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

[Neonchameleon]

D&D classes are all built round characters who are professional adventurers. A wizard who stays home tending to their spellbooks rather than explores and tests their use of their spells, their tactical awareness, and their choice in allies uses the same spell levels but is not at all likely to have e.g. the same hit points. A fighter is a professional adventurer who leads with skill at arms - a pampered knight and a professional soldier are both what they are and only need classes (more restricted in some ways and more open in others) if we're going to have separate classes for different tradesmen.

 

[Delazar]

I would like the mechanics completely separated from the fluff. In fact, fluff should have its own separate chapter in any book, refering the crunch when needed.

DnD tries to be setting-agnostic, but still injects "lore" in its classes. That's what bothers me sometimes.

"Sorcerers carry a magical birthright conferred upon them by an exotic bloodline, some otherworldly influence, or exposure to unknown cosmic forces."

or maybe they just woke up one day, and they could do magic? Or maybe I want my character to be a scholarly type, so he actually studied to become a sorcerer? "But that would be a wizard!" But I want metamagic and sorcery points, why does it matter if my fluff is that of a wizard?

"Classes" should only be crunch. What it means to belong to a class, that should be 100% up to the setting.

For example, in my Dragonlance (War of the Lance) game Sorcerers, Wizards, and Warlocks were all Mages, they all go to school to learn, they all have to read books to learn. Because that's the lore of my world/setting. While Bards, Clerics, and Druids were Priests. Their mechanics did not inform their place in the world, it was their place in the world that suggested to them what mechanic (class) to choose.

 

[Minigiant]

D&D classes are all built round characters who are professional adventurers. A wizard who stays home tending to their spellbooks rather than explores and tests their use of their spells, their tactical awareness, and their choice in allies uses the same spell levels but is not at all likely to have e.g. the same hit points. A fighter is a professional adventurer who leads with skill at arms - a pampered knight and a professional soldier are both what they are and only need classes (more restricted in some ways and more open in others) if we're going to have separate classes for different tradesmen.

I agree somewhat and disagree somewhat.

The adventurering wizard and the tower wizard are both wizard. Often one becomes the other. The party's replacement wizard might be a tower wizard days before.

The same with the knight and soldier if they go through a level of professionalism and focus on martial combat. Both would be fighters.

The issue comes when the class is painted on many who don't have the same amount of focus and similarity. Some D&D fans paint anyone with a sword as a fighter and anyone who can cast 1st level arcane spells a wizard and any chump with a dagger a rogue or thief. And this is the setting meaningless.

You can't have "Reflavor as the closest existing class" and "Classes have definite meanings in the setting.".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would like the mechanics completely separated from the fluff. In fact, fluff should have its own separate chapter in any book, refering the crunch when needed.

DnD tries to be setting-agnostic, but still injects "lore" in its classes. That's what bothers me sometimes.

"Sorcerers carry a magical birthright conferred upon them by an exotic bloodline, some otherworldly influence, or exposure to unknown cosmic forces."

or maybe they just woke up one day, and they could do magic? Or maybe I want my character to be a scholarly type, so he actually studied to become a sorcerer? "But that would be a wizard!" But I want metamagic and sorcery points, why does it matter if my fluff is that of a wizard?

"Classes" should only be crunch. What it means to belong to a class, that should be 100% up to the setting.

For example, in my Dragonlance (War of the Lance) game Sorcerers, Wizards, and Warlocks were all Mages, they all go to school to learn, they all have to read books to learn. Because that's the lore of my world/setting. While Bards, Clerics, and Druids were Priests. Their mechanics did not inform their place in the world, it was their place in the world that suggested to them what mechanic (class) to choose.

Super hard disagree. How far you would take this? Can you also use great sword rules but fluff it to be a dagger? In the fiction sorcerers and wizards acquire their magic differently, and this is represented by them using differnt mechanics. If there is no difference in fiction, then different mechanics are not needed either. Mechanics only serve a purpose if they represent something.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

WRITER'S NOTE: People keep reading the first post of this thread, skip over all the discussion, and express their frustration at the idea of "Shoehorning" or "Locking" player character's roles in the story/game by class. That is not what this is about. This is about the -CULTURAL- expectations of the idea "Sorcerer" or "Druid" within a given narrative setting.

Not a specific setting. Nor a specific locking in of player concepts. If you want your Sorcerer mechanically to be a Wizard narratively, that's entirely cool at my table and should be at any table. If your Sorcerer gains his Aberrant Mind powers from a Vestige of the Ashen Lands people will call him a Warlock in-character because that's what warlocks are known for, in that world.

This thread is about cultural expectations of class identity, how that class identity affects the world, and similar stuff.

