The Utility of Class Rarity

[Boarstorm]

A few comments have been made in another thread about what possible purpose could be served by giving classes a rarity rating. So... let's brainstorm and come up with ways that we could make this outwardly seeming strange rule relevant.

1. Rarity as benchmark for complexity.

The first (and gamist) reason for class rarity that I can think of is as a benchmark for how complex the class is, and the level of system mastery required to get the most bang for your buck. The original four classes (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric) are iconic enough that most players ought to have an idea right out of the gate about how they should be played, and new players can latch onto the concepts behind them fairly quickly. The more complex the class (and the less user-friendly), the higher the rarity.

2. World-Building.

A rare class is exactly that: rare -- at least, insofar as the default (core?) setting is concerned. (Note: I speak of NPCs here, not PCs who are, by definition, extraordinary.) Let's assume Forgotten Realms just for the sake of argument -- Fighters and Wizards are common adventuring classes. Swordmages are, say, uncommon. But Psions? Oh, those are rare. When shifting to Athas, however, those rarities may be upended completely, with Wizards being uncommon and Psions on every corner.

In this way, a DM can customize his world with a simple list of classes and rarities, and almost instantly give his players an idea of how his particular world works. Wouldn't your imagination be fired if on DM Bob's world, Cleric is listed as Unique?

Any other ideas floating around out there?

 

[Alzrius]

Assuming that class ratings are used seriously, then my default assumption is the second one you listed above. That is, rarity as a world-building model.

That reminds me vaguely of the 3E guidelines for building communities of various sizes, where there were percentages for what classes were present in the community, and their level limits. Now, that wasn't exactly a perfect guideline, but it had the same general idea.

Personally, while I can already hear a lot of gamers hating this idea as encroaching on their own personal methods of world-building, I like it. I like the idea of rarity ratings helping to control things like the ubiquity of magic (and, by extension, magic shops). Insofar as they can be easily tweaked, this can serve as something like a series of generally helpful tables to let PCs know how easy or hard it is to find certain classes, to help judge how much military strength a village has, etc.

Guidelines, without delving too deep into detail, tend to help world-building rather than inhibit it (IMO).

 

[KesselZero]

Assuming that there are no mechanical repercussions to rarity (including the connection to complexity mentioned in the OP), I just don't get why they'd be in there. If they're guidelines to an assumed core setting, they're just taking up space for anyone not playing in that setting. If it's a system by which a DM can tell players what classes are rare or prevalent in his campaign, it's just spending words on something that DMs already do, namely, tell players what classes are rare or prevalent in his campaign. If a DM has to cook up a rarity list for each new campaign he starts, how is having ratings in the PHBs saving him any time?

Meanwhile, if it has any other mechanical repercussions, it's inhibiting DMs from creating worlds where classes don't follow the assumed rarity rankings. And if it's meant to be a ranking of complexity, they should just use a complexity scale. I mean... right?

 

[jodyjohnson]

I could see it as an indicator of how well a class plays with others.

A recommendation that only 1 rare class be in a group for example and the list would include the LG Paladin, Assassin, Druid, 1e Barbarian.

Classes that by their nature tend to restrict the class choices of others in the adventuring party.


Uncommon classes might be ones that have more general tendencies toward certain types of adventuring (Ranger, Bard, Knight, Warlord, etc).

When of course there is the Fair Warning disclaimer about experienced gamers can ignore this.

 

[Sunseeker]

I would hope that if class rarity is indeed in the game, it would be for world-building issues only. If it's used as a way to make certain classes more powerful for a lower cost on the expectation that few will have access to them(like the way rarity works in TCG games like MTG), then Wizards is truly lost.

 

[Mengu]

I hope rarity is more of a game term, than any actual representation of rarity in the world. I don't want more assumptions for the core D&D world, particularly if it will have game mechanical implications, I want more freedom. If wizard is the most common class in my world, but the system calls it a rare class, I don't want to be told, I can't use D&D as my game system, because the system falls apart if wizards are common in the world.

Perhaps the concept is more for keeping characters simple at low levels. At low level, you have something like 4-6 choices, which are the core classes. This represents your adventurer's basic training for the first 5 levels (some of us called it apprenticeship levels). After that, you can continue down this basic path, or select a more specialized path. For instance, you could start out as fighter and at level 6, pick up a level of a rarer class, like paladin. This gives you some martial background, for your paladin, relying on your strength to do your primary job. This build might represent a templar of sorts. On the other hand, you could be a cleric at first, and then switch to paladin. This gives you a stronger tie to the hierarchy in a temple, and better understanding of divine magic. Or your could be a rogue or ranger, and pick up paladin, to serve a temple or coven, leading you more toward the avenger path.

Another way to look at it... rare classes are prestige classes.

This also allows them to introduce more classes such as Invoker, Runepriest, Warden, etc, without increasing complexity of first few levels (the supposed entry point of the game). Experienced players who want these options in their games right away, can simply start their game at level 6 (which some of us are calling beginning of the heroic tier).

 

[KidSnide]

Assuming that there are no mechanical repercussions to rarity (including the connection to complexity mentioned in the OP), I just don't get why they'd be in there. If they're guidelines to an assumed core setting, they're just taking up space for anyone not playing in that setting.

Describing the basic of a core setting isn't a waste of space. New players and GMs need to learn the default shared assumptions of D&D, and the rulebook is exactly the right place to do that.

As an example, there's nothing wrong with having a campaign where orcs have been wiped out and seeing an orc or half-orc is a rare and unexpected surprise. But that's an unusual choice and it's interesting for that reason. Flavor text that explains what an orc is and how they typically fit into a game is part of the rulebook and you can't be reasonably angry at WotC for including it just because you might do something else.

-KS

 

[avin]

The "rarity" comment (made by someone in the forum, not the supposed leaker) was a clear reference to DDM packs...

 

[Dausuul]

I think rarity is there for the less-experienced or less-confident DM, who might be reluctant to unilaterally ban a class without a little nudge from the designers saying, "Hey, you don't have to allow this."

By marking the more controversial/unusual classes as "DM permission only," the designers can reduce the sense that because Warlord is in the PHB, you're stuck with it if you pick up 5th Edition.

 

[Ratskinner]

Personally, I'm not too hung up on the "rarity" thing. I'm guessing that by the time 5e sees print that the nomenclature will be changed.( I would suggest Basic, Advanced, and Exotic, but whatever. ) I also wouldn't be surprised if some rules modules weren't labeled the same way and if Exotic stuff came with a "may not play well with others" warning.