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

[Mouseferatu]

Gah! My thread about classes and fiction had become an argument about race.

Hi. Welcome to the Internet.

 

[Celtavian]

Height =/= race. Masai are tall, and pygmies are short. They are both human, and according to most common racial classifications, they belong to the same racial group. So the fact that height is a heritable trait doesn't make it a racial trait. Horns and longevity aren't necessarily different from height. Tieflings can still be regarded as humans whose ancestors spent a little too much time hanging with Asmodeus. Elves - humans with preternaturally long lilfespans extended through magic (e.g. the sorcerer Dallben in Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain; he's 300 years old, but is nowhere identified as a member of a different race. Not clear what would happen to his children). If you look at Tolkien, who inspired the in-game conceptualization of elves, being an elf or a human is, to an extent, a choice (Elrond, Elros, Arwen). And those part-elves who choose to be human have very long lifespans for generations (Numenorians, Arwen, even Aragorn, who is a descendant of the Numenorians, lives far into his second century, but is regarded as human.

If you brought this argument to the elves or dwarves, they would laugh at you. I'm not sure Masai and pygmies wouldn't chuckle.

 

[S'mon]

But if you have allowed a class in your game, it's wrong to say that players are only allowed to use your concept, not their own.

I think any refluffing by player should be done in consultation with the GM and with his
agreement, players shouldn't expect to be able to demand any changes they want. I'd be fine with Monks as members of an order of elven secret agents, but I definitely want to be asked first!

 

[S'mon]

the notion that scientific consensus lies heavily on the side of race as a social construct.

Scientific consensus seems to be to try to avoid getting into trouble by not using the word
at all, replacing it with Population Group.

Edit: You empireofchaos were the one who brought up human races with "Masai are tall, and pygmies are short. They are both human, and according to most common racial classifications, they belong to the
same racial group" - but apparently this was intended as a cunning bait-and-switch "Aha, there are
no human races! It's a social construct!"

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ete-Meaning-In-Your-Game/page27#ixzz3sClstXDN

 

[Lanefan]

We share 40% of our genes with lettuce...

This right here explains so, so many things; particularly when the other 60% choose that moment to wander off.

Lan-"I am lettuce, hear me roar"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

The fluff explains how you got your abilities, but there is no such thing as 'One True Fluff' for any class.

What is 'true' is the crunch; the abilities you have. Any fluff that believably explains those abilities is golden. How believable does it need to be? Well, at least as believable that attending a monastery enables you to run on water.

The crunch is what's true to the player; the fluff may be irrelevant.

The fluff is what's true to the character; the crunch may be irrelevant.

The only question is which of these truths you want to care about, and which one you want to ignore. Are you looking at things through your eyes as a player (which it seems you are), or your character's eyes as a character (which I'd prefer to do)? That's the disconnect.

Lan-"now thinking there needs to be a band somewhere named the Fluffy Monks"-efan

 

[Remathilis]

Ah, that's where you've gone wrong, I get it now.

The fluff explains how you got your abilities, but there is no such thing as 'One True Fluff' for any class.

What is 'true' is the crunch; the abilities you have. Any fluff that believably explains those abilities is golden. How believable does it need to be? Well, at least as believable that attending a monastery enables you to run on water.

No. The Class is "Monk". Not "Generic Martial Artist with a hint of Mystical Powers". Monk means something. What exactly it means is determined by the setting of the game, and the setting of the game is determined by the DM. The player has the right to make a unique character within the confines of the setting, and not all concepts are created equal.

No fluff in the book represents the only possible way to gain those exact abilities in a world with so many paths to magical effects. In such a world, it would be a mistake to imagine that Jason Bourne-type training undertaken by the elves of The Lachrymae Shevarash is entirely mundane and cannot weave the magic of the world into their techniques, to get the results shown in the (Shadow) Monk class table.

If I say that their god, Shevarash, grants ki abilities, or that ki abilities just represent the natural magic that flows through the world and it can be harnessed by a disciplined mind, the idea that an elven mind can be disciplined through the particular brand of 'secret agent' training undertaken by some Lachrymae Shevarash is just as plausible as getting that kind of training in a monastery.

But who decides this? If, as a DM, I say "Elven monks belong to the Lachrymae Shervarash..." then I'm allowing such as concept in my world/game. If I say "Elven monks all belong to the Wu-Shu Academy training under Raiden" and you want a Jason Bourne Style super-spy, then we're at a crossroads. Are you arguing that as the DM, I have no right to say "In my world, monks are X?"

As DM, you can disallow any game mechanics that you want in your house. You may rule that there are no 'fighters' (in terms of the class) in your world. But this debate only makes sense if we talk about the PHB, not how you've altered it; that's not a common frame of reference.

