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

[steenan]

D&D is notoriously unclear with what various pieces of the game are intended to mean. No surprise we get discussions like this, with people interpreting the same things in completely different ways. The same matter as with hit points.

In general, I think that classes should reflect the setting - that is, they should have concrete meaning in the fiction (although they don't have to be seen as professions). If classes contain fluff, it's there for a reason. By treating them as purely mechanical, one discards the meaning and setting concepts.

It is also possible to take an opposite approach, if one does it consistently. For example, Strike has classes as purely abstract, combat-oriented constructs. The class chapter begins with a note about reskinning, which is not only allowed, but encouraged. The parts important in the fiction are backgrounds (who the character is in the setting) and kits (who the character is as a dramatic role).

 

[Greg K]

Sure, but then you're missing the ability to wield a katana in both hands, which is, by far, the most common way one is used.

Are you stating that a katana in each hand was most is by far the most common method or wielding a katana with both is most common?

 

[Shasarak]

From 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."

From the 5e Basic Player's Handbook v02 page 6: Your first step in playing an adventurer in the Dungeons & Dragons game is to imagine and create a character of your own. Your character is a combination of game statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You choose a race (such as human or halfling) and a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character. Once completed, your character serves as your representative in the game, your avatar in the Dungeons & Dragons world.

 

[pemerton]

I've brought up this example before, and its more a "3e" problem than anything, but a good example of what I mean. A guy joined my game for a session. We were moderate level (8th) and it was a college pickup game so nobody really minded one-shot PCs. He came in with an 8th level character he called a "Thief": Rog2/Bbn1/Ftr3/Guild Thief PrC2. Basically, he took the rage/fast movement from bbn, the 3 bonus feats from fighter, and the starting skills and evasion of a rogue to make his "thief" with little explanation on how he started as a rogue, learned how to become a barbarian, and then moved onto fighter, before ending up a "guild thief" again. He was essentially min-maxing by cherry picking the best of three classes and then spackling them together with "thief" as his archetype.

my problem still lies in places where the Barbarian Knight says "I'm a dashing, chivalric upper-class warrior with a oath of loyalty and a code of honor, but I also have a bad temper problem, so I'm a barbarian class." To me, it's trying to get the best of a paladin (nobility, wealth, and honor) with the mechanics of the barbarian (rage/toughness) without the downsides to either (a paladin's devotion to his oath/deity, a barbarian's "otherness").

To me, this makes it seem like your issue is with 3E-style multi-classing rather than how class mechanics and systems are interpreted within the fiction of the game.

Also, why is a barbarian's "otherness" a downside? Are you assuming that all campaigns are set in "civilised" lands?

Basically, when you start viewing classes as Lego blocks rather than archetypes, the archetypes becoming meaningless.

I don't understand this at all.

I am currently GMing a Burning Wheel game. BW is not a class-based system; PC building is via a Lifepath system.

The PCs in my game are an elven princess plus her naive human retainer, a young widow who can speak to spirits; a forest-dwelling sorcerer-assassin; a sorcerer whose player has modelled him loosely on the blue Istari; an elven "ronin" who is seeking redemption among the humans after his lord was killed by orcs; and a mad serpent-handling healer who roams the barren hills.

I think these are all pretty recognisable as fantasy types, and there is nothing there that would be out-of-place in any bog standard D&D game (an elven fighter with her lower-level druid retainer; an elven ranger; a wizard; a multi-class wizard/assassin or wizard/ranger; a druid with snake pets).

Classes are one way of packaging PC abilities so as to push them towards fantasy archetypes. Burning Wheel uses its LP system to achieve the same sort of outcome. Archetypes don't become meaningless just because a game system pushes towards them in one way rather than another.

I, for one, would appreciate that people stop dogmatically insisting on how the "rules" are to be properly interpreted, and how "rules" only include that which is quantitatively measurable, and not the qualitative aspects that are dismissed as "fluff".

