Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why not Wizard?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7296885" data-attributes="member: 45197"><p>Hiya!</p><p></p><p>"D&D" is awfully vague when asking that question (the OP). Why? Because <em>edition matters</em>.</p><p></p><p><strong>Basic D&D (BECMI or B/X)</strong>: The world has Immortals who frequently meddle in the affairs of morals. Oh, and there are a LOT of Immortals. PC's can actually become Immortals (BECM-Immortals). Because of this, immortals, and even just really high level PC's (as in, oh, 26th to 36th level) will take an active role in "shaping" society to what they want. On top of that, "adventurers" are sort of surmised to be the people that go out and gain levels the 'quick' way (adventuring). The laws of the multiverse dictate that if you sit at home and do your thing...even if it is a 'class thing' (and all demihumans are their own class, btw...)...it will take you a lifetime to even get to 10th level, give or take. If you go adventuring, you gain that experience MUCH faster because, well, gravity, speed of light, law of thermodynamics, law of experience gaining. All "natural laws of the multiverse".</p><p></p><p><strong>1e (but not necessarily 2e)</strong>: Everyone is 0-level, has an average stat of 9 or 10, and has about 2 to 4 hps. NOBODY can "gain XP" unless you are of an adventuring class. Adventuring classes have prime requisite requirements. The core four have the lowest - just a 9 in Str, Dex, Wis or Int (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-User). All other classes have higher stat requirements. And when stats are rolled 3d6, IN ORDER...*and* if you have a certain stat that is really low (like 6, or 5 or lower) it can PREVENT you from learning a class (or force you into another, more specifically). So if you have a Str of 14, but a Dex of 5, "the character can ONLY be a cleric". If your wisdom was only 8, you are ineligible to be any 'class'. Period. Go home and tend the farm.</p><p></p><p>On top of that, with 1e, there were class and level limits based on your race and your stats (as of Unearthed Arcana). If you were a demihuman, there were class limits for some (as in there are no halfling clerics...can't remember of UA allowed them). So there was that as a factor. Only rare people could even be a F, C, MU or T...and then only if they had the opportunity and desire.</p><p></p><p>Next lets layer on that 0-level thing. In order to even START contemplating a class, you had to be "special". You could have 15 in every stat...but never be any class because you are 0-level as an NPC. The exact ratio of 0-level to potential class level of NPC's was entirely up to the DM to decide for his own campaign world. Old EGG himself obviously had a more 'restrained' view in how many commoners could become class-level NPC's, and good ol' Greybeard Greenwood had a more 'generous' view in that. Both were playing 1e.</p><p></p><p>I don't have much experience with 2e, but this is where we started to see a LOT more of the "well, anyone could become a cleric if they just put effort into it". Anyway, I'll level the 2e experts to that.</p><p></p><p><strong>3e</strong>: Only about 3 years (if I include Pathfinder) experience here, but THIS EDITION is the one that started the whole "anything can be any class and add any number of other classes" tomfoolery. </p><p></p><p>If you learned "D&D" using 3e, 4e or Pathfinder...then I would totally expect a question as the OP posed. In short, there is <em>absolutely ZERO reason</em> why the campaign world hasn't imploded. Well, other than the underlying requirement of all players and DM's to religiously accept the mantra of "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!". Honestly, this is one of the major reasons why I never respected the 3.x/PF systems and disliked them...even when I was enjoying myself playing it. It's like seeing a choice of 3 burgers; cheap/crappy one, average one, and excellent one...but the person making the burgers only has ingredients for the first two. You choose the average one, but are always thinking..."Man, this is ok and all, but it would be so-o much better if it had the Excellent Ingredients...". Same thing with me (us/my group) and 3.x+. "Nice system, overall, but man, it sure would be nice if..."