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

[El Mahdi]

Yes, No, and Kinda; it depends on the circumstance.

My take is that some classes are more descriptors than concrete classifications, and some truly do define a profession.

Fighter can be a term one calls themself or just a descriptor someone uses. More concrete professions within the concept of Fighter are Warrior, Soldier, Mercenary, Knight, professional Duelist (judicial or otherwise), etc.

Bard is something that someone might actually refer to them self as - both a descriptor and a profession.

Same with Cleric (Priest), Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock (Witch), Druid.

Barbarian is descriptor and "profession"; though in my games they are called Berserkers.

Paladin could be a "profession" (depending on the conceits of your campaign world), but for me is more of a descriptor - a paragon version of a Mendicant Knight.

Monk - as portrayed in D&D - is a concrete classification for me: a mendicant martial-artist.

Rogue is definitely a descriptor; and most "professions" within the concept of Rogue are likely ones people won't voice openly. Even those "professions" can be as much descriptor as defining a concrete classification: Thief, Swashbuckler, Thug, Bravo, Assassin, etc.

 

[Celtavian]

Nope. Metagame concepts.

For example, a fighter might fit for a knight, a soldier, a mercenary, a tribal warrior, a thug, and any type of fighting man. The same can be said of any class.

 

[Mercule]

All the way back to when I first learned the game, in the early 1980s, the "Are you a fighter?" question vexed me. No thief in their right mind would say "No, I'm a thief." Conan the Barbarian, on the other hand, called himself a thief. Were magic-users prohibited from joining the Thieves' Guild? If not, then were they prohibited from calling themselves thieves? How does a triple-class elf answer?

On the other hand, there was clearly always some intent to map classes to in-game roles. Alignment restrictions, if nothing else, show that. I chalk that up more as a legacy tie to Chainmail than as something intentional in making D&D into a role-playing game. Having fewer classes, also made it a lot easier to apply broad labels. Are you a fighting man? Well, I belong on the battlefield, I'm not a holy man, and I'm not a magic-user, so I guess that makes me a fighting man.

As classes have changed over the years, some have lent themselves to in-game concepts better than others. In AD&D, Magic-User was a catch-all for college wizards, hedge mages, and even warlock-eque pact makers -- unless you used Cleric to model that. In 3E, you could use either Sorcerer or Wizard for any of those concepts, with your choice depending on how you wanted to interact with the game mechanics. In 5E, they tweaked the standard casting mechanics such that Wizard is back to being a fairly broad catch-all, but Sorcerer now has no reason to exist other than as an in-game map (and tradition). But, you could play an Eldritch Knight as a warrior who later joins a college of magic just as easily as you could a Fighter/Wizard multi-class.

I have no qualms with certain classes being better for building certain concepts (you could build a heavy-armored, greatsword wielding man-at-arms with a Wizard; it would just suck). I just don't like classes that are inseparable from in-game roles. That's one reason why I hate the addition of the Far Realms fluff directly into the UA mystic/psion. It's also why I don't like the 5E Sorcerer and see no reason to have both Sorcerer and Warlock classes.

The idea that classes are some "meta-game construct" and that's all strikes me as a decidedly newer/modern attitude/sensibility. We never questioned the terms or thought of "meta-game construct" as an actual thing, for that matter.

Nope. I remember having the conversation all the way back in 1E. In fact, I made a point of establishing organizations that were named "Rangers" and "Paladins", but had a mix of classes, just to make my point clear and make it pretty much impossible to map the classes to in-game things. Nothing will break someone of asking what class someone is faster than getting back-stabbed by a Paladin or having a Ranger throw down a power word: kill.

So if a rogue is not a rogue, how would he or she explain the fact that all rogues (and they only, more or less) speak thieves' cant? Obviously this doesn't mean that they share something that makes them irreducibly different from everyone else, but they do share something, something that they practice specifically because it sets them apart from everyone else.

Fair point, which is why I was glad to see those dropped from the game and sad to see them return. Really, though, I'd let anyone else learn cant, if they cared, just like any other language. That turns it into a class perk rather than it being so incongruous.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Miladoon]

Hey! Different people, tables, etc. have different playstyles. Some are more heroic, some more comedic, some more min/max, some more RPG, whatever works.

But yeah, the tables I run would probably smell like whale blubber to you- musty, constrained, traditional-fantasy whale blubber that evokes hints of coffee, pizza, and old school-style disapproval of your new-fangled ways. *grin*

Haha...

There is not much mustier smell than the credo that balances my gaming:

"While the material in this booklet is referred to as rules, that is not really correct. Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable — anything, that is, that the Dungeon Master or referee thinks should be changed. This is not to say that everything in this booklet should be discarded! All of this material has been carefully thought out and playtested. However, if, after playing the rules as written for a while, you or your referee (the Dungeon Master) think that something should be changed, first think about how the changes will affect the game, and then go ahead. The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them..." (Moldvay, 1983)

Its is the blubber that I began to enjoy, although I started playing in 78-79ish.

 

[empireofchaos]

They learned to speak a form of jargon.

Yeah - a jargon specifically learned so that no one else understands you as a distinct group that's involved in criminal activity.

This could happen out of necessity, desire, association, or study. So it could vary.

Perhaps the character was raised by members of a thieves guild. Perhaps the character is a sheriff and hunts thieves and has learned cant in order to make his job easier.

Yes, these are all possibilities - as exceptions to the rule that people learn it when they become members of a criminal subculture (represented here as a character class).

These characters may be rogues, but if asked why they know thieves cant, none of them would say "I understand thieves cant because I'm a rogue". They may as well add "I got it at first level."

They are not likely to say "I understand it because I'm a rogue" because either they are speaking to other rogues, who don't need an explanation, or because they are speaking to a non-rogue, who is not going to get an explanation. That doesn't mean they are not thinking that the cant is a key element that binds them together as a class. And level and class do not work similarly in terms of being consciously recognized as a basis of identity.

 

[Miladoon]

Yeah - a jargon specifically learned so that no one else understands you as a distinct group that's involved in criminal activity.




Yes, these are all possibilities - as exceptions to the rule that people learn it when they become members of a criminal subculture (represented here as a character class).




They are not likely to say "I understand it because I'm a rogue" because either they are speaking to other rogues, who don't need an explanation, or because they are speaking to a non-rogue, who is not going to get an explanation. That doesn't mean they are not thinking that the cant is a key element that binds them together as a class. And level and class do not work similarly in terms of being consciously recognized as a basis of identity.

I will admit to conjecture. But it needs to be said. Thieves' Cant was included as a nod to old farts like me. Nothing more.

 

[Imaculata]

Which campaign to run witch-pirates?

I run a homebrew campaign called Pirates of the Emerald Coast, which is a 3.5 campaign that takes place on the world Ashynt. It contains various pirate factions, including the Speakers for the Dead, who are witch-pirates and have only female pirate captains. They are pretty creepy, and pretty cool. They use necromancy and other dark magic to strike fear in the hearts of their enemies.

 

[Shasarak]

Yes, Classes do have concrete meanings in my game.

Of course characters can always lie.

 

[Miladoon]

I run a homebrew campaign called Pirates of the Emerald Coast, which is a 3.5 campaign that takes place on the world Ashynt. It contains various pirate factions, including the Speakers for the Dead, who are witch-pirates and have only female pirate captains. They are pretty creepy, and pretty cool. They use necromancy and other dark magic to strike fear in the hearts of their enemies.

The first thing that comes to mind is having a witch helm, something akin to a spelljammer helm. And that is bleeding over into Chronicles of Riddick territory. I could go places with this.