There are 5-6 different posts in this thread where I have to repeat myself that it's not about players being stuck with only one or two character concepts available.


After reading the LevelUp Cleric I wanted to share something that I've felt is a real problem with several character classes in D&D: They have Fantasy Associations, but no World-Anchoring.

Yeah, a Sorcerer is descended from a powerful ancestor. But other than "LoL! You had to -study- to learn magic? Pleb!" type jokes and statements, what does that -mean- for the world? What interactions does the existence of magic people from birth really mean? And I'm not talking about "My baby cast prestidigitation and scared the babysitter" I'm talking on a Cultural Level.

In a setting I've been designing, I had honestly considered just flatly cutting Sorcerers out of the game, entirely. They seemed almost pointless, like a vestigial nub of some greater narrative purpose that was never fulfilled. But then it hit me: Arcane Nobility.

In the real world we have the idea of Bloodlines being important. Generally directed towards Politicians and the Rich. Because in both of those instances, Wealth and Power are handed down to the next generation over time. The Queen of England will eventually die and someone else from the royal family will become King or Queen or whatever. It's how we got Keeping up with the Kardashians, too. The wealthy progenitor hands big bundles of cash and affluence to their child.

In a world of magic... isn't Sorcery the same thing? Wouldn't a Draconic Sorcerer be the offspring (legal or illicit) of a family line of Sorcerers? Couldn't that lead to a whole -mess- of questions and presumptions? How about social entanglements and responsibilities? And hey, if your Sorcerer is the bastard son of the local Magocratic Ruler, you're also looking at being kidnapped and sent away, imprisoned, or straight up assassinated to avoid political fallout or someone grooming you to claim the throne as the "Rightful Heir".

Wouldn't such families do what we did in reality and try to keep the power for themselves? We're not just talking political marriages and inbreeding (which definitely could be a thing that leads to children with -strange- sorcery) but also about the Persecution of Warlocks and Wizards who are democratizing magic by being able to wield it while not being a part of a special bloodline. And also teach it to -others-?! Unacceptable! Laws must be passed! Halls of extremely prestigious study must be formed! Only the wealthiest, noblest, most favoured families shall be allowed to Learn Magic from a Wizard! All of which are of course at the purview of your local Magocrat.

Artificers, similarly, have this problem. They exist in most D&D settings for the purpose of existing. Sometimes, like in Eberron, they're the "Driving Force" behind technological (or more often magitechnological) advancement in the setting. But what is an -adventuring- Artificer? I wound up deputizing them as a special kind of Anti-Magic Magic-Cop in the setting. Their natural inquisitiveness allows them to CSI things up really nicely, add in some magical talents and understanding of the Arcane, and you've got a pretty decent Wizard-Hunter who can work for the Sorcerous Nobility to track down Witches and Warlocks and other Spellcasters who break the rules meant to keep power in the hands of the few...

Some classes, like Fighter or Rogue, should be pretty flexible, rather than tied into the setting, it's true. Though of course they should have -options- for ties to the setting, like Knightly Orders, Revolutionary Groups, or Thieves Guilds.

But what are some character classes that you feel need some kind of narrative anchor to not feel "Extra"?

I took your advice and didn’t read the comments yet. Maybe I’ll go back after.

I like your take on sorcerers. It kind of flips things on it’s head as the usual trope is sorcerers are the freak while the wizard is the ‘icon’ of the magical status quo.

having spent so much time playing games in high fantasy settings like FR, I feel the classes, especially magic using ones lack cohesion. Too much magic with no rhyme or reason. A few homebrew settings I’ve played in have done similar things with their campaigns: the most powerful schools of magic and levels were reserved for the influential while the occasional farmer is stuck with cantrips and spells that find water and push around soil.

So, yeah, done well In a setting, it adds nice cohesive flavour.

 

[Steampunkette]

You are absolutely right that the "supporting narrative for individuals with special Magical Lineages" is thin. But why in the name of the little black pig are you using the Pathfinder fluff for the sorcerer rather than the 5e fluff? Wizards got their power through study of books. Warlocks from their patrons. Bards get their power from magic. And Sorcerers? None of the above.

To copy and paste from D&D Beyond:

Only one of the sorcerer subclasses in 5e is a bloodline (the draconic bloodline). And for other sorcerous backgrounds? The seventh son of a seventh son is classically a sorcerer. Also that guy who gained lightning powers because they were struck by lightning is obviously a storm sorcerer. And the person born at precisely midnight on the turn of the millennium at the lunar eclipse. And the Chosen One gifted with magic powers. And ... it doesn't even need a reason the sorcerer knows.

And in settings with a lot of magic there being people able to wield magic with unusual origins rather than books, pacts, gods or music are common. No one reason would be common enough to justify a class - but all of them combined underlining that magic can come from anywhere? That's enough.

