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

[Mouseferatu]

[MENTION=6800918]empireofchaos[/MENTION], assuming it fit into the campaign setting, I'd be quite happy to allow one of my players to reflavor a dwarf into a goblinesque/trollesque character like that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right, but some of us think it's at least possible for all/most of the classes to match to at least some key aspect of character identity, whereas others don't care/care less. It's a stylistic question, which is precisely why it's so important, and why it generates such strong opinions about how it should work.

Sure. I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is more about how the characters living in the world view the labels. When it comes to that, I think it's a mix. And I don't think that a conversation between two characters about that topic would or should ever sound like a conversation between two players.

But this is because I tend to think of the game of how it would come across as a story. So to me, any in world references to concepts such as class would have to sound genuine rather than perfectly mimic the labels we use to differentiate class in game.

But yeah, the labels used for the classes are general enough to be used in world, but I think the amount would vary greatly depending on the class, and that all manner of exceptions exist to make it not nearly as universal as it is for players.

I hope that makes sense because I am not even following myself anymore.

Yes, but it became separate (in 1e) because designers thought race was a real, natural category (in the real world), whereas class was an achieved status and had to to with personal advancement. And the separation was never entirely complete (duergar that gain racial traits up to 5th level, monsters as PCs, etc.).

My point in bringing up the question of whether race is "obviously" concrete, whereas class is just a metagame concept is, you can make precisely the same kinds of arguments about race that people here are making about class.

Let's say @Mouseferatu wants to play Friar Tuck as a barbarian, but doesn't want the fluff that goes with being some sort of Hyperborean savage.

But let's say I want to play a goblin from the George McDonald books, or a troll from Elfquest, or something similar. I don't want to design a "monster as a PC" class. I am not a monster. I don't demand that my character regenerate. I am not especially sneaky. Most of my relatives are not evil in alignment. But I'm a miner, and in fact, mechanically, what I can do is pretty much covered by the racial category called "dwarf". But I'm not interested in having a beard, speaking "dwarvish" (whatever that is), holding grudges, or hoarding gold. Why must my DM demand that I conform to the dwarvish stereotypes when really all I'm interested in are the mechanics?

So the question is, if we can view class as being about crunch and not specific archetypes, why can't we do it with race? If we're being consistent, it shouldn't detract from the game: as long as we have a well-RP'd character concept, I should be able to exercise the power of choice so I can contribute to the collective story-telling as a full-fledged participant.

EDIT: Oh, and about being able to add a new race after gaining a level: My non-dwarf troll character who uses dwarf stats has just become 4th level. In-game, I have recently learned that my mother is an elf. So I ask my DM to let me pick up a feat that gives me fae ancestry - resistance vs. sleep and charm, no need t sleep, etc.

Okay but you're talking about taking a game mechanic, and "reskinning" it, so to speak. That's a bit different than what I've been talking about. I have no problem with someone taking the Monk class, let's say, and using that class to create a character that is a martial artist, but of a totally different flavor than the standard monk. I'd also allow that when it comes to race.

As for your example about adding an aspect of elf later in to your troll/dwarf...yes, mechanically that would be fine. But in the fictional world, your character didn't spontaneously develop elvish blood. What happened from a story angle is that he was always a half troll/ half elf and only recently learned that. That's a bit different.

 

[empireofchaos]

[MENTION=6800918]empireofchaos[/MENTION], assuming it fit into the campaign setting, I'd be quite happy to allow one of my players to reflavor a dwarf into a goblinesque/trollesque character like that.

Yup - those are the magic words. If it fits into the setting, if player and DM agree, we have no issues. It's when it doesn't and we don't...

Sure. I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is more about how the characters living in the world view the labels. When it comes to that, I think it's a mix.

It can be a mix - again, it depends on setting. Maybe I'm a fighter in a South-Asian-flavored game. As someone trained in combat, I belong to the Kshatriya caste, or varna. Do I always think of myself in terms of caste? No. But it's not something foreign to me. The point is, some would rather classes tend toward this kind of situation (which is an extreme case, but useful for illustration). And some would rather shunt class completely from the field of awareness of characters.

