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

[Zardnaar]

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.


Could you elaborate on what you mean by “it’s simply filling out the character?” I’m having trouble parsing this paragraph.


I’m not really clear what you mean by this either.

Yeah the 4E ranger was more of a 3.5 scout redone than ranger.

 

[Undrave]

Maybe we should have a 5e PHB -only poll? Maybe with all the subclasses?

 

[Zardnaar]

I recall the lamentations of the bow-fighter and how they got told "just be a Ranger" during 4e.

Yeah that was more if an Archer, the problem being fighter archers were a thing going back to 1E. Also locking Archer to one class.
Conceptually you can play a 4E ranger in 5E, champion with outlander background.

4E you couldn't play a lot if stuff conceptually and you were missing ,5/11 3.5 phb classes.

 

[the Jester]

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.

This is incorrect. As a couple of other people have already said, the 1e assassin wasn't presented as an npc class. Not at all. It was, after all, in the Players Handbook, and this was in an edition that put any rules that weren't player-pertinent, or that the player wasn't supposed to know the details on (e.g. poison, spying, even the combat charts) in the DMG or Monster Manual. Neither did pre-2e discourage evil pcs; the assumption- backed up by the "xp for gp" system- was that most pcs were rather mercenary. Paladins and rangers even had rules about how much they could hang out with evil characters, if at all.

 

[Zardnaar]

Maybe we should have a 5e PHB -only poll? Maybe with all the subclasses?

Interesting. I've seen most archetypes with the exception of half the wizards, a couple of clerics and the wild mage.

 

[Undrave]

Interesting. I've seen most archetypes with the exception of half the wizards, a couple of clerics and the wild mage.

Maybe more of a 'least played' and less of a 'never seen played' thing?

I don't think I ever played with a Sorcerer, for exemple, of any kind, and after that the Wizard is the second least played I've seen.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I recall the lamentations of the bow-fighter and how they got told "just be a Ranger" during 4e.

Well, it didn't have all the spellcasting/Grizzly-Adams baggage so actually did work just fine.
Of course, if you wanted a spell-casting ranger you had to wait 9 months for the PH2 and MC to Druid (or almost 2 whole years for the PH3 Seeker or HotFK Hunter/Scout), or, if you really did want your animal companion, 5 mo for Martial Power.

Which is totally comparable to the 5 years it's taken 5e to put a new class in print.

Yeah that was more if an Archer, the problem being fighter archers were a thing going back to 1E.

IDK, I recall an Archer class and Archer-Ranger variant from Dragon Magazine back in 1e days, precisely because the regular fighter and ranger didn't quite cut it in that regard.

Also locking Archer to one class.

Ranger, Rogue, and, later, even Warlord were all potentially archers. The Archer build of Ranger was arguably the simplest/easiest-to-play option in the PH1, too.
Really, only the Fighter, as a Defender seemed locked out of the style. That was short-sighted, IMHO, WotC never did wrap it's head around doing a defender at range without stepping on the controller role - you never could do justice to a 3.x 'battlefield-control' build, either, for the same reason.

Conceptually you can play a 4E ranger in 5E, champion with outlander background.

Well, BM Fighter Outlander is closest - you're only falling short by about 350 maneuvers.

4E you couldn't play a lot if stuff conceptually and you were missing ,5/11 3.5 phb classes.

For the first 9 months, sure. And, 4e was D&D's high-water mark for legitimate player-side re-skinning.

 

[Gradine]

My only 4e character I ever got to play was a Taclord, very fun.

I've played a Monk twice (once in 3.5, once in 5e), but I've never seen anyone else ever play one.

 

[Charlaquin]

I recall the lamentations of the bow-fighter and how they got told "just be a Ranger" during 4e.

Yeah, the lack of a bow fighter was a problem of 4e’s.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, the lack of a bow fighter was a problem of 4e’s.

Any ideas how a ranged defender might've been implemented? WotC didn't seem to have any.

Once HotFL came around, and Fighter (sub-classes) could be strikers, I suppose the door was open. You actually could make an archery-oriented slayer, doubling up on DEX bonus to damage wasn't bad - but the Slayer's main damage spike, Power Strike, became a back-up option. A Fighter(Archer) sub-class along the same lines, with a different Encounter exploit would've been quite easy.
The go-to Essentials Archer, of course, was the Ranger(Hunter), a mostly-Martial, part-Primal-caster who conjured clouds of mist and the like to play at controller.