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

[Greg K]

My latest 5E PC for organised play is a wood elf Rog 1/Mnk 2 criminal (spy) in game terms. In concept, she works for a secret elven group as a spy, graduated to be a field agent (learning some very efficient, deadly and non-flashy unarmed combat) and will get her imaginary 'license to kill' at Rog (assassin) 3/(shadow) Mnk 6. But she would never think of herself as a 'monk'. She's never visited a monastery in her life, never uttered the word 'Ommm', and doesn't try to copy an animal when she kicks you in the 'nads.

Well, that is fine if the campaign, in which you are playing. If I am running my campaign setting, the character would not exist with those mechanics. Shadow Monks don't exist in my campaign (actually, the monk class does not exist) and multi-classing is not used (or requires the character to sit out for a long period unless there is sufficient downtime). For a Jason Bourne type character, I would let you have a rogue(assassin). For the martial arts, I'd have you take SkidAce's Martial Arts Feat which grants improved unarmed damage and 2 battlemaster type maneuvers usable unarmed. If you want to fight unarmed, it would be something like the DMG suggestion to give up your armor proficiency for an AC Bonus. I might also suggest one or two other options in addition to or in place of depending upon the campaign that I am running at the time, its cultures, etc.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

Do class have a concrete meaning in my games?

It depends!

Sometimes classes have a concrete meaning, and sometimes they do not. Not only can it vary from one game to the next whether classes have concrete meaning, it varies intra-party in the same game. Happily, 5e is especially accommodating of my brand of waffling.

I'll clarify a little. I mostly DM. I like my players to have a broad spectrum of source material available to them as they draft their characters because I have found the broader their selection, the more frequently a player will be inspired by a class, archetype, feat, piece of equipment, spell, or option. And it's really the inspiration that I find exciting. Heck, the player may not even take the option that inspired her, choosing instead to draft a more mainstream character concept...but the idea for that concept will remain and have been born of some quirky tidbit she read elsewhere. This is a Good Thing! Some of my players seem to prefer characters that draw on classes that have concrete meaning. They'll create, for example, a LG Paladin and cite the Paladin class's rules mechanics as support for their must-save-the-downtrodden roleplay. Others of my players dream up a character in their head, then use the available source material to support their vision. And so that's how I wind up with a mixed-bag party, some who expect classes to have concrete meaning during play and others who don't. Both are valid design choices.

When I play, I tilt more toward drafting characters that I dream up in my head first and attempt to shoehorn into an existing class second.

So, yeah, it depends. I'm constantly learning, so I wouldn't want it any other way.

 

[Greg K]

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.

In my opinion, this brings up a few issues
First is an issue dating back to 3e with the game defining Barbarian as raging wilderness warrior. A better name would have been Berserker. Also defining a berserker class around wilderness warrior ignores examples of fictional characters from urban, noble, and religious backgrounds that rage/fury. The game would benefit from an official wilderness/urban skill swap variant similar to your 3e Cityscape enhancement or having left off certain skills and left them to be filled in by an appropriate background.

A second issue is a campaign specific question- What defines a priest in the setting?
Are all priests divine casters serving a deity and with specific abilities from serving that deity? In such an instance, an acolyte might be a person that did not finish their priestly training.

Maybe all priests are sorcerers or warlocks with the Arcane background better represent a campaign and divine casting priests don't exist?

Or perhaps priests of a given deity or even all deities don't cast spells and are better represented by a non-spell casting class with the Acolyte.

The existence of a warrior monk-priest and what it means to be one is going to be a campaign specific thing. If all priests cast divine spells, maybe the cleric or paladin are the basis. The character be required to take a Martial Arts feat created by the DM and lose all armor proficiency for the Monk or Barbarian's AC bonus. If they don't cast spells, a non-caster class can serve as the basis depending upon the abilities associated with a warrior-monk priest in the setting. Of course, this all assumes that the campaign has such unarmored fighting priests serving one or more deities.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I voted option 3, No. Why? Because a character introducing themselves as "Hello, I'm Bob, I'm a fifth level Paladin who can attack twice and I also know how to Lay on Hands! Who wants to adventure with me" is stupid... I hate when a character is role played and introduced as their class. Characters should be whatever their profession or background is. So unless your class equals whatever your profession is (Bard, Ranger, Monk, etc.) then you should go with a more specific explanation.

Paladin = Guardian of ________, Knight of the Temple, etc.
Rogue = Pickpocket, Cutthroat, Con Artist, etc.
Fighter = Mercenary, Sellsword, Gladiator, Knight, etc.

"I'm a former soldier in the King James army. Once I served my contract I became a sellsword and soldier of fortune." sounds a lot better than "I'm a fighter!"