The quote from D&D Beyond is a clause statement. They gain the "Magical Birthright" from a series of different sources (Grandma boinked a dragon, Grandpa was in a primal storm, Daddy made a deal with a Fae) but it's still a -Birthright-. It's something that you are born with and grows with you and, presumably, that you pass down to others.

The 5e sorcerer is all about magical lineage.

According to 5e's Lore someone who gets struck by crazy lightning from a primal storm can be empowered, but they're not a Sorcerer, they're the progenitor of a sorcerous line. They'd probably retain whatever class levels they have and then gain some kind of Boon or series of Boons from the DM in order to develop their newfound powers.

But most of us would rather just give them Sorcerer levels.

Doesn't change the canonical Birthright of 5e's Sorcerers, though.

That said, if you wanted to do the "Wider Storyline for Sorcerers" that's fine, too? Just sprinkle a lot of different examples of different ways to get power through the narrative to show that it's still part of the cultural narrative and people can have a serious grasp of it in-canon.

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?

He's a fighter means "He puts up a fight." It's a phrase we use even in the modern day. Usually about people with horrible illnesses when we wish to support our friends.

That said: There isn't one. There's no mechanical distinction and there's no cultural distinction between the two terms because there doesn't -need- to be a cultural or mechanical distinction between the two.

Here's a different one for you: He's a Knight. What's that mean?

Could mean one of several things. It could mean he's a mounted cavalryman in shining armor. Could mean he's a landholder who has never fought in a war because he pays Scutage in order to give his king other soldiers rather than himself. Could mean she inherited the title, and the land, from her mother, and eagerly trains for her chance at warfare while her serfs manage the estate. Could also mean Elton John, who is a Knight.

And an awesome and well dressed knight is he!

I do not feel that "Fighter" needs to have an explicit and exclusive cultural connotation because the Class Fantasy of "Armored Weapon Wielder" is broad enough to cover a lot of concepts that tie into the narrative and their subclasses. I don't feel it needs that exclusivity for the same reason I don't feel the term "Knight" needs absolute exclusivity, since it can represent many things culturally and narratively. At least some of which can be explicit undermining of reader/player expectation.

Imagine being told you're being taken before one of the most powerful knights in the world, wealthy beyond measure, undefeated in battle, famed across the world for his travels to far away lands...

And then you walk into the manor house to find Sir Elton John tinkling the ivories as the world-famous knight. Undefeated in battle 'cause he's never fought in a single war or even competition!

Fighter and Warrior exist as essentially synonyms. But Warrior and Knight stand apart. Thug and Bosun. General and Footsoldier. Archer and Cavalier. All are Warriors. All are Fighters. The only specificity is in how they do their particular fighting.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The quote from D&D Beyond is a clause statement. They gain the "Magical Birthright" from a series of different sources (Grandma boinked a dragon, Grandpa was in a primal storm, Daddy made a deal with a Fae) but it's still a -Birthright-. It's something that you are born with and grows with you and, presumably, that you pass down to others.

The 5e sorcerer is all about magical lineage.

Once more this appears to be something you have imported from Pathfinder. The fluff for the Aberrant Mind sorcerer states "An alien influence has wrapped its tendrils around your mind, giving you psionic power. You can now touch other minds with that power and alter the world around you by using it to control the magical energy of the multiverse." Not even a single word of how that has to do with lineage and it explicitly was not a birthright or passed down from your parents and it is explicitly about something that happened to you.

The "Draconic Bloodline" is the only sorcerer subtype that is explicitly about lineage. Most of the others can be if you want them to be with fluff like "You might trace your lineage to an entity from that place, or perhaps you were exposed to its fell energy and transformed by it." for the shadow sorcerer but do not have to be. When it says "perhaps" it doesn't mean "this is the only possibility and please ignore the others we're presenting".

Spellcasters that are about lineage are included under the heading of the 5e sorcerer - but not all 5e sorcerers have anything to do with lineage.

According to 5e's Lore someone who gets struck by crazy lightning from a primal storm can be empowered, but they're not a Sorcerer, they're the progenitor of a sorcerous line. They'd probably retain whatever class levels they have and then gain some kind of Boon or series of Boons from the DM in order to develop their newfound powers.

To look at the actual 5e fluff for the Storm Sorcerer "Your innate magic comes from the power of elemental air. Many with this power can trace their magic back to a near-death experience caused by the Great Rain, but perhaps you were born during a howling gale so powerful that folk still tell stories of it, or your lineage might include the influence of potent air creatures such as vaati or djinn."

