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

[Arial Black]

This is kind of missing the point - if a class is an element of fiction, not just an abstract rules chassis, then the story material associated with it isn't a "fluff example," it's as much a part of the class as the mechanics are - they are a package deal.

'If class is an element of fiction...' But game mechanics rearing its head in the in-game fiction is not part of the rules of D&D-5E or any other edition-even if you choose to do so in your game.

Personally, I like both of those options much better than a re-skin.

You have your likes and dislikes, and I have mine. You are forcing your players to adhere to your likes, not their own, if you say that the game mechanic of 'class' is knowable to the inhabitants of the world. This would result in a game like the OotS comic, where the characters seem aware of their game mechanics, for comedy value.

I couldn't take such a game seriously.

I remember in an early game of AD&D joining a game in an RPG club, and another player asked-in character, mind you!-"What are you?". I replied, in character, "Er...Sagittarius, I think...why?". Even in the '70s I knew that 'character class' was a game mechanic, as unknowable to creatures in-game as hit points.

No one thinks that. For one, subclasses are seen as descriptive, not proscriptive - these are three (ish) examples of different takes on this class. There may be more. Heck, in a game that uses the SCAG + PHB, there explicitly ARE more! And part of the fun of linking fiction and mechanics is in finding a new fictional home for any novel mechanics that your table might need.

I don't need new mechanics. My PCs are made according to the existing rules. Fluff is not rules.

I imagine there are many who don't really care what the fiction is as long as the mechanics "work," and vice versa. I've certainly played with players that would fall into those camps. It's a legit preference - some folks love the flexibility of a system where the fluff doesn't matter (I still miss some of the flexibility of 4e!), some folks don't care what the mechanics do as long as they can pretend to be their awesome character and talk in funny voices with their friends (this can be especially true of newbies - a newbie in my in-person game is useless when it comes to remembering how his character works, but his PC is notable and prominent and interesting).

I'm the kind of guy who makes a detailed backstory for every character I play, whether or not the other players or the DM cares about 'role-playing' at all.

The conditions for getting supernatural martial arts are right there in the class that gets supernatural martial arts - training and asceticism, just to go by the prominent header.

A useful suggestion. But not a rule. Nor is a monastery the only possible source of training and/or asceticism.

And we do know if the accuracy is luck or skill, because a fighter can come up and tell you "I trained with the Warriors of Valhalla to improve my skill at arms," while someone who just rolls a lot of lucky 20's doesn't have that narrative.

If you mean that the creatures in the world know if a person has the game mechanic that lets him crit on 19-20, rubbish!

Working in casinos for over a quarter of a century is enough to show me that the objective chance of an occurrence is not forced to result in those occurrences happening in the proportions predicted. The fighter's player may roll a crit on 19-20, but what would those who observe the character in-game see? They would see that, sometimes, the guy gets a really good blow in. There is no way for those creatures to know any metagame reason for that more than usually effective blow; he could have rolled high damage without a crit, or low with a crit. He might be strong and have enchanted weapons. It might be a Divine Smite. He might have rolled 20 more times than usual.

There is no possible way the creatures in game know that a particular blow was a crit, or that the crit was caused by a nat 20 not a nat 19, deducing what his 'class' was as a game mechanic.

Now, you can certainly invent a special cadre of fighters whose 'crit on 19+' ability as fluffed as a particular technique, known only to them. But I can just as easily fluff the same mechanic as being....anything I can think of! Was it a destiny passed down through the generations? A totally different technique that looks nothing like yours, but results in the same mechanic? That's up to me, not you.

Similar to the above point - classes are descriptive, not prescriptive. They say "these are things that members of this class can do," not "these are the ONLY things that members of this class can do." I'm not interested in saying X is allowed and Y is forbidden, I'm interested in saying "tell me more and lets find a way to represent that mechanically."

The fundamental problem I have with each of the above character concepts is that they have no tethers to the rest of the game via the world or the other characters to help describe their differences. They all fail to ask why this happens. They are different, but they don't get specific or relevant about their differences. It's all empty color, calling a rabbit a smeerp, making a distinction without a real difference. So if a player wanted to play these PC's, I'd want to add flesh to these bare bones and make them distinct and meaningful in ways that anchor them mechanically and to the fiction.

If you write your PC's spellbook in hieroglyphs, why don't you use normal wizard sigils? Where did you learn these hieroglyphs? Who taught them to you? Did they use hieroglyphs in their spellbook? What languages do you know - are any of them hieroglyphs? Explain them to me, and explain what their context is. And maybe I'll ask you to use one of your language selections to invent or learn this special hieroglyphic magical language (which could be helpful in that enemy mages aren't likely to know it!), and connect an NPC or a dozen to this foreign wizardry tradition that you are now a part of. Mechanical connection (heiroglyphic language). World connection (a group of heiroglyph-using wizards).

