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

[Mephista]

In the actual rules, fluff has absolutely no authority from the rules.

The story has as much authority as an ability that says "Calculate your AC as 10+DEX+CHA." Changing that story is the houserule in this case, even if its a common ruling to make. And that's what 5e is all about - individual rulings.

You are attempting to divide the story from all the mechanics in the game. That's not how the game is meant to be played. If you have fun changing things that way, more power to you. But you cannot argue that classes don't have story built into their numbers and levels. They do. Its a part of each class.

Yes, people are aware of terms like "monk" and "paladin" in game. Those NPCs who study the matter know that paladins come with innate auras and smites that come from an Oath and training. Wizard, Warlock, and Sorcerer is a well known divide of different magic styles - there's even a rivalry between the three styles that shows up in-game. People talk about visiting nature druids and clerics of the gods in novels and adventure modules. So, you can't say that people are unaware of classes, either. They are. The in game people might not know about exact levels, but certainly they rank spellcasting by level (1 to 9) and ranking martial ability is quite common even in the real world - its simply not as exact. Mechanics are an abstraction, after all.


There is a middle ground here. Where we have the actual story still part of the class, and yet flexibility within it. Its not an either-or situation. There is middle ground.

 

[Greg K]

Personally. I think you are disingenuous and not arguing in good faith- especially, how you wrote this beautiful background and then way you worded the last line.

It probably went more like this

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.

Then, without questioning the DM about the setting and cultures, you went off and wrote your elaborate backstory. Proudly, you handed him what you thought was a brilliant masterpiece that any DM should accept. You presented it to the DM and he said, "This is a nice background, but it doesn't fit the campaign and cultures". Since you stated in a prior post that DMs have to accept your background, because you used races, classes, and other options available in the campaign and, therefore, you have the right to determine the fluff, you probably got upset and called him a jerk.

See,it can be played both ways and is not a good place to start an argument (as in a discussion).

Now, that aside, let us assume that everything you stated was above board except the last line which seems intentionally designed to be prejudicial. You asked the DM about races, classes, feats, classes and multi-classing. That is common. It is also a point at which many players go off and make a character. Neither the player nor the DM brought up the limits on the setting or the limits on the player. That would make them both wrong and to blame ( I personally, avoid this. The player gets a 1-2 page handout with the overviews of the cultures including classes,variants, and subclasses that are appropriate. Then, there are similar handouts for each culture that go into a little more indepth (the player can read it or we can talk about it covering the points). Once the player finds a culture that they like, we can start talking about their character concept and background and work from there to make something that we can agree on (hopefully)). However, the DM told you to make a background without real guidance.

Sent off by the DM, you built a multi-page backstory in which "You intertwined published lore, adventure hooks that don't contradict published lore, adventure hooks specific to this adventure" and stuff you made up that didn't contradict published lore. You never confirmed limits for inventing new stuff and the DM didn't give you any guidelines (Personally, if I were the DM, there would again be plenty of discussion going on, but the DM gave you free rein). The DM gave free rein and liked your backstory. That is cool.

Now, we get to the part of the monastery- In my opinion, you both are at fault for not communicating earlier. The DM is at fault for sending you off without more discussion on acceptable limits or any other guideline. You were at fault for creating an organization (and possibly a specific culture of wood elves) for the campaign without talking to the DM). Personally, I put much more of the blame on the DM for giving free rein and sending you off to make a character without any real guidelines and pretty much a blank state. However, it is still your responsibility, in my opinion, to communicate with the DM if you are going to do this (Kids this is why it is important for the player and DM to communicate *throughout* the character generation process. It keeps players and DMs on the same page!)

Now as for your prejudicial last line. I doubt that happens. Either you overstepped your bounds and created a new organization and the DM does not approve and says so (again, he or she is at least partially to blame) or your background is so wonderful that they a) allow your monastery; or b) the DM says to include some monastery incorporating the natural elements. Either way, it is the DM's call even if I feel the DM is at least partially or shoulders the majority of the blame (a setting/campaign issue has priority as players are told to talk to their DM). You as a player then have the choice to a) make the adjustment, b) choose to play something different, or c) walk. However, if you insist that you put all that work and are playing the character without making the change, then yes the DM has the right to say, "Sorry, you are no longer welcome" (personally, I think they are wrong because they bear a large part of the responsibility by not communicating, but it is his or her campaign and final decision).

 

[Shasarak]

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.

The thing that I dont understand is that if you are that deep into house-ruling territory, then why do you even care what the official rules say?

Because they do not say for the Player to ask the DM first.

