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

[Sword of Spirit]

You guys really consider 1E, 2E, 3E and 5E adventurers to be equivalents of bachelor's degree in a field? Soo..... the town militia is like what? Post graduates? The bandits are doctors of science (equivalent)? And the regular army is composed of Nobel laureates?

That just doesn't seam to make much sense to me. I always consider the 1st level character as a "noob" (except on 4E, where they were already heroes), a half baked "something" (commoner, noble...) that no matter what he/she/it did in life prior to adventuring, has little to no clue about this new way of life. IF i'd like to play a veteran soldier, then i'd probably start at lvl5 or something. It's true that some backgrounds (like the soldier i.e.) seam to go against my line of thinking, but i tend to abstract them into low-intensity occupations. In the said soldier background, i.e. a PC might have served in the army before and even held a rank in it, but he/she/it never saw any real action. Or not enough to develop any new skills or talents wile at it anyway.

The guard statblock is supposed to represent a typical soldier (the DMG confirms this). It has 2 HD, which is the same as goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, etc have. 2 HD is your baseline NPC warrior for most of the common races (standard or monstrous). Some adventures have represented more advanced versions of such soldiers by simply giving them max hit points (rather than average). There might be X number of guards/orcs/goblins, etc, and one leader with max hp. Or maybe you have 1 leader with a different statblock entirely, a bunch of standards, and 2 lieutenants with max hit points.

If you take into account Second Wind, a 1st level 5e fighter has about the same hit points as an elite (ie, maxed hit points) NPC soldier. The fighter probably has better stats, and also has a combat style. So a 1st-level fighter is a little better than an elite soldier, and significantly better than an average soldier.

You're right, the soldier background is a bit odd. I wouldn't let a character with that background start with anything more than a minor rank, because high-ranked soldiers will probably use the veteran stats or be statted out with class levels, which is significantly more powerful than a starting PC.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Depends on the context. The more 'abstract'/effects-based or separate fluff approach means you think more about fitting mechanics to the concept ('fiction') of the character at chargen and level-up, and have a closer model of the desired fiction in play, bringing that more to the front.

It's an up-front cost in needing system mastery/out-the-box-thinking/imagination away from the table, in return for a closer modeling of the fiction at the table. Whereas the more concrete approach where fluff and rules are mingled gives a more evocative picture of a potential character right out of the box (or rather, right in the box) when you first look at a new class.

This is part of what makes tight fiction-mechanics marriage especially good for newbies. Giving a strong character concept that is then reinforced with mechanics makes the wall o' rules mastery much less intimidating, and gives them a strong character type to anchor to.

I have broad groups that focus on broad concepts, like Guild Mages, that hire out to provide enchantments and abjurations, specializing in protecting spaces and persons. Membership open to whoever has applicable skills, including a number of on hand physical security experts and testers which are often reformed criminals sporting no ability to cast magic. Or the Thaumic Knights, who focus on all the ways of combining magic with martial skill. People would know and recognize members of these organizations by their dress or heraldry, but not necessarily by their skill.

In the hypothetical world where I DM'd your setting, I would want my Guild Mages and my Thaumic Knights to be classes or subclasses or maybe feats or a faction I could get rewards from or some sort of mechanical heft that I can use to express the archetype. I might say "If you want to take the Enchanter or Abjurer subclass, you'll need to work the Guild Mages into your narrative somehow. If you're going to be an Eldritch Knight, you're going to be linked to the Thaumic Knights." You then get closer fiction-mechanics reinforcement, where Guild Mages are known to have a hypnotic gaze that they teach to promising adepts that allows them to diffuse tense situations to protect their charges, and Thaumic Knights inscribe their name on a chosen sword that then comes to them when they call. Then, when the party finds a blade in the back of the King with a name scribed upon it, they've got an instant in-world association and have a place to start looking.

I disagree that this is so generally so.
...
I'd like to step away from the claims that you have a more developed play experience.
...
No, it doesn't.

Note that I said it was generally so for me, that in my experience it develops the play experience better, and that I find that it does.

I wasn't criticizing your preference. You're welcome to offer a counter-anecdote, but you can't tell me what my experience is. If you presume I'm an honest actor, you should accept that this is my experience. If you don't presume I'm an honest actor, you should probably not be talking with me!

