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

[TwoSix]

Right. So you actually want the class' fiction to mean something in the setting.

What I mean, specifically, is that in my games, class does not exist with the fictional setting. There are NPCs, and groups of NPCs. Some of those groups may be organized around specific abilities or affinities, like a temple or a magical organization. But the scope of the abilities of those NPCs is not based on class.

I've made a NPC clergymember of a healing god who can cast lesser restoration, cure wounds, and raise dead, and that's it. I've made a NPC "wizard" who can turn magic scrolls into wands, and that's the entire scope of his "casting" ability. I had another "wizard" who could cast magic missile, mage armor, and a limited version of arcane gate, at will, and that was it. I had a NPC who could make 3 attacks with his sword, wear heavy armor, and could cast disintegrate once per short rest, and that was his entire schtick.

It's a simple philosophy, for me: Every NPC is unique.. The PCs may be constrained by character creation rules (and I encourage my players to come up with concepts that break them at every opportunity), but the sense of an organization around the concepts is only useful if the player decides it would make sense. If the player wants a monk PC from a hidden temple, than I'll put a temple of hidden monks in the campaign. And even then, important NPCs from the temple would still deviate from the monk class.

 

[abirdcall]

I think of it in terms of there being a million 'classes and subclasses' in the world. It is just that only a few are detailed to pick for PCs.

NPCs can be whatever the DM wants them to be.

It is also entirely possible that the only sorcerer in the entire setting is the PC.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

This sounds more like an issue with sorcerers and FR than with classes in DnD in general. I think you might get better, more helpful responses if you reframe the question as "what are some cool ways to ties sorcerer characters to the world?"

(And I for one would rather have the stories left open than get bad lore. But that's why I don't use FR.)

 

[Umbran]

But if we don't care about specific fiction, then the niches can only be mechanical. So classes should be something like: tank, melee damage, ranged damage, healer, etc.

You can do that - d20 Modern already did, for example.

However, I think the most useful niches may be rather more nuanced than "tank" and "melee damage", unless your game could be easily replaced with a miniatures wargame. "Only mechanical" should stretch a long way outside combat, no?

Also, there's brand identity and history to consider, and I'm okay with that. The result is classes that imply some flavors, without riveting you to a specific narrative, which is typically useful.

 

[aco175]

I tend to have classes only for PCs and the NPCs are mostly classless in terms of PHB classes. I have NPCs that have some fighter powers, but I freely give them other powers that the PCs cannot have or even get. I like the idea to have organizations in the world that are more regional over worldly. There can be a fighter-type 'guild' that accepts anyone that served in the military. This can be through the background or any NPC the DM wants and not only fighters.

I like the idea of using sorcerer's patron as some sort of game prop. If I'm a demon or genie and give some of my power to people walking around on the ground, I want something in return. Eventually I'm calling on them to do something or give that power back. This of course brings into the game other problems with some classes not having anything like this and players upset. Certain things are campaign focused and may not spill over.

If I had a warlock or sorcerer in my game, then the bloodline or patron would come up, but not likely if nobody was playing one. Maybe in a follow-on campaign if there was a reason to bring the old PC back and have something.

 

[steeldragons]

There's room for both, I think. As hinted at in the op and above, the more general/base the class, the more open for interpretation and different places in the world.

A thief is a rogue is a thief. Could be an acrobat guy with the traveling carnival. Could be an urchin pickpocket from the slums of the metropolis, or a thrill-seeking aristocrat's son cat-burglaring his way through the same city's upper crust. Could be a treasure-hunting explorer with a true academic interest for ancient artifacts or tomb-robber out for the cash-o-la. Could be a "scout" or "guide" between trading hubs, a celebrated locksmith and "vault builder" [trap-engineer], a "security expert" testing the defenses of well-to-do merchants' warehouses, and many many other bunches of characters - within the world - just being a "rogue/thief" on paper.

