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.

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I didn't play huge amounts of 4e, so my personal experience with warlords is limited. I saw one in play, IIRC.

All the rest, I've seen in play multiple times in 5e alone, and much more in the decades past.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
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👍)?
So, what you're saying is that Gary was well-read, but not well-Said?
 

Tonguez

Adventurer
I have to say, it's surprising to me that more people have seen clerics, rogues, and wizards in play than fighters.
a lot of people just think Fighter is boring so opt for Barbarian for the Tank mode or Rogue or Ranger for a dex-build or Paladin for armoured knight. Thats one of the issues of Classes.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
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.
I agree that the name “Ranger” isn’t necessary to the expression of the concept represented by what I’ve been call the non-spellcasting Ranger. Call it a Scout, call it a Forester, call it a Hunter, call it a Yeoman (actually the latter would be my preference), it doesn’t matter. My point was that the fighter with the outlander background does not sufficiently represent that concept, whatever you want to call it. Nor does the Rogue with the Scout subclass, although that comes much closer.

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.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by “it’s simply filling out the character?” I’m having trouble parsing this paragraph.

The 4e ranger simply reverted back more to 2e / 3e after WotC took their feedback and applied it.
I’m not really clear what you mean by this either.
 

Ashrym

Hero
I agree that the name “Ranger” isn’t necessary to the expression of the concept represented by what I’ve been call the non-spellcasting Ranger. Call it a Scout, call it a Forester, call it a Hunter, call it a Yeoman (actually the latter would be my preference), it doesn’t matter. My point was that the fighter with the outlander background does not sufficiently represent that concept, whatever you want to call it. Nor does the Rogue with the Scout subclass, although that comes much closer.
The design space for 5e started with "classes from core PHB's" which is why ranger. What type of ranger was the discussion 7 years ago at this point and the spell casting ranger is what made it in. Other criteria were popularity, the ability to support a basic archetype, whether the overall class covered multiple archetypes, whether the concept could already be covered in the other classes, and the actual popularity of the classes.

The non-magical huntsman / woodsman / scout / forester / yeoman / any other name for the same thing is obviously an archetype. The criteria uses, playtesting materials, and feedback led to not having a base class like that. It doesn't really matter which reasons, it's just one of those things where some fans were on the wrong side of the tent wall when all was said and done.

That also means there are classes I don't agree met some of the criteria, but that's what we ended up with based on the playtest. The same is true for other people, some of whom may or may not agree with my opinions.

My comment earlier was what I do to cover it. It was not meant to represent me telling you what to do or to imply your opinion is not valid. If that was accidentally implied then you have my apologies.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by “it’s simply filling out the character?” I’m having trouble parsing this paragraph.
My characters start concept first, mechanics second. I have my concept in mind, then I select the class, background, race, feats, subclasses, multi-classes, weapon styles, and any other choice to match what I think represents that concept within the rules. I don't need additional special features to roleplay the concept for the character to be validated. I add that through the existing features.

Fighters are great for that. An everyman largely blank template to add anything I want to build the actual character concept works very well for me.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible to build an actual subclass, or possibly even a class if the variety in subclasses can be demonstrated to be worth it.

I’m not really clear what you mean by this either.
See my comment earlier in this point. I'm saying the 4e ranger came up to bat and struck out based on the criteria being used for inclusion into 5e. Not that it was a bad concept, but that there was only so much room and WotC was trying to represent what focused more on what made the big tent bigger.

It sucks if a person was really a fan of the 4e ranger just like it sucked for fans warlords and fans of some 3e classes going into 4e.
 
Your experience has to color this. If you played TSR-era, for instance, you'd've seen relatively few Barbarians, and no Sorcerers or Warlocks. Unless you were an avid 4e fan who played heavily, indeed, from 2008-2010, you have likely lack the sample size to say anything about the Warlord. OTOH, most of the remaining classes on the list have been with the game since 0e, so if you haven't seen a given one of those played hundreds of times, you should probably cop to it being 'rarely played,' and 'never' would seem to be off the table.

Was Warlord the only one in 4E PHB 1 that wasn't in 5E?
Yes. Though the 5e Ranger bears no resemblance to the 4e PH1 Ranger, but is closer to the Essentials Hunter & Scout sub-classes, and the PH3 Seeker, for that matter.

And the Warlord was only a 'standard class' in the most restrictive sense for 2 years. If you were playing Essentials-only, starting in 2010, it was off the table.
 
Last edited:

ad_hoc

Adventurer
I have to say, it's surprising to me that more people have seen clerics, rogues, and wizards in play than fighters.
I would say those are all close enough as to be functionally the same.

I would put all of those in the same category of 'most seen played'.

(would also like to chime in that the poll is silly. I voted Warlord because I play 5e and have seen all of the classes well represented).
 
I have to say, it's surprising to me that more people have seen clerics, rogues, and wizards in play than fighters.
The Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian are all solid alternatives to the fighter, and, throughout the TSR era, the alternatives to the Thief, Magic-User, and Cleric were arguably wanting, especially in terms of vital, niche-protected functions.