As ever except for the sorcerer type literally named after a bloodline and the one mentioning the mind lineage is one but only one option. And near-death experiences and major weather events are explicitly sorcerous origin stories. Your fluff appears to be the Pathfinder (1e) Stormborn bloodline from the APG which states "You trace your heritage to fierce and proud spirits of storm and sky, and living lightning sings in your veins." but once again this is Pathfinder and not D&D 5e.

But most of us would rather just give them Sorcerer levels.

Doesn't change the canonical Birthright of 5e's Sorcerers, though.

Indeed. Other than the draconic bloodline there isn't a canonical Birthright necessary for 5e's sorcerers. Birthrights are merely one of the possible options presented for sorcerers. You can't change what doesn't exist.

There is one for Pathfinder sorcerers. But Pathfinder isn't 5e.

That said, if you wanted to do the "Wider Storyline for Sorcerers" that's fine, too? Just sprinkle a lot of different examples of different ways to get power through the narrative to show that it's still part of the cultural narrative and people can have a serious grasp of it in-canon.

You mean the way they actually did with the sorcerer class in the 5e PHB? Something like the way they said for the Wild Sorcerer's sorcerous origin in the PHB:
"Your innate magic comes from the wild forces of chaos that underlie the order of creation. You might have endured exposure to some form of raw magic, perhaps through a planar portal leading to Limbo, the Elemental Planes, or the mysterious Far Realm. Perhaps you were blessed by a powerful fey creature or marked by a demon. Or your magic could be a fluke of your birth, with no apparent cause or reason. "

So that's (a) a portal to Limbo, (b) a portal to the Elemental planes, (c) a portal to the Far Realm, (d) blessed by a fey creature, (e) marked by a demon, or (f) a fluke of your birth. That's between three and six different examples of different ways to get power as a sorcerer with the Wild Magic origin in one single paragraph in the PHB depending on how you count, precisely zero of which are bloodlines.

So the 5e PHB did literally exactly what you say they should have to demonstrate the "Wider Storyline for Sorcerers". That's because this is 5e canon - and the idea that sorcerers are based on bloodlines is something from Pathfinder - or possibly from the SRD only having the single sorcerous origin that's explicitly about your bloodline.

 

[Delazar]

Super hard disagree. How far you would take this? Can you also use great sword rules but fluff it to be a dagger? In the fiction sorcerers and wizards acquire their magic differently, and this is represented by them using differnt mechanics. If there is no difference in fiction, then different mechanics are not needed either. Mechanics only serve a purpose if they represent something.

I would take it as far as classes, in this specific context. I mean, imagine you're watching a DnD movie, and there's two characters casting fireballs. And they both say "we're mages". And they both say "we went to school to learn our spells".

Then they publish their stats, and one is a Wizard, the other is a Sorcerer. The crunch told us they can both cast Fireball. The fluff told us whatever the world they're acting into wants to tell us.

If you were DMing a game, and a player decides to roll a Wizard, but he also says "ok my character has dragonblood in him, and so he just picked up this book, and he suddenly could cast the spells that are in it", no going to school, no studying in his "background". Would you tell him "no sorry, you need to play a sorcerer"?

I could see the different "classes" as different "styles" to achieve the same thing. A Fighter and a Rogue are both "warriors", heck, in some cases I couldn't tell a Dex-based Fighter from a Rogue! I don't need the crunch to tell me who my character IS, just what he can DO.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I would take it as far as classes, in this specific context. I mean, imagine you're watching a DnD movie, and there's two characters casting fireballs. And they both say "we're mages". And they both say "we went to school to learn our spells".

Then they publish their stats, and one is a Wizard, the other is a Sorcerer. The crunch told us they can both cast Fireball. The fluff told us whatever the world they're acting into wants to tell us.

If you were DMing a game, and a player decides to roll a Wizard, but he also says "ok my character has dragonblood in him, and so he just picked up this book, and he suddenly could cast the spells that are in it", no going to school, no studying in his "background". Would you tell him "no sorry, you need to play a sorcerer"?

I could see the different "classes" as different "styles" to achieve the same thing. A Fighter and a Rogue are both "warriors", heck, in some cases I couldn't tell a Dex-based Fighter from a Rogue! I don't need the crunch to tell me who my character IS, just what he can DO.

then why have different classes at all just destroy the sorcerer and the wizard to make the mage?

why do you like your crunch and fluff so far apart?

 

[jmartkdr2]

then why have different classes at all just destroy the sorcerer and the wizard to make the mage?

why do you like your crunch and fluff so far apart?

For myself: because I want both an interesting character/story, and fun mechanics. Sometimes they don't line up if I only use the book-presented version of character classes. But if they are separable, they are remixable.

Just because I want to play a bookish type doesn't mean I don't want metamagic.