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

[empireofchaos]

Classes and races

Think I'll be bad and blow this thread up a little bit:

So for some, classes are concrete entities in the game, for some they aren't, and for some it depends. It makes for an interesting discussion.

But the reason we're even having it is that people either conceptualize class as a behind-the-scenes mechanic that characters in a fantasy world aren't actually aware of, or as a quasi-occupational choice, but not an irreducible part of who the character is.

Would we even be having this discussion if someone posed the question "Do Races Have Concrete Meaning in Your Game"?
No, we would not. Because everybody (almost) knows that races exist. Characters really are dwarves, hobbits, orcs, dragonborn, and know they are. While for some, characters in-game would never say "I know thieves' cant because I'm a rogue", most would have no trouble saying "I never sleep because I'm an elf".

But is the division between real, natural race, and game-mechanical, artificial class so obviously clear-cut?

First, going back to OD&D, some classes were races (dwarves, elves, and hobbits). And the complete distinction between class (that which you advance in) and race (that which you start with) didn't become established until racial limits on certain classes were eliminated (now SCAG is bringing race-specific class archetypes back in, too). Some races like Svirfneblin and Duergar gain race-specific abilities as they advance in class level. And the DMG outlines how you can play monsters as characters, and configure racial stats as class features.

Second, the "races" outlined in the PHB are not entirely natural (errr... biological). Half-elves and half-orcs are not distinct groups in and of themselves (the issue is at least highly debatable). They have "racial" abilities, but it's obvious that some abilities are inherited, and some are learned. Elves might not need to sleep, and might be naturally resistant to sleep and charm spells, but surely they learn cantrips (Salvatore actually narrates how this happens for drow during childhood). A parallel in our world might be that literacy is a human racial feature (or will be in the very near future). On top of that, there are tons of discussions dedicated to the topic of whether humans, elves, and orcs are in fact members of one species since its members can interbreed. Tieflings are derived from humans as well. And if we extend the discussion beyond the common PC races - are goblins, hobgoblins and bugbears one race, or several?

If this seems beside the point for the current discussion, consider this: the definitions of race and class we use in the game are derived from real-world usage, where most (though not all) in our society regard race as a natural category, but class as a constructed one that most people are less aware of, or regard as being less fundamental. We transpose these concepts into our game, despite the fact in the game, class is an infinitely more important category than race, because, to a much greater extent, it determines what our characters do, and how they interact with other characters. So we are left on the one hand assuming that of course, race has concrete meaning, and determines not only natural abilities, but characters' identity and culture; and, on the other hand, inventing entirely new categories like "character concept" to explain away people's identity as members of a class. I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong, I'm saying the reasons we do this have primarily real-world social, rather than in-game social explanations.

And if we think about it, must racial identities be really that important in the game? Clearly, what we used to call demi-humans are pretty well integrated into human society. It's not necessary for dwarves and elves to know their own racial languages, and to follow their own racial pantheons. It's not necessary for all orcs to live with other orcs, goblins with goblins, ogres with ogres. In fact, I get the distinct sense that humanoid hunting bands and war bands are quite mixed (both in terms of overall composition, and in terms of individuals' descent), and don't really make an issue of race in the way we think of it. Just like a lot of hypothetical characters in the posts above, they might just say something like: "I'm not a hobgoblin. I'm a warrior in the Black Spear tribe".

 

[empireofchaos]

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



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.



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.

I don't think we have much of a disagreement here. All I'm saying is that thieves' cant primarily exists to differentiate rogues from others, though at the margins people may learn it for a variety of reasons. And I'm saying the existence of thieves' cant is a good reason to think that there is such a thing as a rogue identity, or class solidarity. I'm not saying that it must necessarily be so, so I'm not assuming anything.