An Assassin, as a class, begins to limit those "in world" options a bit, as the "lore/fluff" of the class becomes more specific, as with it their mechanic niches narrowing as well. From the outside/baseline, they are mostly thiefly roguish stuff. BUt then there's some abilities and skills that a "thief/rogue" class doesn't have. So they are defined as an "Assassin" class...and that demands something of their lore. They know about poisons. Where/Why/How? They've learned some extra deadly ways of attacking people. Where/Why/How? There is a general presumption, if not stated outright in the class description, that you must have had some training -if not current affiliation- with some guild (or individual) who taught you these ways of "extra-sneakiness," disguise, and death-dealing. But there's still room for several character types.

Are you a current member of a guild or not. Reformed? Escaped? Did a rival guild/gang "off" your former crew? How many assassins guilds (or famed assassin individuals) exist in this world? On good terms with your former associates or being hunted before your betrayal of leaving? Are you an "apothecary" using your poison knowledge to form medcins and antidotes (and ya know, better poisons in your free time)? Are you a specialist for a government-sanctioned organization like Jame Bond? Military infiltration specialist? Are you just a flat-out demented killer? Freelance Bounty-hunter or "Problem Solver" for hire?

There are a LOT of places in the world you can exist. Not AS wide open as a basic thief/rogue, but pretty good array of options for creating a character.

Take it another step, and say there's a class called the "Shadoweaver." You're trained as thief, as get a trick or two of an assassin, AND you can conjure "shadow-stuff" weapons and move ("dimesion door") through shadows. You are the whispers of death on the wind. You are the fear of the chill wind in the night. Many believe you don't even exist and none, but the wealthiest of the land of Ick know how to find you.

NOW, this means you have to learn some magic, or be infused with a creature from the Shadow Plane, or drink shadow dragon blood from the Onyx Chalice of Ick, or... SOMETHING. In fact, within a single setting, it could be possible for there to be more than one way for your to become a Shadoweaver...but, if so, they are few, very specific things. There has to be more lore than a thief, or an assassin, to become a Shadowweaver. There is a more specific, specialized place within the world that the Shadoweavers hold...and it's not broad, and it's not for any/everyone.

So, basically, my take is, within a game system, and/or setting, there is room for any and all of these connections to the setting with a basic "equation," if you will.

From a baseline "general" class (this is the big four, I don't think anyone will dispute). The more features/abilities you add demands a commensurate addition to the "baked in" lore of the class. The more baked-in lore the class possesses, the more specific/narrow of a place the class has in the setting.

TL/DR: Could've probably saved us a lot of reading/time just using this example...
In my campaign setting world your going to find a whole lot of Clerics, to all different deities, different religions, different orders within the same religion, etc etc..

You are going to find significantly fewer "Paladins" than Clerics because there are fewer deities that empower paladins. Correspondingly, fewer orders if enough of them exist to make an "order" at all. Fewer, overall, places within the setting they can or would be found.

You are going to find significantly fewer "Whitehthorns of Gilea" (setting homebrew specialist cleric class) than Paladins because there is exactly ONE goddess who empowers one to become a Whitethorn in the first place. She is a goddess of Life/Healing, so those she selects are drawn from those worthy of particular blessing/boon from her order of pacifist healers for special training, different magical powers (than the typical Gilean cleric), and dispensation to engage in combat.

All three kinds of characters can be found and "have a place" in the campaign setting. But the more specialized/specific you get in class features, the more specific and limited your place exists within the world.

 

[Steampunkette]

I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at then, because I thought you were referencing the Class names specifically. That whatever your Class was mechanically was also what you should be known as narratively. If that's not what you meant, then my mistake.

Oh, yeah. No.

I just mean for the setting itself. If Sorcerers are going to exist in the setting they should be a part of it. Maybe not a -core- part of it. But, like... characters should know what you mean when you say "Sorcerer" in-character in the same way they know what you mean when you say "Necromancer".

