Commonality of Classes

[Rixx]

I've always wondered how common certain classes would be in most game worlds, and I think I might have come up with a general rule of how often the typical adventuring party would come across characters of a certain class.

Ubiquitous: Fighters, Rogues. Fighters and Rogues because the class descriptions are broad and as such cover most adventurers (Basically "guy who fights with weapons and armor" and "guy who uses his wits instead of strength".)

Common: Bards, Paladins, Rangers, Wizards, Clerics. These are classes that don't have a lot of barriers to entry - that is, most anyone can be one of these, though they may each require an exceptional amount of skill, talent, or resolve. They're not an uncommon sight.

Uncommon: Barbarian, Druid, Monk, Sorcerer. These classes have huge barriers for entry. You either have to be born into or join a very insular or remote community to become one (Barbarian, Druid, Monk), or be born with the ability to become one (Sorcerer). I imagine them to all be somewhat unusual sights - something most adventurers come across on an irregular basis, and most ordinary people never see more than once or twice.

Rare: Prestige classes. Since most prestige classes represent a very specific focus, and the base classes represent a usually broader focus, it can logically be assumed that prestige classes will be, on the whole, much rarer than the base classes.

Obviously, different settings are going to differ on which classes are more or less common, and deciding this beforehand can be a good aid in roleplaying; for example, have ordinary people gape in awe as the Monk jumps fifty feet into the air, but not bat an eyelash as a Cleric heals a warrior's wounds.

What are your opinions? Have you ever played in a setting where certian base classes were rare or completely unheard of?

[Elfin]

Generally, in my campaigns, I assume the percentages are pretty similar to the above.

[Da Pwnzlord]

I'm pretty sure that paladins are few and far between. Fluff seems to point to it being an exeptional calling, recieved by very few.

[hiryuu]

I use this:

Ubiquitous: Commoner, Warrior
Common: Expert, Aristocrat
Uncommon: Adept
Rare: Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger
Ultra-Rare: All other PC classes.
Stupid Rare: Prestige classes. If a PC has it, he's probably the only guy in the world that does.

Also, level range 1-3 is common, 4-5 is uncommon/rare, 6-10 is ultra-rare, and anything 11 or higher is so stupid rare there's probably like one dude in the whole country that high and no one knows who he is because he's either left the plane entirely to get people off his back or changed his name so he could get at least ten seconds of privacy. Heck, all those stories about powerful warriors? Probably the same guy just trying to get people off his back long enough to enjoy a single drink.

Or he's a PC.

[Temet Nosce]

Well, first off I don't assume most (or even many) people have levels in PC classes so nothing is really ubiquitous, you need to be in an area you might reasonably find one.

Second, I change a couple of these around. I usually present Rangers as common since they'd be in high demand in a traditional D&D esque world (in addition to being a very easy class for an NPC to get into).

Paladins I generally see as both a high upkeep and strict adherence class so they're rare. I don't picture them as something most people are vaguely familiar with, but as creating a "I thought those were from tales" response.

Monks, well I picture them in monasteries and while they do require dedication I find it reasonable for them to be uncommon. You might not know one, but your friend's brother's cousin might have entered a monastery.

Similarly speaking, primitives are usually between fairly and extremely common in D&D, so I don't see Barbarians as hard to find. I'm semi tempted to call them common, but I suppose it balances out in cities.

Wizards... You don't meet Wizards really, they're a story not real people. They live in famous towers and seek the secrets of the universe. Sure, certain nobles or other prestigious people won't take such an attitude but for the average individual wizards are a source of awe. The class requires depends on expensive knowledge and learning which wouldn't be available to the average person, it isn't a class a normal NPC in some random village could simply choose to take up typically. Definitely rare at least.

As far as PrCs go, well... As I mentioned I don't picture worlds in which many NPCs are hyper competent, so even encountering one of these classes is cause for disbelief. They're so far removed from the norm that they may be considered rumors by many, although the level of disbelief may vary from PrC to PrC (Archmage for example, would be pretty much as (un)believable to the average NPC as a Wizard would)

Common: Fighters, Rogues, Rangers.

Uncommon: Bards, Barbarians, Monks, Clerics.

Rare: Paladin, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer.