At least over the last few pages where I have joined this thread, it is [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] who seems mostly to be using the word "fluff" - presumably not with dismissive intentions, given he agrees with you.

And rules aren't limited to the quantitative - the whole longsword discussion spun off a post that I made in which I pointed to the location of longswords on a weapon table, as part of a system for handling equipment in the game, as an example of a rules system that is quite different from (say) the flavour text that tells us that gnomes have large noses or that dwarves are gruff or that monks train in monasteries.

The rulebooks can, of course, assert that by the rules of the game, a monk must have trained in a monastery. But if that rule is not integrated into any larger game systems, then it is likely to be widely ignored. In 1st ed AD&D the connection between monks and monasteries wasn't just an assertion that a piece of flavour text must be adhered to: it was built into the advancement, follower and permissible wealth rules for monk characters.

These are real changes to the game systems. One consequence of them is that the social/background interpretation of many classes has been freed up, compared to what it was in early AD&D.

Which leads to the next obvious question: is this a good thing?

It's probably good in some ways - if you think about the AD&D DDG, which has Hiawatha as a paladin, it was always a bit hard to know how that fit with the elements of the AD&D paladin that pushed the character very hard into the "knight in shining armour" role.

I think Hiawatha as a paladin is probably easier to pull off in 5e (and maybe 3E; definitely not 4e) precisely because these aspects of the class system have been relaxed or abandoned.

On the other hand, the AD&D approach makes the default or "background" setting more immediate and vivid.

Personally I don't think it's a coincidence that 5e's class systems are flexible and don't mandate these sorts of social/background elements, but the class entries are written with all the default flavour text that has been noted in this thread. For those who want to pick up on that default flavour, it's there for them with no need to look any further. But for those who want to treat classes as mechanical and system frameworks to be clothed by a wider range of fiction, that is quite feasible also.

One common complaint about 4e, after all, was that it's class design pushed PCs into overly narrow fictional spaces (eg no bow wielding paladins - they're all knights in shining armour; fighters all as heavy foot; barbarians all as totem warriors; etc). Personally I find this a strength of 4e - the classes, the races, the monsters, the default campaign setting outlined across the 3 core books all work together to establish (what I find to be) a fictional situation that is very compelling for fantasy RPGing. But given how widespread the complaints were, I'm not surprised that 5e has been deliberately designed to permit more flexibility, and reduce at various key points the interdependence of class systems and default flavour text.

 

[pemerton]

D&D is notoriously unclear with what various pieces of the game are intended to mean.

Initially I think this was because, as a very early example of RPG publishing, there wasn't a robust sense of what the range of meanings might be, and why that would matter, and how it might be described.

I think that by now, though, this ambiguity has been a way of maintaining appeal to a wide range of at least somewhat contradictory tastes. Especially in 5e, which is at least in part a reaction to 4e, probably the least ambiguous edition of D&D in respect of these key elements of the system.

In general, I think that classes should reflect the setting - that is, they should have concrete meaning in the fiction (although they don't have to be seen as professions). If classes contain fluff, it's there for a reason. By treating them as purely mechanical, one discards the meaning and setting concepts.

For me personally, here and now, with a wealth of RPG options on my shelves and at least passing familiarity with more systems than I am ever going to get the opportunity to play in a serious fashion, that makes sense.

And it's equally true for Lifepath as for Classed games: the PC generation tables in Classic Traveller, for instance, or the LPs in Burning Wheel, very strongly imply a particular setting that other elements of the game can then build upon,.

But I don't think that such an approach can be assumed to be the default for D&D, which (for better or worse) presents itself as a fantasy RPG for everyone, flexible enough to cover a wide range of settings and possible stories. And which, probably more than any other RPG system, is played by players who are one-system-only people.

