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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

No, you're absolutely right, there is nothing that says that PCs and only PCs use the classes. But there's also nothing that says the inverse. It's up to the DM, which says, to me, that classes as game fiction exist exactly as much as DMs want them to. Even if you ignore refluffing.

 

[Mephista]

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.

The difference between Psionics, Pact Magic, and Wizardry is a well known, and oft refrenced thing in the Brimstone Angels series of novels, the Elminster line, and the Drizz't line. The difference between "Arcane" and "Divine" magic is also well known and often discussed in lore. In the Elminster stories, one of the Chosen of Mystra is a bard, another was a sorcerer, and there's been talk about the difference of their magic from Elminster's wizardry. The rivalry between Wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks is another in game bit of fiction that's talked about in character. The differences between druidic and clerical magic was commented upon in one of the Sundering novels.

The difference between the major spellcasting classes is a firmly established part of the lore of the game, known and referenced by learned characters. That's seven of the thirteen known classes (even if one hasn't been formally made yet) that have a definitive in character reference. Clerics versus paladins, and rangers versus druids, are a bit more difficult, since these two classes are described, lore wise, as using the same magic as clerics and druids, pulled from the same sources. However, there are still definitive traits that make in game distinctions. Dhal, again from the Brimstone Angels series, is a fallen paladin, and several mentions of unique paladin traits have been mentioned in the novel, and thus part of lore. The same with rangers. Monks are a bit different than other classes, but their manipulation of life energy, from a lore perspective, is unique among magical effects, and has been noted upon several times in FR lore.

That's all but three classes that are specifically known about with observable difference in the default D&D setting, and all that is off the top of my head. I'd have to dig for more, but I have a more than half remembered ideas of where to look for differences between lore-bsaed, in FR known separation between barbarian training and Fighter, if not called by those names. Can't recall references between rogue and fighter, but I'm sure if I looked I could find it.


So, yes. The default lore pushes classes being a known, in character difference as part of the established setting. Sorry, but that's not really up to debate.

 

[Remathilis]

So, yes. The default lore pushes classes being a known, in character difference as part of the established setting. Sorry, but that's not really up to debate.

If a DM wants to rule otherwise, that is fine for his table. To me, that's on par with removing alignment, a fine houserule if everyone agrees.

However, the debate was whether in the default game a PC is aware of his class and if he's bound to the fluff to the class. To that, the first is a resounding yes and the second is a "most of the time".

 

[Ovinomancer]

The difference between Psionics, Pact Magic, and Wizardry is a well known, and oft refrenced thing in the Brimstone Angels series of novels, the Elminster line, and the Drizz't line. The difference between "Arcane" and "Divine" magic is also well known and often discussed in lore. In the Elminster stories, one of the Chosen of Mystra is a bard, another was a sorcerer, and there's been talk about the difference of their magic from Elminster's wizardry. The rivalry between Wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks is another in game bit of fiction that's talked about in character. The differences between druidic and clerical magic was commented upon in one of the Sundering novels.

The difference between the major spellcasting classes is a firmly established part of the lore of the game, known and referenced by learned characters. That's seven of the thirteen known classes (even if one hasn't been formally made yet) that have a definitive in character reference. Clerics versus paladins, and rangers versus druids, are a bit more difficult, since these two classes are described, lore wise, as using the same magic as clerics and druids, pulled from the same sources. However, there are still definitive traits that make in game distinctions. Dhal, again from the Brimstone Angels series, is a fallen paladin, and several mentions of unique paladin traits have been mentioned in the novel, and thus part of lore. The same with rangers. Monks are a bit different than other classes, but their manipulation of life energy, from a lore perspective, is unique among magical effects, and has been noted upon several times in FR lore.

That's all but three classes that are specifically known about with observable difference in the default D&D setting, and all that is off the top of my head. I'd have to dig for more, but I have a more than half remembered ideas of where to look for differences between lore-bsaed, in FR known separation between barbarian training and Fighter, if not called by those names. Can't recall references between rogue and fighter, but I'm sure if I looked I could find it.


So, yes. The default lore pushes classes being a known, in character difference as part of the established setting. Sorry, but that's not really up to debate.

You're talking about fiction series, not game rules. The game itself doesn't require that classes are known in fiction, but it certainly allows for that. That's my entire point: you can do it and be right, and you can not do it and still be right. The game doesn't require it either way.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If a DM wants to rule otherwise, that is fine for his table. To me, that's on par with removing alignment, a fine houserule if everyone agrees.

