delericho
Legend
Pretty sure I read about such things back in Basic (i.e. BECMI), or perhaps in the 2nd Ed core books.
D&D 5E Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?
Pretty sure I read about such things back in Basic (i.e. BECMI), or perhaps in the 2nd Ed core books.
I'd be interested to see any quote you could find to this effect.
hawkeyefan
Legend
I don't think that's necessarily the case. For me, I always think of these kinds of things as how it would read if it was a novel, and then I try to let that guide me. If I was reading a book where the fighter type is constantly referred to as a fighter, some verisimilitude would be lost. Same thing for some of the other terms. Less so for others, like wizard and cleric and bard.
So I think it's a question of verisimilitude and how much that matters to your group and game. For us, it's never a major deal, and it doesn't affect play if someone refers to a rogue in character. But if I were to write a story based on the game, I'd be sure to make such changes.
It's been that way for me almost since I started playing back in the AD&D days.
I think that perhaps there are more roleplay intensive groups that focus on this stuff as being more important, and perhaps such groups are more present these days? Maybe that's why it seems like a more modern view.
ccs
41st lv DM
For the most part, yes.
The only 2 classes that aren't recognized by thier PHB names are Fighters & Rogues. Simply because those names are ment to encompass huge swathes of arc-types.
Wizards/Sorcerers/Warlock's - the general population (and even other adventurers) might well not see much distinction here & call them by wichever name they like. But these 3 versions of arcane casters are well aware of each others differences.
<personally I don't like the existance of these 3. I see it as rules bloat & would be just as happy to keep using the 1e term Magic-User, letting the player describe the exact way his character gets arcane power. But the classes are here, so....>
The only 2 classes that aren't recognized by thier PHB names are Fighters & Rogues. Simply because those names are ment to encompass huge swathes of arc-types.
Wizards/Sorcerers/Warlock's - the general population (and even other adventurers) might well not see much distinction here & call them by wichever name they like. But these 3 versions of arcane casters are well aware of each others differences.
<personally I don't like the existance of these 3. I see it as rules bloat & would be just as happy to keep using the 1e term Magic-User, letting the player describe the exact way his character gets arcane power. But the classes are here, so....>
I prefer to think of the classes as a guideline, similar to if somebody introduced themselves as an engineer at a party. You'd get visions conjured up of them with a spanner going around fixing things, and you might be right. But you're also just as liable to be wrong.
If an NPC is described as roguish (and we're not talking about their looks!) they are more likely to be stealthy than not, more likely to be capable of high levels of sneak attack than not but it's not set in stone. A Ranger might turn out to be someone with ranger levels, or they could simply be good with a bow and maybe survival but lack the rest of the focus, such as spells or pets.
I find talking about NPCs in terms of class levels can make it easier to point out their demeanour than trying to simply describe it, especially when dealing with people from multiple countries.
If an NPC is described as roguish (and we're not talking about their looks!) they are more likely to be stealthy than not, more likely to be capable of high levels of sneak attack than not but it's not set in stone. A Ranger might turn out to be someone with ranger levels, or they could simply be good with a bow and maybe survival but lack the rest of the focus, such as spells or pets.
I find talking about NPCs in terms of class levels can make it easier to point out their demeanour than trying to simply describe it, especially when dealing with people from multiple countries.
Fishing_Minigame
First Post
The term 'Class' doesn't exist in universe (unless you're referring to the nobility), but the classes themselves do. They have too much specific fluff not to. A random cutpurse probably won't appreciate being called a rogue, but you won't be wrong, either.
The lines get blurred if you're just using a class to model some specific character concept. I had an idea for a Hulk-esque Sage Barbarian who just gets really, really angry sometimes. Since its not using any of the specific fluff, that character would be much less likely to acknowledge being a member of the class.
The lines get blurred if you're just using a class to model some specific character concept. I had an idea for a Hulk-esque Sage Barbarian who just gets really, really angry sometimes. Since its not using any of the specific fluff, that character would be much less likely to acknowledge being a member of the class.
Fishing_Minigame
First Post
Homebrew Luchador.
Miladoon
First Post
I feel ashamed that I don't use an nacho references when I play him.
But he comes into the arena apparently playing the bagpipes. Then when the announcer gives him the shout out, he leaves the bagpipes floating in the center of the arena using mage hand, and continues his anthem with minor illusion while he teases his fans and taunts his opponents.
But he comes into the arena apparently playing the bagpipes. Then when the announcer gives him the shout out, he leaves the bagpipes floating in the center of the arena using mage hand, and continues his anthem with minor illusion while he teases his fans and taunts his opponents.
Fishing_Minigame
First Post
I'm going to guess Bard then, if only because no other class is willing to carry bagpipes around in public.
Similar Threads
