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

[Charlaquin]

Was Warlord the only one in 4E PHB 1 that wasn't in 5E?

Yes, although because the 4e Ranger was a non-spellcasting class and there is no option for a non-spellcasting Ranger in 5e, you could arguably count that as well.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

 

[Zardnaar]

Never saw a warlord when we played 4E. Other rare ones.

Monk. Until 5E only saw one or 2 in 3E.

Sorcerer
Almost unplayed in 3E

Barbarians
Semi rare, singular in my group, new players seem to like them.

 

[ccs]

I have never seen a 4e warlord played in 5e.

Now if you'd like to discuss the editions in general & wich PHB1 classes I've seen the least....
That'd be pretty close to a tie between the 1e Illusionist, the 1e Monk, & the 1e Assassin.
The Illusionist because most I've ever gamed with thought it inferior to the Magi User (what you'd call a Wizard)
The Monk because people thought it a bit weak & DMs said No - it doesn't fit the campaign.
Assassins because "No Evil PCs" has a long history.

For 5e? I've seen them all. Though the Sorcerer is by far the least common.

 

[Tonguez]

I’ve played a Monk but as DM have come up empty handed,
Bards dont seem to strike a chord with my players either
the poor Fighter has been beaten back by Rogues, Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I get that some people love the warlord, but it has less claim to be a "standard" class than psion and artificer, having appeared in fewer editions.

 

[S'mon]

Seen them all at least a couple times.

 

[delph]

I'v seen played barbarian just as part multiclass, Paladin too. Warlock isn't in 5e... but I have only 3 campaigns behind me.

 

[Ashrym]

Yes, although because the 4e Ranger was a non-spellcasting class and there is no option for a non-spellcasting Ranger in 5e, you could arguably count that as well.

4e was a bit of an anomaly for the ranger in that regard.

I just make a fighter with the outlander background and use feats to support the style. The concept doesn't really need the ranger name attached to it, IME.

Although, E:RftLW offers things like the mark of finding to improve the design. Hunter's mark is technically a spell using the mark but it's a very limited spell option on a fighter chassis.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1Ed: personally played all except Bard, and never saw it played by anyone else.

2Ed: personally played them all, including the psionic ones.

3.XEd: played all the core classes from the prior editions, plus a few of the explosion of classes- Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Marshal, Sohei, Wu-Jen, Duskblade, Beguiler, Scout, Battle Sorcerer, etc. Really had fun with the prestige classes, too- one of my favorite PCs was a Geomancer. Hands down my favorite edition of the game because the wide variety of classes and the liberalized multiclassing rules let me design a wider variety of characters than ever. Didn’t get a chance to try any of the Incarnum or Tome of Magic classes; ToB didn’t appeal at all.

4Ed: only had a single campaign in this edition- I played a Warlock MCed with Psion. The rest of the guys in the group stayed pretty mainstream: wizards, rangers, clerics, and the like.

5Ed: haven’t touched it.