I might agree with you if there were detect class spells, but there aren't. You aren't removing anything if you say that class isn't recognized inside the fiction -- class is still there, it hasn't gone anywhere. You're just saying that the fictional world the game models doesn't have class as an understood thing. So it's not like removing alignment at all.

However, the debate was whether in the default game a PC is aware of his class and if he's bound to the fluff to the class. To that, the first is a resounding yes and the second is a "most of the time".

And I'd say that, in your settings, that's perfectly valid. But the game doesn't require that outcome.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.)

I just don't see how this demonstrates that class exists as a concrete thing in the game. PCs have classes assigned by the players so there can be some rules to let them know what they get as they level up. Monsters and NPCs don't really level or need such rules, and the DM can give them whatever items he pleases. So yes, a 'holy avenger' might not work for your fighter, but the reason isn't "because he's a paladin", the reason is "because he's not dedicated enough to righteousness" (or whatever). The fighter vs paladin distinction is just a way of SIGNALLING that, the player is literally saying "my character isn't utterly dedicated to his moral/ethical system above all else", otherwise he WOULD be a paladin. If paladin isn't appropriate (because he's dedicated to something else, like evil) then a holy avenger SHOULDN'T work for him either. IMHO class is a flag that the players use to tell themselves and the DM and the rules what their PC is about and provide a simple hook that lets there be rules that will provide for that.

Beyond that, the items provided in the books are just a sampling of what is possible in the game world. There may well be 'swords of law' or whatever that work perfectly well for a highly lawful good fighter. They're just not holy avengers.

 

[empireofchaos]

No, you're absolutely right, there is nothing that says that PCs and only PCs use the classes. But there's also nothing that says the inverse. It's up to the DM, which says, to me, that classes as game fiction exist exactly as much as DMs want them to. Even if you ignore refluffing.

"NPC supporting characters are easier to play if you limit their class options. Good candidates for supporting characters include a cleric with the Life domain, a fighter with the Champion archetype, a rogue with the Thief archetype, and a wizard specializing in Evocation". (DMG, p.93). So, not an enforceable rule, but a pretty clear indication that the default assumption is that class is for NPCs, too. And not only class, but specific archetype.

The "Villainous Class Options" section a few pages later (96-97) strongly suggests that there are even class archetypes (Death Domain, Oathbreaker Paladin) that are primarily for NPC characters.

 

[Mephista]

You're talking about fiction series, not game rules.

I'm talking about the default setting, which is Forgotten Realms. Everything I said is an inarguable fact of the FR lore. Once you move away from FR, its no longer the default setting.

If you want to argue that FR isn't the default setting, then I'm going to call that a semantics argument over the word "default." FR is what -I- mean by the word default. If you mean something else, then we're talking about different things. Its not quite a house rule, since every home is assumed to run their own version of the game, and its within the right of every GM to run games as they see fit. But I still consider FR, with all its official lore without variation (which includes novels, books, and video games) to be the default setting.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm talking about the default setting, which is Forgotten Realms. Everything I said is an inarguable fact of the FR lore. Once you move away from FR, its no longer the default setting.

If you want to argue that FR isn't the default setting, then I'm going to call that a semantics argument over the word "default." FR is what -I- mean by the word default. If you mean something else, then we're talking about different things. Its not quite a house rule, since every home is assumed to run their own version of the game, and its within the right of every GM to run games as they see fit. But I still consider FR, with all its official lore without variation (which includes novels, books, and video games) to be the default setting.

You're just making my point that class in fiction is a setting issue, not a rules one.

 

[Ovinomancer]

"NPC supporting characters are easier to play if you limit their class options. Good candidates for supporting characters include a cleric with the Life domain, a fighter with the Champion archetype, a rogue with the Thief archetype, and a wizard specializing in Evocation". (DMG, p.93). So, not an enforceable rule, but a pretty clear indication that the default assumption is that class is for NPCs, too. And not only class, but specific archetype.

The "Villainous Class Options" section a few pages later (96-97) strongly suggests that there are even class archetypes (Death Domain, Oathbreaker Paladin) that are primarily for NPC characters.

Yes, inarguably. The rules clearly allow for, and have a strong assumption for, class in fiction. However, that is still just an assumption for, not a mandate of, so not doing that is still within the rules. It's a personal choice, and neither are objectively right or wrong.