Okay but you're talking about taking a game mechanic, and "reskinning" it, so to speak. That's a bit different than what I've been talking about.

Well, this style of reskinning is really just another extreme case. "Awareness" of any metagame feature is so foreign to me (as this hypothetical player), that I simply pick and choose between different class and race mechanics, and then always/frequently invent a new fluff for them. My issue is - is it more about me being a really inventive role-player, or is it more fundamentally about me being driven by the crunch?

As for your example about adding an aspect of elf later in to your troll/dwarf...yes, mechanically that would be fine. But in the fictional world, your character didn't spontaneously develop elvish blood. What happened from a story angle is that he was always a half troll/ half elf and only recently learned that. That's a bit different.

But that's precisely the point I'm making above. What you are defining as reality in this situation is the underlying metagame crunch - the race I initially selected, which is really, fundamentally me. But why is the fluffy story of my self-discovery as a half-elf who is now learning to use "racial" traits, not the fundamental reality here? How does my picking a racial feat at 4th level fundamentally differ from my picking a "Lucky" or "Perceptive" feat, because I have suddenly discovered that I am those things? And is it really so important whether a completely objective observer somewhere could prove that "really" I had elf-blood when I was born, as opposed to my entirely non-elven character beginning to feel like an elf for some reason, and wanting to select a game mechanic to express that feeling?

 

[hawkeyefan]

@empireofchaos I'm not sure I am following all of that...but Ithink I got the gist.

My point all along is the distinction between our knowledge of the game in the real world and the characters' knowledge of their world within the fiction of the game. To me these two concepts are distinct, although there is some overlap.

I don't think your racial feat in lieu of a more standard feat is really different from a mechanical perspective. But for me, such a choice would require more of an in game explanation. Most feats can be hand waved through "training" or some such. But the addition of a racial trait from a race other than the character's own? That needs an explanation.

I am perfectly fine with it, and would allow it in my game, but I would ask the player how it happened, and work with him on it. The unknown heritage angle would be the simplest explanation, but in a fantasy setting there could be any number of other reasons.

I'm just a fan of verisimilitude in that way.

 

[The Human Target]

Some of the things, maybe. Thieves cant is a good example. It's specific, and in general only certain types of people will know it. A spellbook would be pretty specific.

But what about Action Surge? What about Cunning Action? Are these game mechanics known by the characters in world?

Would a fighter ever think "This guy's tough...I better use my action surge to put him down as quick as possible"? A player might, absolutely...but if I read that in a book, I'd toss it across the room.

Probably not for Action Surge, because its totally internalized and based entirely on the metagame concept of the action economy.

 

[The Human Target]

I think that the term sorcerer could equally be used for a wizard. A sorcerer with the sage background might call themselves a wizard. Perhaps wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks are all referred to by the titles of mage or arcanist. Even the subclasses might evoke a name so rather than sorcerer they would be referred to as Dragon mage or wild mage.

Another example is the term necromancer which in game terms refers to a wizard with the necromancy subclass but could easily refer to anyone who raises undead minions. They could be a cleric, a wizard (necromancy), or any wizard who makes use of animate dead. Even a wizard (illusion) might be referred to as a necromancer if he is well known to animate the dead.

It basically all comes down to what you want in the fiction, the name of the class is a good guideline but shouldn't, in my opinion, prevent people referring to their character with a different title or from being given a different title by NPCs in the campaign. I think it might be a bit of a shock for an illusion specialist who made heavy use of animate dead during a few encounters to be referred to by fearful villagers as a necromancer.

I don't agree, at least in terms of calling your character the name of another class that it isn't a part of.

Want to call your sorcerer a dragon shaman? Sure.

A wizard? Not unless you're lying.

 

[empireofchaos]

@empireofchaos I'm not sure I am following all of that...but Ithink I got the gist.

