steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
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
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