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.

Ashrym

Hero
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.
No, Essentials reprinted the core rules, was the products I gave picture evidence for, and changed the core class list to remove the warlord and add the druid. It was also never listed as a supplement or "used with". Those were different subclasses, not additional subclasses.

Until you show me something that demonstrates it was actually a supplement instead of an updated edition (like going from 1e to 2e) then I have to disagree.
 

Undrave

Adventurer
No, Essentials reprinted the core rules, was the products I gave picture evidence for, and changed the core class list to remove the warlord and add the druid. It was also never listed as a supplement or "used with". Those were different subclasses, not additional subclasses.

Until you show me something that demonstrates it was actually a supplement instead of an updated edition (like going from 1e to 2e) then I have to disagree.
It certainly looked like a new edition, and I think counting it as such doesn't hurt anything really.
 

akr71

Explorer
I limited my response to 5e characters that I have seen less than twice. So warlord never, sorcerer and bard once.

I'm kinda surprised by the monk. It is one of my favorite classes to play
 

Blackrat

He Who Lurks Beyond The Veil
Warlock and Warlord never. Druid, monk, ranger and paladin very rarely. Which is funny as my current groups has three of those. Back when I was playing once a week, our group tended to go with the ”standard” group model. Rogue, cleric, a frontline (barbarian or fighter), and a caster (wiz or sorc). I was the odd man out and usually played bard :D
 

Undrave

Adventurer
I limited my response to 5e characters that I have seen less than twice. So warlord never, sorcerer and bard once.

I'm kinda surprised by the monk. It is one of my favorite classes to play
I'm playing a Lv 6 Way of the Shadow Monk and it's a hoot... not sure I feel like I do THAT much in fights though...So far we've only fought either minion-level guys who go down to one or two attacks, or boss monsters with legendary resistance so my Stunning Strike has not been that useful. Only during one fight with tougher human soldiers did it come in handy...

Though I am pretty much unmatched as a spy.
 

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
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.
Just going back through my games over the last 10 years, I've actually only had 3 fighters in a party out of 53 characters. And one was a MC fighter/barbarian. My parties seem to prefer paladins for front-liners. (I've had 8.) And I've had as many warlords as fighters, even factoring in they aren't available in 5e.

Always fascinating how different groups have wildly different experiences of the same game.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Moderator
Staff member
Sometimes, you have a character conception that just screams a particular unusual class or demands an unconventional multiclassing combo. It doesn’t always work out.

...but sometimes, those characters are a complete blast to play.
 

Ashrym

Hero
I limited my response to 5e characters that I have seen less than twice. So warlord never, sorcerer and bard once.

I'm kinda surprised by the monk. It is one of my favorite classes to play
I find monks get left out based on "doesn't suit the campaign" ideology. I bards all the time, though. ;)

Just going back through my games over the last 10 years, I've actually only had 3 fighters in a party out of 53 characters. And one was a MC fighter/barbarian. My parties seem to prefer paladins for front-liners. (I've had 8.) And I've had as many warlords as fighters, even factoring in they aren't available in 5e.

Always fascinating how different groups have wildly different experiences of the same game.
I was surprised anyone voted cleric, fighter, rogue, or wizard. I'm surprised barbarian isn't getting more votes. Some of the experiences are definitely different.
 
No, Essentials reprinted the core rules, was the products I gave picture evidence for, and changed the core class list to remove the warlord and add the druid. It was also never listed as a supplement or "used with". Those were different subclasses, not additional subclasses.
Essentials did not revise class lists, it provided additional sub-classes, geared, in theory, towards new & returning players. The Druid was already a Core class, as the PH1-3 were core books, the Warlord was still a core class post-E. The only non-core classes in 4e/E were the Assassin and Vampire.

Until you show me something that demonstrates it was actually a supplement instead of an updated edition (like going from 1e to 2e) then I have to disagree.
It was presented as not even being a half-ed, like 3.5 - not a lot of us bought that spin, but that's what they went for. Just an alternate point of entry to the game, because having a PH with a number on it was just tooooo confusing. It was accompanied by a brutal update, but 4e had always been update-happy.
 