</p><p></p><p><strong>5e</strong>: Ahhh...here we go. Current edition of the game. Played up until about 7 months ago (not sure how many years that is...since the Starter Set). It's a bit of a mix between 1e and 3e. It <em>seems</em> to want to have a 1e outlook, overall, but then it doesn't really have any actual 'restrictions' other than listing some stuff as Optional (Feats, Multiclassing, and some stuff in DMG). Reading the DMG I get the feeling that it's taking the general 1e attitude of "commoners are just that...commoners; they don't have classes, but they can have skills and stuff". Looking at some of the 'monsters' in the back of the books tell us that much. A "bandit" is a person, but with some special skills. A "cultist" is NOT a cleric...he is a commoner with some special skills. To me, this is pretty much dead on with BECMI and even 1e.</p><p></p><p>But then we have no <em>actual</em> restrictions for creation of PC's. Any race, any class, any level. Casting spells? Here's a component pouch. Off you go! This directly points to a more 3e mind set; "anyone can do that!...".</p><p></p><p>So how do we reconcile those two drastically different 'outlooks'? Well, IMHO, always err on the side of being stingy or saying "no". It's easy to give more or say yes later than it is for everyone (especially players....doubly so for players who are 'power gamers') to have to "give up" stuff. So saying "Only Humans, and only Fighters, Clerics, Magic-Users and Thieves in this campaign" is VASTLY superior a choice than saying "Anything from any of the WotC books". If we assume the former, players may be naturally assuming that being a F, MU, T or C is "common" or "easier" to learn and improve. The assumption is that everyone is a commoner...except for a few folks who are of those four key classes. If/when the DM introduces "Druids and Barbarians can be chosen now", it expands the choices without opening the flood gates.</p><p></p><p>Right. Now, imho, the OP's question, in regards to 5e, I would have to answer thus: <em>PC's are special. Unless you are a special PC or special NPC, nobody can learn a class. You have to be born with the capability to earn XP. Some NPC's can learn skills and abilities, however, that sets them apart from 'normal' commoners. NPC's like Acolytes, Cultists, Pirates, etc, are not 'classes'; they are commoners who learned special stuff due to their life.</em></p><p></p><p>In this regards, it would then be easy for the DM to just assume that no, Phil the architect can not just "take a year and learn magic", and no, the governments can't train tax collectors to Detect Lie. And before you ask, no, YOU can't teach the stable hand to be a first level fighter so he can come on adventures with you.</p><p></p><p>^_^</p><p></p><p>Paul L. Ming</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pming, post: 7296885, member: 45197"] Hiya! "D&D" is awfully vague when asking that question (the OP). Why? Because [I]edition matters[/I]. [B]Basic D&D (BECMI or B/X)[/B]: The world has Immortals who frequently meddle in the affairs of morals. Oh, and there are a LOT of Immortals. PC's can actually become Immortals (BECM-Immortals). Because of this, immortals, and even just really high level PC's (as in, oh, 26th to 36th level) will take an active role in "shaping" society to what they want. On top of that, "adventurers" are sort of surmised to be the people that go out and gain levels the 'quick' way (adventuring). The laws of the multiverse dictate that if you sit at home and do your thing...even if it is a 'class thing' (and all demihumans are their own class, btw...)...it will take you a lifetime to even get to 10th level, give or take. If you go adventuring, you gain that experience MUCH faster because, well, gravity, speed of light, law of thermodynamics, law of experience gaining. All "natural laws of the multiverse". [B]1e (but not necessarily 2e)[/B]: Everyone is 0-level, has an average stat of 9 or 10, and has about 2 to 4 hps. NOBODY can "gain XP" unless you are of an adventuring class. Adventuring classes have prime requisite requirements. The core four have the lowest - just a 9 in Str, Dex, Wis or Int (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-User). All other classes have higher stat requirements. And when stats are rolled 3d6, IN ORDER...