PDA

View Full Version : [DnD] Class Rarity



Lilithgow
2011-02-10, 01:11 PM
So, my friends and I have been debating for some time over the rarity of classes in the world of DnD.

I run a variant world of my own, with a far lower magic level than forgotten realms, and so the rarity of wizards came up in discussion. But then, as with all discussions we drifted to 'in-general' and that way everyone can join in!

We've come to the conclusion that outside of the NPC classes, Fighter is probably most common, because it comes down entirely to a guy swinging a sword, and that's going to be common - soldiers, sturdy villagers, plucky amateurs and so on - while the studious wizard is going to be rarer than that - years of study and so on.

So, my question to you is, what do you reckon are the rarest and most common base classes and if you're feeling adventurous, prestige classes in general dnd or in your particular world.

In ours we decided that the rarity probably went something like:
Fighter- A regular guy could easily become a fighter.
Rogue- Grow up in the big city, pinch a few pockets, the world has no shortage of thieves, after all.
Ranger- A hunter could easily just decide to become an adventurer one day.
Cleric- Every village has a true believer, in a world with gods frequenting...
Barbarian- This is something you'd have to be from birth, growing up in nature and practicing getting angry. I imagine Barbarian has a high failure/mortality rate...
Bards- It is a bit of a jump for someone to get up one day and say "I reckon I should go adventuring, what with my amazing flute abilities." - It takes a very zealous person indeed!
Wizard- Decades of hard study isn't for everyone. In fact it's for very few, I'd wager.
Sorcerer- Someone with innate abilities should probably be the one in thousand kind of guy.
Monk- There can't be that many temples for monks, can there?
Paladin- A true exemplar, bastion of faith and unshakable resolve is not the guy you bump into every day. Or year.
Book of Nine Swords Classes- See Monk, subtract all but one temple!
Psionics- They are the kind of guy who doesn't fit in even more than sorcerer. I'm not looking to get into an argument about if they fit or not, but they'd have to be rare, surely?

Tvtyrant
2011-02-10, 01:15 PM
There are likely tons of monks, the rarity comes from them leaving their monastery.

Goober4473
2011-02-10, 01:18 PM
This depends pretty heavily on setting. In general, I'd say the non-supernatural classes from the PhB would be most common PC classes, follwoed by the PHB classes, then the Complete series and PHB2, then weirder stuff like Psionics, Incarnum, and the Tome classes, simply because that's the approximate likelyhood anyone will own those books.

My current setting is Eberron, but Psionics, Incarnum, and Tome of Magic classes are all story-based. i.e. you can't take levels in them, but you can gain their abilities through plot, so they're rare. In regular Eberron, it seems like PC classes in general are pretty rare, but as usual Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians aren't quite as rare as the rest.

Angry Bob
2011-02-10, 01:22 PM
How common sorcerers are in your world depends on how many of your dragons have realized what the best use for Polymorph and Alternate Form abilities is.

I'd consider fighter an "elite" NPC class; something you put on an NPC that you want to have a gimmick or two(likely charging or aooing) to bring to bear without having the plethora of options to keep track of that a ToB character has. "Fighters" that actually go out and adventure are probably actually Warblades.

TheDMofDMs
2011-02-10, 01:22 PM
Hey, I just hopped on this thing, and saw your thread, so here's my first post.

I agree with most of what you have here. I do think that Cleric would be relatively common, more so than Rangers. The gods exist. Pray to them, you get powers, etc.

I do think one of the issues here is a matter of culture: Monks are a lot more common in Eastern-based culture, I'm sure. Just as Barbarians are more frequent in less-developed areas.

Prestige classes, alternative base classes, etc.: I think the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide says it all: Players should ask their D.M. before using any supplement books, to see if those materials are, in fact, in the campaign setting.

That's how rare psionics and the blank of the blank blank prestige classes are; sometimes, or, if your storyteller is smart, most of the time, they don't even exist.