Sounds a bit neat, really. If someone did come to be wanting to use the fighter chassis to build an upclose and personal magic user (like that one build in D3) I could let that fly.

This is part of why I say that more abstract/dissociated mechanics tend toward classless systems (and would actually include 4e in that bucket by some definitions, though that's a bit of a tangent). If the mechanics really aren't telling a particular narrative, then there's no real reason for them to be locked into a particular class (even one as broad as "magic-user" and "fighting-man"), and you should just be able to get the numbers right and then apply whatever fluff you want to it. Like, it takes 4 hits to kill a monster equal to your level, you hit on a 9+ on a d20, and PC's are KO'd after 10 hits between "rests." Every 2 levels' difference adds +/- 1 to the d20, every 5 levels' difference adds +/- 1 to the hits someone dishes out. Lets add some variety: three times per rest, you can "spike" your hit to make it count double. Everything else is description. That's a viable system! A bit bland, but well balanced and easily customizable (and not a bad core to hang a lot of more involved mechanics on).

I'm not looking for mechanically similar powers, I'm looking for abilities that fit a concept even if they need to be re-explained a bit.

The more abstract the power, generally, the better fit it is for multiple concepts. If, instead of Counterspell, any character could take a "Negate" ability that simply cancelled out an ability of equal or lower level, that could be a counterspell, or it could be a kung-fu block, a shield bash, a brief stun from a lazer, the power of a Time Lord to turn back time a few moments and all sorts of things! But Counterspell is specific, limited by the fluff of a spell being different from a sword blow.

If my own personal experience comported with WotC's findings more generally, then it would make sense for this to be an intentional choice by the team - they saw the more abstract "negate" choice, they saw the more concrete "counterspell" choice, and they chose the one that met their design goals more readily.

There's plenty of variety, of course - lots of folks have specific roles for classes "except for fighters and rogues," it seems! As an aside, I kind of wonder if this is one of the keys to some of the perennial "non-magical is underpowered" complains that crop up - we have a clear vision of what we want a Wizard to do, or a Monk to accomplish. We don't necessarily know what we want a "Fighter" to do, or we all want different things. But a Knight! Or a Monster Slayer! Or a Commander! Or a Gladiator! THOSE are archetypes we'd see filled more robustly, with more agreement on how well it's doing one of those things. One class that does all those things can feel stretched thin - a class that did one of those things and ignored the others might be ultimately more satisfying.

I tell ya, if I had mind-control powers over Mike Mearls...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hmmm...fairly easy to argue that a large part of the training is in fact the very act of living in such a monastery for an extended period; learning their social discipline, their ways of interacting with each other and with the greater world, their rules and laws and ethics and how these are applied to daily life...in other words, the sort of deep cultural immersion you just can't get from training with a lone individual in a different setting.

Thus I feel quite justified in saying Monks come from and train at monasteries, much like Clerics come from and train at temples.

Lanefan

You do realize that your exact argument cuts in the opposite direction - it's fairly easy to argue that monk class abilities are taught in a death cult that believes that you can steal the very soul of the fallen and use it for mystical power. That, instead of ki, it's the very essence of your fallen enemies that you steal and use to power your abilities? (I don't have SCAG, that's not the fluff of the death monks, is it?)

Or, for instance, a cleric in my game that has never trained in a temple at all -- doesn't like them, prefers to be out in the field getting their hands dirty combing through another set of ruins for artifacts and lost knowledge. He absorbed the teachings of his god from his parents, who were lapsed lay followers. He doesn't mind the temple guys (often brings them things he finds) but definitely prefers to not hang out and attend services when there's more work to be done. He's a cleric of a god of knowledge with specific focus on uncovering unknown or lost knowledge -- hence his 'occupation' as a field archeologist.

I'm not saying you can't do it your way. That's a great way. It's just not the only way, or even arguably better. It's just different.

 

[Arial Black]

Hmmm...fairly easy to argue that a large part of the training is in fact the very act of living in such a monastery for an extended period; learning their social discipline, their ways of interacting with each other and with the greater world, their rules and laws and ethics and how these are applied to daily life...in other words, the sort of deep cultural immersion you just can't get from training with a lone individual in a different setting.

