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.

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Any ideas how a ranged defender might've been implemented?

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.
Yeah, a ranged defender wouldn’t have made a ton of sense. I think a Striker subclass would have been the way to go. Of course, I’m one of the weirdos who actually really liked Essentials.
 

Ashrym

Hero
Here is chart to show the initial classes from each edition. Essentials includes Fallen Lands and Forgotten Kingdoms.

1575325915915.png


NOTES:
  • Bards are included in 1e on a technicality. They were optional and different in design but they were in the PHB.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • The thief was a base class in 1e and a subclass of rogue in 5e but the difference is not worth differentiating. The rogue is clearly the evolution of the thief.
  • Clerics, fighters, paladins, rangers, rogues, and wizards existed as standard classes consistently. With the exception of waiting for the PHB2 in 4e so did druids.
  • Assassins and warlords as standard classes each only existed in a single edition. Non-magical rangers as the default only existed in a single edition as well because of the primal rangers in Essentials.
  • Before 5e, barbarians and sorcerers also had only existed in a single edition.
  • 4e's PHB2 is worth noting in having come out relatively quickly after the PHB1 to give back barbarians, bards, druids, and sorcerers.
That's my recollection of the "base classes". 5e classes are the only current base classes, however; the others were base classes in the past and that is no longer true. That includes warlords.
 
Yeah, a ranged defender wouldn’t have made a ton of sense. I think a Striker subclass would have been the way to go. Of course, I’m one of the weirdos who actually really liked Essentials.
Essentials went off the 4e rails, like trainwreck off the rails, in dragging the Fighter, Thief, and Ranger back into their traditional stereotypes. The Fighter(Slayer) could be quite deadly with a bow, the Ranger(Scout & Hunter) were both obligatory druid-like (Primal) casters. But, at 2 whole years into the run, and not actually deprecating the existing Fighter, Warlord & Ranger, they were 'too little, too late.'

BTWO, one thing that we haven't seen since 3e is the stunning concept of bows with a pull. I know, it's whacky, but in this strange universe called reality, all bows cannot be strung and pulled by just anyone who can so much as lift them, they require strength - sometimes considerable strength - and send arrows downrange with proportionally greater force. D&D optionally, vaguely, handled that with ranged weapons 'made for strength' or something like that, and the slightly more poetic 'Mighty' bows of 3e (though, only composite bows, for some reason).

Since 3e we've had finesse weapons that let DEX fake being STR for melee, but the closest we've come to that for STR faking it at ranged is 'heavy thrown.'
'Heavy Pull' bows that let you use STR instead of DEX wouldn't exactly be nonsense.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
BTWO, one thing that we haven't seen since 3e is the stunning concept of bows with a pull. I know, it's whacky, but in this strange universe called reality, all bows cannot be strung and pulled by just anyone who can so much as lift them, they require strength - sometimes considerable strength - and send arrows downrange with proportionally greater force. D&D optionally, vaguely, handled that with ranged weapons 'made for strength' or something like that, and the slightly more poetic 'Mighty' bows of 3e (though, only composite bows, for some reason).

Since 3e we've had finesse weapons that let DEX fake being STR for melee, but the closest we've come to that for STR faking it at ranged is 'heavy thrown.'
'Heavy Pull' bows that let you use STR instead of DEX wouldn't exactly be nonsense.
Yeah, bows with Finesse would be a good addition to 5e.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
'Heavy Pull' bows that let you use STR instead of DEX wouldn't exactly be nonsense.
I mean... if you mean for damage, I guess?

Being stronger doesn't make you a better shot.

And that is the mechanical "rub" so to speak. 5e's simplification of mechanics means that something that uses Dex to attack but Str to damage isn't going to make an appearance.

While I agree it's more "real", it is also (potentially) more "complicated" and "confusing" for a new player, so it's out, because accessibility is design goal #1a or #1b.
 
I mean... if you mean for damage, I guess?

Being stronger doesn't make you a better shot.
This is D&D, where 'hitting' includes punching through armor (or the monster equivalent).

Wouldn't make a lotta sense when shooting at targets (maybe a little, the greater pull bow would have a flatter trajectory?), but then, 5e just lacks any sort of Touch AC granularity.


Here is chart to show the initial classes from each edition. Essentials includes Fallen Lands and Forgotten Kingdoms.
Essentials did not have a PH1, and was not considered a separate edition from 4e, anymore than 3.5 was - probably less, since it was officially, painstakingly, if not exactly honestly, fully compatible with the rest of 4e.

Without double-counting Essentials, the Barbarian, Sorcerer, Warlock and Warlord had existed in only one PH1 prior to 5e. The Assassin and Illusionist (as such, distinct from wizardly school specialization), had existed in only one, and only as sub-classes.

(If you break the Wizard up into specialist and non-specialist, it gets funny, as there essentially is no non-specialist wizard in 5e, though there was in every prior edition.)
 

Ashrym

Hero
Essentials did not have a PH1, and was not considered a separate edition from 4e, anymore than 3.5 was - probably less, since it was officially, painstakingly, if not exactly honestly, fully compatible with the rest of 4e.

Without double-counting Essentials, the Barbarian, Sorcerer, Warlock and Warlord had existed in only one PH1 prior to 5e. The Assassin and Illusionist (as such, distinct from wizardly school specialization), had existed in only one, and only as sub-classes.

(If you break the Wizard up into specialist and non-specialist, it gets funny, as there essentially is no non-specialist wizard in 5e, though there was in every prior edition.)
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.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
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

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
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.
 
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

Archivist
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)
 
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

Hero
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.

1575328727098.png


That was the Essentials products at the time.
 
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

Hero
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.
 

Advertisement

Top