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

[Mouseferatu]

And if the monk's mechanics match 100% what I want? If my view of the character includes the ki powers, but flavored as espionage-based mystical/martial training, and includes speaking all languages due to some magical ritual, etc., you'd still rather I not use the monk chassis because the flavor doesn't match?

That makes no sense to me. It's simple to say "The character's abilities resemble those of a monk but don't come from the same tradition." It strikes me as far clunkier to try to recreate the monk with a rogue.

The fact that the monk has a specific place in your world doesn't have to mean there's no possible other place for someone with abilities that are the same mechanically but not in terms of fiction.

 

[Greg K]

And if the monk's mechanics match 100% what I want? If my view of the character includes the ki powers, but flavored as espionage-based mystical/martial training, and includes speaking all languages due to some magical ritual, etc., you'd still rather I not use the monk chassis because the flavor doesn't match?

Yes. Your character exists in the world. That you want ki does not matter if there is no ki. If the closest thing is another class with mystical abilities are handled by spells, that is how it works in the that particular world.

The fact that the monk has a specific place in your world doesn't have to mean there's no possible other place for someone with abilities that are the same mechanically but not in terms of fiction.

Well, there won't be the same abilities mechanically. If I don't have a place for ki and I decide that the closest thing to a monk is either a) a fighter or rogue with non mystic abilities or b) another class that uses spells to duplicate some monk class abilities, those will be the choice or choices the player has.

Edit: Now, if I have a world where the monk class exists and ki is simply renamed/replaced with another source, but everything else about the class remains the same, I will use the monk class to represent it. However, there may be some other modifications to accommodate the change in ki fluff.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And if the monk's mechanics match 100% what I want? If my view of the character includes the ki powers, but flavored as espionage-based mystical/martial training, and includes speaking all languages due to some magical ritual, etc., you'd still rather I not use the monk chassis because the flavor doesn't match?

Yep. Though at that point, I'd be wondering why it's so important that it NOT be consistent with the monk flavor. Nothing stops monks from being an ascetic, disciplined sect of semi-mystical agents of espionage. Heck, shadow monks are almost made for the job. If you're doing magical rituals and whatnot anyway, why draw a hard line between that and ki? At that point, what is the difference, functionally? And why would that matter? Why *can't* you just be a monk? A magical ritual that makes you learn all languages is A-OK, but developing that ability based on a disciplined mastery of an inner magical energy is off the table?

That makes no sense to me. It's simple to say "The character's abilities resemble those of a monk but don't come from the same tradition." It strikes me as far clunkier to try to recreate the monk with a rogue.

It seems much clunkier to me to say "my character is a spy who has abilities based on pure skill except for these things which are magical rituals that happen to me at a certain level, which, yeah, DM, by the way, is totally a thing in your world now, because that's the character I'm playing." Generally, I'd rather innovate than kludge like that.

So much easier to say "My character is a monk who left the monastery to become a high-powered magical spy for the Crown." That's a character narrative with some roots! You've got at least two organizations you're linked to as a character (which means at least two evil plots that their enemies are in the process of performing), an interesting conflict between them (which gives me a third narrative with some deep character resonance: monastery vs. crown), and all sorts of motive to go do awesome things.

The fact that the monk has a specific place in your world doesn't have to mean there's no possible other place for someone with abilities that are the same mechanically but not in terms of fiction.

I like my mechanics and my fiction to reinforce each other and build off each other and work together to make a great play experience. Treating these things like there is a wall between them is a dissociation that I find harms the suspension of disbelief at the table.

That means that monks have a particular narrative context tied to their abilities. A monk's punches aren't just martial arts, they're supernaturally-powered, they do more damage than mere fists, strike faster than human reflexes, are capable of being faster than a shot arrow, etc. The inner magic and awareness is what allows monks to do that. Without that training, you can't do that - you can be the world's greatest martial artist, and you won't be able to rival what the monks do. What they do is special. It has meaning. According to the rules of the world, you can't do what a monk can do just by being Charles Atlas - you need access to what they know and what they can teach you that you cannot get on your own.

Like, it matters in the story that Cyclops's laser vision doesn't work like Superman's laser vision, and if I were to put them into a game, I'd expect them to work differently because of that story.

Similarly, it matters that a monk's martial arts are powered by ki, and other martial arts aren't. It matters in the story, and it should matter in the mechanics.

Which means that if you want to punch and kick without being a monk, we gotta find a way to represent what it is for your character that makes it different, and how that is expressed in the fiction and in the world.

And if it's not really all that different, just be a friggin' monk, dude.

 

[MechaPilot]

Regarding the magic classes, I think the Wizard is probably the most generic of the bunch. The major defining feature of the wizard is that she studies magic. Everything else about them is painted with rather broad strokes.

As I mentioned previously with the fighter, members of the wizard class really need some type of kit or theme to tie them to my game world. There are a few different wizardly kits/themes to choose from (medician, crystal-mage, life-eater, etc).

Let's use the life-eater as an example.

Before I get to the specifics of the life-eater, it's important to point out that all wizards in my game world can fly on brooms at first level. As long as they have enough magic remaining to power a first level spell she can fly on a broom (my setting uses spell points instead of slots, but that's not particularly relevant).