Semi-mythical: Prestige classes

[Crow]

I use this:

Ubiquitous: Commoner, Warrior
Common: Expert, Aristocrat
Uncommon: Adept
Rare: Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger
Ultra-Rare: All other PC classes.
Stupid Rare: Prestige classes. If a PC has it, he's probably the only guy in the world that does.

Also, level range 1-3 is common, 4-5 is uncommon/rare, 6-10 is ultra-rare, and anything 11 or higher is so stupid rare there's probably like one dude in the whole country that high and no one knows who he is because he's either left the plane entirely to get people off his back or changed his name so he could get at least ten seconds of privacy. Heck, all those stories about powerful warriors? Probably the same guy just trying to get people off his back long enough to enjoy a single drink.

Or he's a PC.

That's pretty close to how my campaign world is.

[Raum]

In my view classes are a meta-game convention. In game there's no "Barbarian" - he's just another fighter from the back country with a nasty temper...which tends to spark when all those 'citified wimps' call him a 'barbarian' to his face. And similar for other classes.

There are also in game social castes, titles, and professions which may duplicate some of the class names. But you don't have to be a member of that class to have the titles. Peasants are going to call most secular magic users "Wizard" whether their class is Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, or something else entirely. And the King's Rangers? They're a group of fighters and scouts the king has hired.

[aje8]

In my view classes are a meta-game convention. In game there's no "Barbarian" - he's just another fighter from the back country with a nasty temper...which tends to spark when all those 'citified wimps' call him a 'barbarian' to his face. And similar for other classes.

There are also in game social castes, titles, and professions which may duplicate some of the class names. But you don't have to be a member of that class to have the titles. Peasants are going to call most secular magic users "Wizard" whether their class is Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, or something else entirely. And the King's Rangers? They're a group of fighters and scouts the king has hired.

This. My "Paladin" could be a straight Cleric. The other Clerics aren't going to be like, "but you didn't take levels in paladin!"

For another example, my "monk" could have no levels even remotley related to monks. He could also fight armed. But he lived in a temple has a shaved head and a very sheltered worldveiw.

[Harperfan7]

Well, the DMG does have rules for this.

[boomwolf]

The way I run things pretty much everything is common.

Fighter/Rouge/Ranger are a plague, found freaking everywhere, found in four digits every major city.

Monk/Wizard/Cleric/Barbarian/Bard/Paladin are found in fair numbers, a hundred of each in a major city is quite possible.

Druid/Sorcerer are rarer, but you WILL encounter a few dozen sorcerers in a city, or every once in a while a druid in nature.

PrC's, you are likely to find pretty much all of them somewhere around. the more simple PrC's are found by dozens, the unique ones are only a handful.

Dragons-there are a few hundred out there, good hunting. (for scale. pun intended.)

[Set]

Most Common: Experts

Common: Fighters, Rogues

Uncommon: Adepts, Barbarians, Rangers, Aristocrats

Rare: Monks, Paladins, Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids, Bards (all requiring specialized training, a special circumstance of birth, a heirarchical clergy, being 'chosen' by a god or perhaps even an academy of some sort, the majority of hedge wizards, village wise women and lower level clergy will be Adepts, not Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers or Wizards)

Very Rare: Prestige Classes (I hate them. Players can use them if they want, and they aren't cheese-factories like the Incantatrix. Given their specialized nature, I'm *more* likely to allow a player to create a custom Prestige Class than pick one out of a book...)

I don't use Commoners or Warriors at all. Everyone is at least an Expert, and fighting-men are Fighters. Experts, Adepts and Aristocrats fill niches and remain in use.

[dragonfan6490]

In my view classes are a meta-game convention. In game there's no "Barbarian" - he's just another fighter from the back country with a nasty temper...which tends to spark when all those 'citified wimps' call him a 'barbarian' to his face. And similar for other classes.

There are also in game social castes, titles, and professions which may duplicate some of the class names. But you don't have to be a member of that class to have the titles. Peasants are going to call most secular magic users "Wizard" whether their class is Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, or something else entirely. And the King's Rangers? They're a group of fighters and scouts the king has hired.

My campaign setting works much like this, with class names being a metagame mechanic like levels. It also seems to differ from most of ya'lls in one respect, I have Sorcerers more common than Wizards due to the amount of studying it takes to become a Wizard and the abundance of Fae or other powerful magical creatures in the world makes it ripe for Sorcery. Of course, in my setting, Sorcerers aren't descended from dragons, fey, or the like, they are blessed by them, granting them their magic.