Ashrym

Hero
Essentials did not revise class lists, it provided additional sub-classes, geared, in theory, towards new & returning players. The Druid was already a Core class, as the PH1-3 were core books, the Warlord was still a core class post-E. The only non-core classes in 4e/E were the Assassin and Vampire.

It was presented as not even being a half-ed, like 3.5 - not a lot of us bought that spin, but that's what they went for. Just an alternate point of entry to the game, because having a PH with a number on it was just tooooo confusing. It was accompanied by a brutal update, but 4e had always been update-happy.
Based on what evidence?

If it were part of 4e it would have been branded 4e like all the other 4e products. The 4e branding was clearly removed from Essentials and rebranded with "Essentials".

Essentials is not a supplement. Supplements do not require a core rule book to provide the game mechanics and 2 player rule books to reprint 7 classes, leave 1 out, and add another 1 that was already printed later. These are the basic books for Essentials:
  • Dungeons & Dragons Rules Compendium
  • Monster Vault
  • Heroes of the Fallen Lands
  • Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms
The rules compendium does not use or direct players back to 4e source books. There were lines stating that the way to add additional features was through Insider, however. For example, the Essentials fighter explicitly stated that there was one epic destiny available. Additional epic destinies would be available through supplements or Insider. That clearly demonstrates disassociating from the 4e core books.

Essentials also gave each base class individual progression tables for powers. That was a large step away from the universal table 4e was using. That also included adding real subclasses in the heroic tier.

Essentials was clearly a self contained system that changed the class list and progression table mechanics. The system branding reinforces that. I included it because it's a different set of classes than 4e presented, which is the point.
 

Sword of Spirit

Adventurer
I just edited the poll so you can vote even if you've seen all of the classes in play. Sorry, I haven't been back to check on it until now.

(Also, it's funny the discussion that has arisen over Warlord. The reason I included it was to avoid an edition war.)
 
Last edited:

Ashrym

Hero
Based on what WotC actually said about it at the time.

Don't like it, write MM a strongly-worded letter.
Or I could just demonstrate it like I did. That's the second time you mentioned talking to MM. That's dodging the information I gave and the point I made that Essentials was clearly an independent system with it's own class list.

If it was spun as something else you are welcome to give evidence demonstrating how the information I presented from those sourcebooks is inaccurate.
 
(Also, it's funny the discussion that has arisen over Warlord. The reason I included it was to avoid an edition war.)
It was only a core class for a short fraction of D&D's lifespan. Which means that people would have had fewer opportunities to play it, irrespective of if people like the class or not. So the results are skewed.
 
I played 4e only a few times and with no Warlord, otherwise from BECMI to 5e I've seen all classes played.

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.
If I remember correctly, the Druid WAS the bottom of the barrel in 5e statistics, i.e. the class least frequently seen in D&D Beyond.

Personally I have ALWAYS seen Druids played in all editions since AD&D in a very large number of games. Between cool versatile spellcasting, decent fighting abilities, and wildshaping, it's always one of the most wanted classes IMXP.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Current party
Cleric
Rogue
Fighter
Wizard
Monk
Druid

I see a lot of skill based and wilderness classes due to my wife. She's usually playing Rogue, Ranger, Druid, Bards, Nature clerics etc.

Other longer term player skews heavily towards Fighters, Paladin's, War Clerics, Knight types.
 

akr71

Explorer
I find monks get left out based on "doesn't suit the campaign" ideology. I bards all the time, though. ;)
True enough, but the word 'druid' probably carries just as much baggage as 'monk.' For example, MMA has little resemblance to a shaolin monk, but if I wanted to play an MMA style brawler, I'd choose a monk.
 
True enough, but the word 'druid' probably carries just as much baggage as 'monk.' For example, MMA has little resemblance to a shaolin monk, but if I wanted to play an MMA style brawler, I'd choose a monk.
The "baggage" carried by the druid is consistent with a standard European D&D setting, whilst the monk's baggage is not. And I find most players lack the experience/confidence to refluff a class to represent something other than the standard PHB version.
 

Advertisement

Top