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

[Umbran]

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]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tonguez]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

 

[abirdcall]

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).

 

[Tony Vargas]

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]

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]

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.