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

[Shasarak]

Nope - Achilles and Odysseus would have no earthly idea what class they belong to:



http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Greek/Iliad19.htm#_Toc239246276



http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.9.ix.html

Well, if the Cyclops says it is legit then it must be.

 

[empireofchaos]

Well, if the Cyclops says it is legit then it must be.

No, that's Odysseus identifying himself to the Cyclops. Kicking sand in his eye. Except that he has no eye anymore...

 

[Arial Black]

Anyone can describe themselves as a warrior, and they don't need to know their actual D&D class to do so.

"But I would not listen to them, and shouted out to him in my rage, 'Cyclops, if any one asks you who it was that put your eye out and spoiled your beauty, say it was the battlemaster(fighter) with two levels of rogue Ulysses, son of Laertes, who lives in Ithaca.'

Yeah....no.

 

[Arial Black]

Alright, consider this: Is "physics" a discrete kind of knowledge? Is "chemistry"? "Biology"?

These categories of knowledge are arbitrary. We create them because the sum total of all currently-available knowledge is far too vast for a single person to acquire. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asserting that calling particular scientists "physicists," "chemists," or "biologists" is in some sense ridiculous because the real world recognizes no such distinctions. Hell, the world doesn't recognize a distinction between "scientist" and, say, "physician" or "philosopher"--and, at one time in human history, "philosopher" was the appropriate term for one who practiced any amount of any of those three things. (Remember, Isaac Newton did not consider himself a "scientist" or "mathematician," he considered himself a "natural philosopher"--his great work on what we today call physical phenomena is the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, the "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.")

Totally agree so far.

Yet, despite the arbitrariness, despite the indisputable fact that these categories are only employed because they are useful for human organization and not because they reflect any fundamental differences in the nature of reality, we still consider these terms truly meaningful things--things that can be known about a person. "He's a physicist," "she's a mathematician," "they're biologists looking at the molecular signals between cells." All of these sentences are clearly meaningful, about real-world people, despite the fact that "mathematics" and "biology" are only separate categories because we have chosen them to be so.

The trouble with all this is that what you know is not what they are, but what they do; their field of expertise as we choose to define 'field'. Are physicists, chemists and biologists different paths of their 'class', chosen at 3rd level? Are they different classes? Are they all commoners with different skill and feat choices? We cannot know, and in a game which included rules to create scientists those guys could not know their own class in rules terms, even though they could and would divide themselves into factions in game which may or may not match the game rules governing them.

Similarly, one can quite easily say that classes in any given instantiation of D&D--whatever its (pseudo)historical or fictional underpinnings--are equivalent things. In order to be a licensed physician, one must meet certain qualifications, possess certain training, etc.; identically, in some possible D&D universes, being a licensed "esoteric philosopher" (my own coinage, meant to parallel "natural philosopher") may require specific qualifications and possessing a certain kind of training. Such people, in D&D parlance, would be called wizards.

All true. But these do not perfectly map to the game rules of 'class' in the game they are avatars in.

Does this mean that these people have a codified understanding of what "level" is? Not necessarily. I would certainly expect them to have a codified understanding of the difference between 1st-level and 9th-level spells, seeing as it is pretty easy to test (really, they should know a distinction between spells of every level, I'm just using the extremes for emphasis; for example, in the Tales of Wyre setting, spell-levels are called "valences," by analogy to the discrete energy levels found in the real-world quantum-mechanical description of electron orbits). Further, it doesn't necessarily mean that people "know their own hit point total," though I'd expect people to have a rough intuitive sense of their proportion of HP (e.g. being at half HP, or half surges in 4e, should "feel different" from being at full or near-zero--based on the real sense of nociception).

Oh, some of the game rules definitely are observable in game, and spell level is one of them. What they call it may or may not be the same thing the PHB calls it.