In my campaign, class has an in-game meaning; however, no one introduces themselves as you described in bold. Class having an in-game meaning doesn't preclude other, more colorful terms from being used - if not preferred! Which term is best used depends on the context of the situation and what information you wish to express.

For example, let's take the statement "I'm a former soldier in the King James army. Once I served my contract I became a sellsword and soldier of fortune." That's a fine description. You could also state "I'm a former Fighter in the King James army. Once I served my contract I became a sellsword and soldier of fortune." Both of these are synonymous phrases. Which phrase to use depends on what information you wish to convey. The former withholds in-game capabilities while the latter transmits them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think IC meaning should be the dividing line between existing base classes (metagame-only) and possible PrCs (which have RP/in-game-accomplishment prereqs). Purple Dragon Knight, for instance, falls on the wrong side of that line, IMHO, they should have held off on it until they were ready to do some PrCs.

Not that class names or abilities are entirely off-limits, just that they might not correspond. For instance, someone could say "that Dwarf is quite a capable fighter," but it wouldn't mean he had the Fighter class, he could as easily be a barbarian or ranger or even a class less typically associated with melee, but with enough levels & feats under his belt to fight well relative to whoever was making the observation, regardless. Similarly, a character might be called a 'Mage' whether it was a Wizard, Sorcerer or Warlock - or Bard, Druid or Cleric with the Arcane domain, or even just had the Sage background.

 

[sleypy]

I think an interesting way to look at the topic is to look at multiclass characters. How would they be labeled? How would they self identify?

I would find any in world reference to a "wizard-fighter" as odd.

I go with how someone would describe the character to someone else. Their appearance, how they carry themselves and their most impressive feats in battle. It would either be she is a wizard that seems pretty handy with a weapon or she is a fighter that looked to have a fair amount of magical ability.

 

[Remathilis]

I think IC meaning should be the dividing line between existing base classes (metagame-only) and possible PrCs (which have RP/in-game-accomplishment prereqs).

I recall when Arcana Unearthed was announced, Monte wanted the classes to have no "bearing" on what the PC was, so he made up nonsensical names for them (Unfettered, Oathsworn, Greenbond, Champion) that didn't sound like titles or professions. Its way too late for D&D to do that (tradition/nostalgia and all) but imagine an alternate D&D with classes in the same name.

Barbarian = Furyborn
Bard = Maestro
Cleric = Godsworn
Druid = Primordial
Fighter = Warrior (Fighter is still pretty good)
Monk = Martial Artist
Ranger = Huntsman
Paladin = Oathbound
Rogue = Adroit
Sorcerer = Spellbinder
Warlock = Occultist
Wizard = Magician
Mystic = Mentalist (Psion might still work)

 

[Remathilis]

I think an interesting way to look at the topic is to look at multiclass characters. How would they be labeled? How would they self identify?

I would find any in world reference to a "wizard-fighter" as odd.

This is a big "it depends".

If the character was overwhelmingly one class, with a splash of another (say, a rogue with a hint of fighter) he might identify as "rogue" still. Or if he changed professions (a fighter who took up the study of magic) might identify as a wizard. They might come up with their own colorful names for their skills (Zandar the Swordmage). Or they might legitimately use both (Trolan, Bard of the Realm, Paladin of the Seven Kingdoms) or just alternate based on who they are trying to impress.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is a big "it depends".

If the character was overwhelmingly one class, with a splash of another (say, a rogue with a hint of fighter) he might identify as "rogue" still. Or if he changed professions (a fighter who took up the study of magic) might identify as a wizard. They might come up with their own colorful names for their skills (Zandar the Swordmage). Or they might legitimately use both (Trolan, Bard of the Realm, Paladin of the Seven Kingdoms) or just alternate based on who they are trying to impress.

Sure, that makes sense. But I think these individual examples provide plenty of evidence to support the idea that the classss are not so "concrete".

Classes tend to just be the field in which a character excels, from an in-world perspective.

For example, you have a human who wields short swords, and who fights dirty, and who tends to work for unsavory types as muscle or an enforcer.

This description is in-world. This is how someone who knew the character might describe him.

Based on that description, can we even say for certain what class the character is?

 

[Shasarak]

Another meta-game concept I hate is 'adventurer', like every single NPC in the world can tell if you're an adventurer with the merest glance. I purposefully have my PCs dress in ways that don't make it obvious what my class is (and I commonly multi-class anyway); my monk certainly won't be wearing a dressing gown, my wizard certainly won't be wearing a robe with stars on it with a pointy hat, and my swashbuckler certainly won't be wearing armour-plate or otherwise! They will all be dressed in...clothes. Normal clothes. Just like everyone else in town on a Friday night. Yet, when we walk into a bar, looking just like everyone else, the barkeep invariably says, "Ah, adventurers!"

Bite me.

Why would the Barkeep not recognise Adventurers? Afterall, there are good chances that he is a retired Adventurer.