D&D General Which standard classes have you never (or very rarely) seen played? (Edited)

[Gradine]

The context is "as a PHB1 class". I'm listing classes that came out in the initial PHB of each edition. Otherwise I have to check off a few more boxes.

We'd also have to start getting things like the Duskblade and Avenger involved, and who wants that?

 

[Charlaquin]

The context is "as a PHB1 class". I'm listing classes that came out in the initial PHB of each edition. Otherwise I have to check off a few more boxes.

Oh ok, that makes more sense.

I disagree. Essentials came out as a core rule book with 2 additional rulebooks to present those 8 classes. The classes are different even if the the AEDU structure was the same. AEDU made it compatible with 4e like multiple d20 systems are compatible but I don't see it as the same edition.

Essentials was definitely a part of 4e, at least as much as 3.5 was part of 3e.

 

[Salthorae]

Illusionists were the 1e example of the specialist wizard with a comment that others could exist. It's been grouped with the 2e specialists. The 2e specialist was barely a separate class from the mage under the wizard heading.

It's a nitpick, but specialist wizards existed in 3.x PHB as well.

At least as much as they did in 2e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Huh? Barbarians existed in every edition, and Sorcerers existed in 4e as well as 3e and 5e.

In every edition that had a PH, but not in every PH1. Prior to 5e, the Sorcerer & Barbarian appeared in the 3.0/3.x PH1's, only. The Warlock & Warlord, only in the 4e PH1. The Illusionist & Assassin (as sub-classes) and psionics (as a non-class appendix) only in the 1e PH.

Rangers are broken in to spell casting and non-spell casting versions. Essentials gave us both in that one was using the primal power source and the other the martial. Technically a class called "ranger" was in each edition.

I suppose it's worth quibbling with this one, too. The 4e PH1 Ranger was a non-spell-casting implementation. The Essentials Ranger sub-classes, Scout and Hunter, were both part-Primal casters.

The original 0e/1e Ranger didn't get spells until about name level, though, FWIW.

If you look beyond PH1s, there was a non-casting Ranger (and Paladin) in 3.5, and there was an all-Primal casting Archer, in the PH3, called the Seeker.

I disagree. Essentials came out as a core rule book with 2 additional rulebooks to present those 8 classes.

Essentials was not considered when the "in a prior PH1" idea was floated by MM going into the Next playtest, so take it up with him.

The context is "as a PHB1 class". I'm listing classes that came out in the initial PHB of each edition.

Which excludes Essentials, 0e, and B(/X)ECMI, since they lacked a PH.

 

[Gradine]

Eh, I can kind of get it, but you have to squint really hard. The 3.5 PHB didn't differ all that much from 3.0 PHB in terms of what classes were present, at least not nearly to the extent of the 4.0 PHB1 and the Essentials PHB. It also makes more sense if you, as the poster does, split the Ranger into two distinct classes (nature Ranger and martial Ranger)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have to say, it's surprising to me that more people have seen clerics, rogues, and wizards in play than fighters.

Yeah that's weird to me too. I always thought my group leaned more towards magic and skills than most, going by people's descriptions, but we were almost never entirely Fighter-less.

 

[Ashrym]

Essentials was not considered when the "in a prior PH1" idea was floated by MM going into the Next playtest, so take it up with him.

Why? Does he have some authority on what I included here that I don't know about? That was a thing during the playtest. This is a thing I'm posting here and I included Essentials because it was enough of a different edition to be worth adding.

Essentials was definitely a part of 4e, at least as much as 3.5 was part of 3e.

No, because 3.0 and 3.5 gave the exact same list of classes with a few adjustments. Essentials gave us a different list of classes.

That was the Essentials products at the time.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why? Does he have some authority on what I included here that I don't know about?

What was considered for possible inclusion in 5e via the Next playtest, yeah.

I mean, that's essentially what the poll's list of classes is - the Full Classes that had existed, strictly speaking, as such, in PH1s prior to 5e.

 

[Ashrym]

It's a nitpick, but specialist wizards existed in 3.x PHB as well.

At least as much as they did in 2e.

They did and that's why I commented it in my notes. In 3e it was a wizard feature. In 2e it was an alternative class to mage under the wizard heading and listed much like a bard or thief under the rogue heading. How it was listed was different, and each specialist had a different ability score prerequisite.

What was considered for possible inclusion in 5e via the Next playtest, yeah.

This isn't the DnDNext playtest and the information I gave is not affected by the DnDNext playtest or the options in the OP. It's a chart of classes released with that information.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, because 3.0 and 3.5 gave the exact same list of classes with a few adjustments. Essentials gave us a different list of classes.

View attachment 116528

That was the Essentials products at the time.

Essentials didn’t give any classes, it gave subclasses, because it was a collection of supplement books for 4th edition, not a new edition with a new set of base classes.