If your PC acquired wild sorcery through a cursed tome, what's the story of that tome? Where did you find it? What happened to it afterwards? Is it unique, or do others exist? Did you fear your family reading it? Did you meet other wild mages when you transformed? How did you learn to control this weird tome curse? Explain it to me, explain what its context is. And maybe I'll say that there's an ancient empire of magic whose spells are becoming unstable as they age and decay and that book is still a part of your inventory, in fact it's a cursed item that you can't seem to get rid of, and there's several known wild sorcerers who come from this empire's rotting magic and they all have strange cursed items that are a part of them and are seeking ways to remove the curse and master the wild sorcery as much as possible in the meantime. Mechanical connection (cursed tome). World connection (sorcerers linked to the dying magic of a fallen empire).

If your PC learned their monastic tradition from a talking magpie, what's the story of that magpie? Is it some cursed monastic master who travels the world teaching children his nearly lost tradition? Is the martial arts you were schooled in similar to one of these other monasteries that exist, or is it something new? Are you the magpie's only student, or does its migratory route feature several stop-overs where it teaches young apprentices its spiritual ways? Did your family think you were mad when you, say, sat and meditated under a waterfall because a magpie told you to? Explain it to me, explain what its context is. And maybe I'll say there's a missing grand master of flowers from a distant monastery of the Open Fist who betrayed a witch and is training students to extract his vengeance. And when a strange-looking man from a distant land shows up at your garden with some bright orange pajamas for you to wear and insists that you come with him, your life of adventure began. Mechanical connection (Way of the Open Fist). World connection (other Way of the Open Fist monks).

Now that's what I'm talking about! Instead of "You're not allowed to play a character with monk levels unless he was raised in a monastery", talk to the player as in the examples above.

The rogue/monk I've mentioned before has a place in the world, membership of an organisation published in the PotA book, membership of a secret organisation within the first organisation (that I made up, using elements existing in Forgotten Realms lore), a backstory, goals....I even re-fluffed my shortsword as a Chinese Jian without changing any game mechanics (although I would never re-fluff it as a greatsword!). I have created a future path for her in terms of the order she takes her monk and rogue levels, with an in-game story as to why, and had her training resembling special forces training adjusted by the expectation of 'elves' and 'magic'.

To hear suggestions that, no matter how I connect my character to the world, I'm not allowed to play the Mechanics already approved, simply because I created my own fluff, and because the DM thinks the inhabitants of our imaginary worlds are aware of the game mechanics that govern them, is my objection.

 

[Shasarak]

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.

The one that I always remember was Luke who had very little training when young, a little from Obi-Wan and was half trained by Yoda before he rushed off to get an artificial hand.

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.

Even if your Diety is "too busy" most of them have intermediaries to deal with your every day busy work like training up a Cleric and supplying spells etc.

Personally I would not try and standardise Deity worship too much since most of them have wildly different Alignments, Personalities and Portfolios.

 

[Lanefan]

Nice list, but you missed one important branch of Ranger:

Rangers:
• Military order or unit charged with guarding frontier (e.g. Night’s Watch, Novgorodian Ushkuiniki)
• Orders or bands charged with guarding roads or ensuring the safety of pilgrims (e.g. Aragon’s Rangers)

Also add: Those forced into the lifestyle due to external circumstances (e.g. Robin Hood et al, other various exiles and outlaws)

By default, NPCs are statted up like monsters. So your basic guard or soldier is the guard statblock, and then you have some others that a bit stronger, such as the scout or thug or berserker. Then you get the pretty solid veteran, and the most powerful warrior type is the gladiator.

By default, that's how it is handled. There are no NPC specific classes or advancement schemes. So to make more specific NPCs you'd either build them like a monster, or build them like a PC (the DMG allows for both or either).

Personally, I handle it by giving a class and level equivalency to the various NPC monster statblocks. This helps me visualize where they are in the world in comparison to PCs, and it gives me a baseline for converting them to full PCs if needed. If Captain Suchforth (a veteran) gets adopted as someone's PC (or as an important NPC), he becomes a 5th-level fighter, because I've decided that veteran represents a non-elite equivalent of a 5th-level fighter.

The way you handle it is partway to what I'd also do...give all the "defaults" class and level equivalents, then throw out the defaults completely and just vary from the class-level equivalents. Something called a "guard" might be randomly 0th-2nd level, a "scout" might be 2nd-4th, and so on. That way, if Capt. Suchforth becomes someone's PC you're not arbitrarily pre-locked in to a level and class but instead have some flexibility; as a "veteran" he could be anything from a Fighter to a Paladin to a Ranger and anywhere from about 4th-8th level depending on what some combination of the player/you/the party determines is suitable.

