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

[Ashrym]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Undrave]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Being stronger doesn't make you a better shot.

Actually, it often does. No matter how good your aim is, if you can’t draw a bow, your arrow is going nowhere. Shoot 120 arrows a day and see how defined your arms become.