 

[Greg K]

T
Because they do not say for the Player to ask the DM first.

At this point, I think you didn't actually read the basic rules, the page and quote that I sited, or you are being deliberately obtuse.
From the Basic DND players book p3 (right before the section: Using These Rules"), there is a paragraph discussing the various settings. Then again, I quote:
" 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."

The above come well before the section on creating a character. So, you are supposed to talk with your DM about the setting and house rules that will affect your play of the game. The DM trumps any published setting and is ultimate authority over the campaign. As such, their decisions about the setting and campaign can limit/shape player choices, because that can affect what classes are available, races are available, the cultures of the races. Aspects of cultures can affect choices of backgrounds, classes, subclasses, starting equipment, etc of its members including limiting classes to specific cultures or organizations with them.

 

[Remathilis]

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

Ok, so you're an elf who lives a disciplined, ascetic lifestyle, learned martials arts from several tutors, and can harness ki to create magical effects, but she's NOT a monk how?

To me, this is just "I'm totally a monk, but I'm not a shaolin ripoff". You're still a monk. Your school of martial arts is a touch different, but you're still embracing dang near every trope of a monk. All your missing is the "seeking improvement/enlightenment" and you're there. Sure, you dirty it up with a bit of roguish training (mixing the styles of martial arts perfection with dirty street fighting, and I'd ask how you learned your rogue skills) but whether you realized it or not, you've embraced the very monk tropes you were adamant you were avoiding.

 

[Shasarak]

At this point, I think you didn't actually read the basic rules, the page and quote that I sited, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

If you want to talk about character creation then which part of the rules do you read?

Why would you think it was obtuse to suggest reading the Character Creation rules?

 

[empireofchaos]

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.

In both versions of the (less-than-aptly named) Oriental Adventures, the katana is statted differently than the longsword. And the scimitar and its permutations always are, also. Although there is no katana yet in the current rules, precedent seems to suggest that it will not qualify as simply a re-imagining of the longsword. Different stats for weapons, different stats for what should be different classes.

Yeah, other bladed weapons vs laser sword that cuts through anything and a gas powered rotary axe. I really don't see how those things are remotely close, but I'll accept that you think swapping a longsword for a katana is the same as longsword for chainsaw. I don't have any issues, personally, as I wouldn't even consider a fluff rewrite from longsword to laser sword or chainsaw.

Well, OK, the light sabre and chainsaw as longsword was always a bit of hyperbole, but the main point was always about the flavor. Surely there have been sci-fi crossovers as precedents, so the question of why my character can't have a light sabre statted as a longsword might come up. I myself have played in a D&D game (a very long time ago, granted) in which an NPC wielded a gas-powered chainsaw. Unsurprisingly, the NPC was a barbarian. Because, why not? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre - they were barbarians who raged, weren't they? It wasn't a bad game, actually, but not something I personally would allow. Any more than I would allow katanas or tulwars (the later without prior discussion, anyway) into a Viking game.

I think I've been very clear that I don't equate profession with class, so... what? Was this meant to be a telling point against or something?

Well, dunno - you read "class is more than a profession - it is a calling" as meaning "class is not a profession"; I read it as saying "it is a profession - and then some".

Sure, and I think I'm within those rules. Class defines what you can do, not what you call yourself, or how you learned how to do those things, or to what ends you use those abilities. So, yeah, class is your calling, as it defines your abilities, but I don't see the need for everyone having the same class to have the exact same calling. Nor is such a thing a recognizable fiction in my games.

I was hoping we had put semantics to rest. It's not whether you call yourself monk, bhikku, or whatever else. It's about recognizing some sort of a collectivity, and whether it is a profession in the way we think of it now, or closer to a group ethos grounded in text, teaching, divinity, etc. is situational. It's entirely conceivable that some parts of the collectivity disapprove of the ends to which other parts put their powers. But that doesn't mean they don't recognize them. Having them completely unrelated is kind of like "my calling is to be a shoemaker: I make and fix shoes" and "my calling is a cobbler: I make peach cobblers".

It provides skills and a unique ability that is useful to your career. It's not a 'that's what you did and it has no bearing anymore.' Also, solider is a profession, noble is definitely a vocation, acolyte is as well. I've only gotten upset with the arguments that I should play a different game if I don't have classes with a pre-defined fiction in my game. If you can get people to stop doing that, I'll be just fine, thanks! And I certainly haven't yet told you that you can't use fluff however you want. I'm happy for you to use it however you want. I've stuck to saying how I use it, and getting a mite tired of being told I should play a different game for doing so. If you'd like to be free to associate fluff with crunch (to abuse terms), great! I support that! I think it's swell. I do it differently, and would appreciate the same attitude towards my choices as I have towards yours.