Another interesting comment about class-rarity is their abundance as a whole compared to the rest of the world.
Adventurers are all perhaps just a little off-kilter. They're willing to put themselves in tremendous risk to gain wealth and power. Which they then promptly use to put themselves at even more risk, to gain more wealth and power.
I mean, how many people get up each morning and think "I hope I don't get stabbed too much today. But once we get back to civilization, I'll be rich! I can afford to buy a better sword, so the next time someone tries to kill me, I'll be able to fight them better"?

That'd be like your boss offering to quadruple your wages if he gets to periodically send hit-men to your house. Would you do it? Of course not. It takes a certain deranged dare-devil attitude to be an adventurer.

So...there's my first post.

Xefas
2011-02-10, 01:26 PM
I would think Clerics would be reasonably common. In D&D, religion isn't much a matter of "faith", as it's plain for everyone to see that you can pray for the ability to shoot fire out of your eyes and then it happens. So, the barrier is going to be more with "Do I have 11+ Wisdom?" and "Do I want to dedicate myself, in some capacity, to this cause?"

With the latter, you have to consider that, in many D&D worlds, the alternative is being a dirt farmer just waiting to get murdered by goblins/kobolds/wolves/zombies/whatever. The opportunity to sit around in a well defended temple, amongst like-minded individuals, and use your superpowers to heal the sick, much to their adoring praise, is probably not a bad deal.

Hell, more than one non-Evil god/goddess has their temples set up as 24/7 orgy pits. Can anyone say Clerics wouldn't be common? And if your wisdom isn't up to snuff, there's always Paladin Crusader.

Greenish
2011-02-10, 01:26 PM
There are no classes in a D&D world.

Fox Box Socks
2011-02-10, 01:26 PM
I know in 4e RAW, the rarest classes in the world by far are Fighter and Wizard. Wizard because that level of arcane mastery is so rare, and Fighter because being a Fighter is more or less the zenith of martial achievement, and most people simply cannot get there, no matter how good they are at swinging swords around.

Kaiser Omnik
2011-02-10, 01:30 PM
I agree that clerics are not among the rarest classes, but let's not forget that in D&D 3.x at least, most divine spellcasters in the world are actually adepts.

Lilithgow
2011-02-10, 01:34 PM
There are no classes in a D&D world.

Sure there are! Upper class, lower class...

Greenish
2011-02-10, 01:41 PM
I agree that clerics are not among the rarest classes, but let's not forget that in D&D 3.x at least, most spellcasters in the world, divine or otherwise, are actually adepts.Or magewrights.

Sure there are! Upper class, lower class...The bourgeoisie hardly count, the riffraff even less.

arguskos
2011-02-10, 01:42 PM
Sure there are! Upper class, lower class Wizards, Everyone Else...
Sorry. Had to fix that for you for a moment. :smallwink:

Also, to be serious, this isn't taking things like the Tome of Magic or the Incarnum classes into account (note that I really doubt any of the preceding would be anywhere near common).

true_shinken
2011-02-10, 01:42 PM
I know in 4e RAW, the rarest classes in the world by far are Fighter and Wizard.
What? NPCs in 4e don't have classes.


There are no classes in a D&D world.
Of course not. That's why they have a demographics section in the DMG. Eberron has this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20040712a)for the same reason.

Kaiser Omnik
2011-02-10, 01:42 PM
Indeed, magewrights. I had forgotten adepts are purely divine.

