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

[Remathilis]

If only we had some person who's role was to answer that question with a campaign-specific answer satisfactory to the players. Or even to ignore the result of a random treasure roll, choose not to include the item or to create a story-specific exception.

So again, the answer is...

But of course you are going to tell me how you've home-brewed this or make some claim about some twisting that makes it absolutely impossible to tell.

Thanks for proving the point.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, one does have to wonder why Thomas the Troubadour, a human arcane trickster with the entertainer background, can't use a Doss lute, or why Grungar the Knight of Heironeous can't attune to a holy avenger. Or even why a Talisman of Pure Good only works for people who identify abstractly as "Good". I guess that Doss lute can only attune to very unique specific individuals and its just bad luck Thomas wasn't one of them.

This was always an entire area of design in 'classic' D&D that I was particularly unfond of. The arbitrary "here's a restriction placed on your story for entirely mechanical reasons that is absolute and arbitrary." I mean, its one thing to say "there are no dwarves who cast spells, so you can't play a dwarven wizard." OK, that's understandable, there's a rule, dwarf is a narrative element of the game, characters ARE dwarves and known to be so. 'Bard' simply cannot be such a narrative element, as its perfectly feasible for some character to have the ordinary mundane trappings of a bard. It may be reasonable that the Doss Lute can only be wielded by "the greatest musician in the land" and Thomas isn't that guy, but then THAT should be the rule, not "barred from this class."

I'd note the obvious, 4e, which explicitly got rid of the concept of classed NPCs, also got rid of all rules of this type. There's no such thing as a magic item that "can only be used by an X." Certainly a 4e Rogue with the Wizard's Apprentice theme and Entertainer background won't get a lot of mileage out of a Doss Lute, but there's no rule says they can't use it, and if they pick up the right feat they could cast one of their limited supply of theme-derived spells using it as an implement.

Personally, I just think that my D&D world, which I've run adventures in for decades, is a lot richer in its variety than if I filled it with classed NPCs like classes were some rule of physics. As for an NPC that wants to use the Doss Lute in 4e? You just write an exception for that statblock, its not really important. I did the same thing for such items in the old days, monsters can 'just use them' subject to some DM judgement that its basically appropriate.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, maybe 6th edition will make class-based magic items as relevant as the Know Alignment spells, but until then we have staffs of the woodlands, rods of the pact keeper, holy avengers, tomes of the silent tongue, necklaces of prayer beads, instruments of the bard, and a dozen wands and staffs that say class is a thing in the world. (While they're at it, they can get rid of the Books, Talismans, and Weapons that require certain alignments as well, since those are still a thing in the world too.)

 

[Mephista]

(While they're at it, they can get rid of the Books, Talismans, and Weapons that require certain alignments as well, since those are still a thing in the world too.)

To be fair, there are several instances of alignment detection in the game. Raise dead lets a soul know what the alignment of their resurrector is, there's monsters that can get it,visiting the outer planes (especially dissonace rules), etc. Alignment's primary use, however, is for getting a rough idea of a person's personality, which is much more flexible than in the past.

Alignment was never completely removed from 5e, it was just removed as a method of enforcing classes and justifying genocidal attitudes with the paladin.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, maybe 6th edition will make class-based magic items as relevant as the Know Alignment spells, but until then we have staffs of the woodlands, rods of the pact keeper, holy avengers, tomes of the silent tongue, necklaces of prayer beads, instruments of the bard, and a dozen wands and staffs that say class is a thing in the world. (While they're at it, they can get rid of the Books, Talismans, and Weapons that require certain alignments as well, since those are still a thing in the world too.)

Why? Do I have to put them into my game, or are the there for me, as DM, to provide as treasure if I choose? And I may very well choose, because it fits the narrative and I have a character that's using the mechanics necessary. Just because those are there and reference the mechanical classes doesn't mean that they have bound fiction in game.

 

[Remathilis]

Still, it creates an odd place where a hypothetical monk-only item (sandals of the tiger step, let's call them) works for your Bourne superspy but not for Mouse's raging monastic guard.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Still, it creates an odd place where a hypothetical monk-only item (sandals of the tiger step, let's call them) works for your Bourne superspy but not for Mouse's raging monastic guard.

Goodness, an odd place in the D&D oeuvre?

 

[Mephista]

Classes being a definite thing ing-game is the default of the D&D setting. Individual tables can easily do away with it. What is being argued about here, anyways?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Classes being a definite thing ing-game is the default of the D&D setting. Individual tables can easily do away with it. What is being argued about here, anyways?

Are they? I can hew exactly to the fluff in every location and still not come to the conclusion that classes are a known and accepted thing inside the fiction. I'll grant you that is seems to imply that, but given that no one but the PCs have to use classes, it's hard to say that the fiction must exist. There could be, at any given time, only the members of the party that have classes in the entire game world, and that would still fit the fluff in the game.

 

[Remathilis]

Are they? I can hew exactly to the fluff in every location and still not come to the conclusion that classes are a known and accepted thing inside the fiction. I'll grant you that is seems to imply that, but given that no one but the PCs have to use classes, it's hard to say that the fiction must exist. There could be, at any given time, only the members of the party that have classes in the entire game world, and that would still fit the fluff in the game.

NPCs are a bit of a fuzzy spot. To me, there are two types of NPCs: those who emulate a core class, and those who are generic people.

For example, the archmage is clearly a wizard simplified with the fiddly bits (like subclass) removed. The same could be said of the mage, assassin, spy, druid, priest, or berserker; they are simplified versions of wizards, clerics, druids, or rogues and can represent those classes without needing all the bells and whistles. You can also use the class rules to build NPCs; lots of NPCs in ToD have class features like action surge or cunning action.

Of course, not all NPCs are classed as fighters or rogues, which is why commoner, guard, or bandit exist. But there is nothing that says PCs and only PCs use the classes.