Soldier is a profession, acolyte is a vocation, don't really agree on noble. But a lot of backgrounds are not - outlander, urchin, hermit, folk hero (peasant, really). In any event, if the backgrounds have their own calling, that's not an argument against class not having one.

I never said background has no bearing. I said class becomes increasingly important, and background increasingly recedes - hardly the same thing. I think background is one of the best additions to the current system. But I don't agree that it obviates the need for class. Look at the arguments made wrt particular classes: we don't need the ranger anymore, he can just be a fighter with outlander background, and Survival, Animal Handling, etc. skills. I'm sure you've heard these, too. Well, that can really be extended to most other classes. Clerics with armor, weapons and spells? Make them into paladins, or land druids wit a specialty in healing, and an armor feat! And barbarians? Fighters with some sort of rage feat. So I don't see people telling you how to run your game - I see people worrying that these sentiments will become so pervasive that class begins to recede or disappear for those of us who want it in, especially those who want it in as a tangible thing.

 

[empireofchaos]

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.

I think you'll find that other people were saying "fluff isn't rules" quite frequently.

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.

That's a worthwhile point. There is, of course, the optional "training to level up" rule, which, if followed, would mean that while training, you are hobnobbing with others of your class, which would make class a tangible reality. The other aspects, such as institutionalization and wealth should probably have been inserted as optional rules as well (followers are pretty difficult to make rules about, even for those who like their classes tangible, I think). There are some bounding rules that are integrated - Thieves' Cant (already discussed here - some people think it shouldn't have been revived - I like it, I think it does serve to define the rogue, to an extent), Paladin's Oaths and Warlock Pacts (though the mechanisms of enforcement are left loose, or at least looser than before). So it probably is true that the people who like classes to mean something are bringing a more old-school sensibility - but I just don't see how making those sorts of choices is detrimental to players' creativity. Attracting the old schoolers back is one of the main factors that's made 5e a success.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Exactly what [MENTION=6788732]cbwjm[/MENTION] said.

What it comes down to is this. Nobody's saying the archetypes aren't vital. Nobody's saying they should be thrown out. (Heck, anybody's who's read my novels knows that I enjoy taking tropes and then doing something different with them, rather than ignoring them completely.)

I--and I believe I can speak for many who share my preference, so I'll also go with "we"--are simply treating the archetypes as defaults, starting points, and inspirations. They are the foundation of the game, but they aren't the limits of it.

To us, anyway.

 

[n00b f00]

There's a ton of angles to look at this from but basically, something in between. There are definitely professions directly, name included to many of the classes. It's often but not always true for a number or reasons. Such as Throm Woodblast Paladin of the Sun Order, he smites fools, he heals fools. He's a Paladin by title and mechanics. But what if his friend Sasha Carpia Paladin of the Sun Order, tracks fools to their lairs and shoots them with magic arrows, because she was mechanically(maybe in story as well) a ranger. When someone asked them if they were Paladins IC, they'd say yes, that being a rank in their group. Maybe there is an understanding that people with Paladin powers are a different sort of Paladin, and maybe they'd respect that distinction, or maybe they'd have another name like Templar.

If two soldiers in leather with shields and rapiers are cutting a swath through a pack of bandits, one is a rogue and one is a fighter. Obviously they have different fighting styles. But while an onlooker would recognize that, that doesn't mean they'd know they were different classes. They couldn't make assumptions about which of them could pick locks from how they handled a blade.

The discussion about entirely refluffing characters is related but not the main point of the topic(I'm personally pretty permissive, long as everyone like it, why not). I'd say that people IC notice certain styles of warriors, professions, and magic users typically tend to be from certain schools, organisations, or backgrounds. There's a strong chance they'll understand what you mean if you say you're a Paladin, but a fighter is unlikely to introduce himself as a fighter. He might introduce himself as a veteran soldier of a thousand battles, but he likely wouldn't say I'm a fighter, and he certainly wouldn't say he's a lvl 9 fighter. Class and levels being abstractions that serve to make things clear for a game that are IRL oftentimes hazy.

An NPC asking what type of magic user you are after you drop fireballs, and maybe understanding if educated is cool. Them knowing you have a class, after seeing you doing something badass is a bit silly(though not without merit considering your table). Class has a lot of meaning, but it's flexible and usually not a metaphysical fact.