Fox Box Socks
2011-02-10, 01:56 PM
What? NPCs in 4e don't have classes.
From Martial Power, page 16

The rank-and-file soldiery of the local barony, the band of mercenaries who sell their services to the duke, the bandits who raid caravans traveling the King's Road, the savages who plunder outlying farms - these aren't fighters. But fighters do emerge from among these sorts of people. Your fighter character might have served in the military, trained for the knighthood, or fought among bandits or raiders, but you rose from those ranks to become something greater than your colleagues. You're not just a solder; you're a hero, and that forever sets you above the common folk of the world.
And from Arcane Power, page 99

Fighters and wizards are both exceedingly rare in the world, but wizards are perhaps slightly more so. Common soldiers, mercenaries, and bandits aren't fighters, but fighters might emerge from among those sorts of people. It's harder to find example of people among the mass of common folk who have the potential to rise to the status of a full-fledged wizard. You might one have been a scribe, a scholar of history or arcane lor, a priest of Ioun or some other deity, an herbalist, or an alchemist in your town or village. But the mometn you learned your first cantrip, you were set on a path toward a greater destiny. You are far more than a scholar or a sage - you're a hero who wields the power of arcane magic, and that ability forever sets you apart from, and indeed above, the common folk of the world.

Telonius
2011-02-10, 01:57 PM
Bard: Fairly rare. You're not going to find these in any kind of smaller settlement.
Barbarian: Not quite as rare as Bards. More common than Fighter in nomadic communities.
Cleric: Quite common. At least one per town, lots in the larger cities.
Druid: Very rare. Old hermit in the woods-type rare. Maybe a dozen of these in an entire kingdom, and most people don't even know they're there.
Fighter: Quite common in organized cities or places with regular armies.
Monk: Fairly rare overall, but tend to be bunched together in monasteries and/or big cities.
Paladin: Rare. Way too much dedication required.
Ranger: Medium. Very common in the rural communities, not so much in the cities (unless you're using the Urban Ranger variant).
Rogue: All over the place. Every pickpocket and thief on the streets of a major city is one of these.
Sorcerer: Depends entirely on whether the setting is high- or low-magic.
Wizard: Depends on the setting, like Sorcerer; but always more common than Sorcerer.

true_shinken
2011-02-10, 01:59 PM
From Martial Power, page 16

And from Arcane Power, page 99
That's a waste of pages, then. Character classes are for players and for players only. This is the problem with 4e - they pretend to make a simulationist game. It gets irritating at best.

Crossblade
2011-02-10, 02:00 PM
There are no classes in a D&D world.

Yes there is. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)


On topic: I just do the lazy thing and use the Class/Race table in the DMG.
Works for random NPCs, non random NPCs are assigned a class appropriate to their role.

nightwyrm
2011-02-10, 02:06 PM
That's a waste of pages, then. Character classes are for players and for players only. This is the problem with 4e - they pretend to make a simulationist game. It gets irritating at best.

Wait, what? 4e is quite open about its non-simulationism.

true_shinken
2011-02-10, 02:09 PM
Wait, what? 4e is quite open about its non-simulationism.

What Fox Box Socks posted goes completely against that notion, doesn't it?

Kaiser Omnik
2011-02-10, 02:13 PM
You do know that even back in the DMG 1, there are rules to make NPCs with class templates, right?

CockroachTeaParty
2011-02-10, 02:17 PM
In a generic, non-setting-specific D&D world, this is about how I would rank class rarity, top being the most common, bottom being the least common.


Commoner
Expert
Warrior
Rogue
Fighter
Adept
Barbarian
Ranger
Cleric
Bard
Marshal
Monk
Knight
Archivist
Warmage
Crusader
Warblade
Wilder
Ardent
Divine Mind
Totemist
Dragon Shaman
Dragonfire Adept
Wizard
Aristocrat
Psion
Beguiler
Truenamer
Druid
Shadow Caster
Sword Sage
Duskblade
Psychic Warrior
Warlock
Soulknife
Lurk
Hexblade
Incarnate
Dread Necromancer
Soulborn
Binder
Sorcerer
Paladin
Favored Soul

Fox Box Socks
2011-02-10, 02:22 PM
...no, no it actually doesn't.