 

[Remathilis]

I voted "Yes", but that's because I tend to assume PCs who pick a class are gravitating towards' the archetype the class is emulating: barbarians should be wild and come from uncivilized areas; wizards view themselves as very different than sorcerers, druids organize in druidic circles and bards in colleges, cleric's serve the gods, rogue's have some level of larceny in their heart, etc. Classes are just packets of abilities to be pick-and-chose from, they represent some greater archetype that must be acknowledged.

This is one of my big problems with "refluffing" arguments; class names mean something. Bob the Fighter might not use that term to introduce himself, but he knows his skills are different than a barbarian's or a ranger's. He might think himself a woodsman and scout (esp with the outlander background, leather armor, and longbow) but he doesn't think himself a ranger (ranger's have magical connections to the world and skills the fighter cannot match, but then again the ranger lacks the fighter's raw combat prowess). Ranger is a tangible idea in the world, as it describes those who have certain skills (like spells, pets, etc).

All that said, few people use their class name as an identifier unless its also their profession (a bard might call himself such, a rogue not-so-much). It varies enough that some wiggle room exists. However, class is a semi-tangible idea (as far as describing certain professions or skill-sets) that characters in the fiction can reference, therefore they aren't a metagame concept.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I picked the first option as most closely fitting the way I run it, but the description of how it works isn't precisely the same.

In my worlds, classes represent a specific type of training--like degree in a field of study. Class levels are not just feature packages you can mix and match and flavor to taste. Taking a level of a class represents a significant amount of formal training in the techniques of that class. Multiclassing is pretty rare because it represents doing that again in an entirely different feel.

Many classes and subclasses are tied to formal organizations. For instance, Oath of Vengeance paladins are a particular semi-secret order of the church of the Law-Giver, dedicated to rooting out and destroying evil cults of the Three Scourges. They also aren't referred to as paladins. (That title is used only for Oath of Devotion paladins.)

That being said, names of some classes can vary based on the nature of the class. There are a lot of ways to become a fighter, for instance, and many people won't put any special significance in the name 'fighter'--and definitely not in the name Champion or Battle Master (those two are metagame constructs). But becoming an Eldritch Knight or an Arcane Trickster is a specific field of study--not just being a fighter or rogue who dabbles in arcane magic (there is the Magic Initiate feat for that).

So the way the names are used can vary, but the concept of specific, discrete, non-interchangeable fields of study is universal.

If I wanted to go with simply picking up a variety of features to build the mechanics of the character that I want, I would (and do) play a skill-based game. I think using a class based game in that manner defeats the purpose of classes.

 

[Remathilis]

Further, more specific thinking:

Barbarian: A barbarian could refer to himself in such terms (IE Conan) but its more what OTHERS would call his fighting style.

Bard: Most bard's would identify strongly with the name and archetype.

Cleric: All view themselves as servant's of a god, but not all would associate with the Priest identifier.

Druid: 99% of all druids would refer to themselves as such.

Fighter: Few would use such a term, preferring to be known by their profession/background (knight, soldier, archer, guard, mercenary, etc)

Monk: Most would use their class name or something similar (sensi, ninja, etc)

Paladin: Most would use the name, but I can see a few Oathbreakers who might not.

Ranger: Some will identify as a ranger, a few might not.

Rogue: Like barbarians, few will self-identify, but lots will be called that.

Sorcerer: Similar to rogues and barbarians, but sorcerers are more a catch-all for those who don't learn magic any other way (usually used by wizards to differentiate), and rarely self-identified.

Warlocks: Like sorcerers, but more focused to just those who make pacts.

Wizards: Most will self-identify, but others might not.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Like with political theories, the closer you are to a class, the more the fine distinctions matter. Commoners don't really see the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard and a warlock, but members of those classes are acutely aware of it. And the distinction might not just be along class lines; warlocks of different patrons and sorcerers of different origins might see themselves just as far apart from each other as they are from wizards.

On the martial side, things aren't quite as clear cut, but experienced warriors do tend to recognize the difference between combat styles. (Interestingly, I believe the battlemaster's Know Your Enemy ability is the only one in 5E which directly interacts with class.) Again, it's not necessarily divided just among class lines; Strength fighters, finesse fighters, and archer fighters probably don't feel any closer to each other than they are to barbarians.

