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

[Jacob Marley]

In my game you can be a "Barbarian thief" or a "barbarian Thief" and both would mean different things. Class and societal role often use the same word but will have different in-game meanings. Class simply denotes a collection of capabilities.

 

[Umbran]

I'm answering in a multi-edition mode, not 5th-specific.

Typically, the class names don't appear in-game, or if they do they aren't clearly associated with specific classes. There are a few exceptions - "paladin" being a notable example, and in some campaigns "bard" or "druid", that are associated with iconic abilities or social roles such that there's an in-name word for them. But even then, there's often ambiguity. If I were running 3e, an uneducated dirt farmer may not know the difference between a druid, and a nature-oriented cleric or cleric/ranger, and might call the latter two "druid".

 

[Imaculata]

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.

My witch-pirates use spell catchers that they hang from their ships to protect themselves from enemy spells, and they use catapults to launch necrotic bombs on to enemy ships that animate any slain enemies as undead. Which must be pretty terrifying. I tried to think of all the sort of weird stuff that could be done with magic at sea.

But despite the fact that they are witches, (or for the sake of game rules they are wizards), they refer to them selves as pirates. And even if they refer to their spell casting abilities, they use their own cultural word for it, "Skua" (-which is also an honorary title in their culture). They would never use the word "witch" or "wizard". The Speakers of the Dead worship their women, and wouldn't dare not addressing a Skua with her title (that could easily get you killed).

 

[empireofchaos]

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.

I don't know if it's true, but even if it is, isn't that true of most classes? Clerics wearing armor and turning undead? Check. A wizard that specializes in illusion? Check. These traditions are what makes classes recognizable - arguably, to characters in the game, too.

Regarding rogues in general: it's not just an abstract category invented for the game. In the case I know best, that of Kievan Rus', a "rogue" (izgoi, the term used in contemporary Russian to translate "rogue state", for example) was a social category defined in an 11th century law code. It referred to people who could not be placed into a clear social category (e.g. boyar, or peasant), and had no clear right to own land. In other words, an izgoi (rogue) was a member of a group that stood outside the law. A legal definition is not necessarily the same as an identity group, but laws are very powerful, if sometimes negative social mechanisms for forming social groups.

The English term is less clear-cut, though curiously, its etymology is itself derived from Thieves' Cant:

1560s, "idle vagrant," perhaps a shortened form of roger (with a hard -g-), thieves' slang for a begging vagabond who pretends to be a poor scholar from Oxford or Cambridge, which is perhaps an agent noun in English from Latin rogare "to ask."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rogue

 

[77IM]

In my game, magic-using classes (which are most of them) are a distinct thing. Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard are all different. When the party encounters an elemental cultist casting spells, they want to know which "class" the NPC is, and I tell them.

Non-magic classes all slush together: Fighter, Rogue, and non-totem Barbarians aren't identified by class. Even 1 level of Monk isn't a thing because they don't have any ki yet. When the party encounters an NPC "Veteran" they don't worry too much about that guy's character class.

 

[FXR]

Metagame concepts

It depends.

In my Blackmoor game, wizards identify themselves as such and so do paladins.

In my homebrew sword & sorcery campaign world, a Lion of Mitra, a Blade of Ishtar and an elven Guardian of Man are all members of the paladin class, but don't see themselves as paladins and obviously don't believe they have anything in common with each other, just like a scheming eunuch and a lovely courtesan follow the rules of the bard class but don't see themselves as such.

Classes are strictly metagame concepts use by players to figure out what powers their character have.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, are classes a concrete thing in your games?

More or less. What class you have anchors you in the fiction of the world.

When a character wants to become, say, an Eldritch Knight, there is actually someone (probably an elf) who can teach them how to be that thing. They might even be called Eldritch Knights. Wizards will speak of Sorcerers and these are mirrored in the class break downs between wizards and sorcerers. Thieves come from guilds. Clerics are trained by temples.

I'm open to refluffing and certain classes are probably broader than others, but by and large, yeah, someone will talk about how they are a fighter and it can be an in-character conversation. They might even say "I'm one of the Champions," and it'll mean that subclass. They might even say "My skill with weaponry is such that my blows are more accurate than your average soldier's," and it'll refer to their crit-enhancing capability.

 

[Miladoon]

I don't know if it's true, but even if it is, isn't that true of most classes? Clerics wearing armor and turning undead? Check. A wizard that specializes in illusion? Check. These traditions are what makes classes recognizable - arguably, to characters in the game, too.

Regarding rogues in general: it's not just an abstract category invented for the game. In the case I know best, that of Kievan Rus', a "rogue" (izgoi, the term used in contemporary Russian to translate "rogue state", for example) was a social category defined in an 11th century law code. It referred to people who could not be placed into a clear social category (e.g. boyar, or peasant), and had no clear right to own land. In other words, an izgoi (rogue) was a member of a group that stood outside the law. A legal definition is not necessarily the same as an identity group, but laws are very powerful, if sometimes negative social mechanisms for forming social groups.

The English term is less clear-cut, though curiously, its etymology is itself derived from Thieves' Cant:



http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rogue

Interesting.

I am one of those DMs that go out of my way to make sure the Rogue is having conversations that no one in the party is aware of.

Thieves' Cant was left out in 3x and 4E as far as I know, and I suppose it was included for those that liked the feature pre2000.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

Well....specifically designed so no one else understands. Again, there could be any number of other reasons why someone would know thieves cant.

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).

Perhaps. You are assuming that a guild or some other organization teaches cant. Which seems highly likely, I'll grant you. But it's not universal, and is of course open to interpretation. I would think that urchins and the like would learn it as they grow up. To me it's more "street lingo", but that's my take.

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 wouldn't disagree with you about most of that. I'm not saying that there isn't something that bonds all rogues in some way. My point is more that they don't universally identify as rogues...they don't universally learn thieves cant by joining a guild.

I think "rogue" is a term that covers a lot of vocations other than the traditional guild thief.

 

[oknazevad]

I said "kinda" in so much as some classes have rather specific concepts and have the sort of name that can be used as a title in-game/in-universe and therefore those classes have more specific meaning, like cleric and wizard. Others are more dependent on the subclass names for their specific job description (as it were), so rogues aren't called such, but thieves may be (but only if they're caught . It's definitely one of those things that vary from table to table, and depend on the nature of the fictional world established at the particular table.