Do you have any class? The class discussion thread (Paladins and Warlocks and Clerics, OH MY!!

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do you have any class?

I am, as they used to say on Fat Albert, an "out of work school teacher."

"Self, does D&D have any class any more? Or is it more like a roll on the random harlot table?"

D&D has more class than a tenured philosophy professor wearing a tuxedo to his lecture hall.

But seriously, what is the continuing validity of class in D&D? Let's stipulate, for now, that classes are one of those essential requirements to be "D&D." In other words, no matter what optional rules we might see in the future or the past (including a "gestalt" system), D&D will always have some sort of basic class structure.

More than fair. D&D will always be a bastion of classism. So stipulated.

The question I would ask now is, what does that even mean?

Classes are arbitrary components of a system of asymmetric power relationships in which the spellcasting Bourgeoisie exploit the surplus hit points of the hard-fighting Proletariat, expropriating experience points to expand their own power at the expense of those who actually earn them.

Or something like that.

I often see debates on these here threads about what X Class does in Y situation, and I notice that there tends to be two general schools of thought as to how to approach the problem:
A. Class in meaningful; a class is a fusion of "lore" and "crunch." Call this the HC (hard class) category.
B. Class isn't meaningful, but is just a descriptor for a grab bag of abilities. The only thing that matters about class is the crunch of particular abilties. Call the is the NC (no class) category.

Sure. Also consider that in the context of B, class can contain disabilities, as well, and that those can be purely mechanical... or not. So, a class with significant mechanical perks faux-balanced by lore-only drawbacks, can be exploited if the lore can be scraped off, or untenable if it's over-emphasized.

1. What are the strictures on a Paladin w/r/t oath?

Most paladin oaths don't much deviate from reasonably 'heroic' behavior that most PCs should be engaging in, anyway. So it really depends. In a relatively conventional heroic-fantasy party, the paladin is probably just played a little more dogmatic and strident than the next guy, but everyone's doing the same thing and the oath is just color. Conversely, in a pragmatic or competitive style, the Pally is hosed.

2. What is the relationship between a Cleric and their Deity (or other power)?

This is something that's varied over the editions. Back in the day, higher level spells explicitly came from - and could be changed or withheld by - the deity and/or it's intermediaries. More recently, your divine power has been granted more or less no-strings, and what you do with it is on you.

3. What happens between a Warlock and their MASTER? .... seeing a pattern?

Patron. And there's nothing I've seen an any Warlock write-up that actually give it any teeth.

Do you think that HC / NC distinction is viable, and that people generally fall into those camps?

All dichotomies are false dichotomies. I reject it out of hand.

What do you do at your table, and why?

Whatever I want, 'cause I'm the DM, baby.

Is there a benefit to having classes, and to having a strong lore component (HC)?

No and yes. Classes are about as beneficial to modern RPGs as tractors driving in the fast lane of a modern highway. But, if you're gonna have them, connecting them up to the lore of the setting is one of the few things that makes them remotely worthwhile. And, if you're not going to have them, you can still create packages or perks that tie into lore in the same way.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Take a stand, man! None of this wishy-washy stuff. Sheesh, one of these days, I need to get me a one-armed Tony, so you stop saying, "On the other hand ..."

I think I've gotten as far as OTOOOH....

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[RSIxidor]

I like class as a thematic package of abilities that also impart something about what the character is.

There's just something about the implementation that I don't like and I'm having trouble putting into words. Classes typically define what your character is for the rest of their career (barring multiclassing). I think I'd like to use 5E's core but have something a little more variable.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The class (as a game structure) is a codified lore concept along with the game mechanics which best reflect that concept. The game mechanics only exist because they are the most accurate reflection of the lore. If you change the lore behind a class, then you must necessarily change the mechanics which reflect that lore.

I'm not voting in the poll, though, because paladins are objectively great from a lore perspective. They just have a bad reputation, because bad players play them poorly.

 

[Parmandur]

There are only 12 Platonic Characters, and all substantiated Player Characters merely participate in their existence.

Though, seriously, I'd say it's solidly in-between, and substantially nuanced by the Subclass and Background elements in 5E. I'd even go so far as to say, Hard Class, but with the rotating components being taken seriously, so every character partakes from three separate sources for their full archetype (not even considering Race here).

A Soldier Paladin of Vengeance is a different matter from an Outlander Paladin of Conquest, or a Fiend Pact Criminal from a Celestial Pact Sailor, OR a Folk Hero Fighter from a Folk Hero Paladin. All three "moving parts" are themselves "hard" points for me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*