Heh. It may also be that fighter characters are less memorable as such. That is a fighter might be better-remembered as "that Dwarf who drank a lot" or "that guy with the Helm of Brilliance."


(Besides, another flaw with this poll is that, if you've seen all those classes played, you literally can't vote. - There's no "seen 'em all" option.)
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
My comment earlier was what I do to cover it. It was not meant to represent me telling you what to do or to imply your opinion is not valid. If that was accidentally implied then you have my apologies.
Someone asked if the Warlord was the only 4e PHB1 class that didn’t make it into 5e, to which I answered “yes, but the 4e Ranger was different enough you could kind of count it as it’s own class that didn’t make it in,” to which you literally said “just make a fighter with the outlander background.” I hope you can understand why that might have come across as telling me what to do.
 

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
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.
I recall the lamentations of the bow-fighter and how they got told "just be a Ranger" during 4e.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
I agree that the name “Ranger” isn’t necessary to the expression of the concept represented by what I’ve been call the non-spellcasting Ranger. Call it a Scout, call it a Forester, call it a Hunter, call it a Yeoman (actually the latter would be my preference), it doesn’t matter. My point was that the fighter with the outlander background does not sufficiently represent that concept, whatever you want to call it. Nor does the Rogue with the Scout subclass, although that comes much closer.


Could you elaborate on what you mean by “it’s simply filling out the character?” I’m having trouble parsing this paragraph.


I’m not really clear what you mean by this either.
Yeah the 4E ranger was more of a 3.5 scout redone than ranger.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
I recall the lamentations of the bow-fighter and how they got told "just be a Ranger" during 4e.
Yeah that was more if an Archer, the problem being fighter archers were a thing going back to 1E. Also locking Archer to one class.
Conceptually you can play a 4E ranger in 5E, champion with outlander background.

4E you couldn't play a lot if stuff conceptually and you were missing ,5/11 3.5 phb classes.
 

the Jester

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.
This is incorrect. As a couple of other people have already said, the 1e assassin wasn't presented as an npc class. Not at all. It was, after all, in the Players Handbook, and this was in an edition that put any rules that weren't player-pertinent, or that the player wasn't supposed to know the details on (e.g. poison, spying, even the combat charts) in the DMG or Monster Manual. Neither did pre-2e discourage evil pcs; the assumption- backed up by the "xp for gp" system- was that most pcs were rather mercenary. Paladins and rangers even had rules about how much they could hang out with evil characters, if at all.
 

Undrave

Adventurer
Interesting. I've seen most archetypes with the exception of half the wizards, a couple of clerics and the wild mage.
Maybe more of a 'least played' and less of a 'never seen played' thing?

I don't think I ever played with a Sorcerer, for exemple, of any kind, and after that the Wizard is the second least played I've seen.
 
I recall the lamentations of the bow-fighter and how they got told "just be a Ranger" during 4e.
Well, it didn't have all the spellcasting/Grizzly-Adams baggage so actually did work just fine.
Of course, if you wanted a spell-casting ranger you had to wait 9 months for the PH2 and MC to Druid (or almost 2 whole years for the PH3 Seeker or HotFK Hunter/Scout), or, if you really did want your animal companion, 5 mo for Martial Power.

Which is totally comparable to the 5 years it's taken 5e to put a new class in print.

Yeah that was more if an Archer, the problem being fighter archers were a thing going back to 1E.
IDK, I recall an Archer class and Archer-Ranger variant from Dragon Magazine back in 1e days, precisely because the regular fighter and ranger didn't quite cut it in that regard.

Also locking Archer to one class.
Ranger, Rogue, and, later, even Warlord were all potentially archers. The Archer build of Ranger was arguably the simplest/easiest-to-play option in the PH1, too.
Really, only the Fighter, as a Defender seemed locked out of the style. That was short-sighted, IMHO, WotC never did wrap it's head around doing a defender at range without stepping on the controller role - you never could do justice to a 3.x 'battlefield-control' build, either, for the same reason.

Conceptually you can play a 4E ranger in 5E, champion with outlander background.
Well, BM Fighter Outlander is closest - you're only falling short by about 350 maneuvers.

4E you couldn't play a lot if stuff conceptually and you were missing ,5/11 3.5 phb classes.
For the first 9 months, sure. And, 4e was D&D's high-water mark for legitimate player-side re-skinning.
 

Gradine

Archivist
My only 4e character I ever got to play was a Taclord, very fun.

I've played a Monk twice (once in 3.5, once in 5e), but I've never seen anyone else ever play one.
 
Yeah, the lack of a bow fighter was a problem of 4e’s.
Any ideas how a ranged defender might've been implemented? WotC didn't seem to have any.

Once HotFL came around, and Fighter (sub-classes) could be strikers, I suppose the door was open. You actually could make an archery-oriented slayer, doubling up on DEX bonus to damage wasn't bad - but the Slayer's main damage spike, Power Strike, became a back-up option. A Fighter(Archer) sub-class along the same lines, with a different Encounter exploit would've been quite easy.
The go-to Essentials Archer, of course, was the Ranger(Hunter), a mostly-Martial, part-Primal-caster who conjured clouds of mist and the like to play at controller.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top