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

[Ovinomancer]

Here's the thing: sometimes, words actually mean what they say. I don't say, anywhere, that people who choose to interpret class as a set of mechanics are stupid, that they shouldn't disagree with me, or that they only think they're having a great time, when really they're not. I don't say for the simple reason that it's not my meaning, so if thanks are to be pleaded for, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

I've said all along that the choice of viewing class as an archetype vs. viewing it as a cluster of mechanics is an aesthetic one. It hardly follows from that that those who don't accept my aesthetics are stupid. But it does follow that people who make aesthetic choices one way or the other make them for a reason. And if I reason out my aesthetic choice by hypothetically adopting the opposed position (which I reserve the right to do), I can try to think through the consequences of doing that. And if I saw class as clusters of mechanics because I approached the rules and in-game fiction in a more free-form way, I would likely want to increase my options, and those of my players, and to have the rulebooks explicitly reflect this increase by showing me and my players the best ways to do that.

Oh, and the Grand Druid was very much a member of the druid class (Unearthead Arcana, pp. 16-17). He even received an additional d8, and was the "ultimate overseer of druidic activity".

I don't think there's a good way to say, "when I try to think like I think you do, I think that I would play a different game," and not have it sound like you think people should play a different game. Otherwise, what's the point of sharing your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Ovinomancer]

So basically "We ignored the rules, house-ruled when necessary, and had a great time."

Whoa, there. Thanks for the quotes, but those don't say that everyone in the fiction knows what class the Grand Druid is, just that he's the bestest of those druish people. Mechanically, he's a 15th level Druid, and you can read that as strongly implying that everyone in the game world (or a significant minority) know he has a class and that class is druid, but I don't think you can quote the rule that says so.

 

[empireofchaos]

I don't think there's a good way to say, "when I try to think like I think you do, I think that I would play a different game," and not have it sound like you think people should play a different game.

The point of this whole thread is that people start with similar premises, and legitimately end with different conclusions. Or so you've insisted...

Otherwise, what's the point of sharing your thoughts on the matter?

Alhazred made a point about "class rules simply being a convenience that lets you quickly generate characters that conform to certain archetypes". I said if this were the case, I (as a hypothetical proponent of this idea) would expect there to be rules to allow for greater customization with a little more time investment.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The point of this whole thread is that people start with similar premises, and legitimately end with different conclusions. Or so you've insisted...

Actually, the point is that some people start with different premises, and some don't, but that both conclusions (and all points in between) are valid given what's in the rules.

Alhazred made a point about "class rules simply being a convenience that lets you quickly generate characters that conform to certain archetypes". I said if this were the case, I (as a hypothetical proponent of this idea) would expect there to be rules to allow for greater customization with a little more time investment.

Except that both Alhazred and I have said we like 5e just fine. We're happy with the options provided. Maybe you should hypothesize a little less and listen a little more?

 

[empireofchaos]

Actually, the point is that some people start with different premises, and some don't, but that both conclusions (and all points in between) are valid given what's in the rules.

Just helping you outline what the similar premises are...

Except that both Alhazred and I have said we like 5e just fine. We're happy with the options provided. Maybe you should hypothesize a little less and listen a little more?

Except that the rules "clearly have a strong assumption for class in fiction", but give no indication that classes are a mere technical convenience. You're free to insert the last clause into the premise yourself, but not to demand that I shut up because I sketch out what a likely consequence of actually stating that in the rules would be.

 

[Remathilis]

Whoa, there. Thanks for the quotes, but those don't say that everyone in the fiction knows what class the Grand Druid is, just that he's the bestest of those druish people. Mechanically, he's a 15th level Druid, and you can read that as strongly implying that everyone in the game world (or a significant minority) know he has a class and that class is druid, but I don't think you can quote the rule that says so.

The Grand Druid is a druid. He identifies himself as a druid. He has all the powers and abilities of a druid. He holds the beliefs common to all druids. He even speaks the secret language only druids know. How much more evidence do you need?

But since you asked:

The highest ranking druid in the world is the Grand Druid (15th level). Unlike great druids (several of whom can operate simultaneously in different lands), only one person in a world can ever hold this title at one time. Consequently, only one druid can be 15th level at any time.

 

[Mephista]

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.

In short, you want to throw out the lore that disagrees with you. *shrugs* Still doesn't change how things work in FR by default. Feel free to change things for your table.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Whoa, there. Thanks for the quotes, but those don't say that everyone in the fiction knows what class the Grand Druid is, just that he's the bestest of those druish people. Mechanically, he's a 15th level Druid, and you can read that as strongly implying that everyone in the game world (or a significant minority) know he has a class and that class is druid, but I don't think you can quote the rule that says so.