Both of those options are presented in books aimed at players, and it's mostly roleplaying advice. The advice there is that, well, the PCs, even at level 1, are exceptionally good at what they do, and are rare in the world. Lots of NPCs can cast spells, but being able to use cantrips with ease means that the Wizard PC is something special. A level 1 Fighter isn't just someone who knows which end of the pointy stick goes into the fleshy parts, he needs to have a level of pure talent and grit that simply isn't present in 90% of the population.

It's also useful information for DMs; since class templates can be placed on monsters with relative ease, it's nice to know which classes are more common than others. A Hobgoblin with the Rogue template is probably going to be more common than one with the Fighter or Wizard templates.

As for being a simulationist system...I'm not really sure where you're getting that from. 4e goes out of its way NOT to be a simulationist system. Simulationism goes out the window when they make diagonal movement not cost extra (Pythagoras apparently doesn't exist in 4e). But it doesn't try to be simulationist either.

Kurald Galain
2011-02-10, 02:26 PM
So, my friends and I have been debating for some time over the rarity of classes in the world of DnD.

Common: fighter, rogue, cleric
Uncommon: ranger, barbarian, bard, monk, sorcerer
Rare: wizard, druid, paladin

Comet
2011-02-10, 02:27 PM
I've personally always liked the idea of being able to pick up the first few levels of Wizard or the equivalent thereof with just a few weeks/months of rote memorization and learning the basics of how to draw spells from a spellbook.

I mean, you already depend on the text in the spellbook to cast any of your magic. Why would you need to spend 20 human years to learn to read the thing? Just learn the basics of verbal, somatic and material spellbinding and get your hands on a novice's spellbook. The rest ought to come with time, as you adventure.

Keinnicht
2011-02-10, 02:27 PM
There are likely tons of monks, the rarity comes from them leaving their monastery.

Probably not "tons." When you think about it, the number of monasteries is probably pretty low.

nightwyrm
2011-02-10, 02:28 PM
What Fox Box Socks posted goes completely against that notion, doesn't it?

I get the impression that the quote uses the terms fighter and wizard colloquially or descriptively. An NPC aren't built the same way as PC using classes but they can have abilities that are similar to those used by certain PC classes and would be refer to as such as a description. An NPC who throws around magic spells after reading a book is a "wizard" and an NPC who wears heavy armor and uses sword and shield really well can be called a "fighter" even though neither are built using the PC classes.

Of course, I personally hate the idea that you can classify (pun not intended) every single person in the world into discrete categories that perfectly describes their capability. That is just so...gamey.

arguskos
2011-02-10, 02:36 PM
Common: Fighting-Men.
Uncommon: Clerics, Dwarves, Hobbits.
Rare: Magic-Users, Elves.

:smallamused:

Kurald Galain
2011-02-10, 02:37 PM
Common: Fighting-Men.

What about Fighting-Women? :smalltongue:

arguskos
2011-02-10, 02:38 PM
What about Fighting-Women? :smalltongue:
NEVER! :smallfurious: 'sall good. :P

Telasi
2011-02-10, 02:42 PM
It pretty much comes down to your world. In the Pathfinder campaign I run, PC classes are basically everywhere. The priest in charge of your local church? Cleric of varying level, depending on the town. The city guards? Fighters mostly, with some trainee and militia Warriors. Run into an elf border patrol and don't see weapons? They're soulknives. If armed, they're probably PsyWars. The only classes that aren't that common are powerful arcane casters and spontaneous casters of any type.

I'm very much against the idea that PCs are special in what they can do, and it influences how I set my worlds up.

grimbold
2011-02-10, 02:52 PM
i think that by looking at the starting age for each class you can pretty well determine rarity
the easier thus more common classes have a lower starting age

FMArthur
2011-02-10, 02:58 PM
I just realized that the world I build is very inconsistent in its approach to classes as game constructs. Basically, everything mundane is just a variety of skillsets that most people have access to. NPCs have Barbarian dips, maybe Rogue levels, Fighter levels, and Martial Adept levels sprinkled about. The classes line on their sheets often makes it look like a complicated and contrived thing that clearly has the hand of outside assistance involved. And yet when it comes down to it their actual abilities mesh into a coherent, believable character who merely has talents and areas of expertise.

