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

Which standard classes have you never (or very rarely) seen played?

  • Barbarian

  • Bard

  • Cleric

  • Druid

  • Fighter

  • Monk

  • Paladin

  • Ranger

  • Rogue

  • Sorcerer

  • Warlock

  • Warlord

  • Wizard

  • I have seen all of them in play


Results are only viewable after voting.

Shiroiken

Adventurer
Just basing it on the last two editions, I'd say the least two are monk and warlord. Even in 4E, we only had maybe 3 warlords ever, and I played 2 of them. We liked the concept, but it just wasn't people's cup of tea. The monk just never quite fit into the standard D&D setting, and is kinda the red-headed stepchild.

If you want to go back to all base game classes, I'd say assassin from 1E was probably the least played class. It had some cool options, but they seldom were useful in most games. After that I think Halfling from BECMI was also pretty uncommon.
 
You weren't supposed to play 1st edition Assassin, it was presented as an NPC only class (Like Death cleric and Blackguard in 5e) hence it's always-evil alignment restriction in a game where evil PCs where discouraged.

Having said that, I did see them!
 

Tallifer

Adventurer
I have seen them all played. Of course, Warlord the least often since it was only in one now defunct edition. But it was popular enough for a brief shining moment.
 
I've been playing since '86 and I've never played with a Druid in the party. Weird, because while they aren't the most popular class they aren't bottom of the barrel either and they've been a class for ever. I also voted for Warlord, but I skipped 4th ed, so there's no mystery how that happened.
I have a similar experience re Druids, in that I am literally the only person I know IRL who has ever played a Druid. Loads of people consider it, loads of people say nice things about them, but they rarely play them. I've seen more 2E Mystics or 4E Invokers than Druids! Hell I've seen multiple 2E Speciality Priests of Torm, whereas only the three Druids I played. And in 5E they're genuinely a good class!

My votes were Barbarian, Monk, Druid and Ranger.

Druids - As noted.

Barbarians - Problematic in 1E, a terrible underpowered weird Nat Geo class in 2E (and problematic in a whole other sense!), low-tier in 3.XE, but we did see one, okay in 4E, and have yet to see one in 5E despite them being solid.

Monk - Despite entire OA campaigns and stuff and my main group being martial arts fans, we literally have our first ever Monk right now! Well, someone had some levels in it in 3E but only in a misguided attempt to cheese their AC (which got retcon'd so they were back to pure class wizard).

Ranger - in 2E we occasionally saw multi-class Rangers. Since then? Only people new to D&D seem to play them. And they often ask to change or create another character. Though I will always remember my little sister's 2E Ranger and her proud boasts about her Ranger's leopard companion!

Everything else we have seen a fair bit.

I think including Warlord is weird and unfair, by the way. It's not a 5E class and all the others are. If we include it we should include all the other "one edition" classes, many of which were far more rare. In 4E Warlords were pretty common. So that's a really misleading figure. And I say that not particularly liking Warlords.

Warlocks of course remain the stand out class for suddenly arriving and immediately being popular. We've had one in most groups since 4E. And Fighter is I think the only class I've seen, at least as a multiclass, in every group with at least five players in it.
 
I find that in my groups druids are far more popular than clerics. I think down to a carried-over aversion to organised religion.
Yeah I'd expect the same in mine, with my bunch of atheists, agnostics and everyone environmentally-minded but instead we get a lot of wacky speciality priests, clerics with attitude (for example, the 4E cleric was an ex-pirate and of the goddess of luck) and so on. We do see a fair number of parties with a non-cleric healer though (usually a Bard in 5E).
 

Seramus

Adventurer
I've seen them all played (except no Warlord in 5E) but the Fighter is the least common around here.

We've got casters coming out of the woodwork, and when someone wants to go no-casting it's usually either Rogue for the skills or Barbarian for the beef.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
You weren't supposed to play 1st edition Assassin, it was presented as an NPC only class (Like Death cleric and Blackguard in 5e) hence it's always-evil alignment restriction in a game where evil PCs where discouraged.

Having said that, I did see them!
It was not presented that way in the PHB. It was presented as an actual playable class (specifically subclass of thief). You're thinking of the classes in the Dragon magazine, which many were presented as NPCs (like the anti-paladin). But the assassin was very much a core class in 1e.


To the OP, I've seen them all played fairly often (except warlord for obvious reasons already given). I've seen the fighter, druid, wizard, and bard probably the most common in 5e, but all of them, including the monk, have made appearances more often than just really rare.
 

Arnwolf666

Adventurer
I probaly see the Druid or monk the least. Well the warlord never, but I skipped 4E. I keep expecting to see more druids because of how well it plays.
 

Maestrino

Explorer
Hmmm. In my most recent three campaigns (all 5e), I've seen everything but Fighter and Ranger. Fighter because there are Paladins and Barbarians instead, and Ranger because if you actually want a range-optimized character you're probably better off building it as a Fighter (for the multiple attacks) or as a Rogue (for the sneak attack damage). Just pick up Magic Initiate for hunter's mark...

Heck, I've played both Bard and Druid recently...
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
You weren't supposed to play 1st edition Assassin, it was presented as an NPC only class (Like Death cleric and Blackguard in 5e) hence it's always-evil alignment restriction in a game where evil PCs where discouraged.

Having said that, I did see them!
The assassin was not an NPC-only class in 1e. Nor was there the assumption of a good party.

In addition, the Rogue's Gallery has Al Hammack's Lassiviren the Dark.
 

Todd Roybark

Explorer
Ummh where is the Assassin class on this poll? Shouldn’t we include 1e multiclass combos which were essentially separate classs....what about classes from the Chainmail era booklets, or Dragon Magazine or Oriental Adventures (Gary may have been well read but clearly did not read Edward Said👍)?

The poll is shite and a gimmick. Let us recognize this is a thread about one’s subjective experience with classes...which is Very cool....let us lose the false appearance of quantitative data, and just share our experiences.
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
4e was a bit of an anomaly for the ranger in that regard.

I just make a fighter with the outlander background and use feats to support the style. The concept doesn't really need the ranger name attached to it, IME.
No. The Fighter is not at all the same as a non-spellcasting Ranger. The fighter is a generalized combat character and not much else, the ranger is a survivalist first, and in combat is a light skirmisher who specializes in ambush tactics. The rogue is much closer to a non-spellcasting Ranger than the Fighrer is, and the Scout Rogue is the best we get, but it’s no Ranger either.

You may not feel that a non-spellcasting ranger option is necessary, and that’s fine. But a lot of people do feel it’s important, and it’s inclusion wouldn’t harm you in any way.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Not my fighters. They are what I make of them. ;)
Yeah, that’s lovely and all, but the same can be said of any class. Every character is what you make of them, you can roleplay however you want. This comment contributes nothing to the discussion of the value of a non-spellcasting Ranger.
 

Ashrym

Hero
Yeah, that’s lovely and all, but the same can be said of any class. Every character is what you make of them, you can roleplay however you want. This comment contributes nothing to the discussion of the value of a non-spellcasting Ranger.
The name "ranger" contributes nothing to the concept. It's just a label used from a class that cast spells in every edition to a lesser extent other than one edition.

You may have missed my point, however. Fighters are always what we make of them. That has nothing specifically to do with the hunter / woodsman trope (which simply illustrates the point). It's simply filling out the character.

The 4e ranger simply reverted back more to 2e / 3e after WotC took their feedback and applied it.
 

Advertisement

Top