For 5e, which is deliberately being light on new classes and PC-side mechanical expansion in general, I think that is even more the case. The likelihood of getting a "martial artist trained by a talking animal" class published by WotC is pretty close to nil. (Contrast AD&D, with all those wacky classes in Dragon; or 3E, where every second splatbook seemed to have some new class or other.) So if I want to include that sort of character in my 5e game I'm going to have to use the monk to build it, even if that means ignoring the flavour text about monasteries.

 

[Greg K]

From the 5e Basic Player's Handbook v02 page 6: Your first step in playing an adventurer in the Dungeons & Dragons game is to imagine and create a character of your own. Your character is a combination of game statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You choose a race (such as human or halfling) and a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character. Once completed, your character serves as your representative in the game, your avatar in the Dungeons & Dragons world.

Sorry, but the portion that I quoted trumps yours. You are told to talk to the DM to find out about their setting, house rules, and campaign before making your character. The default assumption is that the DM and not the player is the final authority on what is appropriate. That means the race and class need to exist in his or her setting. It is the DM that determines if your backstory is plausible within the setting/campaign. He or she gets to determine which mechanics (e.g. class., class variant, and/or subclass) are appropriate to represent an archetype or concept. He or she can even limit certain classes, class variant, and or subclasses to specific cultures and/or organizations as part of the setting. By establishing cultures, the DM can limit your starting choice of weapons, armor and backgrounds. They can even limit your choice of personality (e.g., no evil characters). All of that stuff is part of the setting and/or campaign You may not like it, but you quoted the passage. - the DM is the final authority on the setting and campaign- even one that is published.

Of course, you always have the choice to vote with your feet if you don't like the DM's choices for the setting and campaign. A player should not participate in a campaign or other activity that they don't feel is fun. Being an adult and responsible for one's own fun by not participating is a good power to have. I have done it on a few occasions. It is not mean the DM or other players have done anything wrong, because they are having fun. It means that my taste and theirs are not aligned and that is ok- it is a diverse world.

 

[Greg K]

Regarding [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION], if you have not visited the house rule thread, he has been converting the 2e Complete Handbook kits to 5e. He has converted the Complete Fighter's Handbook, Complete Thief's Handbook, Complete Priest's Handbook, and Complete Wizard's Handbook. With each book conversion, he has also includes new equipment (e.g., bolos, cestus, lasso), refluffed equipment (e.g., nunchaku = flail, shuriken=dart), a few new feats and other options. He also includes a sample build using background, class, starting skills, starting equipment and, on occasion a starting feat. Occasionally, his sample builds do use a different class from the class of the book he is converting. It is good stuff and worth a look.

 

[Arial Black]

Sorry, but the portion that I quoted trumps yours. You are told to talk to the DM to find out about their setting, house rules, and campaign before making your character. The default assumption is that the DM and not the player is the final authority on what is appropriate. That means the race and class need to exist in his or her setting.

Player: Hey, DM, do wood elves exist in your world? Can I play one? Have you added any restrictions as to what class/background they can be?

DM: Yes, you can play a wood elf, and they can have any class and background.

Player: So, all 11 classes are available for me to play? All their paths? All backgrounds?

DM: Yes, yes and yes. You can even tweak your background in any way you want within the parameters set in the background section of the PHB. You can even create your own from scratch, but I'll need to approve it if you do.

Player: Do you allow multiclassing and feats?

DM: Yes to both.

Player: Okay, my PC is a female wood elf rogue 1/monk 2 (you said we'd be starting at level 3). She has the 'spy' variant of the 'criminal' background. Is that all okay?

DM: Solid.

Player: Her backstory is...*several pages worth of detailed story, intertwining published lore, adventure hooks specific to this adventure, and stuff I made up that doesn't contradict any of the other sources*...and she was taught her various abilities by various individuals over 5 decades or so.

DM: Brilliant! I applaud the effort you've gone to. Er...which monastery did she attend?

Player: Monastery? In the High Forest, the trees are our monastery. We live a disciplined, ascetic lifestyle when training to be Lachrymae Shaverash!

DM: Yeah, very poetic, but which monastery?