You seem to be arguing straw men here: saying that, if class exists and is a known thing, then it must be so in every possible world, and that people have to also know statistic X, and Y, and Z, and these things are absurd, therefore knowing that class exists is also absurd. But these "it must apply everywhere" and slippery-slope-like arguments just doesn't follow. Class need not be real in all worlds to be real in some. And itt's entirely possible, in plenty of worlds, to know or be able to learn that a character is a Wizard (perhaps, as stated, "an esoteric philosopher"), a Druid (perhaps "an acolyte of The Green"), or really any other class, if the person creating that universe thinks that's worth doing. It need not involve any deeper analysis of a character's game statistics.

Perhaps I over-emphasised it, but my point was that a creature cannot know its D&D class any more than it can know any other game rule, like hit points. Few would argue the second, but there are plenty arguing the first.

But their D&D class is unknowable. They can certainly describe themselves in similar ways (fighter, wizard) and the names of the classes are supposed to resemble the role they play, but anyone in game describing themselves as a fighter may or may not have fighter class levels.

What exam could the creatures in game give the 12 classes to prove that they must have levels in that class? How would you test, say, a paladin? Earlier in this thread it was asserted that a pit fiend would absolutely know that the party contained a paladin if most of the party made their saves, because paladins have an aura that adds to saves. What? It couldn't be that they have Rings of Protection? Or simply rolled well? The pit fiend could not know about the aura; he's much more likely to blame bad luck than blame a game rule he could not possibly know about. "I knew I should've worm my lucky pants today!"

Even the paladin doesn't really know about his aura! How could he test it? Just because the aura gives +5 to saves does not mean that it changes a definite fail to a definite save, because all the paladin can see is the result of a save, not the numbers or die roll that went into it. He cannot know what the odds were before, or what they are now. His party may have rolled well before he arrived, and start to roll badly once he turns up. How could he know that his aura made things better when the evidence shows that he made things worse?

To give a personal example: my Dungeon World game. "Wizard" is a status that not only can be known, but is known, for all surface-dwelling races (mostly humans and elves): someone who was educated in the Conclave, the loose and fractious coalition of powerful, quasi-school-aligned magical Towers. Only one exception has been seen, and his exceptional-ness was commented on multiple times (a Kobold "priest of Tiamat"* who was mechanically a Wizard--Tiamat being a fickle goddess who wants her followers to seek power, not succor). All the Thieves (or, really, thief-assassins) we've seen have, in the end, proven to come from the same source, trained by a shadowy league of manipulators to be their perfect infiltrators; while the people who know that it's a Thing are few and far between, some actually do. Very technically, my Paladin also qualifies, but only because he's genuinely unique: there is no one else, and may never have been anyone else, that could do the things he does. In theory, the Cleric class has worked similarly--an NPC (a well-meaning but corrupt sort-of-pope-y-bishop of my character's faith) was clearly understood to have his own 'connection to the divine,' working legit miracles.

I don't know that this necessarily translates into all classes being discrete Things Which Exist And People Recognize It, but it's a wholly natural, explained-within-the-world definition of these classes. Being a Wizard means something, and barring the Kobold exception, connects you to a particular power structure, both magical and political. Being a Thief connects you to something, a particular shadowy group, at least in origin.

*This proved to be a very interesting partnership, given that my character is a Paladin...of Bahamut, and Lawful Good (emphasis on the Good) to boot. This isn't the normal D&D universe, but the relationship between the two draconic deities is much the same as it is in FR, or the 4e "points of light" setting. Our two characters would occasionally have theological discussions--in Draconic, naturally, since they're both fluent in it while the Kobold's "common tongue" is a bit stilted. My Paladin had to face a challenge to part of his faith--that Tiamat was purely evil, yet a clear servant of hers was at worst Chaotic Neutral. And the Kobold had to deal with Mr. Goody-Two-Shoes, or "Law-Doer" as he called my character when out of earshot, interfering. It was a wonderful storyline, eventually ending in said Kobold coming around to agreeing with my Paladin on many subjects and making amends for some of his dangerous/selfish deeds in the past--culminating in a touching scene between the two, my character expressing his deep and sincere respect for his diminutive, scaly friend.

