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

[Sacrosanct]

You weren't supposed to play 1st edition Assassin, it was presented as an NPC only class (Like Death cleric and Blackguard in 5e) hence it's always-evil alignment restriction in a game where evil PCs where discouraged.

Having said that, I did see them!

It was not presented that way in the PHB. It was presented as an actual playable class (specifically subclass of thief). You're thinking of the classes in the Dragon magazine, which many were presented as NPCs (like the anti-paladin). But the assassin was very much a core class in 1e.


To the OP, I've seen them all played fairly often (except warlord for obvious reasons already given). I've seen the fighter, druid, wizard, and bard probably the most common in 5e, but all of them, including the monk, have made appearances more often than just really rare.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I probaly see the Druid or monk the least. Well the warlord never, but I skipped 4E. I keep expecting to see more druids because of how well it plays.

 

[Maestrino]

Hmmm. In my most recent three campaigns (all 5e), I've seen everything but Fighter and Ranger. Fighter because there are Paladins and Barbarians instead, and Ranger because if you actually want a range-optimized character you're probably better off building it as a Fighter (for the multiple attacks) or as a Rogue (for the sneak attack damage). Just pick up Magic Initiate for hunter's mark...

Heck, I've played both Bard and Druid recently...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have to say, it's surprising to me that more people have seen clerics, rogues, and wizards in play than fighters.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Ummh where is the Assassin class on this poll? Shouldn’t we include 1e multiclass combos which were essentially separate classs....what about classes from the Chainmail era booklets, or Dragon Magazine or Oriental Adventures (Gary may have been well read but clearly did not read Edward Said)?

The poll is shite and a gimmick. Let us recognize this is a thread about one’s subjective experience with classes...which is Very cool....let us lose the false appearance of quantitative data, and just share our experiences.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

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.

You may not feel that a non-spellcasting ranger option is necessary, and that’s fine. But a lot of people do feel it’s important, and it’s inclusion wouldn’t harm you in any way.

 

[Ashrym]

The fighter is a generalized combat character and not much else...

Not my fighters. They are what I make of them.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not my fighters. They are what I make of them.

Yeah, that’s lovely and all, but the same can be said of any class. Every character is what you make of them, you can roleplay however you want. This comment contributes nothing to the discussion of the value of a non-spellcasting Ranger.

 

[Ashrym]

Yeah, that’s lovely and all, but the same can be said of any class. Every character is what you make of them, you can roleplay however you want. This comment contributes nothing to the discussion of the value of a non-spellcasting Ranger.

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.

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.

The 4e ranger simply reverted back more to 2e / 3e after WotC took their feedback and applied it.