And on the flipside, some different classes and class combinations may see each other as closer than the rules say they are. A cleric/fighter and a paladin, for example.

tl;dr: People notice that different characters do different things, but they don't have a PHB to give them a convenient classification system.

 

[Mouseferatu]

they represent some greater archetype that must be acknowledged.

This is one of my big problems with "refluffing" arguments; class names mean something.

With the usual "play how you prefer" caveat, I'd hate to see those assumptions enforced. They're often true, but they don't have to be, and some of the coolest characters I've seen/played have come from deliberately mismatching class choice with apparent archetype.

One character I really want to play appears to be a monk--not in the game/class sense, but in the Medieval religious ascetic sense. A Friar Tuck or Brother Cadfael sort, apparently.

He wears no armor. He fights with a staff. But his faith is strong enough that when he enters combat, he can enter a semi-rapturous state that makes him capable of striking great blows and of shrugging off physical harm, because his might is that of his god, etc.

Mechanically? He's a barbarian. An unarmored, difficult to harm front-liner who dishes out great damage, but cannot draw on his full strength all the time.

He'd be impossible to play in a "class must match archetype" campaign.

 

[Nagol]

The fewer the available classes offered, the more concrete they become. If I want a game focused on character concept, I play a classless system.

 

[Remathilis]

With the usual "play how you prefer" caveat, I'd hate to see those assumptions enforced. They're often true, but they don't have to be, and some of the coolest characters I've seen/played have come from deliberately mismatching class choice with apparent archetype.

One character I really want to play appears to be a monk--not in the game/class sense, but in the Medieval religious ascetic sense. A Friar Tuck or Brother Cadfael sort, apparently.

He wears no armor. He fights with a staff. But his faith is strong enough that when he enters combat, he can enter a semi-rapturous state that makes him capable of striking great blows and of shrugging off physical harm, because his might is that of his god, etc.

Mechanically? He's a barbarian. An unarmored, difficult to harm front-liner who dishes out great damage, but cannot draw on his full strength all the time.

He'd be impossible to play in a "class must match archetype" campaign.

Here's the thing; you can play against type, but you gotta KNOW your playing against type.

For example, said barbarian might have the Acolyte (or Hermit) background to represent his religious training, and he might channel the fury of the God of War or God of Strength in a way similar to the wildmen beyond the Vale, or he learned such skills while being a missionary among a tribe, or studied their fighting style as an unorthodox, forbidden school of martial arts based around emulating the Northman's Berserker state. Anyone who watched him fight would remark his style is similar to that of the "barbarians", even if he himself wasn't the archetypical "born on the edge of society" barbarian.

In reality, what I don't like is the "pick and choose" method of fluff-and-crunch mixing where someone tries to get the best of both worlds, like "I want to be a magician that channels the blood of dragons, but I don't like the sorcerer class so I'll be an infernal warlock and just refluff everything to be draconic" type of stuff. I grew tired of it in 3e (where people would build bbn1/rog3/ftr4/PrestigeClassX can claim they were building a "thief") or how 4e told me that if I wanted to use a bow, I needed to be a ranger (regardless if I wanted to be a rogue or a fighter). Its probably an over-reaction, but if you want to be a barbarian, you need to tell me how you learned those skills rather than cherry-picking them for the best mechanical benefit.

 

[Mouseferatu]

See, while I agree that he'd probably have the Acolyte background, I have no interest in him having learned those skills from some barbarian tribe. I much prefer the idea that it's either unique to him, or to a particular order of warrior monks. Mechanically/out-of-character, it may resemble barbarian rage, but in-character/flavor-wise, they're not related whatsoever.

But then, assuming it fit the flavor of a campaign (and how dragons were portrayed in that campaign), I have no problem whatosever with reflavoring an infernal-pact warlock to a dragon-pact warlock, either.