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

[Mephista]

I never said it wasn't a setting issue. In fact, I've been pretty clear that it depends on individual tables, and how they want to run it. Unless you're Adventure League and forced to use the default FR lore. At which point, you have to use the default "classes are an in character thing."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

Yeah, I totally disagree. When we started playing back in 1975/76 it was custom in our extended group (which happened to be really large, over 100 people) that you never talked about class and that it was purely a metagame concept. In-character you were never supposed to say "Hi, I'm Joe the Fighter", NPCs would be like "what's with the weird guy over there?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

I never said it wasn't a setting issue. In fact, I've been pretty clear that it depends on individual tables, and how they want to run it. Unless you're Adventure League and forced to use the default FR lore. At which point, you have to use the default "classes are an in character thing."

We must have ended up taking past each other at some point, then, as I've said that exact thing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I'd go even further and say that there's nothing about this fiction which states that the distinctions made by these characters in a novel are the SAME distinctions captured by class! Even [MENTION=6786252]Mephista[/MENTION] acknowledges this when talking about Rangers etc that don't have distinct spell-casting traditions. In 5e actually this is MOST casting classes, even those with considerable casting capability.

What I would say is that 'fiction drives mechanics' not the other way around, so if there's a distinction that exists in 5e FR its one that may in part be captured by classes, but nothing says that this is the purpose of class or that it perfectly captures that. Its quite likely that some Eldritch Knights are called 'wizards' and that there are thieves that are called 'Sir', etc.

In fact, in most cases, we don't even know that the characters in these books HAVE a class or what it is. Its not even usually meaningful to talk about because its very rare for any D&D line book to exactly mimic the rules of the game. Often it has happened that elements have entered the game VIA the novels as a way of letting PCs emulate things the players have read!

 

[Mephista]

Yeah, I totally disagree. When we started playing back in 1975/76 it was custom in our extended group (which happened to be really large, over 100 people) that you never talked about class and that it was purely a metagame concept. In-character you were never supposed to say "Hi, I'm Joe the Fighter", NPCs would be like "what's with the weird guy over there?"

So... your table did away with the concept, like I said happened pretty frequently? I'm not sure what you are supposed to be disagreeing with here. In fact, you're reiterating what I just said.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

"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.

And yet at the same time the same DMG, and the accompanying MM, are replete with examples of monsters that are humans without class that are highly advanced in some fashion in a class-like way (bandits, witch doctors, shaman, etc etc etc). Its perfectly true that classes are used widely in AD&D to depict NPCs, WoG Gazetteer has plenty of them, but they clearly aren't structural to the world, its perfectly possible to be a might spell-caster, to the point of being an arch-lich and not be a 'wizard class' NPC. In fact the whole situation IMHO argues for the class rules simply being a convenience that lets you quickly generate characters that conform to certain archetypes. As near as I can tell, when Gygax needed something different he just extended the game to have the mechanics he desired. Classes weren't part of the nature of Greyhawk, they were just a DM tool.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I never said it wasn't a setting issue. In fact, I've been pretty clear that it depends on individual tables, and how they want to run it. Unless you're Adventure League and forced to use the default FR lore. At which point, you have to use the default "classes are an in character thing."

I still don't agree, nothing anywhere has characters stating they are a certain class. There is no spell or process by which class can be revealed as information within the fiction of the game. Clearly in the fiction characters can draw distinctions where those distinctions are NARRATIVE in nature (one guy casts spells, another doesn't) but I still see no indication that this is mechanically regulated. And I still don't agree that novels are canon in every single detail, you'd get into a lot of trouble believing that, as they disagree with the rules of the game OFTEN.

 

[empireofchaos]

And yet at the same time the same DMG, and the accompanying MM, are replete with examples of monsters that are humans without class that are highly advanced in some fashion in a class-like way (bandits, witch doctors, shaman, etc etc etc). Its perfectly true that classes are used widely in AD&D to depict NPCs, WoG Gazetteer has plenty of them, but they clearly aren't structural to the world, its perfectly possible to be a might spell-caster, to the point of being an arch-lich and not be a 'wizard class' NPC. In fact the whole situation IMHO argues for the class rules simply being a convenience that lets you quickly generate characters that conform to certain archetypes. As near as I can tell, when Gygax needed something different he just extended the game to have the mechanics he desired. Classes weren't part of the nature of Greyhawk, they were just a DM tool.

