Common/Uncommon/Rare...

[steeldragons]

We've seen it bandied about that part of the class creation and breakdown is going to be dividing things, at least organizationally/mentally, into Common classes, Uncommon classes, and Rare classes.

I suspect we might see this applied to Races as well and could easily go to Backgrounds, at least, if not Specialties also...an "Alchemist" BG is/would/could be significantly more Rare than a "Soldier" or "Farmer" BG.

Naturally, any and all of these classifications are completely subjective and campaign/world setting dependent...BUT, just for some light-hearted and "non-crunchy and edition free" fun on a Sunday, how would you like to see things divided (at least in the class, area) in 5e? What would be your "default" structure for the game in terms of Common, Uncommon and Rare?

Common: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Mage.

I don't think anyone's going to argue over the Big 4. Now, within the Big 4 I would say/like to see the default swing, most-to-least Common, Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Mage. But that's not really what we're talking about.

The "Uncommon" versus "Rare" lists are MUCH more fluid and difficult, for me, to pin down...again they'd all be campaign/setting specific and could easily be moved from one to the other. I'd probably go with something like this.

Uncommon: Druid, Assassin, Bard, Specialist Mages (Illusionists, Necro's, et al)...I might include Ranger...and Barbarian (if it is its own class and not a BG or Specialty).

Rare: Paladin (most definitely, for me, they go here), Sorcerer (the whole draconic heritage thing we're seeing makes it seem like it HAS to be pretty darn rare), Warlocks and the Warlord (again, if it is its own class and not a Specialty, strikes me as a particularly niched class).

How 'bout y'all?
--SD

 

[Yora]

This was an idea briefly mentioned half a year ago and never been mentioned since. I actually don't think it will show up.

 

[Mattachine]

I think it's just too campaign specific.
In my campaigns, I would like to see wizards more rare than rangers or barbarians. In a campaign based on Earthsea, it would be the opposite.

I don't think the concept will make it into the core rules.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If we're talking generic fantasy setting here... my order for class rarity would probably be thus:

Common: Fighter, Rogue
Uncommon: Cleric, Ranger, Barbarian, Warlord, Bard
Rare: Wizard, Sorcerer, Paladin, Monk, Druid
Very Rare: Warlock, Psion

 

[Lwaxy]

I'd rather see the bard common than the mage. But I agree that it would have to be campaign specific anyway.

 

[fba827]

when they talked about common/uncommon/rare before I seem to recall that they specifically said that rarity was not a reflection/product of campaign story/setting (regardless of that implication from those titles of common/uncommon/rare implied).

Instead, common,uncommon, and rare were solely a measure a complexity.

So if your campaign world had frequent instances of druids (the normal definition for 'common') the class itself might still be called in the books as 'uncommon' not because of frequency but because of complexity.

that's how they did it with 4e magic items too (more or less). that being the case, i really wish they'd use terms other than common/uncommon/rare since it has a whole other implication from definition.

of course, as mentioned above, using those titles hasn't been mentioned again in a while. they simply haven't had the need to, or not at the stage where they've defined those things yet, or dropped the idea altogether... who knows

 

[Sunseeker]

Too campaign/setting specific, and it reeks of needless metagaming. "No timmy you can't play your fav class because the books say Paladin's are a "rare" class."

That really sounds like anti-fun to me. Let your whole party be "rare" classes, come up with a creative reason for it, adapt your world to that concept.

common, uncommon, and rare is great for setting market value and power-level in TCG games, but that's about it.

As for it referring to complexity, I really hope not. I think DDN should still strive to make "simple" all classes for the first few levels, and then allow players to grow the complexity by providing them more options to do so if they choose them.

Perhaps at level 1-3 we could claim simple-complex: fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard; but after that I think players should reasonably be able to make the few-spell, but lots of uses wizard and the fighter with more tricks in his bag than Felix the Cat.

 

[slobo777]

Common and Rare classes only make sense to me if I'm world-building NPCs with them as DM. Otherwise, I don't get what it's supposed to be for?

Should I make it more difficult for a PC in a "rare" class to get hold of kit (i.e. it's some kind of balance mechanism to make up for their inherent power level)?

Or is it just so my NPCs can say "A Wizard, did ya say? Don't get many of those round these parts!"

 

[Sunseeker]

Or is it just so my NPCs can say "A Wizard, did ya say? Don't get many of those round these parts!"

I propose Wizards creates the doublepluscommon class: "Bumpkin", it seems like everyone is one of those in a game world.

 

[Remathilis]

I was under the impression that C/U/R was going to be used to reflect a few things...

1.) Prevalence of such things in the typical campaign world (the typical town might have a dwarven blacksmith or a local wizard, but probably not a dragonborn blacksmith or a local warlock).

2.) Complexity level of the class (a wizard is fairly easy, a warlock more complicated. I'm thinking this one is going to die in its sleep though, based on playtest 2).

3.) A way organize campaigns along certain "themes" of D&D based on edition (A Common Only D&D looks like basic; the core four classes and races. An Uncommon looks like AD&D with half-elves, druids, gnomes and bards. A Rare campaign looks like 3e or 4e with monks, sorcerers, tieflings and goliaths).

I think they might get some more mileage out of "Basic, Expert, Advanced" as terms; they're slightly nostalgic and convey complexity/rarity without the debate as to whether wizards are common or whatever.