*and* if you have a certain stat that is really low (like 6, or 5 or lower) it can PREVENT you from learning a class (or force you into another, more specifically). So if you have a Str of 14, but a Dex of 5, "the character can ONLY be a cleric". If your wisdom was only 8, you are ineligible to be any 'class'. Period. Go home and tend the farm. On top of that, with 1e, there were class and level limits based on your race and your stats (as of Unearthed Arcana). If you were a demihuman, there were class limits for some (as in there are no halfling clerics...can't remember of UA allowed them). So there was that as a factor. Only rare people could even be a F, C, MU or T...and then only if they had the opportunity and desire. Next lets layer on that 0-level thing. In order to even START contemplating a class, you had to be "special". You could have 15 in every stat...but never be any class because you are 0-level as an NPC. The exact ratio of 0-level to potential class level of NPC's was entirely up to the DM to decide for his own campaign world. Old EGG himself obviously had a more 'restrained' view in how many commoners could become class-level NPC's, and good ol' Greybeard Greenwood had a more 'generous' view in that. Both were playing 1e. I don't have much experience with 2e, but this is where we started to see a LOT more of the "well, anyone could become a cleric if they just put effort into it". Anyway, I'll level the 2e experts to that. [B]3e[/B]: Only about 3 years (if I include Pathfinder) experience here, but THIS EDITION is the one that started the whole "anything can be any class and add any number of other classes" tomfoolery. If you learned "D&D" using 3e, 4e or Pathfinder...then I would totally expect a question as the OP posed. In short, there is [I]absolutely ZERO reason[/I] why the campaign world hasn't imploded. Well, other than the underlying requirement of all players and DM's to religiously accept the mantra of "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!". Honestly, this is one of the major reasons why I never respected the 3.x/PF systems and disliked them...even when I was enjoying myself playing it. It's like seeing a choice of 3 burgers; cheap/crappy one, average one, and excellent one...but the person making the burgers only has ingredients for the first two. You choose the average one, but are always thinking..."Man, this is ok and all, but it would be so-o much better if it had the Excellent Ingredients...". Same thing with me (us/my group) and 3.x+. "Nice system, overall, but man, it sure would be nice if..." [B]5e[/B]: Ahhh...here we go. Current edition of the game. Played up until about 7 months ago (not sure how many years that is...since the Starter Set). It's a bit of a mix between 1e and 3e. It [I]seems[/I] to want to have a 1e outlook, overall, but then it doesn't really have any actual 'restrictions' other than listing some stuff as Optional (Feats, Multiclassing, and some stuff in DMG). Reading the DMG I get the feeling that it's taking the general 1e attitude of "commoners are just that...commoners; they don't have classes, but they can have skills and stuff". Looking at some of the 'monsters' in the back of the books tell us that much. A "bandit" is a person, but with some special skills. A "cultist" is NOT a cleric...he is a commoner with some special skills. To me, this is pretty much dead on with BECMI and even 1e. But then we have no [I]actual[/I] restrictions for creation of PC's. Any race, any class, any level. Casting spells? Here's a component pouch. Off you go! This directly points to a more 3e mind set; "anyone can do that!...". So how do we reconcile those two drastically different 'outlooks'? Well, IMHO, always err on the side of being stingy or saying "no". It's easy to give more or say yes later than it is for everyone (especially players....doubly so for players who are 'power gamers') to have to "give up" stuff. So saying "Only Humans, and only Fighters, Clerics, Magic-Users and Thieves in this campaign" is VASTLY superior a choice than saying "Anything from any of the WotC books". If we assume the former, players may be naturally assuming that being a F, MU, T or C is "common" or "easier" to learn and improve. The assumption is that everyone is a commoner...except for a few folks who are of those four key classes. If/when the DM introduces "Druids and Barbarians can be chosen now", it expands the choices without opening the flood gates. Right. Now, imho, the OP's question, in regards to 5e, I would have to answer thus: [I]PC's are special. Unless you are a special PC or special NPC, nobody can learn a class. You have to be born with the capability to earn XP. Some NPC's can learn skills and abilities, however, that sets them apart from 'normal' commoners. NPC's like Acolytes, Cultists, Pirates, etc, are not 'classes'; they are commoners who learned special stuff due to their life.[/I] In this regards, it would then be easy for the DM to just assume that no, Phil the architect can not just "take a year and learn magic", and no, the governments can't train tax collectors to Detect Lie. And before you ask, no, YOU can't teach the stable hand to be a first level fighter so he can come on adventures with you. ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why not Wizard?
Top