It's completely meaningless. If adventuring groups were any indication of fantasy demographics, 4 out of 5 heroes were human farmboys. Gosh, that sounds exciting. Sign me up for Crops & Commoners any time. I heard we'll rethatch the roof next session. Oh, and some girls from the neighbor village might come over for the harvest festival. I hope my mom has the Sunday dress stitched up on time!
The Utility of Class Rarity
- Thread starter Boarstorm
- Start date
Rarity could even very between regions of the same world. On Faerun clerics are common, but on Returned Abier clerics would be rare because they'd been cut off from the Gods. In magic rich Menzobarzan warlocks maybe common, but Bards and Druids would be rare instead of uncommon like in the rest of the realms. In magic hating cities wizards would be rare, in Waterdeep common. In Skullport non blackguard Paladin's would rare, in that Kingdom run by Paladin's they'd be common. In ancient Jhamdaath Psions were common and in areas near thier ruins they are uncommon, most else where they are rare.
In fact it'd be interesting to show rarity of class by regions where it is different then the setting average.
In fact it'd be interesting to show rarity of class by regions where it is different then the setting average.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Yeah, it seems to me that if the PHB labels classes as common, uncommon, and rare, I know what the outcome will be: you'll have parties full of "rare" classes, because everyone wants to be a special snowflake.
Incenjucar
Legend
Wouldn't spellcasters of any sort be rare to very rare in almost every campaign setting?
And actually, shouldn't the "easy" ways to power (warlock, say) be more common than the "hard" way (wizard)?
And actually, shouldn't the "easy" ways to power (warlock, say) be more common than the "hard" way (wizard)?
Looking back at games I've been in, the special snowflake parties were more fun and more memorable. So that's a good thing.
FireLance
Legend
Really, people, you are looking at things in the wrong way. Rarity is a measure of how easy it is in the real world to find a DM who will accept a character of the class in his campaign.
Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard are Common because 80%* of DMs think they are classics and only 20%* think they are overdone and trite.
Warlord, Invoker and Avenger are Uncommon because 50%* of DMs will welcome your character with open arms and the other 50%* will tell you that they aren't real D&D classes.
Battlemind, Runepriest and Seeker are Rare because 40%* of DMs haven't even heard of them, 40%* think they aren't worth the paper they're printed on and only 20%* will allow you to play one.
* Statistics completely made up.
Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard are Common because 80%* of DMs think they are classics and only 20%* think they are overdone and trite.
Warlord, Invoker and Avenger are Uncommon because 50%* of DMs will welcome your character with open arms and the other 50%* will tell you that they aren't real D&D classes.
Battlemind, Runepriest and Seeker are Rare because 40%* of DMs haven't even heard of them, 40%* think they aren't worth the paper they're printed on and only 20%* will allow you to play one.
* Statistics completely made up.
SensoryThought
First Post
I don't really see rarity as a step forward. On my game the pcs are heroes a cut above the average person. As far as occupy Hero St is concerned, they are the 1%.
The average guard can be considered a fighter but not a 'Fighter' in a PC class sense. They have a stat block, not the range of powers of a PC.
I certainly don't want to have it so my players are restricted in being able to play a particular archetype/class because it is 'too rare' in the world, because it's too hard to roll stat requirements, or anything else.
The average guard can be considered a fighter but not a 'Fighter' in a PC class sense. They have a stat block, not the range of powers of a PC.
I certainly don't want to have it so my players are restricted in being able to play a particular archetype/class because it is 'too rare' in the world, because it's too hard to roll stat requirements, or anything else.
Wizards of the Coast introduced rarity for magic items in 4e. Wasn't it almost entirely for Organized Play purposes? Perhaps rarity for classes would have some impact on what you can play in OP. Since I'm not interested in Living Greyhawk, that would have no impact on my games.
Mercule
Adventurer
I like the idea of "rarity" for any of three purposes:
1) World-building. If you ever tried to randomly generate a nameless town (I ran an itinerant campaign) in late 3.5, the table in the DMG were worthless. To borrow from computer science, rarity provides an extensibility point.
2) Complexity/difficulty. I have no problem with the "fighters are for noobs, wizards are for vets" mentality from 1e -- though I like having sorcerer/warlock for noobs who like magic. Being able to immediately look at the complexity of a new class (PHB2, Dragon, whatever) would be helpful. I'd like them to rename it, though. And not make it a big deal. Hey, Hero System has pretty stop signs on problematic rules. Why not D&D?
3) Roleplaying, um, density. Assassins and paladins work poorly together. So did 1e barbarians and wizards. Having a marker for classes that have some baggage might be a good thing. Maybe the fighter is common because you always can use another meat shield, the re-renamed thief gets "uncommon" because stealing from the other PCs is somewhat rude, the paladin gets "rare" because of the 1e assumption of "evil-hating neutrals" or 4e antihero ideas can be a bit crimped by a holy knight-in-shining-armor for a conscience, and the assassin gets a "rare" because it takes a certain sort of group to be comfortable with wholesale murder for hire. Again, renaming and letting it be a footnote thing would be welcome.
There is no way to actually establish true rarity of a rules construct in a P&P RPG. I don't see any of the designers being dumb enough to try.
1) World-building. If you ever tried to randomly generate a nameless town (I ran an itinerant campaign) in late 3.5, the table in the DMG were worthless. To borrow from computer science, rarity provides an extensibility point.
2) Complexity/difficulty. I have no problem with the "fighters are for noobs, wizards are for vets" mentality from 1e -- though I like having sorcerer/warlock for noobs who like magic. Being able to immediately look at the complexity of a new class (PHB2, Dragon, whatever) would be helpful. I'd like them to rename it, though. And not make it a big deal. Hey, Hero System has pretty stop signs on problematic rules. Why not D&D?
3) Roleplaying, um, density. Assassins and paladins work poorly together. So did 1e barbarians and wizards. Having a marker for classes that have some baggage might be a good thing. Maybe the fighter is common because you always can use another meat shield, the re-renamed thief gets "uncommon" because stealing from the other PCs is somewhat rude, the paladin gets "rare" because of the 1e assumption of "evil-hating neutrals" or 4e antihero ideas can be a bit crimped by a holy knight-in-shining-armor for a conscience, and the assassin gets a "rare" because it takes a certain sort of group to be comfortable with wholesale murder for hire. Again, renaming and letting it be a footnote thing would be welcome.
There is no way to actually establish true rarity of a rules construct in a P&P RPG. I don't see any of the designers being dumb enough to try.
TrippyHippy
Hero
I see class 'rarity' as being another unecessary attempt at classifying the classes, to be honest. In my fantasy worlds, wizards would be more rare than assassins, say, but this doesn't appear to be the way the game will apparently see it. It's rife with potential problems.
Similar Threads
D&D (2024)
Party Balance?
