D&D 5E Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?

Are Classes Concrete Things In Your Game?


Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
So we are just going to ignore the fact an observer just saw the caster memorise it from a Wizard spellbook because that would make it possible to discover the contents of the worlds 5e Players Handbook?

How so? Let's say you saw what you claim. What does that mean? Keep in mind that there can exist NPCs that both memorize spells from a spellbook AND are do not have the Wizard class.

Now, if in your setting the only people that can memorize spells from a spell book have to have the wizard class, then, sure, for your setting you're absolutely right. I'm just saying that it's not a universal truth -- it's setting dependent.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



So we are just going to ignore the fact an observer just saw the caster memorise it from a Wizard spellbook because that would make it possible to discover the contents of the worlds 5e Players Handbook?

Its the same argument and falls to the same logic. If the roster of classes that can appear in the world is potentially unlimited, then you can't conclude anything FOR SURE by watching a character do X, Y, or Z. In 5e its even more so, because there apparently are an unbounded number of 'class options' which often add chunks of mechanics that are like (or lifted entirely from) other classes.
 

Remathilis

Legend
So we are just going to ignore the fact an observer just saw the caster memorise it from a Wizard spellbook because that would make it possible to discover the contents of the worlds 5e Players Handbook?

I think the problem lies in fact that there is no ability that is demonstrably unique to one class and one class alone. Either an ability cannot be quantified measurably (aka: only fighters get action surge and people in-world can point out action surges), the ability is shared among other classes (aka fireball on a dozen spell lists) or you can just make an NPC with that class ability and no levels in any "class". (Personally, I find the last one cheating, tbh). Ergo, you cannot scientifically measure a class by its class abilities: even if you put Bob, a "paladin" in a room and say "smite that orc" and he does, you can't say use it as proof of paladinhood existing because a.) We'd have to trust the action he did was "smiting" and not something else, like a crit or spell b.) We'd have to assume Bob actually had levels in Paladin and not some other class that grants Smite as an action and c.) Bob wasn't just a totally custom NPC with 5 HD and Smite as a Action but has nothing else to do with paladins.

Of course, the latter DOES raise the question of "If Bob is a totally unique NPC who just somehow gained/learned the Smite ability without taking any levels of Paladin, why can't my PC do the same thing?" Or "If Joe the Archmage is using a spellbook to cast rituals but isn't a wizard, can Joe teach my Sorcerer how to do that?" That can have one of two effects: it removes ALL fluff from classes (sure, you can learn smite, but you need to take a level from the class commonly called a Paladin except you're not actually becoming a paladin, its just the name of the metagame concept that grants smite.) or it begs for a more granular method of divvying up powers (taking class abilities with feats, swapping class features from one class with another, using talent/feat trees and large generic classes, or buying abilities ala cart without need of classes). Or there's options three: (Bob learned it because he's an NPC and not bound to the laws and fluff that govern PCs, but you are forced into one of 12 predetermined powersets with a few choice points).
 

I think the problem lies in fact that there is no ability that is demonstrably unique to one class and one class alone. Either an ability cannot be quantified measurably (aka: only fighters get action surge and people in-world can point out action surges), the ability is shared among other classes (aka fireball on a dozen spell lists) or you can just make an NPC with that class ability and no levels in any "class". (Personally, I find the last one cheating, tbh). Ergo, you cannot scientifically measure a class by its class abilities: even if you put Bob, a "paladin" in a room and say "smite that orc" and he does, you can't say use it as proof of paladinhood existing because a.) We'd have to trust the action he did was "smiting" and not something else, like a crit or spell b.) We'd have to assume Bob actually had levels in Paladin and not some other class that grants Smite as an action and c.) Bob wasn't just a totally custom NPC with 5 HD and Smite as a Action but has nothing else to do with paladins.

Of course, the latter DOES raise the question of "If Bob is a totally unique NPC who just somehow gained/learned the Smite ability without taking any levels of Paladin, why can't my PC do the same thing?" Or "If Joe the Archmage is using a spellbook to cast rituals but isn't a wizard, can Joe teach my Sorcerer how to do that?" That can have one of two effects: it removes ALL fluff from classes (sure, you can learn smite, but you need to take a level from the class commonly called a Paladin except you're not actually becoming a paladin, its just the name of the metagame concept that grants smite.) or it begs for a more granular method of divvying up powers (taking class abilities with feats, swapping class features from one class with another, using talent/feat trees and large generic classes, or buying abilities ala cart without need of classes). Or there's options three: (Bob learned it because he's an NPC and not bound to the laws and fluff that govern PCs, but you are forced into one of 12 predetermined powersets with a few choice points).

Right, I would say that last is the SITUATION. The explanation can of course be many things. Your monk CAN learn smite. He must swear his allegiance to a lawful good god, and spend 7 years in continuous meditation, then he gets smite and he can call himself a 'paladin' in-game and people will believe it too! He's still mechanically a monk though in all other respects. 5e might let you represent this by MCing a level in paladin, and 4e would let you pick an MC feat, etc etc etc, but NPCs can be assumed to have just done whatever narrative things are represented by these various feats and whatnot.

