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

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I’d rather just build a Knight class.

 

[Fenris-77]

So people are taking BGs for mechanical effect. What a surprise. They aren't balanced at all, so of course given the option people will take the strong option. Lotta sailors apparently. Anyone who's surprised in playing the wrong game.

 

[Minigiant]

I’d rather just build a Knight class.

In most cases, Knight class would be just a fighter with a existing cavalier kit/prc/pp/subclass

So people are taking BGs for mechanical effect. What a surprise. They aren't balanced at all, so of course given the option people will take the strong option. Lotta sailors apparently. Anyone who's surprised in playing the wrong game.

Not really. The conversation is about making the class names mean something in the setting.

The issues are:

1. Some of the classes are so generic in setting scope that making their name matter in a setting woud be a misnomer. Sure, saying yur a fighter does mean you are aweapon master but a 1HD fighter is weaker than a 5 HD knight.
2. So the "core four" D&D classes would have to be renamed. A highborn fighter would be a Knight. A lowborn one a Footman. A lowborn nonmilitary one a Thug. A nonguilded rogue/thief would be a Streetrat or Cutpurse. A guilded rogue a Guildthief.
3. If you rename the classes you might as well add mechanical effects to it.

Now you don't have to do step 3. You could just have clone classes. Or you could have each race have their own names for classes and restrict the race/class combinations.

• Dwarf
  • Battlerager (Barbarian)
  • Defender (Fighter)
  • Forgepriest (Cleric)
  • Mineguard (Fighter)
  • Miner (Rogue)
  • Smith (F/R)
• Elf
  • Arcane Archer (Fighter/Wizard)
  • Archer (Fighter)
  • Bladesinger (Fighter/Wizard)
  • Huntsman (F/R)
  • Minstrel (Brd)
  • Scout (Rogue)
  • Swordmaster (Fighter)
  • Warden (Ranger)
• Gnome
  • Breechgnome (F)
  • Buffon (R)
  • Goblinsticker (F)
  • Illusioninist (W)
  • Tinker (R)
  • Tumbler (R)
• Halfing
  • Bounder (Fighter)
  • Burglar (Rogue)
  • Leaftender (Druid)
  • Healer (Cleric)
  • Sheriff (Fighter)
  • Slinger (Fighter)
• Human
  • Barbarian
  • Bard
  • Cleric
  • Cutpurse (R)
  • Druid
  • Footman (F)
  • Guildthief (R)
  • Knight (F)
  • Paladin
  • Ranger
  • Thug (F)
  • Wizard

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Yea. I mean the other option beyond having generic classes is to have a lot of super-specific classes. I could see a book for a setting just having 50 classes, all of which only take up 2 pages each. No subclasses, just a little blurb about how they fit into the setting and then a 1-20 progression.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s funny, but I’ve been building several classes to do things that I am not satisfied by in the official material, and what I’ve found recently is that when I look at all of them together, plus the ideas I have for modifying and adding to the phb classes, it all suggests a world.

Apperently I do like classes that speak to a specific world.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In most cases, Knight class would be just a fighter with a existing cavalier kit/prc/pp/subclass

I disagree.

 

[Minigiant]

Yea. I mean the other option beyond having generic classes is to have a lot of super-specific classes. I could see a book for a setting just having 50 classes, all of which only take up 2 pages each. No subclasses, just a little blurb about how they fit into the setting and then a 1-20 progression.

I pondered something like this in 4e. You have a few dozen classes. The classes only have the flavor and the base class features. Powers are shared between classes based on Role, Source, Race, and Culture. No feats as the classes are ultra specific already.

Basically take all an edition's subclasses/kits/PRCs and stretch them out to full classes. No generic classes. No feats.

 

[Minigiant]

I disagree.

Well it depends on the setting's identity given to knights or different knightly orders. Really how deep you go.
If you don't build to a specific setting, a knight is a fighter/cavalier.

 

[TwoSix]

I pondered something like this in 4e. You have a few dozen classes. The classes only have the flavor and the base class features. Powers are shared between classes based on Role, Source, Race, and Culture. No feats as the classes are ultra specific already.

Basically take all an edition's subclasses/kits/PRCs and stretch them out to full classes. No generic classes. No feats.

Yea, every class becomes like a 4e Theme, just stretched out across the entire level progression. Just use more of the 5e-type powers, bake in some ability score improvements and passive bonuses. All classes are built around a certain narrative niche and have in-setting related elements (per @Steampunkette), and mechanics support that niche. Customization is handled purely by DM-player negotiation rather than player-facing modular elements, and/or via boon grants within the narrative of play (I joined the temple of Ilmater during the course of play, and I get special powers because of that).

 

[Steampunkette]

I'd like to point out, Minigiant: It's not about -names- exactly, or nomenclature. It's about identity and impact on culture and narrative.

Wizards matter in the narrative. Not just as a specific name, but a specific identity. The "Old Wizard in the Tower" or the "Teacher of Apprentices" is always clearly a Wizard character. The class fantasy is there, whether the character is called Wizard or not. Because having a spellbook and high intelligence are core details of being a Wizard.

Same thing with Fighter. Fighter as a word doesn't need to specifically refer to someone who gets Combat Maneuvers, Action Surges, and 4 attacks in a round. A Knight can represent a fighter. So can a General. Or a folk hero. Or a wandering swordsman. All of these concepts fit into the identity of "Fighter". In fact as an umbrella term, a -ton- of class identity is written into every world for them.

But Sorcerer has a very -specific- story to tell. One of magical lineage. And that story is almost never a part of a setting's narrative.

Similarly, Druids are often a bit lacking in representative fiction for a setting. Artificers. Rangers. Barbarians usually have at least one or two "Savage Tribes" which has it's own problems, obviously, but carries their fiction...

The general thrust is that the class identity should be a part of the world. That there should be exemplars of "This is what it means to be a Sorcerer" and a cultural identity to be carried with that. Whether a character holds themself to that or sets themself apart from it is a different question, but can help cement identity through negative inference. "I'm not like other sorcerers"