D&D General Character Classes should Mean Something in the Setting

[DEFCON 1]

I also don't see any use for making a Class an actual thing in the game-world necessarily, unless the players of that game and characters themselves wish to identify themselves that way. For me, characters are what they are, and there is no need to categorize them.

If a character in the game world is a necromancer, then that's what they are and what they (and others) call them themselves. There's no need to say they are actually a Wizard, but with a minor in Necromancy. What's would be the point? What's gained? Likewise... if you fancy yourself as the Lord's Hand and you hold that position... there's no reason why you nor anyone else in the game world would say "Oh, so you're not the Lord's Hand per se... you're actually a Paladin with an Oath to the Crown!" Because the response would be "Uh, no... I'm the Lord's Hand."

Obviously others go the other way, and more power to them. But for me... if my PC is a skald, then they're a skald, not a bard.

 

[jmartkdr2]

It's Chekhov's Gun, essentially. You've written a play where there is a prominent gun positioned over the fireplace. By the end of the play someone should fire that gun, or else why have you taken the time to write, prominently, about a gun above the fireplace?

Imagine writing a complex world in which Wizards and Paladins and Druids have all been major players. Where Fighters have been the Generals of powerful armies and Rogues have stolen from the very Gods themselves. And also there are Sorcerers. They've never done anything important or been relevant to any major events throughout history, but they exist. The Entities that they're technically the much-removed offspring of may or may not have done big things... But never Sorcerers in the entire narrative history of the world. They've had no cultural impact. Opened no schools, trained no soldiers, run no thieves guild. They're just -there-.

They exist for no purpose in the written narrative -except- to Exist. Because "Here's a neat concept, let's just add it in". Like adding bay windows to a toolshed. You've got a perfect place for tools and you can do stuff in it and oh, by the way, here's an architectural feature that doesn't do anything to help fulfill the purpose of it being a toolshed.

It's like putting gold leaf on chocolate to eat. Sure it's pretty. But why are you eating gold except to show that you can afford to poop a shiny turd the next morning? It doesn't make the chocolate any sweeter or stronger, it's just there.

And yeah, yeah, "So players can be a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard"... but outside of game mechanics what does that -mean-? Why not just let them use the Sorcerer Class and have everyone in the world call them a Wizard or a Mage or a Grofpbit because Sorcerers aren't part of the narrative? Why even design Sorcerers in the first place as a possible player option (Back in 3e) if they were never going to be a part of the story of the world you're building?

This is what I mean by "Existing only to Exist".

Why do you assume sorcerers haven't done anything?

 

[Steampunkette]

Why do you assume sorcerers haven't done anything?

Because they often haven't.

In FR, there's no big Sorcerer who has ever done the big things. It's always Elminster or Manshoon (Again, somehow) or Drizz't or some other lore character that isn't a Sorcerer. It's pretty much in the same way in any setting because Sorcerers are often disconnected from the Narrative. Mainly because you can't really have those Sorcerers inspire other characters to become Sorcerers on account of the whole "Granny got freaky with a Dragon" aspect.

Heck... Take a look at 4e ramming Dragonborn and Tieflings into FR as unified and monolithic entities hailing from specific communities. And even after they yanked the Dragonborn Homeland out of the world they kept up the "Asmodeus turned all the Tieflings into this specific image rather than the variety they had, before!"

Yeah, it was hamfisted as heck and done poorly, but it gave those races -some- kind of connection to the greater storyline/world. Personally I would've gone for something a -bit- less drastic...

But WotC has never put forth that kind of effort with Sorcerers. You're supposed to be of some big bloodline of powerful entities and stuff, but it's not reflected in the world.

That chafes me.

It's the same with Rangers outside of Drizz't and arguably the Emerald Enclave but that's more "Everyone who likes Nature" than it is "Rangers".

There's a lot of narratives about stolen spellbooks and stuff, for example. But never anything about a Sorcerer casting more spells than he "Should be able to" 'cause he used sorcery points as a big "Gotcha" for a given story like he's Dirty Harry or something and that -should- totally be a thing.

But it just never is.

I also don't see any use for making a Class an actual thing in the game-world necessarily, unless the players of that game and characters themselves wish to identify themselves that way. For me, characters are what they are, and there is no need to categorize them.