Its not that PCs should be limited to a very small set of paths, its only that the designers of the game have felt that they have other things to do than design 1000 classes, and that having 9 or 12 or whatever helps the players focus on what they want, rather than wade through vast numbers of almost arbitrary permutations of options. Classes are for players, they make the game more playable.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I think the problem lies in fact that there is no ability that is demonstrably unique to one class and one class alone. Either an ability cannot be quantified measurably (aka: only fighters get action surge and people in-world can point out action surges), the ability is shared among other classes (aka fireball on a dozen spell lists) or you can just make an NPC with that class ability and no levels in any "class". (Personally, I find the last one cheating, tbh). Ergo, you cannot scientifically measure a class by its class abilities: even if you put Bob, a "paladin" in a room and say "smite that orc" and he does, you can't say use it as proof of paladinhood existing because a.) We'd have to trust the action he did was "smiting" and not something else, like a crit or spell b.) We'd have to assume Bob actually had levels in Paladin and not some other class that grants Smite as an action and c.) Bob wasn't just a totally custom NPC with 5 HD and Smite as a Action but has nothing else to do with paladins.

Of course, the latter DOES raise the question of "If Bob is a totally unique NPC who just somehow gained/learned the Smite ability without taking any levels of Paladin, why can't my PC do the same thing?" Or "If Joe the Archmage is using a spellbook to cast rituals but isn't a wizard, can Joe teach my Sorcerer how to do that?" That can have one of two effects: it removes ALL fluff from classes (sure, you can learn smite, but you need to take a level from the class commonly called a Paladin except you're not actually becoming a paladin, its just the name of the metagame concept that grants smite.) or it begs for a more granular method of divvying up powers (taking class abilities with feats, swapping class features from one class with another, using talent/feat trees and large generic classes, or buying abilities ala cart without need of classes). Or there's options three: (Bob learned it because he's an NPC and not bound to the laws and fluff that govern PCs, but you are forced into one of 12 predetermined powersets with a few choice points).

Whatever combination of 1 and 3 meets needs. Also, do you think the NPCs presented in the back of the MM are cheating? None of them have class levels, even if a number of them have at least a passing resemblance to a class. Take the Archmage, for instance. How do they prepare spells?
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
Its the same argument and falls to the same logic. If the roster of classes that can appear in the world is potentially unlimited, then you can't conclude anything FOR SURE by watching a character do X, Y, or Z. In 5e its even more so, because there apparently are an unbounded number of 'class options' which often add chunks of mechanics that are like (or lifted entirely from) other classes.

Since there are not truly an unbounded number of class options then you can conclude things for sure (with the added proviso that the things that you can conclude change from setting to setting)
 

Arial Black

Adventurer
So we are just going to ignore the fact an observer just saw the caster memorise it from a Wizard spellbook because that would make it possible to discover the contents of the worlds 5e Players Handbook?

In addition to all the other counters posted since this, what can creatures observe?

We have a guy who claims to be a 'wizard' (perhaps he has sewn 'Wizzard' in sequins on his pointy hat) who is reading some scrawl that you can't read from some book that he found. He then casts phantom steed and says that he 'prepared the spell' (whatever that means) by reading it from a spellbook.

This 'proves' he is a wizard? Therefore you know that 'wizards' work exactly like they are described in the 5E PHB?

What if the 'wizard' is really a bard with Magical Secrets and proficiency in Deception? How would the observer know the difference?

And this is under an assumption the 5E does not make, that every person in the game world who has levels only has class levels from chapter 3 of the PHB. The MM is core, and without any non-core source, creatures encounter NPCs all the time, and NPCs are not even expected to have 'classes' as in chapter 3, yet still have abilities resembling those abilities that the classes from chapter 3 have.

They cannot know that the stranger they see reading that book and claiming to be a wizard actually is a wizard as 'defined' by the text in chapter 3.
 

Since there are not truly an unbounded number of class options then you can conclude things for sure (with the added proviso that the things that you can conclude change from setting to setting)

No, because its perfectly feasible for the DM to introduce any new material he wants to at any time. You can't conclude anything about what classes there are. I mean yes, PLAYERS can do that, to the extent that the DM has decreed that there are only characters complying to some specific set of classes in the whole world, but that's a META-GAME consideration, entirely, as such a decision has no basis WITHIN the fiction of the game world.

Obviously you can simply arrange a metaphysics of your game world that literally embodies the world with rules making every single inhabitant a member of some highly restricted set of classes and decree that nothing else exists. Of course its going to be a VERY absurd world when you start to think about it in any detail. It literally means that the inhabitants of this world are physically incapable of learning or achieving ANYTHING except some very specific set of things that are spelled out in class abilities. Even if you grant there are many 'unregulated things' (IE say you assume the use of 'secondary skills' as outlined in the 1e AD&D rules) the result is still HIGHLY unnatural.
 

Remove ads

Top