[Elfin]

If I had to organize (Core and NPC) classes by rarity in my world, I'd go with:
Ubiquitous: Commoners, Experts, Warriors, Aristocrats
Common: Fighters, Rogues, Bards
Uncommon: Clerics, Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, Adepts
Rare: Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Monks
Extremely Rare: Prestige Classes

As for levels, I generally do something like:
1-3: Common. Most people in the world are either levels 1-2, though a hardened member of the militia might be level 3.
4-7: Uncommon. The general of the kingdom's army or a ranger who has spent years battling monsters in wild places might both fall under this category.
8-12: Rare. Someone of these levels is a champion, someone whose deeds are sung of far and wide.
13-17: Very rare. Someone who achieves this level is a mighty hero of legend, of power the common folk can only dream of.
18+: Very, very rare. Only a handful of such people exist, scattered far and wide.

[quick_comment]

I dont make prcs rare by default.

Some with high barriers to entry, like the magelord or ur-priest are vanishingly rare. Some, like the mage of the arcane order, can probably be found in every well populated city.

[Ernir]

In my view classes are a meta-game convention. In game there's no "Barbarian" - he's just another fighter from the back country with a nasty temper...which tends to spark when all those 'citified wimps' call him a 'barbarian' to his face. And similar for other classes.

There are also in game social castes, titles, and professions which may duplicate some of the class names. But you don't have to be a member of that class to have the titles. Peasants are going to call most secular magic users "Wizard" whether their class is Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, or something else entirely. And the King's Rangers? They're a group of fighters and scouts the king has hired.

This. Definitely this.


That being said, I tend to stat out most random people as Commoners, Aristocrats, or Fighters.
For those people I know/suspect the PCs will encounter (ifyaknowwhaddamean), I think "what would I like this guy to be able to do?" and pick classes accordingly.

[ericgrau]

This has already been figured out for you in a free PDF at www.wizards.com. Unfortunately the site is down right now (as is common), so I can't find you a link. I did, however, download it.

Commoners make up roughly 2/3 of a city's population. Warriors and experts each account for about 10%. Fighters are about 3%, rogues 2%, and all other classes are 1% or less. The "common" ones - wizard, cleric, bard, aristocrat and adept - manage the full 1%, but others are still there. I would guess that less civilized areas would swap fighters with barbarians, wizards with sorcerers, and clerics with druids.

I remember I found it originally at a link from the 3.5 DMG or PH page, in case you want to hunt for it later. Or try a google on the title: "Building a City".

[Gralamin]

Probably my Preferred method is...
Common: Commoners
Uncommon: Experts, Aristocrats, Warrior
Rare: Adepts
Very Rare: "Mundane" PC Classes (Mundane here meaning classes that require relatively little training, but don't use natural talent. Fighter and Rogue are examples.)
Extremely Rare: Natural Talent Classes (Factotum, Sorcerer, Paladin, Crusader), Classes requiring extensive Training or Forbidden Knowledge (Wizard, Archivist, Artificer, Swordsage, Warblade, Binder), And classes that are by their nature rare (Incarnum).
Almost Unfindable: Prestige Classes. I prefer them as the character Creating a new way of doing things then as an organization. A notable exception is the Jade Phoenix Mage: There is always 13-NumOfPlayersInPRC.

In addition, I like a system of:
Level 1-5 - Maximum of Most NPC
Level 6-10 - Extremely Rare, very few people reach these levels.
Level 11-15 - These guys make the Level 6-10 look common.
Level 16-20 - Pretty much only found on other planes.
Level 21+ - Only things I consider taking epic is the BBEG.

This has already been figured out for you in a free PDF at www.wizards.com. Unfortunately the site is down right now (as is common), so I can't find you a link. I did, however, download it.

Commoners make up roughly 2/3 of a city's population. Warriors and experts each account for about 10%. Fighters are about 3%, rogues 2%, and all other classes are 1% or less. The "common" ones - wizard, cleric, bard, aristocrat and adept - manage the full 1%. I would guess that less civilized areas would swap fighters with barbarians, sorcerers with wizards, and druids with clerics.

I remember I found it originally at a link from the 3.5 DMG or PH page, in case you want to hunt for it later. Or try a google on the title: "Building a City".

You're a bit off. Its on the DMG page 139 or so.
Basically: Generate everything, and then - 91% of whats left are level 1 commoners, 5% are warriors, 3% are experts, 0.5% are Aristocrats, 0.5% are Adepts.