My point all along is the distinction between our knowledge of the game in the real world and the characters' knowledge of their world within the fiction of the game. To me these two concepts are distinct, although there is some overlap.

I don't think your racial feat in lieu of a more standard feat is really different from a mechanical perspective. But for me, such a choice would require more of an in game explanation. Most feats can be hand waved through "training" or some such. But the addition of a racial trait from a race other than the character's own? That needs an explanation.

I am perfectly fine with it, and would allow it in my game, but I would ask the player how it happened, and work with him on it. The unknown heritage angle would be the simplest explanation, but in a fantasy setting there could be any number of other reasons.

I'm just a fan of verisimilitude in that way.

My point is simply that if you emphasize the distinction between class as mechanic and character knowledge, and make that an issue for many characters, then you should in principle be prepared to accept the same kind of emphasis on the difference between race as mechanic (which it is) and character knowledge or concept - and not just on an individual basis, but commonly.

And if you are, then you really shouldn't treat my in-game explanations for my racial feat with suspicion. What's wrong with saying 1) I just met my real mother and she told me; 2) I've been dreaming about it; 3) I feel strange urges to eat salad and stay up all night, and I swear my ears are growing?

 

[Arial Black]

Oooookay, it sounds like this is a pretty raw nerve for you, Arial. All I can really say is that I don't think, even under these circumstances, that it's THAT odd. Wearing a rapier might be normal for a Lord, but slumming it in taverns and fighting dragons doesn't sound like it. But if this has occurred, and deeply offended you as a result, I really don't know what to say. Your characters--and your groups--sound like they're rather unusual for completely avoiding the usual places Adventurers haunt (wilderness hikes, tombs, caves, ruins, and military fortifications) and completely utterly thoroughly trying to avoid even the barest hint of being mercenary-types, instead being among the handful of people with a justification for their wealth, their social status, and their abilities.

The vast majority of characters aren't lords and ladies, courtiers, captains of the monarch's guard, or any other high-ranking official. They lack a convenient explanation for their abilities. They don't have the Magic Initiate feat*, and thus can't have invisible armor. They're not already rich, and thus need to find sources of income (be they jobs undertaken or dungeons delved).

Pcs are people too! The idea that every single PC in the world is set apart like a leper and instantly recognisable, whether or not they've seen a 'dungeon' in their lives, is absurd!

There are thousands upon thousands of sentient humanoids in our campaign worlds. We can play any of them. As soon as we do, this doesn't turn them into an 'adventurer' as if that were what you are rather than what you do. The idea that 'adventurer' is an in-world profession-like a plumber-complete with apprentices, journeyman and masters, is absurd to me. happens, people deal with it as best they can. They can certainly self-identify as an 'adventurer' if they want, and find 'dungeons' to delve, but the very fact that your character is controlled by a player instead of the DM should not dictate that they somehow become 'other' in-game. If your PC artisan blacksmith gets ambushed by an orc on his way home, he hasn't stopped being a 'blacksmith' and started being an 'adventurer'; he's just a guy who survived a mugging. When he walks into a bar in the next village afterward, before the news of the ambush reached there, why would the barkeep exclaim, "Ah, an adventurer!"

Also, a 'dungeon' is another word for jail, a 'monk' by definition studied at a monastery, and a 'thief' is someone who stole something.

Though...I do kinda have to wonder, what other reason would a noblewoman, a courtier, and the captain of the monarch's guard approach a particular burgh's governor immediately after slaying a dragon?

All my 'Ah, adventurers!' stories are from different DMs, different players, different characters over different decades. The last example, the governor and dragon army, was from HotDQ when we were 1st level and just entered the keep at that moment.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Want to call your sorcerer a dragon shaman? Sure.

A wizard? Not unless you're lying.

How would the character know they're lying?

And what if there is currently no dragon shaman class, but WotC prints one at a later date?

 

[Arial Black]

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

And the reason he retired is because he took an arrow to the knee...!