But if you have allowed a class in your game, it's wrong to say that players are only allowed to use your concept, not their own. You can make sure that they do have an explanation for those abilities, but the threshold should not be 'I wouldn't have thought of it that way', but 'Is that explanation at least as reasonable as any of the examples in the PHB'.

You keep assuming this is a mostly equal relationship here. Its not. I create the world. I set the scene. If I rule gnomes are 20 feet tall and eat nothing but hot-tar, MY word supersedes the PHB and arguing "that's not what the PHB says" isn't going to sway me. As the DM, I reserve the right to change anything in any of the books as long as a.) its applied equally to everyone (DM included), b.) Its informed before play begins (no surprises) and c.) it's done for the benefit of the game. I can ban dragonborn. I can add half-vampires. I can change how monks work, both mechanically and flavor-wise. I even can entertain ideas from players on other ideas, but I DO NOT have to accept them if the contradict my world.

Some of the classes were inspired by real-world legends. Monks by eastern martial arts, paladins by the twelve peers of Charlemagne. But whatever the original inspiration, we are not limited by those exact concepts.

Lets say you set a game in Charlemagne's world, but altered to include the PHB. The Twelve Peers, the Paladins, are an in-game noble private club. They were typical knights in shining armour...except the ones that weren't. Archbishop Turpin was a Paladin, but was actually the inspiration for the D&D cleric!

In such a game, having levels in the paladin class wouldn't mean you were a Paladin in game, and being a Paladin wouldn't mean you had any paladin class levels.

This is a semantics game more than a fluff-problem; Paladin and paladin are two different concept fighting for the same linguistic space. The easiest thing to do would be to rename the class in this situation "Paladin: In this campaign, non-peer paladins are known as partisans, as Paladin is a unique title. Those who enter such an elite group earn the right to said name." That said, most paladins in a 12 Peers are still going to be knights in service of the church, so aside from the class/title issue, things are fine here.

In 2E I made a paladin with the Savage kit, all without breaking any rules. She was a bit Tarzan-y (okay, a LOT Tarzan-y), but she gained her holy powers from her god (The White Jaguar, god of the natives of the island), disdained armour and used a spear. One comment I got (thankfully not from the DM) was "She's not a paladin; paladins wear heavy armour!" You make your paladins how you want, but there is no rule that paladins only get their powers while wearing heavy armour.

If I wanted to play a monk in the Charlemagne game, and the DM quite reasonably didn't want any eastern influence on this particular campaign, I'd have to come up with a plausible explanation of how I could do those things. TBH, I wouldn't want to, in a game which is all about knights in shining armour! But if someone else could come up with a plausible explanation and could fit it into the narrative, more power to him!

Savage paladin's are ok by me, because you're not breaking the tenants of the class (a holy warrior in service of his Oath/God), just the expectation of the stereotype. Cultural changes are fine: I've seen Jungle Druids, Skald Bards, Pirate Clerics, etc. Kits/Backgrounds were built to twist stereotypes. What doesn't work it either cramming a round-peg into a square-hole (No monks in a 12 peers game) or warping the ideas beyond their borders or into other classes space (I'm a monk who thinks/acts like a rogue, except martial arts instead of sneak attack).

The DM could certainly say 'No monks....barbarians, non-human PCs...', whatever he wanted. But saying that there are monks, but only if your character concept matches mine, is not the way forward.

Answered above. My setting, my final call.

Let me give you a counter-example: I want to play a warlock, but I don't want to be hassled with the "make a deal with the devil" fluff, so I say "my warlock discovered he is the scion of a dragon. He was born with draconic power, which fuels his "breath weapon" (eldritch blast), "dragon scales" (mage armor) and "fiery blasts" (burning hands) and isn't beholden to any force to learn these powers." Is that okay?

My answer would be no: your deliberately trampling another classes archetype (dragon sorcerer) and avoiding a major component of the fluff of other (warlock patrons). If you want eldritch blasts, make a deal with one of the four patron-types, if you want dragon breath be a sorcerer.

If the campaign were based on ancient China, would you ban every class that was inspired by western concepts? No paladins, that's for certain, because paladins are only allowed in France, right? For me, there are plenty of Chinese character concepts that would allow a paladin. Every man and his dog can get abilities that leak into the supernatural, so a bit of Smiting powered by your Devotion...or Vengeance...no problem.

Well, the one time I ran a brief OA game, I did ban paladins, druids, clerics, wizards, and bards because I had other classes (samurai, sohei, shamans, wu-jen) to replace them. That said, if I did it today, I'd probably rename some classes (such as changing paladin to samurai, or druid to shaman) to remove the more westernized ideas. I might even swap out powers for ones more appropriate to the setting/tales, or restrict subclasses to keep to theme.