Same thing with Ranger, Artificer, Monk, Paladin, Cleric, Druid... all of them should have some kind of connection to the world as concepts, not just "Exist".

If I create a creature called the Boohally Walladay, and create a bunch of stats for it, but leave out how it connects to the world or the ecology or even what it looks like... I haven't actually made something really -useful- to the story. It's useful to the person who decides to cast Summon Monster at 8th level to bring a Boohally Walladay into a combat... but without texture it's just a floating bundle of numbers trundling around the battlefield using tentacle attacks and swallowing gnomes whole.

This sounds more like an issue with sorcerers and FR than with classes in DnD in general. I think you might get better, more helpful responses if you reframe the question as "what are some cool ways to ties sorcerer characters to the world?"

(And I for one would rather have the stories left open than get bad lore. But that's why I don't use FR.)

Sorcerers in FR are just one example.

I've also specifically mentioned Rangers and Artificers. And expressed how I put Artificers into the Ashen Lands as a form of mage-cop. Not every Artificer is a mage-cop from Falconhurst, of course, and a player could make an Alfheimer Half-Orc Artificer with the Sailor Background who has never even heard of the Alchemist's Guild.

But if he tells people he's an Artificer they're liable to make assumptions about his occupation. False ones, but there you go.

I also made Druids antagonistic villains and Rangers into the Martial Arm of the Druidic Sects of the Ashen Lands. Woodsman-Soldiers who hunt down trespassers... Doesn't mean every Druid in the setting is Evil or every Ranger is tied to the Circle of Annihilation...

But, y'know... Assumptions being what they are!

 

[jmartkdr2]

Sorcerers in FR are just one example.

I've also specifically mentioned Rangers and Artificers. And expressed how I put Artificers into the Ashen Lands as a form of mage-cop. Not every Artificer is a mage-cop from Falconhurst, of course, and a player could make an Alfheimer Half-Orc Artificer with the Sailor Background who has never even heard of the Alchemist's Guild.

But if he tells people he's an Artificer they're liable to make assumptions about his occupation. False ones, but there you go.

I also made Druids antagonistic villains and Rangers into the Martial Arm of the Druidic Sects of the Ashen Lands. Woodsman-Soldiers who hunt down trespassers... Doesn't mean every Druid in the setting is Evil or every Ranger is tied to the Circle of Annihilation...

But, y'know... Assumptions being what they are!

Rangers already have a place in FR. Quite a bit of lore actually, even beyond Drizzit. And if Drizzit isn't famous enough for you, I'm not sure what you want.

Artificers are new to FR. That's the lore for them, so of course they don't have a long historical precedent.

 

[Minigiant]

I think Classes could be made to mean something in the setting.

However since D&D is not a game based around a single setting or a family of setting that match similiar ideas in world building, it shouldn't be forced of default. You would have to do that from the start of class design.

However I do support creation of a setting where the premise thickly pushed to have all the classes and subclasses mean something.
Imagine the World of Fives, where every member of a class is the fifth class training option in XGTE

• All Barbarians have been struck by lighting and lived.
• All bards studied at one of the great colleges
• All clerics are former church bureaucrats
• All druid see spirits and sought out other druids to understand it.
• All Fighters grew up fighting
• All monks have a special power inside that they can feel.
• All paladins are out to purge evil
• All rangers were taught by another ranger
• All rogues were part of a gang
• All sorcerers were taught by someone who saw their power
• All warlocks made they pacts in a dream
• All wizards learned from found spellbooks

 

[jasper]

It sounds like Steampunkette is upset because FR fiction has not caught up with mall food court of classes in official product. But if they want to drop certain classes in their world because the lore/fiction does not jive with their heart, go right ahead.
Or does Steam want something like. Jasper's international school fighters teach generic fighters. Oofta's school teaches international wizards who don't play Quittiche. And the average man on the street can tell what a person's class is just by looking at their outfit and strange walk.