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

[TwoSix]

I know this is a bit off topic... but...

... is there an appropriate subforum to just blast a whole bunch of homebrew stuff and campaign setting things and ask people what they think of the concepts and if they have anything they'd like to suggest for interesting additions and the like? 'Cause I've got a bunch of stuff but also it's nowhere near done...

I think the D&D subforum or the General forum (depending on system) is probably the best place, although this forum isn't quite as enthusiastic about homebrew.

 

[Minigiant]

@RuinExplorer ..

What I think is that, ideally, D&D need to PICK A GODDAMN LANE < honks horn repeatedly >.... Dives over explorers hood. Hey My trainer is on your hood ornament. !
I wish but nearly every time some brings up limiting choice in a setting or mainly at table (AKA picking a lane); they get told they are having bad wrong fun. Or worse. Then you either have the general population/buyers wanting everything published to be "OFFICIALLY" in the realms.
Look at Eberron Rising War Nov 19,2019 which had Artificers. Which I have never heard of. Less than a year later Tasha's Nov 17,2020 releases Artificers into the wilds of the Realms.
It seems a lot of people have forgotten A DM can limit choice. But the general populace or the market wants no limits. Or have I totally missed your point?
Man if the Forgetton Realms kitchen sink gets any bigger I will be able to roll my Ford Ranger through for a quick wash.

It think less that people dont want limitations and more people are not buying into the setting some people are offering.

The bar for world design went up. It's harder to grab attention as the fantasy genre is better and people know of more options. Also WOTC sells kitchen sinks as they make more money.

This goes back the to classes having meaning. If your classes aren't presented as directly tied to the world, then you must lore dump in some other way to get the attention of many of the D&D out there.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Honestly ritual spells in general are terminally half-arsed in their usage in 5E, they're one of those things where they clearly wanted to retain them, but didn't want to offend non-4E players, so implemented them in a clumsy way that's actually TOO consistent. The ten-minute casting time is dumb, the fact that they're always at the same power and so on as the normal spell is dumb - they should have let there be ritual versions which were vastly more powerful, or had relatively longer or shorter casting times from each other - one ritual might take an hour, another a minute - both prevent in-combat usage equally, but are very different thematically and in the world. So the ritual Turn Undead could take longer to cast, but last far longer and perhaps have strong effects.

I remember reading a suggestion somewhere that some spells should just have a paragraph labeled: when cast as a ritual with effects specific to that spell. No general ritual rules beyond the tag. Tome warlocks and people with the feat might only be able to cast the ritual version, but that's specific to those cases.

The advantage of this version is that you can change whatever makes sense for that specific spell. Maybe it doesn't require a spell slot, maybe it still does. Maybe multiple casters can pool slots. Maybe it can be upcast, maybe even past 9th level, maybe not at all. The casting time probably changes. The duration, power, number of targets, etc., can all change as makes sense. Some spells might only be rituals. Making it spell specific really opens things up.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Why would a cultist of a storm god be a sorcerer and not a cleric? The cleric is a person who worships a divine being and receives power from them. Why have randomly different mechanics for the same concept?

Because the concept is broad enough to fit several mechanics.
A cultist of a storm god could be represented by a fighter perfectly correctly.

 

[MGibster]

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.

Some of the classes kind of have something that need to be plugged into the setting. The druids with their circles for example. I had thought of setting up some sort of organization for every PC to belong to based on their class, but I came to the conclusion that this was far too much work on my part and the player might have different ideas for their characters.

But part of me would really like for the PCs to have some connection to the setting. I'd really like a monk to tell me what their monastery was dedicated to. I'd love for a Fighter to tell me he's the 3rd son of a noble and joined a knightly order because he wasn't in line to inherit anything.

 

[Umbran]

But part of me would really like for the PCs to have some connection to the setting. I'd really like a monk to tell me what their monastery was dedicated to. I'd love for a Fighter to tell me he's the 3rd son of a noble and joined a knightly order because he wasn't in line to inherit anything.

Well, isn't that what Backgrounds are for?

 

[MGibster]

Well, isn't that what Backgrounds are for?

Yeah. But so far, at least in my campaigns, backgrounds have been used for very little other than offering tool proficiency or skills. It's really weird how many martial characters I've seen take the sailor background. I think I've only had one player who was really into her background and she was a dwarf noble. Part of the problem could be that many of us are veteran D&D players, and historically speaking, "murder hobos" just didn't have a strong connection to society in most D&D campaigns. So it's more of a matter of our habits rather than any fault in the game itself.

 

[Sithlord]

We actually did something like this post in an old
Ad&d game.

fighters were the primary ruling class. Low level fighters were always peasants and one could climb the social ladder into the ruling class by being a high level fighter.

Clerics were a social class too. Just like medieval europe

thieves were from a cast like the untouchables or vagrants or very low class

Not all vagrants were thieves. Most were zero level commoners. But the thief class was a method of gaining levels

wizards were mysterious people that did not use their full name. No one knew where they were from and they were feared.

and we had monastic orders where everyone in them was a member of the monk class

paladins (in this setting only) because were divinely called from the untouchables or low commoner born. They were not trusted. They were warriors but like prophets from the old testament. They were in a mission from god. And sometimes the ruling class would accuse them of being witches in league with demons.

basically d&d classes can be social classes if you want to build a campaign that way. Nothing wrong with it. And it can be very fun.

most NPC’s were zero level commoners. Having even one character level was a big deal.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would be okay with a new Essential line of D&D where all the classes are boiled down to thematic and world-tied archetype to a new setting and have their class feature focused more on this world

No generic fighter and rogue. You get Noble Knight, Mineguard, and Swordmaster or Guild Thief, Street Rat, and Shadow Assassin. Heavily themed classes to a generic world.

D&D classes have always been a bit too generic to really tie into the world and tangle itself up good. But if you build them from scratch like how some kits, prestige classes and paragon paths functioned, it could work.

Honestly, if you only build to about level 15, at most, it’s pretty easy to get a handle on bespoke classes like that.

I mean it takes practice, but I knocked out most of 1-10 on an archer class the other day over a few hours.

 

[Minigiant]

Honestly, if you only build to about level 15, at most, it’s pretty easy to get a handle on bespoke classes like that.

I mean it takes practice, but I knocked out most of 1-10 on an archer class the other day over a few hours.

Well that's all up to the system and how deep you want it to be. You can tweak many classes and rename them.

I mean I can whip up a Knight, Footman, or Dwarven Mineguard or Hallguard class in 1e in less than an hour.
In 5e, you can just take the Fighter(Cavalier) swap Unwavering Mark with Combat Superiority with knightly weapons only and call it the Knight class. Swap Know Your Enemy with Remarkable Atthete, Rename Student of War to Lowborn Beginings on a Fighter(Battlemaster) for a Footman class.