In my games it's assumed non-commoner NPCs are statted up similar to PCs, only I don't actually determine any particular NPC's exact stats until and unless they become relevant to play.

Lan-"'gladiator' would not have been my first choice as a generic name for high-power NPC warrior types"-efan

 

[pemerton]

The answer to all these is not "I don't see how" but rather "it depends on how the DM views her world as to whether this fits in".

But I think that speaks to the point being made by those who say that classes don't, per se, bring detailed story elements with them.

The decision that being a monk means monasteries and dojos rather than magical animals at the bottom of the garden is not inherent to the game. It's a particular decision about a particular campaign setting. If a player wants one story approach and the GM wants another, the game text doesn't provide any sort of arbiter or solution here. It's a question of power over the shared fiction, not being true to or departing from the agreed game rules.

What's particularly odd, to me, is that B-grade martial arts stories are full of hokey and implausible origin stories for characters who, in D&D terms, are clearly monks. Insisting that all monks must train in monasteries is cutting the archetype off from its own origins outside the narrow confines of the D&D PHB.

 

[Thymm]

With my current party (only new players) we talked about this before we started playing (I made a few handouts and power point presentations for everyone before we started...)
I always describe what my character does or is and not what class he/she is and so do my players.

The Paladin might say he is a Paladin, but would have to explain WHAT a Paladin is, as the commom folk in my games doesn't know what is is. Mostly the say they are "Holy Knights of <insert gods>" or "A Knight of the Order <insert order>" or just call themself Knights.
The ranger, for example, just answers with "An Elf" as for her character, having those abilities (she's a ranger) is completely normal.
The Rogue always responds with "An adventurer" or something vague. And the dwarf will start and tell you the complete story of her past, if you ask her what she is (She's a fighter).

The important part here is, to talk to the players before you start, so everyone knows how you handle it in your games.

 

[empireofchaos]

Nice list, but you missed one important branch of Ranger:
Also add: Those forced into the lifestyle due to external circumstances (e.g. Robin Hood et al, other various exiles and outlaws)

The way I think of Robin Hood's rangerness is that he was the protector of the Sherwood Forest game preserve - not for the King (that was the Sheriff's job), but for the "common people" (it was more complicated than that , but for a D&D context, it will do).

I should note that the parallel discussion going on on the ranger's shtick is exactly the same discussion as here in miniature. The attempts at ranger redesign are all about making sure the ranger has its own specific fluff, which means that fluff of some kind is integral to classes.

Lastly, I thought of a last general observation on classes based on that list and variable specificity:

9) The higher level the character, the more (generally speaking) class as a heroic calling becomes important in defining her, and the more background as a mundane origin/profession recede.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Well that's a whole 'nuther kettle of worms. In fiction, especially fantasy, sci-fi, comic books and heroic genres, protagonists (and often antagonists) are very frequently exceptional, often in the sense of 'breaking the rules,' maybe just rules of society or of an organization, maybe laws of physics, very often going on to do something everyone thinks is 'impossible.' In RPGs, PCs are concepts inspired by genre protagonists, but they /must/ follow the rules - the rules of the game. When the rules of the game are also universal 'laws of physics' defining the reality of the setting, the PCs become quite ordinary, in contrast to the archetypes they're modeled on.

 

[Arial Black]

Well that's a whole 'nuther kettle of worms. In fiction, especially fantasy, sci-fi, comic books and heroic genres, protagonists (and often antagonists) are very frequently exceptional, often in the sense of 'breaking the rules,' maybe just rules of society or of an organization, maybe laws of physics, very often going on to do something everyone thinks is 'impossible.' In RPGs, PCs are concepts inspired by genre protagonists, but they /must/ follow the rules - the rules of the game. When the rules of the game are also universal 'laws of physics' defining the reality of the setting, the PCs become quite ordinary, in contrast to the archetypes they're modeled on.

We have to obey the rules, but fluff is not rules.

Also, I believe that PCs are intended to be extraordinary; they certainly were in 1E AD&D, where most people were zero level.

 

[Kite474]

Generally the only concrete classes we have in games are Paladins.

This is also mainly due to the fact that Paladins in our games are structured like Paladins in Pillars of Eternity i.e Pilgrim warriors in service to an ideal or code and their belief being so strong they get super powers from it. Which now that I think about it makes more sense of psionics.....

 

[Tony Vargas]

We have to obey the rules, but fluff is not rules.

That's back to the original question. Using classes a reskinnable packages of mechanics draws a line between the rules and the fluff and says feel free to change the latter. Using classes as in-fiction realities of the setting erases that line, and fluff has the force of rules. (Which is a lot less force in 5e rulings-not-rules than it was in 3.5 RaW.)