The Utility of Class Rarity

[SensoryThought]

But it wouldn't benefit the classes IMO. Making certain classes "simple" and others "complex" I think would just make everything fall back into that rut of assuming that martial classes are simple and caster classes are complex. Class complexity should depend on the amount of effort a player puts into creating their character. All classes should hover around a "moderate" level of complexity with build options for greater or lesser complexity. Not to mention it's really easy for "simple" to become a dirty word.

I find the question of class complexity an interesting one and harder in my mind to answer than rarity (which I've already out my 2c in on).

Actually I see 2 types of complexity - complexity in character generation and complexity in playstyle. With splatbooks, 3e/3.5e/PF is complex for character generation options. 4e is pretty complex too, although the online builder helps. Essentials classes are the most simple.

In terms of play I find 4e fighters (marking) and rogues (combat advantage) to be the hardest to play tactically. Classes like the ranger (twin strike and HQ every attack) are the easiest, maybe easier than the Esssentials Slayer that requires understanding stances. The Essentials bladesinger with bladespells, triggering actions and lots of power choices is super complex to play, despite being simple to make.

Personally I like the idea of all classes being simple to make, essentials style. This limits broken power combos and limits power creep. I like the idea of having simple and complex subclasses of the fighter, rogue, magic user, cleric. And with complexity in play has greater power. Monte Cook is fortunately a big believer in system mastery yielding benefits, which I agree with. But he also apparently likes wizards, but I DON'T agree that complexity and power should be limited to casters.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

On the other hand, perhaps D&D needs a rarity-based reward mechanic. For example, you must play a Common class (Fighter) for 20 levels first to "unlock" and Uncommon Class (Paladin) which you must play for 20 levels in order to unlock the Rare Class (Avenger).

So if you see someone playing a Paladin or Avenger, you know they've earned it!

 

[Savage Wombat]

Maybe class rarity is just their way of saying "don't expect a magic item table with fifty-seven different foci for warlocks". The rarer the class, the fewer magic items there will be to support their specific class features.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I thought this idea was one of the most unbelievable parts of the 'leak'

Why put in a mechanid that will be roundly ignore,d, unless you plan on using it in organized play?

 

[Kynn]

I thought this idea was one of the most unbelievable parts of the 'leak'

Why put in a mechanid that will be roundly ignore,d, unless you plan on using it in organized play?

Class rarity was not invented by the SA leaker; it's from what WotC has said about D&D Next.

Common or uncommon classes. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks, bards, and paladins fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. Some of the classes labeled rare might be a bit more complex or difficult to pick up.

 

[TrippyHippy]

As I stated before, I'd regard the Assassin and Bard classes to be less rare than Wizards in any fantasy setting I'd ever run. To me it's a useless 'tool'. Stop classifying the classes.