Exactly! And nobody is saying all we did was 'houserule', for one thing you couldn't play OD&D out of the box, it literally isn't a playable game, so any concept like 'rules as written' and then you 'house ruled it' is utterly worthless when talking about anything before 1e (and I include Holmes Basic in that too, though at least its CLOSE to being playable by the book).

Now, does 1e assume that NPCs have classes? It clearly provides the DM with straightforward rules that work in that context, but it also clearly doesn't model ALL NPCs, or maybe even most of them, as classed individuals. Even when it gives them classes it states flat out that PCs are 'special' and than NPCs don't normally advance, etc. (there's no precise rule, a henchman can advance, but a hireling doesn't get XP, its unclear if followers do or not, or at what rate, and its flat out stated in several places that other sorts of NPCs do NOT advance in levels, though this is also contradicted at times).

NEVER is it stated, or even implied, that characters NARRATIVELY have a concept of class. Not once anywhere in the rules does that concept appear. A very literalist (and common) reading of AD&D would have NPCs putting out there class like a shingle as if they know they're modelled as a "level 7 magic user" or something, but its NOT part of the rules. Furthermore what IS part of the rules is "the DM makes up the world"

I guess what I mean by that is, if the DM decides not to use the druid class to make the 'Great Druid' and does it ad-hoc his own way whatever, that's not a violation of some rule or a 'house rule', that's just world authorship. Likewise if he says "yeah, Fredigar can train your thief to level 3" he's not making a new rule by having Fredigar represented by some stat block instead of a character sheet written up to be a level 4+ thief. He's not even obligated to make up stats for Fredigar! If he decides later on Fredigar is a monk or just a dwarf monster stat block with a couple thief skills attached to it and some extra hit dice, that's not making up new rules, its just using the tools of the game as intended.

 

[Remathilis]

It is never stated, nor even implied, that kobolds don't explode into 20 die fireballs at 0 HP either.

Absence of an explicit statement is not affirmative of the inverse.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The point of this whole thread is that people start with similar premises, and legitimately end with different conclusions. Or so you've insisted...



Alhazred made a point about "class rules simply being a convenience that lets you quickly generate characters that conform to certain archetypes". I said if this were the case, I (as a hypothetical proponent of this idea) would expect there to be rules to allow for greater customization with a little more time investment.

I think the discussion got a bit muddied by people pulling out examples from various editions of D&D. The thread, ostensibly, was about 5e. 5e, AFAIK, doesn't have any rules that mandate anything about classes in the vein of AD&D or OD&D/Basic/whatever. There's no training rule that I'm aware of, nor any 'fight the great druid' type rules in that game. So if we restrict ourselves to the original topic, then class appears clearly to be a meta-game construct.

If you stick to AD&D (and some parts of OD&D/BECMI IIRC) then there are mechanics which clearly reference class, though its still not at all clear that class is intended to be a narrative in-world concept. IMHO it just wasn't a concern to Gygax, he wrote down what he did and that was what was 'rules', but we really don't know how it was presented in-game. You'd have to go over to RPG.net and invoke Old Geezer or someone like that who's still around and played with him in the days of yore. IMHO AD&D wasn't intended to be taken as strictures at all, its intended to provide ways to do things. PLAYERS might be 'breaking the rules' in some sense if they pass over those strictures, but EVERY SINGLE PLACE WHERE THEY EXIST in AD&D is related to the DM and NPCs, aside perhaps from who can use what magic items, which is a pretty weak peg to hang the whole thing on.

I won't even venture an opinion on 3.x d20-era D&D. I've played, but I don't own the books and the way MCing etc work it looks to me like 'class' is just a convenience to organize what is effectively a point-buy character system (though you can certainly play it straight up without MCing much and then it mirrors 2e fairly well). I suspect there are a few 'class mechanic' rules, but they're similar to 2e's and not as prevalent.

4e simply flat out disposes of class as any sort of in-world concept AT ALL. NPCs are universally represented as stat blocks and there are an array of tools provided outright to facilitate modelling any sort of NPC character concept. WotC NEVER ONCE presented in any material an NPC with class levels. There's a sort of rump of the concept at the back of the DMG, but they never even bothered to extend it to cover classes post-PHB1. Clearly if we were to have this discussion about 4e it would have ended on page 1 of the thread.

5e IMHO carries on where 4e left off. It does leverage class to a slightly greater extent, by for instance using spells in monster stat blocks. It doesn't however appear to contemplate that NPCs will generally be characters with class and level, though it seems to be more agnostic than 4e about whether the DM might use that technique. I don't personally know of any place in 5e where the rules clearly present a mechanic that would, even very strictly speaking, require an NPC with class levels, or that NPCs of some ilk in general are classed.