets as much play is the Wizard which is the same.
As for the new classes we have had a person play a Witch, Oracle, and Summoner so far. But on some peoples short lists for next characters is all the rest from the AP, including the Gunslinger, Samaria, and Ninja.
The whole group liked the witch to one degree or another. They was mixed on the Oracle and Summoner, with some liking them and some not. The two big complaints about them and some didn't like having a forced on flaw for the Oracle and for the summoner it was how long their round could take forcing others to wait.
My group hated clerics for ages, like cranewings, somebody had to pull cleric duty (though in our group it was the DM via an NPC) up untill recently when I started to feel the love for the class via the Undead Lord arcetype (excellent uses for negative channeling and arguably the best undead raiser in the game - BWAHAHA!)
Pure fighters and barbarians are rare in our group. Clerics are seen as a chore but someone always plays one. Our most common classes are wizard, rogue, cleric, and ranger.
The first few posts made me chuckle. My group's first Pathfinder game is made up of a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, and Wizard (only the Players Guide was allowed). Side game will be running Alchemist, Gunslinger, and Oracle (or Inquisitor or Magus, he's not yet decided).
Personally I'd roll a fighter. I like the feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cleric, Druid and Wizard. Seriously.
I know because I am the only one who ever plays them. And I take it on as a burden because I hate Clerics. I hate animal companions. And I prefer blasting. So I am always uncomfortable.
In our groups, it is always either dwarf fighters, or various mixed class light melee skirmishers (rogue, monk, bard, swashbuckley type mongrels).
Ugh. For the last 10 years (obviously, much of it pre PF).
I've seen a few spell casters, but all of them were Sorcerers.
Never seen an Inquisitor, an Alchemist, a Wizard, an Oracle, a Magus, Bard, or a Witch*. There's been 2 Rogues, but both of them switched to something else after one session.
I've seen several druids and gunslingers. And there's no shortage of clerics or fighters. Also, lots of people with bows. Of which there is one ranger, one archer monk, and one archer paladin :P.
*however, I personally have made a witch I want to try out.
|
|
Since 3.X started, we've had no Rogues or Sorcerers at our table. Back in earlier editions, we didn't have many thieves, either, other than the occasional multiclass elven magic-user/thief.
Cleric, Druid, Fighter and Ranger are the most common choices, making for relatively easy adventure design, IMO, since I usually know what sort of abilities the group has available.
Wizards, again, were more common in the day when one could be a multi-class wizard/fighter or wizard/thief, and wear elven chain and escape some of the crappy downsides of being a d4 hp, armorless, low-Thac0 feeb, but usually someone is willing to bite the bullet and play one.
We've had Monks, but only in Oriental Adventures games (where they generally have better rules anyway).