Just because some (or even most) NPCs don't belong to a class, doesn't mean that class is only a PC "thing", that they are unique specimens, as was implied. First, that flies in the face of the term "class", which means that a member is of a certain type, i.e. not sui generis. Second, just because you use bandits or pilgrims in your game, doesn't mean that other NPCs don't belong to classes. That's kind of like saying that if I only throw beholders at my players, that proves classed NPCs don't exist. Third, even Ovinomancer agrees that "The rules clearly allow for, and have a strong assumption for, class in fiction" (whether this means they are structural to the world is kind of academic, because it depends on how you parse "structural" in this context), but the point is, the rules lean heavily in favor of the assumption that there are NPCs - many of them - who also have a class, and that they recognize that they belong to a class. The PHB suggests as much also: "While the fighter has contacts in a mercenary company or army, the cleric might now a number of priests, paladins, and devotees who share his faith". (p. 45). And then there is that thing about a calling, but that's already been discussed plenty in this thread.

As far as what Gygax intended - 1e had a required (not optional) system for level advancement and training, which presupposed coming into contact with members of your class to receive such training. For some classes, there was required alignment, combat with incumbents to advance, behavioral prescriptions, class languages, etc. All of this has already been discussed as well.

Last - the issue of classes being a convenience that provide a handy package for quick character generation: it has already been hashed out, several times, that this seems to suggest a skill system, rather than a class system, would be a better option for someone who thinks along these lines. I won't say that someone who thinks so is playing the game "wrong" - it's their game, and clearly, quite a few others think so, too. I will say, that if I thought along those lines, I would probably play a skill game. And moreover, if class was simply intended as a convenience, one might expect the rules to say so explicitly, refer to "classes" as "templates", and present a skill-based variant somewhere as an alternative (e.g. "for even greater customization, here is how to put together various elements, skills, feats, etc. to have a completely unique character").

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just because some (or even most) NPCs don't belong to a class, doesn't mean that class is only a PC "thing", that they are unique specimens, as was implied. First, that flies in the face of the term "class", which means that a member is of a certain type, i.e. not sui generis. Second, just because you use bandits or pilgrims in your game, doesn't mean that other NPCs don't belong to classes. That's kind of like saying that if I only throw beholders at my players, that proves classed NPCs don't exist. Third, even Ovinomancer agrees that "The rules clearly allow for, and have a strong assumption for, class in fiction" (whether this means they are structural to the world is kind of academic, because it depends on how you parse "structural" in this context), but the point is, the rules lean heavily in favor of the assumption that there are NPCs - many of them - who also have a class, and that they recognize that they belong to a class. The PHB suggests as much also: "While the fighter has contacts in a mercenary company or army, the cleric might now a number of priests, paladins, and devotees who share his faith". (p. 45). And then there is that thing about a calling, but that's already been discussed plenty in this thread.

As far as what Gygax intended - 1e had a required (not optional) system for level advancement and training, which presupposed coming into contact with members of your class to receive such training. For some classes, there was required alignment, combat with incumbents to advance, behavioral prescriptions, class languages, etc. All of this has already been discussed as well.

Last - the issue of classes being a convenience that provide a handy package for quick character generation: it has already been hashed out, several times, that this seems to suggest a skill system, rather than a class system, would be a better option for someone who thinks along these lines. I won't say that someone who thinks so is playing the game "wrong" - it's their game, and clearly, quite a few others think so, too. I will say, that if I thought along those lines, I would probably play a skill game. And moreover, if class was simply intended as a convenience, one might expect the rules to say so explicitly, refer to "classes" as "templates", and present a skill-based variant somewhere as an alternative (e.g. "for even greater customization, here is how to put together various elements, skills, feats, etc. to have a completely unique character").

Couching the argument 'if you think this, you'd be better off playing a different game' in terms of I doesn't really change the fact that you are suggesting that people that don't agree with you would be better served playing a different game. This is belied by the fact that we're playing this game, and having a great time, while still disagreeing with your preference for how the game should be played. Please stop suggesting that we that disagree are just too stupid to realize that we'd really rather be playing a different game, however you think to phrase it. Thanks.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, I totally disagree. When we started playing back in 1975/76 it was custom in our extended group (which happened to be really large, over 100 people) that you never talked about class and that it was purely a metagame concept. In-character you were never supposed to say "Hi, I'm Joe the Fighter", NPCs would be like "what's with the weird guy over there?"

I'm sorry, but I gotta call you out on this.

Did you never had a druid who had to fight other druids to level up, eventually becoming a hierarch of the entire Druidic Order? Or an assassin who had to assassinate the Godfather of assassins to reach max level? Or a monk who had to best his masters to become a Grandmaster of Flowers? Never had a paladin need to atone to a 9th level Cleric? How about a character who got followers with class levels like rangers, fighters, thieves, or assassins? Never had a bard who needed to learn from a thief and druid tutor to gain his class? Never had a barbarian who could not adventure with the group's magic-user? Never? Ever?

AD&D is perhaps the worst when it comes to Class being a tangible thing. You might be able to argue that Post-2000 D&D is a lot more toolkit when it comes to disconnecting class features and fluff, but you cannot do that with AD&D without LIBERAL use of house rules. Simply put, it can't be done without either ignoring or changing huge swaths of the game.