I'm perfectly okay with your fluff. But this isn't the only possible fluff.

Learning discipline, ways of interacting with the world and others, having a set of precepts, laws and ethics..., these things can certainly be learned from individuals, and are not exclusive to a monastery setting.

Don't forget that IRL Shaolin monks only accidentally developed martial arts in a monastery setting. It could just as easily been developed by a head librarian who thought that the books were too heavy for his bookworm-type juniors. Dancers could easily (and did) blend martial arts with dance, and might've developed unarmed combat techniques that were initially so amazing that stories of supernatural abilities started to emerge about them.

This is what happened to the Shaolin IRL. And ninjas. And the Persian Immortals. And...paladins. Stories attach supernatural prowess and abilities to practitioners of mundane arts, and-surprise surprise-sword and sorcery RPGs include the mystic elements as game mechanics.

The idea that because IRL Shaolin monks developed martial arts and the stories about them included the supernatural (just like RL ninjas, paladins, etc) doesn't mean that other worlds that do have actual magic woven into the fabric of life couldn't develop their powers from other origins too.

There is nothing unique about monasteries that allow mystic martial arts to develop there but make it implausible they could develop in other situations.

 

[Arial Black]

This is part of what makes tight fiction-mechanics marriage especially good for newbies. Giving a strong character concept that is then reinforced with mechanics makes the wall o' rules mastery much less intimidating, and gives them a strong character type to anchor to.

It can certainly be a help for new players to have fluff examples to get their heads around some game concepts (like 'class and level'), but this in no way limits (or is intended to limit) players from making their own fluff.

Face it, the writers already fluffed three different concepts to fluff each class in the PHB. It's absurd to think there are only exactly three possible concepts that match the crunch of each class.

 

[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

After taking some more time updating my homebrew material for 5e, I have decided this is how the life-eater converting HPs for spell points works.

The life-eater takes for every 1d4+2 damage the life-eater opts to take, she gains 2 spell points. This can be done as a bonus action during combat. The damage taken also reduces your HP maximum by an equal amount. After a long rest your HP maximum returns to normal.

 

[Shasarak]

Thus I feel quite justified in saying Monks come from and train at monasteries, much like Clerics come from and train at temples.

Lanefan

Why would a Monk (like a Jedi) require more then one Sensei? And why would a Cleric need any Teacher at all when they essentially have their God on call.

If a Monk and Cleric need a Temple to train then that leaves us in an awkward situation of trying to figure out how we ever had a Monk or Cleric to form the first Temple.

 

[pemerton]

I prefer when my mechanics and fiction work together to build on each other, not when they're fighting because they don't really work.

Do you think that there are many RPGers who have a different preference from this?

since the mechanics are expressed in the fiction (meaning, someone who crits on a 19-20 IS exceptionally accurate with their attacks, someone who punches dragons for 1d8 damage IS using supernatural martial arts skills), someone with those mechanics should also be linked to that fiction, IMO.

<snip>

classes are primarily about fiction, not about mechanics. The mechanics are there to support the fiction. If you'd like to use the mechanics to support some other fiction, it's generally a pretty awkward fit unless you hand-wave or ignore where it doesn't fit.

This doesn't get us very far, though. It doesn't tell us anything about the (imaginary) conditions in which someone learns to fight with supernatural martial arts, nor in which someone learns to be exceptionally accurate with their attacks. In the case of the latter, we don't even know whether the accuracy is due to luck or skill.

Think of your fiction first - the character you want to play. We'll then come up with how to represent them doing those things mechanically.

This doesn't get us very far either. As you have posted in the past, in 4e there were multiple ways to mechanically represent a character being a vampire (eg feat, race, class). In AD&D there are multiple ways to represent a character being a holy warrior who performs miraculous healing with a touch (cleric, paladin). In 5e there are multiple ways to represent a character who is a warrior mage (eg multi-class wizard or sorcerer with fighter; eldritch knight; some bard builds; etc).

Nothing, mechanically, says I can't use a longsword and a shield and re-fluff it as "a magical wand that projects a field of force that I slash with and my other hand can be used to make powerful, nearly instantaneous magical defenses made of the bones of my enemies with a simple gesture." There's nothing in a bow that says that it can't be "a powerful bolt of eldritch energy sent screaming through the air into the flesh of my foes."