The life-eater is a mage who uses the consumption of life-force to power and to augment her spells. This magic takes a toll on the user, and all life-eaters are afflicted with an incurable long-term illness such as consumption or epilepsy.

Whenever a life-eater casts a spell, living things within a 30 foot radius of her take necrotic damage equal to her proficiency bonus. This damage is dealt to friends and foes alike, as well to any plant and animal life in the area: this usually means grass and flowers, and possibly small animals like squirrels, withering or dropping dead. And before it's mentioned, yes, this type of mage was inspired by Dark Sun's defilers.

A life-eater can also use her own life force to power her spells. When a life-eater runs out of spell points, she can choose to cast spells with her life force, spending 1d6 HP for each spell point the spell costs to cast. A life-eater can also take this damage to augment spells cast with spell points. For example, a spell that hits an additional target if you use a higher level slot (i.e. more points) can be cast at the base level with spell points and then augmented by taking damage to make up the difference in spell point values.

Life-eaters are most commonly necromancers, and in the game world the two are so synonymous that most people assume the two are the same thing.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Greg K, I was actually responding to Banana's comment there. I know you said you didn't have monks in your world, but he does. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Lanefan]

Tangent

The life-eater is a mage who uses the consumption of life-force to power and to augment her spells. This magic takes a toll on the user, and all life-eaters are afflicted with an incurable long-term illness such as consumption or epilepsy.

A life-eater can also use her own life force to power her spells. When a life-eater runs out of spell points, she can choose to cast spells with her life force, spending 1d6 HP for each spell point the spell costs to cast. A life-eater can also take this damage to augment spells cast with spell points. For example, a spell that hits an additional target if you use a higher level slot (i.e. more points) can be cast at the base level with spell points and then augmented by taking damage to make up the difference in spell point values.

Is damage thus taken harder than usual to cure?

I ask because if it isn't then a multiclass Cleric/Necro(life eater) is in effect getting a boatload more spell points each day via cast/cure cycles.

Lan-"who otherwise rather likes this idea"-efan

/tangent

 

[MechaPilot]

Tangent

Is damage thus taken harder than usual to cure?

I ask because if it isn't then a multiclass Cleric/Necro(life eater) is in effect getting a boatload more spell points each day via cast/cure cycles.

Lan-"who otherwise rather likes this idea"-efan

/tangent

In past editions, it hasn't been. I'm still in the process of updating my setting for 5e, but I'm not terribly inclined to make it harder to cure. What I might do is change it so the life-eater spends HDs instead of actually losing HPs. That effectively cuts out the middleman as most 5e characters who take the damage for more spell points would probably spend their HDs to recover those lost points.

The other option I might go with is making those lost HPs recoverable only with a long rest, like the temp hp reduction of vampire attacks and other such things.

 

[Mouseferatu]

There's a conceptual disconnect here that we're just not bridging. I don't know if it's the medium of text, or just a completely different way of thinking about the topic. But I feel like at this point we're getting into "But it's X!" vs. "But it's Y!" and I don't see the twain ever meeting.

So I think I'm going to declare the "Different Playstyles" and "Agree to Disagree" achievements unlocked and call it good.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The fact that some people "totally do that" doesn't mean it's universal, and universally important, in game or out.

You misunderstood: I meant that people totally do what you described, they treat "race" purely as a set of mechanics. Hence my example of a character who was, in the fiction, a Dwarf...but who was, in the mechanics, an Earthsoul Genasi. People DO treat race as a purely metagame construct.

I'm not sure what point you're making here, but if half-elves aren't super-different from elves, then there is no reason to consider half-elves as a distinct race (as the rulebooks, and the vast majority of players, do). Which means, of course, that "race" in the game is not as concrete as you think it is.

My point was that, IMO, 5e made a mistake in making the half-elf so similar to its parents. 4e actually gave the distinction meaning and significance: there are specific, discernible things that half-elves (Dilettante) and half-orcs (Furious Assault) can do that none of elves, orcs, or humans can do.

It's not the same thing, but the point is, class in game is still what in sociology is called achieved status, and race is still what in sociology is called ascribed status. So the fundamental distinction is based on metagame considerations. That's the point - not that what we call class and race in the game are identical to what we understand by these terms in RL.

So the height difference between humans and halflings is socially constructed? The ability to breathe elements is an ascribed status? Having horns and a tail is purely the result of people labelling other people and nothing else? Living for 700 years or more, rather than 60-80 years, is a sociological fact, and not in any way a biological one?

Yes, but the reason for recognizing these differences as important is a cultural reason.

Correct: because, between all IRL groups of humans, the biggest difference IS culture, at least from a D&D perspective. The difference between dwarves and elves, or gnomes and dragonborn, or any other pair of races, absolutely includes culture, I don't question that. But if you don't go for "mechanics are just mechanics, you put whatever flavor you want onto them," then there's some level of "mechanics have meaning," aka race exists in some concrete sense. It's more than JUST culture.

 

[S'mon]

Doesn't matter. That's where it comes from.

http://biblehub.com/genesis/27-27.htm

Not one "laying on of hands" in any translation. Could wikipedia be wrong?! *eek*