[ericgrau]

Interesting. Their own supplement, made shortly after the DMG, is different from the DMG. Either that or my rapid skimming of the tables doesn't produce a good average. The tables break it down by sector, giving a number of each class in each. EDIT: But I see very few warrior/expert entries as low as 5%. I blame the supplement.

My guesses on levels:
IIRC most people are level 1. Some a little higher, and officers are level 5. Level 11+ defines "legendary", at least by the legend lore spell. So IMO level 1 is extremely common, 2-4 is somewhat common among non-commoners, level 5 is uncommon but there are still a several of them that are easy to find in each city, 6-10 are somewhere but still very hard to find, and there are only a few level 11+ in the whole world.

Oh, and +1000 class names are metagame only. In game name may vary by whatever people feel like calling you.

[TheCountAlucard]

NPCs in my D&D game frequently call the Warlock PC a "Mage," and occasionally a "Wizard." It took the Duskblade's player a bit to realize that none of the NPCs knew what he was talking about when he referred to himself as a duskblade.

[Superglucose]

First, let me say that I would assume we're only talking about PC classes.

Ubiquitous: Fighters, Rogues, Barbarian,

~80% of all adventurers. These require little inherit talent or skill. The difference between becoming a Fighter or a Barbarian depends on only one thing: were you born in a nomadic (or semi-nomadic) setting or not? If you were born in a city, you're fighter. If you were born in a rural town, barbarian.

Common: Bards, Rangers, Wizards, Clerics.

~12.5% of all adventurers. These classes require certain abnormal ability scores and situations that most individuals would not be able to acquire (i.e. most people with high INT will become rogues, but only the select few with high INT and the ability to find a master will become Wizards)

Uncommon:Druid, Monk, Sorcerer, Paladins,

~6.4% of all adventurers. These classes require very special circumstances to enter (i.e. born as a druid, born with the special powers of a Sorceror, has the dedication to be a Monk)

Rare: Prestige classes.

I'd say this makes up the remaining .1% Things like "Loremaster" are fairly common (for PrCs, at least) but things like Horizon Walker are more rare.

[Ozymandias9]

I generally assume that all player classes are fairly rare relative to total population, but not so much that a person would have trouble finding one if they needed to. They should be, essentially, at least as rare as, say, a doctor. 1 in a 100 is a good place to start relative to the total population. I also assume that they all occur in relatively equal numbers.

I assume that most foot solders are warriors, but that the officers (and perhaps the drill sergeants that train the warriors) are fighters. I assume that most pickpockets and common thieves are experts, but that the leader of a theft ring and his (less fightery) muscle are rogues.

Thus not every thief is a PC rogue, not every soldier a fighter, not every tracker a ranger. As a result, none of these classes need to be particularly more common than the others: they are examples of more advanced pursuits in general fields

Wizards/Sorcerers are interesting, as there is limited analogous position for a presumed medieval setting and the role they fill relative to the rest of society is fairly close to the same. In this case I presume that the two of them together are about as common as other character classes: there may not be one in your village, but there is likely one in a nearby village.

If you look at a religion in terms of the ideas that most people have of medieval christianity, it can also become an interesting case study. The priesthood, from the parish priests to the bishops to the pope, I assume are clerics. Depending on the size of organized religion in your campaign, this may make them more common than other PC classes in a specific campaign world.
But the deacons, the friars, the western tradition monks (especially ley brothers in a sect): these are excellent candidates for being adepts instead of clerics. They still get their spells the same way as clerics. But since their religious understanding and level of communion is lesser, so is their divine power.

Prestige classes, from here, represent subsets of the character classes. Rarity here will depend heavily on total population. 1 in a 1000 is less reasonable in 10,000 population societies than it is in 1,000,000 population societies. A good measure is that a character with a related base class should be able to refer you to them as they would a field specialist (assuming the PrC doesn't represent a secret organization). A theft ring should, for example, be able (if not willing) to refer you to an assassin even if every rogue might not know one. A parish priest might not know a church inquisitor personally, but he should be able to get a hold of one through the bishopric.

[Coplantor]

IIRC, in the 2nd ed manuals, there was said somewhere that there was like 50 paladins on a population of a million people, and none of them higher than level 10. Mind that in 2nd ed, basic classes had preqs, and paladin's were the hardest to fulfill, not only it had insanely high stats for preqs, but there was also the code of conduct, so even out of superhuman people with high stats, only a few would become paladins.