With magic it's not so easy! Any player can take Sorceror or Warlock or Favored Soul levels, but those do represent special bloodlines and deific intervention to single that guy out. Wizards, Archivists, Erudites and even Clerics need to have spent much longer studying and learning their trade just to start out. Psionics in general have some of both; a little inborn talent, great amounts of focus, etc. Generally with Psionics I imagine that almost all people have access to them, being limited only by their own mind, but not many choose to study and tap their mental resources in that way.

MeeposFire
2011-02-10, 03:02 PM
What? NPCs in 4e don't have classes.


Of course not. That's why they have a demographics section in the DMG. Eberron has this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20040712a)for the same reason.

Actually NPCs can have classes it is on page 182 of the DMG. It is a template you can add to any creature.

Also bravo you are the first person I have ever heard say that 4e tries to hard to be a simulation game. Most people I know who dislike something about the 4e style is that it is not simulationist enough.

Personally I like the non-simulationist approach.

Lilithgow
2011-02-10, 03:53 PM
I mostly deal with humanoid enemies, so I have lots and lots of NPCs with class levels, or nothing would stop my slightly mercenary group from squashing the upper class with their woefully pathetic warrior bodyguards. Plus, I get to give them more mechanical personality that way.

true_shinken
2011-02-10, 04:01 PM
Actually NPCs can have classes it is on page 182 of the DMG. It is a template you can add to any creature.

Also bravo you are the first person I have ever heard say that 4e tries to hard to be a simulation game. Most people I know who dislike something about the 4e style is that it is not simulationist enough.

Personally I like the non-simulationist approach.

I never said it 'tries too hard'. I said it 'pretends'.

Sotharsyl
2011-02-10, 04:05 PM
Well of course the rarity of classes depends on what world you're asking about if you're talking about,if you want a generic RAW only world as it's described by the PHB and DMG I believe that the relevant sections were quoted in this thread.


If you want to ask us about our particular worlds we have gamed in,every world is different because it reflects its creators desires,maybe the question is what would happen in a world with a completely neutral DM one who uses the rules as merely a model to simulate a fantasy world.
Then the best answer I can give you is that no version of DnD is ever a good simulator and that the first time someone gains access to high level spells or hits the wright combination by luck and because all the supplements are being run in the model the world will go to Hell fast.

My personal opinion on how rare the classes should be not really rare, and I say this because I don't want to feel like the PC's are a fluke,statistical impossibilities as far removed from humanity/elfanity/dwarfinity as the very monsters which they fight.

For example take a fighter yes he has skill but how did he hone it? I feel that for his character to have a bit of verisimilitude he needed a master to teach him a rival to challenge him,yes he has/will surpass his master and defeat his rival but if those around him are so much beneath his level the temptation to rest on your laurels might be too great for any man.

A wizard,yes he is beyond most of society in the intelligence department but does he have absolutely no one to discuss his theories with the same master/rival dilemma as above remains why does tiresly search for knowledge at some point he must have received knowledge from a educator why does he not want to pass his knowledge on?

Does neither empathy for a fellow scholar or desire for adoration motivate him to share his knowledge,does he really think that no one out there is capable off understanding his work or himself ?

If the PC classes are so rare you will never hear "That is X the greatest fighter in the world and Y the most power full wizard" you will hear "That is X if you see what that freak does with a blade you too will conclude that he's not really human and that thing Y it may wear the skin of a man but its very powers betray its demon nature"

So I would use the PC classes more liberally even at the cost of them becoming something else than PC classes the most power full knight yes he has fighter levels that enchanter you commissioned to make the sword yes he has wizard levels.