As interesting as your personal example is, it doesn't prove that the rules mandate that creatures are aware of their D&D class. What you've done is carefully create a world in which they somehow do, and then hold that up as evidence. But it is only evidence of what you have done, not what the PHB made you do!

 

[empireofchaos]

Anyone can describe themselves as a warrior, and they don't need to know their actual D&D class to do so.

Yeah....no.

You don't need to know anything about D&D classes to be able to identify with a group that's a pretty close analog to class. The fact that "anyone" (or a lot of people, at any rate) can describe themselves as a warrior is actually a pretty strong indication of the fact that class models something fairly concrete and recognizable in historical, mythical, or fantasy-type contexts. Your bolded text is immaterial, because not all aspects of class have to be evident in the game world for class to have concrete reality.

And incidentally, Odysseus, Menelaus, Agamemnon - they're all kings. So much for the idea that only "political hacks" can become kings, and that having a classed character as a king is a ridiculous intrusion of metagame concepts on a living world.

 

[Arial Black]

You don't need to know anything about D&D classes to be able to identify with a group that's a pretty close analog to class. The fact that "anyone" (or a lot of people, at any rate) can describe themselves as a warrior is actually a pretty strong indication of the fact that class models something fairly concrete and recognizable in historical, mythical, or fantasy-type contexts. Your bolded text is immaterial, because not all aspects of class have to be evident in the game world for class to have concrete reality.

Yeah, people can group themselves any way they want, but they cannot group themselves based on their D&D class because they cannot know their D&D class!

And incidentally, Odysseus, Menelaus, Agamemnon - they're all kings. So much for the idea that only "political hacks" can become kings, and that having a classed character as a king is a ridiculous intrusion of metagame concepts on a living world.

Whose idea was that? It is indeed ridiculous.

 

[Remathilis]

Ironically, while I am generally agreed with your arguments up to this point, the parenthetical bit is exactly the opposite of how I feel about the 4e situation. Third edition is what rendered "classes" so vague and unimportant as to be invisible--by introducing à la carte multiclassing and the rampant explosion of prestige classes (Pathfinder takes this even further, with Archetypes effectively erasing any meaning "class" has by making all or nearly all features hot-swappable). 4e gave every class an over-arching goal (with the possible exception of the Wizard, that switched from "one core class with no focus" to "way too many subclasses with no consistent focus"), and usually a handful of mechanics that were, to one degree or another, "unique." (E.g. the Paladin's Lay On Hands and, eventually, two different marking mechanics.) Drastically limiting the ability to multiclass meant you couldn't just mash together whatever smorgasbord of mechanics you wanted--you had to make choices, and those choices led to differences.

I can see your point on 3e/PF. My point with 4e was that to me, ROLE was far more important than class, and the classic example of this was the proverbial "I can't play a fighter with ranged powers!" followed by the inevitable "Just play a ranger and say he's a fighter." retort. To me, 4e had four classes: Striker, Controller, Defender, and Leader with the separate classes in a Role bound to the mechanical implementation of that role and differed in the thematic implications of their power source. This was really true of the "Grid Fillers" like Invoker, Warden, or Swordmage who had no real flavor beyond "Divine Controller" or "Primal Defender".

That said, I don't want to turn this into a 30 page debate on the nature of 4e classes again; I'm done with that. I just wanted to point out that while 3e turned every class into individual chunks you can mix-and-match like lego blocks, 4e, did its best to make the distinctions between classes in a given role fairly small and refluffable. Both ended up diluting the flavor of classes.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, people can group themselves any way they want, but they cannot group themselves based on their D&D class because they cannot know their D&D class!

Um, yes they can.

Class implies a certain level of training and expertise that puts them above the "NPC common man". Look how often that pops up in the PHB:

"Not every member of the tribes deemed "barbarians" by scions of civilized society has the barbarian class. A true barbarian among these people is as uncommon as a skilled fighter in a town. and he or she plays a similar role as a protector of the people and a leader in times of war."

"Not every minstrel singing in a tavern ar jester cavorting in a royal court is a bardo Discovering the magic hidden in music requires hard study and some measure of natural talent that most troubadours and jongleurs lack."

"Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods' will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms."

"Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen's army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers wilh only lhe mosl basic combat knowledge. Veleran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters."

"Fighters are rare enough among the ranks of the militias and armies of the world, but even fewer people can claim the true calling of a paladin. When they do receive the call, these warriors turn from their former occupations and take up arms to fight evil."

"Though a ranger might make a living as a hunter, a guide, or a tracker, a ranger's true calling is to defend the outskirts of civilization from the ravages of monsters and humanoid hordes lhat press in from the wild."

Oh, and they do occasionally reference groupings....

"In some places, rangers gather in secretive orders or join forces with druidic circles."

"Every town and city has its share of rogues. Most of them live up to the worst stereotypes of the class, making a living as burglars, assassins, cutpurses, and con artists. Often, these scoundrels are organized into thieves' guilds or crime families."

"The way of a bard is gregarious. Bards seek each other out to swap songs and stories, boast of their accomplishments, and share their knowledge. Bards form loose associations, which they call colleges, to facilitate their gatherings and preserve their traditions."

"Though their organization is invisible to most outsiders, druids are part of a society that spans the land, ignoring political borders, All druids are nominally members of this druidic society, though some individuais are so isolated lhat lhey have never seen any high-ranking members of the society or participated in druidic gatherings. Druids recognize each other as brothers and sisters, Like creatures of the wilderness, however, druids sometimes compete with or even prey on each other."

"The final oath, taken when he ar she reaches 3rd level, is the culmination of ali the paladin's training. Some characters with this class don't consider themselves true paladins until they have reached 3rd level and made this oath."

"In some places, these traditions are literally schools; a wizard might study at the School of lllusion while another studies across town at the School of Enchantment. In other institutions, the schools are more like academic departments, with rival faculties competing for students and funding."

 

[Shasarak]

Yeah, people can group themselves any way they want, but they cannot group themselves based on their D&D class because they cannot know their D&D class!

Except that they get distinct sets of abilities that only other people that have the same class (and level) can get.

It would be like having a Basket Ball player class that gets "Slam Dunk" at 3rd level.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And I, on the other hand, think that the murder hobo play style is more inspired by dungeon-oriented play in which the PC's standing in the social order is not particularly relevant, so there is no reason to think through how a class might be organized precisely because all you are really doing as a member of a class is murdering monsters. So the idea that a class is nothing but bags of assorted crunch does fit really well - into that type of setting. Following the above argumentation style, of course.

Oh, and incidentally: those monsters that are supposedly uninterested in human society? How is it that they come to have all that treasure that the murder hobos desire? What makes them interested in it? And all those coins - who's making them? If you sift through the historical record, you'll find that in the vast majority of instances, its only those empires that you think are so uncommon that have the wherewithal to mint coins and circulate them over vast areas.

You point out all these logical inconsistencies with dungeons and monsters, as presented in the AD&D-esque paradigm that includes, in your estimation, class as a fact of the game world, yet nothing I've seen has ever resolved any of those inconsistencies, EXCEPT a deeper and less gamist-centered world design that is HIGHLY unlikely to be built around classes.

As for the rest, I don't know what it is that you are arguing. Nobody ever said "no empires ever exist" nor that monsters don't have their own societies and perhaps even coinage and empires of their own in some instances. That is all rather irrelevant to question at hand. Nothing in any of that says that humanity must be larded full of classed individuals at a 1% rate because otherwise the monsters would eat them all, which was your argument (slightly paraphrased).

I think that reasoning conclusions about how the world works from AD&D's treasure tables and monster descriptions and such is a fool's errand. No consistent world can ever come of it. Gygax didn't have a consistent world in mind, he had a fun game scenario in mind. Where things conflicted he simply assumed a suspension of disbelief as far as I can tell. He certainly made NO attempt to explain where treasure comes from, and only the most cursory of statements about how it would interrelate with things like the economics of the game world. To extract conclusions from that is simply to see something that isn't there.