Using only core classes, the rarest would be paladin and monk, and monk because they come from far away lands and bla bla bla.
Barbarians doesn't seem too uncommon for me, iy just depends on how close to civilized lands you are.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Generally, I tend to assume more common magic/exotic classes than the above breakdowns, and don't use NPC classes (except occasionally the adept), so pretty much any class can be found equally in my settings. The main differentiation is level--most common NPCs are level 2-3, so as people reach levels 4-7 the "highly skilled" classes (wizards, clerics, archivists, warblades, etc.) start becoming rare. Levels 9-11 mark a thinning of the herd, and there are more innately-skilled NPCs around, whether rogues, barbarians, psionicists, sorcerers, or whatever else (since it's faster and easier to grow in skill with these talents). After that, it's pretty much PCs and BBEGs, so class distributions level out again.

[arguskos]

I work things thusly:
Everywhere!: NPC classes save the Aristocrat and Adept, Rogues
Common: Adept, Fighters, Monks, Bards, Barbarians, Rangers
Uncommon: Aristocrat, Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerers, Paladins, Druids
Rare: Most PrC's, most non-core base classes
Vanishingly Rare: Binders, some specific PrC's (those with very hard entry requirements, like Death Delvers, Magelords, Ur-Priests, and the like)

I run a world with a reasonably decent-sized amount of magic users. The average level of people in this world is low though, so most mages/divine casters don't get real far. Tiers up to Uncommon tend to tap out around level 5 or 6. Rare reaches 9-10, and Vanishingly Rare sometimes reaches 15. There ARE NPCs of levels higher than 15 running around, but they are stupidly powerful and important. They rule nations, run cities, and are the most vitally important people in the world, bar none. There's one specific Minotaur Barbarian 1/Thayan Gladiator 10 (refluffed)/Frenzied Berserker 5 who is the God-King of a whole culture, for example. He's about as scary as anything EVER gets in the world.

[Fishy]

I don't think I agree with the idea that Rogues are everywhere. Muggers, thieves and con artists, sure, but a Rogue is a pretty spectacular individual.

He knows about mechanical devices, he knows about magical devices, he knows about humanoid anatomy. He's got sharp eyes, a sharp tongue, and sharper knives. He can get hit with a fireball and not actually notice or care.

These really aren't people 'with little inherent talent or skill'.

[Gerbah]

The one I'm running right now is kinda weird, it would look something like this (including a lot of non-core classes):

Ubiquitous: Fighter, Rogue, Swashbuckler

Common: Wizard, Cleric, Ranger, Bard, Knight, Paladin, Barbarian, Marshall, Scout, Warmage

Uncommon: Spellthief, Favored Soul, Sorcerer, Warlock, Duskblade, Hexblade, Monk, Druid, Beguiler

Rare: The few left (Shamans, Wu Jen, whatever)

PrC aren't unheard of, it just means that that person is pretty powerful.

It's a high magic campaign, which may explain it. High enough that anti-mages are particularly useful and (due to some house rules) effective. Swashbucklers are common 'cause piracy and adventure are in full swing.

[nefele]

Depends on the setting.
Most of the answers refer to a typical generic setting, and are just fine in that context. But I have a certain... dislike for generic settings.

There are two ways to see that. You can say that Classes are a "calling" - they aren't just a bunch of mechanics, they have implications on the character's role in society, his goals, and other people's perception and expectations of him. (The DMG guidelines for "how many commoners and how many fighters in a city" are based on this assumption. In fact, D&D itself was originally based on this assumption.) In that case, I'd never use a Druid in a land without a distinct Celtic flavour, or a Spirit Shaman in a land where animism isn't popular. I wouldn't use Clerics if there aren't militant Churches around, or Wizards if there aren't Academies of the Arcane Arts, or Paladins if there aren't Orders of Warriors within the (militant) Churches.

Or, you can say that Classes are exactly a bunch of mechanics, and simply use them to build the concept you have in mind without feeling the least restricted by them, fluff-wise. Then the Paladin can be your approximation of a chivalrous knight, who happens to be so pure and gallant that he's favoured by the gods. The Cleric can be anything from a militant Templar to a meek old healer. The Wizards search for arcane forbidden lore on their own. Etc.