If a character in the game world is a necromancer, then that's what they are and what they (and others) call them themselves. There's no need to say they are actually a Wizard, but with a minor in Necromancy. What's would be the point? What's gained? Likewise... if you fancy yourself as the Lord's Hand and you hold that position... there's no reason why you nor anyone else in the game world would say "Oh, so you're not the Lord's Hand per se... you're actually a Paladin with an Oath to the Crown!" Because the response would be "Uh, no... I'm the Lord's Hand."

Obviously others go the other way, and more power to them. But for me... if my PC is a skald, then they're a skald, not a bard.

What does being a Necromancer mean in that world? Are Necromancers just wizards? Is there a Taboo around Necromancy? Is a Necromancer Evil by Default because Necromancy itself is evil? Are Necromancers considered heroic figures, using wasted meat to fight wars or dig ditches on behalf of the community, freeing the living up to pursue other tasks?

The player can be whatever they want to be. And fit into the world however they want to fit into the world. I'm not talking about the Player.

I'm talking about the NPC Necromancer. I'm talking about the cultural and narrative assumptions that pop up when someone in the story is referred to as a Necromancer.

Play your Skald, by all means. What is a Skald to the world? What have Skalds accomplished? Separately, what have -Bards- accomplished that they're separate from Skalds? What defines each of these terms in the game world, not their dice-rolling functionality?

 

[Democratus]

Dael Kingsmill recently had a video about this very thing, with regards to Wizards. How to tie them in to a campaign world. What it means when your charachter is a young wizard/apprentince out on their own in the world.

Great stuff.

I like the idea of a campaign world where every class has a link to the setting, even if the link for some classes is "they don't fit in."

• Warlocks who all draw their power from the 100' burning iron cube rotating beneath Mount Mysticalicos
• Monks who train for 100s of years, only to be reincarnated to walk the earth as a "new soul" every few millenia.
• Sorcerers who are all in a single extended family/bloodline that includes the Magus/Emperor. Every sorcerer you meet is distant (or close) family.

You can build whole worlds around this approach if you want.

Or you can have them "just exist", which is a bit less work.

 

[MichaelSomething]

That's why we need Warlords! Who else can lead armies?

 

[Faolyn]

PCs don't actually know what class they are. A particular setting may not have specific taxonomy for each time of spellcaster. For instance, in my world, there are mages and priests. If you think the root source of your power is one or more gods, you're a priest (even in the sense of "the gods allowed me to draw power from these ancient texts"); otherwise, you're a mage. One of the PCs in my games calls himself a sorcerer--but he's actually a sun soul monk (he spends "sorcery points" to power his extra attacks).

Likewise, while sorcerer archetypes might be called "dragon" or "storm," that doesn't mean the character understands how they got their magic.

 

[Minigiant]

I think it should be 99% one way or 99% the other.

Either every class means something in the setting or they are just means to describe the action.

I've been pondering a setting like this. Every class is a member of a certain organization, race, religion, nationality, ideology, or tradition and bound to the ideas the class is tied too. All the class features of the classes are identified or at least widely speculated. Every class would have direct marks on the world as bases, holy sites, populations, and world scars. All Wild Mages come from a Wildlander. Gloomstalker rangers is a commissioned royal organization created and supported by the High Elf royal family. A new druid circle of druids is created every time a new druid casts their first 8th level spell.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm happy with classes being metagame building blocks, collections of mechanics and abilities that I can choose to use to fill some fictional role. I do not need the class to give me that role.

But why then have these mechanics to be arranged into these idiosyncratic specific packages? Why use system that actually lets you build unique characters not tied to an archetype

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That's why we need Warlords!

I just don't get the debate. I mean, it was fun and all, but why do still keep talking about it?

LET THE PAST DIE! Kill it, if you have to.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I will say, on the other hand, that I do often have characters who are the thing their class says they are, so classes do often exist as such in the setting. Wizards are the common magic type, and there are people who are called wizards that you would never use the class for, because they're just NPCs with rituals and a few spells of various levels, but your wizard PC likely learned from a proper Wizard.

On the other hand, I prefer to keep Sorcerer out of that, and instead only use some bloodlines specifically, and sorcerers powerful enough to be Sorcerers are extremely rare. Possibly rarer than any other class. Your mom and dad weren't sorcerers, usually. Your great grand-aunt was, though, and she's a figure of legend all over the region you're from, because she is the only sorcerer ever known to come from there, before you.

But Bards get special consideration by most folk, people tend to trust Paladins, etc.