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

[cbwjm]

I tend to keep to old school requirement that only those with the capability to learn magic can. This was part of the background of the magic-user/wizard in earlier editions that the sorcerer stole with the release of 3e (though I guess I don't know how universally it was applied). What this tends to mean for world building is that not every man and his dog can take the magic initiate feat or pick up spellcasting, players can always take the feats or class levels but out in the world magic is far less accessible.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I tend to keep to old school requirement that only those with the capability to learn magic can. This was part of the background of the magic-user/wizard in earlier editions that the sorcerer stole with the release of 3e (though I guess I don't know how universally it was applied). What this tends to mean for world building is that not every man and his dog can take the magic initiate feat or pick up spellcasting, players can always take the feats or class levels but out in the world magic is far less accessible.

may I ask why as other than tradition I do not see the reasoning?

 

[cbwjm]

may I ask why as other than tradition I do not see the reasoning?

I don't like the story of just anyone being able to learn magic, whether wizardry, sorcery, or even bardic magic. I like the story of it being something that only a rare few are able to master and manage.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I don't like the story of just anyone being able to learn magic, whether wizardry, sorcery, or even bardic magic. I like the story of it being something that only a rare few are able to master and manage.

why that seems super odd and radically anti-egalitarian may I ask what the story does for you as I would like to understand your perspective better?

 

[TerraDave]

So skipping over the discussion and just posting...

"What they do vs. who they are" is an old issue, and D&D criticism.

AD&D attempted to have a social context and world role for almost all classes, though for some, like rangers, where actually loners and did not group together. (And your druid or monk where going to have to fight their way to the top, assassins would assassinate, of course). Much of this role and social context was given at higher levels and through things like building strongholds and attracting followers.

However, I think actually play undermined this approach. In play, these disparate characters would get together and stay together to adventure. All the world context stuff felt like an ad-on. Essentially they where professions or occupations; but the social role was butt kicking adventurer, er I mean hero.

However however, I don't really disagree with the OP. For homebrewing I think what is being suggested here is great, even if I have never done too much of it myself.

Also, it would be really interesting to have a version, of say Greyhawk, with singular orders of assassins, druids and monks, prominent thieves guilds, fighters who became warlords, and so forth.

 

[cbwjm]

why that seems super odd and radically anti-egalitarian may I ask what the story does for you as I would like to understand your perspective better?

What's a better story, that everyone can learn magic or that only a few can? Depending on the setting, I admit that it can be either. Darksword trilogy was a world where everyone could which made the one person who couldn't stand out.

In many stories, magic is rare and special, you don't see everyone casting cantrips or spells to make their life easier, rather you have a single magic-user in the town, maybe they're the only one in the entire region, other than any PCs that have learnt magic. It is my preference that this is the story behind magic. There might be many ways to learn it, but every one who does has the spark of magic within them, they're special in some way. For PCs, they're always special if they choose feats of multiclass into a magic using class, I don't limit players, if they pick up the skills then they had the spark of magic. I just prefer that for world building, magic is a rarer commodity that not everyone can learn.

I don't know if you know much about Mystara, but the empire of Alphatia is built upon this story element. Once a highly magical people, the number on magic-users has dropped considerably because not everyone can learn to cast spells. I like that setting element.

I should note that in my setting, some races are highly magical. Dragonborn as a race are almost always able to tap into their draconic nature to become sorcerers. Humans, however, might not be able to learn magic no matter how long they study.

 

[Mind of tempest]

What's a better story, that everyone can learn magic or that only a few can? Depending on the setting, I admit that it can be either. Darksword trilogy was a world where everyone could which made the one person who couldn't stand out.

In many stories, magic is rare and special, you don't see everyone casting cantrips or spells to make their life easier, rather you have a single magic-user in the town, maybe they're the only one in the entire region, other than any PCs that have learnt magic. It is my preference that this is the story behind magic. There might be many ways to learn it, but every one who does has the spark of magic within them, they're special in some way. For PCs, they're always special if they choose feats of multiclass into a magic using class, I don't limit players, if they pick up the skills then they had the spark of magic. I just prefer that for world building, magic is a rarer commodity that not everyone can learn.

I don't know if you know much about Mystara, but the empire of Alphatia is built upon this story element. Once a highly magical people, the number on magic-users has dropped considerably because not everyone can learn to cast spells. I like that setting element.

I should note that in my setting, some races are highly magical. Dragonborn as a race are almost always able to tap into their draconic nature to become sorcerers. Humans, however, might not be able to learn magic no matter how long they study.

I always assumed settings were commonly like that as it was simpler to write about or the leftover fear of magic being from the devil as the idea you subscribe to predates dnd by a large number of years.

I find it does not add a story to the classes or setting.

now making it so some races go to magic like ducks to water and others like polar bears to the Sahara can be done interestingly.

 

[Minigiant]

... you don't have to ditch the general class names because it's not about Nomenclature. It's not about naming classes. It's about Class Fantasy and the Setting.

The "Class Fantasy" of Fighter isn't "People know you're a fighter and thus do 4 attacks per round". It's about being a warrior, knight, general, etc. It being generic or fitting multiple concepts doesn't mean the class needs to be broken into each possibly interpretation so there is only one -true- "Fighter" and two dozen separately titled clones of the class.

My point is that the Fighter lacks a class fantasy besides weapon and armor focus. It can be a knight, general, thug, sword prodigy, a peasant hero, or a lumberjack good with an axe.

Again what does "He is a fighter" mean in a setting. What is the difference between a Dwarf Fighter and Dwarf Warrior?

 

[Neonchameleon]

My point is that the Fighter lacks a class fantasy besides weapon and armor focus. It can be a knight, general, thug, sword prodigy, a peasant hero, or a lumberjack good with an axe.

Again what does "He is a fighter" mean in a setting. What is the difference between a Dwarf Fighter and Dwarf Warrior?

What is this "warrior" of which you speak? In 5e the only "warrior" class I'm aware of is buried deep within Tasha's and is to run an explicit sidekick. But then NPCs almost all getting PC classes is one of the many reasons the 3.X games are outliers within the D&D family and very much for the worse.

 

[Minigiant]

What is this "warrior" of which you speak? In 5e the only "warrior" class I'm aware of is buried deep within Tasha's and is to run an explicit sidekick. But then NPCs almost all getting PC classes is one of the many reasons the 3.X games are outliers within the D&D family and very much for the worse.

The warrior could be anything from a dwarf with a warrior class or the NPC dwarf guard with a bunch of HD.

That's the thing.
Is everyone who primarily uses weapons and armor a Fighter? Are there tiers of fighting man classes (Warrior->Fighter)? Or is Fighter a specific type of fighting man?