log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D General 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.

akr71

Adventurer
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.
It would be interesting to poll a number of non D&D people and ask what their ideas on what a druid was and then what a monk was. I would be willing to bet you would get very few people say a druid is an individual that can change into an animal. I'm not sure how that fits into standard European D&D. Yes, a European monk is very different from the D&D monk.

What I was meaning is that 'monk' is a very poor label for the class. Of course calling it something different causes a whole different set of problems.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Blackrat

He Who Lurks Beyond The Veil
Just to add to the monk discussion. Although obviously the basic assumption in d&d is a wuxia monk, I, nor my group have any trouble seeing the class used as something else. The monk in my current campaign is more of a street brawler turned to religious study. No kung fu for him. His order is comparable to old european monastic orders.

I used to play a monk who was simply a protector of her clan. Her personality was pretty much a paladin done to the extreme, where she refused all material wealth, and as such, would not even own weapons. So, although I could have played her as a paladin, a monk fitted her personality better.
 


Arnwolf666

Adventurer
i Dont mind these things for certain campaigns called “kitchen sink”. But there is also nothing wrong with settings where monk skills can only be learned through the monastic tradition. They are more than brawlers. They are disciplined to have many mystic powers also. It almost cheapens them to say they are brawlers. Especially to those dedicated to the discipline to achieve their skills.
 

It would be interesting to poll a number of non D&D people and ask what their ideas on what a druid was and then what a monk was. I would be willing to bet you would get very few people say a druid is an individual that can change into an animal. I'm not sure how that fits into standard European D&D. Yes, a European monk is very different from the D&D monk.
Best known druid:
panorami.gif

A druid is seen as a Celtic priest (AKA priest of the Old Faith) or a nature loving hippy. Both of which appeal to my players. None of them play Moon druids so the wildshaping is seen as very much secondary.
 







Hussar

Legend
I think what's really going to skew results too is the length of campaigns. If you tend to play the same campaign for several years, and the same PC's, well, you're not going to see too many classes.

OTOH, we alternate DM's every other week, running two different campaigns, with 4 players currently (was as high as 6 for a long time), and the campaigns tend to last about a year, year and a half. Just in 5e, we've played/run a Dragonlance, Primeval Thule, Tyranny of Dragons, Ravenloft, Dragon Heist, Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and a Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign. That's 7 campaigns in 5 years, and about 35-40 different PC's. So, yeah, we've seen pretty much everything.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I can’t say there are any of these classes I haven’t seen with some regularity (obviously it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a Warlord, but I saw quite a few of them in the one edition they existed in.
Yeah I never saw a 4e game without a warlord. It was, IME, just as popular as the core 4.
 

Arnwolf666

Adventurer
Yeah I never saw a 4e game without a warlord. It was, IME, just as popular as the core 4.
The more I read and study the 4E warlord the more I I want a good fighter archetype that mimics it. It was much more flexible and diverse class than I would have believed. I think that it could be the perfect archetype for a intelligence based fighter that is a leader or tactical genius. Or charisma based. It would be interesting to see a fighter with his 2 highest abilities scores being intelligence and charisma.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The more I read and study the 4E warlord the more I I want a good fighter archetype that mimics it. It was much more flexible and diverse class than I would have believed. I think that it could be the perfect archetype for a intelligence based fighter that is a leader or tactical genius. Or charisma based. It would be interesting to see a fighter with his 2 highest abilities scores being intelligence and charisma.
Yeah the Battle Master gets about halfway there, especially if the new maneuvers from UA end up getting published, but it has nothing to support Int or Cha, which is unfortunate.
 

The more I read and study the 4E warlord the more I I want a good fighter archetype that mimics it. It was much more flexible and diverse class than I would have believed. I think that it could be the perfect archetype for a intelligence based fighter that is a leader or tactical genius. Or charisma based. It would be interesting to see a fighter with his 2 highest abilities scores being intelligence and charisma.
As interesting as the class was to read, playing it and getting into the support role it's actually functional at was something of a revelation.

Yeah the Battle Master gets about halfway there, especially if the new maneuvers from UA end up getting published, but it has nothing to support Int or Cha, which is unfortunate.
The BM is on the same chassis as the EK, a '1/3rd caster,' so you'd expect it to be, to a hypothetical Warlord, as EK is to the actual wizard. (I mean, if the EK only ever got 1st level spells, and recharged them on a short rest.)

I suppose you could throw down a simple feat:

Tactical Battlemaster: +1 INT, and you add your INT mod to the result of CS dice that you roll.
Inspiring BM: +1 CHA, and you add your CHA mod to your CS dice.

?
 

Arnwolf666

Adventurer
As interesting as the class was to read, playing it and getting into the support role it's actually functional at was something of a revelation.

The BM is on the same chassis as the EK, a '1/3rd caster,' so you'd expect it to be, to a hypothetical Warlord, as EK is to the actual wizard. (I mean, if the EK only ever got 1st level spells, and recharged them on a short rest.)

I suppose you could throw down a simple feat:

Tactical Battlemaster: +1 INT, and you add your INT mod to the result of CS dice that you roll.
Inspiring BM: +1 CHA, and you add your CHA mod to your CS dice.

?
I Like it
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
A few things to note:

Given as all this arose out of a discussion of how many psyonic characters (either wild talent or class) have been seen, I'm surprised there's not more classes included from earlier editons where psyonics were a thing, for comparison purposes.

@Ashrym - good chart but note Barbarian was not in the original 1e PH; it was introduced in Unearthed Arcana some years later along with Cavalier and a couple of (ignored then and since) others.

Personally, in our crew's combination of mostly 1e with a bit of 3e/PF, I've never seen a Warlord or Warlock (and thus voted those) and otherwise the class that leaps out as being under-represented across the board is Paladin; and so I voted that too. We've had more Assassins, Monks and Bards than Paladins.

The only other very-much-underrepresented class is Necromancer, a homebrew class (on par with Illusionist) that hasn't been around very long yet.

It'd be a real PITA but there might be some merit into doing a poll like this for each edition, including only classes core to that editions but also including a space for "homebrew" so voters could indicate (in reverse :) ) whether homebrew or non-standard classes were common in their games or not.
 

oknazevad

Explorer
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.

The way I've previously described Essentials that makes more akin to a half edition in its own right is that it is self-contained. That is, one doesn't need the core (PHB, MM, DMG) to play the game using the Essentials books, they are sufficient on their own. Even the 4e PHB 2&3, MM 2&3, etc can't make that claim; those are actually accessories. The Essentials books are substitutes, albeit ones that are mostly backwards-compatible (save for the errata, but errata was nothing new to 4e).
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top