Player: There was no actual monastery; the High Forest isn't famous for its buildings.

DM: How dare you come to my table with such a fluffless, Frankenstein creation! Get out of my house!

 

[Mephista]

DM: Brilliant! I applaud the effort you've gone to. Er...which monastery did she attend?

Player: Monastery? In the High Forest, the trees are our monastery. We live a disciplined, ascetic lifestyle when training to be Lachrymae Shaverash!

DM: Yeah, very poetic, but which monastery?

And this is how that little story should end.

Player: I just said it - it was part of the elven High Forest city, an entire monastic organization. Wood elves don't build monestaries or cities in the same way that humans do, so things are slightly different.

DM: Huh. I was kind of stuck on human monastaries, but I guess that different races would have different kinds of monks.
-or-
DM: Only human style monestaries exist, so you'd need to train with one of them. Sorry, I guess I should have mentioned that earlier when you asked. My mistake.


Monestaries are important to the background of a monk character, but you -did- mention one in the background already. You just suddenly turned the GM into someone that refused to think of it as a monestary for some reason. Not all monestaries have to be something out of Rokugan.

 

[Arial Black]

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.)

We are discussing the rules in the PHB, not the houserules of one game. We cannot have a meaningful rules discussion if you include your own houserules and expect us to understand these as if they were PHB rules.

In the actual rules, fluff has absolutely no authority from the rules. A DM can certainly institute a houserule to say that the game mechanic of 'class' is knowable by the creatures in the game, but he cannot come to this debate and claim that the 5E rules say the same thing.

If the 'class' game mechanic is knowable by creatures in-game, then any creature's claim to be a certain class must be testable and falsifiable by those creatures, and those creatures still do not know about any other game mechanics, such as hit points or 'natural 20s'.

My PC claims to be a 'fighter'. How can the creatures in the game test that? He can take two actions in one round, once per short rest? They don't know about 'actions', 'rounds', or 'short rests' as game mechanics. They could certainly say that they want a short rest, but that could mean anything from 30 seconds to a few days.

Fighting Style? They can understand the idea, but they know nothing about '+1 to AC while wearing armour'. There could be some fluff which explains the crunch of a particular style, but there could be many fluff versions of the same game mechanic.

They get an extra feat at 6th level? Really? Do I even have to debunk that?

The creatures in the game can observe what creatures do, but cannot know the game mechanics behind them. What does a 'critical hit' look like to them? A hit that does 12 damage? They cannot know the game mechanics. Okay, a hit that does a lot of damage? How would that look any different than any other way to do a lot of damage? Fighters crit on 19 and 20? You might expect a fighter to do twice as many crits, but when observing any particular hit, they cannot know if it was caused by rolling a 19 or rolling a 20, or that a particular non-fighter rolls a lot of 20s.

There is no way for them to observe the game mechanic of 'class', so there can be no direct mapping of game stats to observable events. Any conceit that the creatures 'know' about 'class' becomes fluff. They cannot know if the guy who claims he is a fighter is a Fighter in game mechanics. 'Paladin' as an in-game word cannot be tied to the game mechanic 'class', and a set of 'paladins' may be made up of individuals whose game stats may be paladins, multiclass paladins, multiclass non-paladins and non-paladins who have a similar combination of feats, abilities, magic, and so on.

The idea that creatures in the game can say to my elven spy that she's "not a real monk" is absurd! She's never claimed to be one! If she had, they cannot observe what she does and deduce that she does or doesn't have the 'correct' game mechanics! They cannot observe her punching someone twice and conclude that she must have learned to do that in a monastery, since any experienced warrior can do that if they have the Extra Attack class ability, and there's no way for an in-game observer to tell the difference, and even that is making the absurd assumption that the observer knows what a 'combat round' is!

The game rules itself do not make the game mechanic of 'class' knowable in-game, and although a DM might want to add such a houserule, it would be an absurd idea once you think it through.