Then again, if I'm running OA and you roll in with a half-elf bard that is every bit the English Minstrel, guess what's not being allowed in that game?

Oh, you want to play a paladin, but who only wears leather armour? LEAVE MY HOUSE AND NEVER RETURN!!! Everyone knows that paladins wear heavy armour! It's my way or the highway. My players tell me they're okay with it...at least the ones who have no other game to go to...

Answered. Weapons and armor do not make the man. Class identity is derived by skills known, the means they were acquired, and power-source that fuels them. You want to build an unarmed fighter with tavern brawler and grappler? Be my guest. But you're not playing a "monk" as anyone in the world would recognize it.

 

[empireofchaos]

If you brought this argument to the elves or dwarves, they would laugh at you.

Sniff... Well they would have a vested interest to maintain the racial conceit, wouldn't they?

It was at such a midnight hour that two men moved like gray shadows along the gravelly inner edge of a sickle-shaped gap between two low dunes, and the distance between them was exactly that prescribed by the Field Manual for such occasions. However, contrary to the rules, the one bearing the largest load was not the rear ‘main force’ private, but rather the ‘forward recon’ one, but there were good reasons for that. The one in the rear limped noticeably and was nearly out of strength; his face – narrow and beak-nosed, clearly showing a generous serving of Umbar blood – was covered with a sheen of sticky sweat. The one in the lead was a typical Orocuen by his looks, short and wide-faced – in other words, the very ‘Orc’ that mothers of Westernesse use to scare unruly children...

I have to sonorously remind those critics that The Lord of the Rings is the historiography of the victors, who have a clear interest in presenting the vanquished in a certain way. Had genocide taken place back then (where did those peoples vanish if it hadn’t?), then it’s doubly important to convince everybody, including oneself, that those had been orcs and trolls rather than people.

-Kirill Yeskov, The Last Ringbearer (emphasis mine)
http://fan.lib.ru/img/e/eskov/last_ringbearer_engl/last_ring_bearer.pdf

 

[empireofchaos]

Scientific consensus seems to be to try to avoid getting into trouble by not using the word
at all, replacing it with Population Group.

Edit: You empireofchaos were the one who brought up human races with "Masai are tall, and pygmies are short. They are both human, and according to most common racial classifications, they belong to the
same racial group" - but apparently this was intended as a cunning bait-and-switch "Aha, there are
no human races! It's a social construct!"

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ete-Meaning-In-Your-Game/page27#ixzz3sClstXDN

Good thing cowardly scientists have bold gamers exposing their bunk!

 

[Greg K]

No. The Class is "Monk". Not "Generic Martial Artist with a hint of Mystical Powers". Monk means something. What exactly it means is determined by the setting of the game, and the setting of the game is determined by the DM. The player has the right to make a unique character within the confines of the setting, and not all concepts are created equal.

You beat me to it. Per the 5e Basic Player's Handbook v02 page 3:
"Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."

But who decides this? If, as a DM, I say "Elven monks belong to the Lachrymae Shervarash..." then I'm allowing such as concept in my world/game. If I say "Elven monks all belong to the Wu-Shu Academy training under Raiden" and you want a Jason Bourne Style super-spy, then we're at a crossroads. Are you arguing that as the DM, I have no right to say "In my world, monks are X?"

And as shown above, if Arial Black (or anyone else) is saying that that you are wrong, the game states you are right. Now, some DMs may extend the ability to refluff classes to their players, but by default the designers have assigned the DM.

Savage paladin's are ok by me, because you're not breaking the tenants of the class (a holy warrior in service of his Oath/God), just the expectation of the stereotype.

And, yet, setting aside that the DM can exclude any concept, the Savage paladin in 2e is entirely under the DMs purview to allow or disallow by the default rules regarding kits and the Paladin itself . Not only are kits in 2e an optional rule that requires the DM to permit, the Paladin is as well despite its inclusion in the PHB (the same for the Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger).

"Fighter, mage, cleric, and thief are the standard classes. They are historical and legendary archetypes that are common to many different cultures. Thus, they are appropriate to any sort of AD&D game campaign. All of the other classes are optional. Your DM may decide that one or more of the optional classes are not appropriate to his campaign setting. Check with your DM before selecting an optional character class."
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2e Player's Handbook Chapter 3: Player Character Classes

So, technically, the inclusion of both kits and Paladins in 2e are house rules as they are optional by default and the DM needs to state that he or she is including them or at least approve them if asked. Actually, even if kits are included, it does not mean the DM is including the Savage Kit so the DM must either give a blanket approval of all kits, all kits from a specific source, or the Savage kit individually. (Note: By the same token, the use of Feats and Multi-classing in a 5e campaign are house rules despite their inclusion in the rules, because they are not considered in use by the default rules. The DM has to approve their inclusion)