I don't agree with this at all.

For instance, to make a longsword attack I have to be equipped with a longsword, which is a bladed weapon purchased from the "weapon" section of the equipment list. To use a bow, I need to be equipped with a bow and with arrows, both of which are purchased from the same list. While fighting with a longsword, I am liable to effects that are triggered by weapon attacks (eg parry effects that improve AC vs weapon attacks or mitigate damage dealt by them). And I can continue to fight effectively in an anti-magic field. (Similarly with a bow.)

To use a shield, I need to be equipped with an item called a "shield" purchased from the "armour" section of the equipment list. And I don't need to have defeated any enemies (bony or otherwise).

A player or GM might use the rules for longswords, bows etc to balance new abilities of the sort that you describe - and in the case of your eldritch blast example, they might even take the view that not being able to attack in an anti-magic field is a suitable balance for not needing to be equipped with arrows, and otherwise leave everything as is. Though there would also be the issue that a sword or bow attack relies on STR or DEX, whereas nearly all magic use in 5e is based on mental stats.

But this would all be homebrewing, not "reflufffing".

I can also do it the other way around - magic missile is my superbly accurate archer taking time, aiming, and letting an unerring arrow hit. Burning Hands can be my character spitting some hard alcohol through a torch. Mage Armor can be, well, regular armor. Faerie Fire can be my character pointing out the flaws in enemies' defenses.

The same issues arise, mutatis mutandis. For instance, why do I have to read a spell book to spit alcohol through a torch? And why can I do it only once per day?

4e's a pretty good example of this thought process in practice - a level X ability is largely on par with other level X abilities, mechanically. You have your "martial fireballs" and your "magical multi-attacks" and the like. I find 5e generally shies away from this, though.

I tend to disagree with both strands of this claim.

4e has no "martial fireballs" - no martial fire damage, no martial area attacks, etc. And in 5e, there are spells that work basically the same as weapon attacks (roll to hit, roll damage) - with no real difference but the relevant stat (mental rather than physical).

the same thought that goes into you dividing magic from martial is the same thought that goes into "Monks are a specific thing," just more deeply applied.

If someone takes the view that his/her PC's spellbook is written in hieroglyphs rather than alphabetical sigils, does that fundamentally break the divide between martial and magical? I don't see how. If someone takes the view that his/her PC became a wild sorcerer after reading a cursed tome that infused him/her with chaos energy, is that any sort of violation of the concept of a sorcerer? I don't see how. If someone takes the view that his/her PC learned supernatural martial arts because s/he was taught by a magical animal that s/he used to meet with at the end of the garden as a child, is that any sort of violation of the concept of a monk? I don't see how.

Etc.

 

[Lanefan]

Why would a Monk (like a Jedi) require more then one Sensei?

Yet the Jedi (Anakin bloody Skywalker notwithstanding) grow up in that environment; they're immersed in it from a young age thus by the time they get into any sort of one-on-one training relationship with a master they are already fully familiar with what it is to be a Jedi, as it is already their built-in lifestyle.

And why would a Cleric need any Teacher at all when they essentially have their God on call.

Most deities are Very Busy Entities who only had time at one point to train the first (or the first few) Clerics, who then went on to form the first temples, attract followers, train those followers who were talented enough to use such, and get the ball rolling.

If a Monk and Cleric need a Temple to train then that leaves us in an awkward situation of trying to figure out how we ever had a Monk or Cleric to form the first Temple.

See above answer for Clerics. Monk - that's not so easy, but I could see the first monastery kind of coalescing out of a particularly lawful-ethos community of more-dedicated-than-usual mercenaries who gradually came to realize that open-hand stealth fighting might just be better than the standard tank-it-up model, and over time (maybe even over a few generations) developed the whole idea...I don't know.

Lanefan

 

[Mouseferatu]

Except, of course, for the fact that the primary Jedi character of the series--Luke Skywalker--had none of that. Which sort of proves the point that even if there's a "standard" way to become a Jedi/monk/whatever, it hardly needs to be the only way.

And both game books and novels, from multiple editions, include clerics who were no part of any temple.