I usually prefer the latter, for the simple reason that the official, "imposed" fluff of Character Classes rarely satisfies me. Example (this is a rather irrelevant rant, you may skip it) :

Spoiler

Show

Say I want to play an iconic berserker. I choose a Barbarian, so now I can Rage. Woo! I'll paint my face blue, sound my barbaric yawp over the rooftops of the world, keep the skulls of my enemies as trophies AND handy mugs, I'll go hunting lions to gain a lion's heart and bears to gain a bear's strength, I'll conform to a hundred primitive taboos and blindly obey the custom law of my tribe and guard my honour with my life... wait, I can't do that. Barbarians are Chaotic. Boo.

Barbarians are the prime example of WotC failing the fluff. The iconic barbarian is only "chaotic" to the eyes of the neighbouring "civilised" Empire. (The Celts according to Julius Caesar, the Zulu according to the British Empire, etc). But tribes have more unwritten laws and rules than a civilised law-maker could ever imagine. And they have a very strict social structure. Why should a Barbarian be forced to be chaotic, when he can very well be an honourable warrior?

That's why I always said that the D&D fluff is painfully western. Rant over.

Even so, some classes are too fluff-dependent to use in any setting at all. Paladins themselves need a concept of chivalry in the world in order to exist. Which is pretty common in your average western, faux-medieval setting, but in fact is far from universal. Druids are... druids. Monks may not strictly need a monastery, but they need a distinctly oriental concept that would allow them to "unleash the body's inner force by training the mind" - or something. They need Ki. (Or Qui. Or... never mind.) Again, you can overcome this. Refluff them completely, and tweak the mechanics when they stop making any sense at all. Ban them only if all else fails.

But returning to the OP's question, if we stick to RAW and the intended fluff, I believe that different settings (I'm not saying how common the classes would be in a given, generic one, because this information can be found in the DMG) would have:

Ubiquitously: Fighters, Rogues.

Commonly: Barbarians, Swashbucklers, Rangers, Scouts (if only in a specific area within the setting), Sorcerers, Bards (it stands to reason that spontaneous arcane casting came before prepared arcane casting, right?), Healers, Clerics (rather than a fluffy reason, it's the difficulty of making a campaign work without spontaneous healing that makes Clerics appear everywhere...), Wizards (too classic trope), Hexblades, Marshals.

Uncommonly: Spirit Shamans, Paladins, Knights, Dragon Shamans, Duskblades, Beguilers, ToB classes, Factotums, Favoured Souls, Spellthieves, Warlocks, Warmages, anything Psionic or Incarnum (All these require an uncommon mechanic OR concept.)

Rarely: Wu Jen, Shugenja, Ninjas, Monks, Samurai, Druids (All these are completely setting dependent.)

Naturally, I'm not talking about low magic settings here. Oh, and PrCs are on a case by case basis.

[Kurald Galain]

I've never liked NPC classes (nor the concept that "only PCs get a class") so pretty much everything in my game world would be low-level of a regular class.

Ubiquitous: Fighter, Rogue. Most of the common population can be covered by these (using e.g. fighter for city guards and rogue for merchants and such). Note that this does not mean that all or even most have high stats for Str and Dex, respectively, or good equipment.

Uncommon: Ranger, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric. Somewhat specialized classes that are generally easy to find but a small minority of the population. Ranger/Barb being somewhat-trained outdoors types (e.g. hunters and savages), Cleric and Bard is a vocation that doesn't appeal to most people, and Sorcerer requires an uncommon bloodline.

Rare: Paladin, Wizard, Druid, Monk. All of these require extensive training that simply isn't available in most places, and a lot of dedication to a particular ideal.

[Johel]

That's pretty close to how my campaign world is.

Same around here.
Most people don't get past 2nd level.
Very few get past 5th level.
Adventurers are more "the misfits" than "the exceptionnal heroes", though they are still very good at what they do (hence the need for them).

[Tempest Fennac]

In my games, 90% of the population are Commoners, and most of the rest are Experts who may have a Magewight level (I use Fighters in place of Warriors most of the time and Adepts don't exist due to low-level Clerics or Druids covering their roll well enough). I tend to have an even mix of PC classes with Clerics being slightly more common then others due to the need for magical healthcare. (Fighters are the most common class due to town guards using a variant of the Thug Fighter variant for the extra skill points.)