But then why am I a PC more power full than them? Because the NPC knight's highest stat strength is 15 and you may not know it but he spent a lot of feats on toughness,he thought it was a good idea,and a different weapon than his main one,just in case you never know.


And the wizard he used a fourth level spell to enchant this,that's the absolute limit of his power intelligence 15 and he's lazy he uses some homebrewed second level spells to clean his house daily,he used his divinations to spy on the girl next door while she was bathing.

In the end I think that for verisimilitude if you want to have experts in any field,people who can rise in power enough to save the world and after that not take it over themselves,they will need peers to help them rise and once they reach the top who can really understand their skill.

The PC are special enough in that they are the avatars of people from RL,people whom the DM is trying to entertain do they really need pages on pages of fluff proclaiming their uniqueness on top of that?

MeeposFire
2011-02-10, 04:28 PM
I never said it 'tries too hard'. I said it 'pretends'.

Ok then you are the first person I have heard say that it even pretends to be a simulationist game. Simulationist and 4e has never been something I have heard together.

Fox Box Socks
2011-02-10, 04:39 PM
Ok then you are the first person I have heard say that it even pretends to be a simulationist game. Simulationist and 4e has never been something I have heard together.
Me either. I always hear that it turns people off because it doesn't even bother trying to be simulationist.

endoperez
2011-02-10, 04:47 PM
Bards- It is a bit of a jump for someone to get up one day and say "I reckon I should go adventuring, what with my amazing flute abilities." - It takes a very zealous person indeed!

Bards have already been adventuring, they've just gotten bored of always running away from danger. Traveling from town to town, assisting a circus magician, earning some money by performing in inns, doing odd jobs, gossiping, grouping up with these funny guys who swear they're going to be big some day...

ericgrau
2011-02-10, 04:51 PM
Already figured out in a web enhancement here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20030719a

Though IIRC you have to halve (double?) those numbers to match what the DMG says. So better check the NPC section first. The proportions are still fairly reasonable.

Most are commoners of course. NPC classes are the most common, especially warriors. Experts are next IIRC. For a PC class rogues are very common, as are fighters. Paladins, monks and non-urban classes (barbarian, sorcerer) are rare. Both are probably because this is who's in a city. I would guess in the wilderness barbarian/fighter, sorcerer/wizard an druids/cleric get swapped, and rangers get more common.

FMArthur
2011-02-10, 06:29 PM
Me either. I always hear that it turns people off because it doesn't even bother trying to be simulationist.

He's talking about the specific moments where they act as if they have made the effort and only serve to muddle things up a bit because, as you say, they haven't actually made that effort. It's becoming hard not to get the impression you are deliberately misinterpreting what Shinken said.

linebackeru
2011-02-10, 06:39 PM
If PC classes are rare, then magic items had better be rare as well. Is the PC party's wizard the only wizard in the region? If so, no store would carry magic items.

Fox Box Socks
2011-02-10, 06:40 PM
I'm not actively trying to misinterpret anything, I just fail to see how a paragraph in a player resource book intended as either a roleplaying aid and as advice for DMs regarding world-building is anything approaching simulationism, or is even something attempting to masquerade as simulationism.

MichielHagen
2011-02-10, 06:51 PM
In a small country i can imagine these numbers:

10.000 soldiers, but not all are Fighter, let's say 1.000 Fighters.

Outside of the cities there will be a lot of Rangers i believe. 500 of them....

Clerics, let's say there's 30 temples with an average of 10 clerics working in each of them. 300 Clerics.

Barbarians might be rare, but if they are found they will be in large numbers.
A group of 200 in my country.

In a large city i can imagine a thief guild, but i'd do not expect it to be that large, i would say 100 Rogues.

A Monastry would have like 30-40 monks...

An order of paladins might exist, but there will not be much of them. Let's say 20.

1000 Fighters
500 Rangers
300 Clerics
200 Barbarians
100 Rogues
50 Bards
35 Monks
20 Paladins
5 Druids
4 Wizards
2 Sorcerers