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

[Neonchameleon]

I mean, that's my point though. I have no idea what you think you're arguing against, but if you think that's an argument against what I'm saying, not hard for it, you're completely profoundly not getting it. In a really surprising way. Like WOOSH right past you.

The other half of what I'm arguing against (that half we apparently agree on) is the idea that staying in lane would be anything other than a bad thing. That it fundamentally doesn't matter that the players pick and choose the parts of the fluff that resonate and the game is better for it. If I want to play a wizard but prefer the mechanics of the warlock (pact of the tome/Book of Arcane Secrets) I'll have a better experience taking that guy as a wizard than I would if I had to juggle slots and spell levels.

 

[Steampunkette]

Again. My argument has nothing to do with nomenclature. The fighter is the most broad and variable class in D&D. Therefore making the class mean something in a setting is difficult to impossible without paring down what images and attributes it has to encompass.

I disagree, vehemently. Because the word "Fighter" isn't what needs to matter and mean something in the setting. It's the concept of "Being a Fighter".

What sets apart a fighter from a Ranger, a Paladin, a Rogue, or a Barbarian?

Barbarians are Warriors who Rage and often eschew armor and eat fireballs for breakfast.
Rogues are sneaky Warriors who use a lot of skills and dodge fireballs.
Paladins are holy Warriors who combine skill and magic but not fireballs.
Rangers are Warriors are attuned to nature and get fireballed.

In relation to these comparable classes a Fighter is generally defined by what he lacks (Spellcasting, Rage, Smites, Sneak Attacks) and what he gains (More attribute bonuses, more attacks).

So "Fighter" as a term ultimately means "A warrior who doesn't do battle using these prescribed tools as his primary means of combat"

Defined via negative inference, and included in the narrative/culture though varied methods of achieving that negative inference.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The other half of what I'm arguing against (that half we apparently agree on) is the idea that staying in lane would be anything other than a bad thing. That it fundamentally doesn't matter that the players pick and choose the parts of the fluff that resonate and the game is better for it. If I want to play a wizard but prefer the mechanics of the warlock (pact of the tome/Book of Arcane Secrets) I'll have a better experience taking that guy as a wizard than I would if I had to juggle slots and spell levels.

Why does this one wizard operate differently than other wizards? Why does they operate similarly than warlocks? That's just weird and incoherent. Sure, if there are no other wizards or warlocks in the game then it doesn't matter terribly much, but if there are then it is jarring. Rules actually need to represent something and do so somewhat consistently and coherently. A dagger and a halberd are different sort of weapons, thus they have differnt rules. A bugbear and bulette are different sort of monsters thus they get differnt rules. Firebolt and crossbow are differnt sort of attacks thus they get different rules. Wizard and warlock are differnt sort of casters thus they get differnt rules.

 

[Minigiant]

Its not hard to imagine a fighter caste in a society. It’s not realistic. But it can be done. Only members of this caste get the training to be a fighter. Everyone else is some other class that can’t hope to be like a fighter. Heck I remember playing a game where every fighter was a member of the fighter guild. Was it realistic? Absolutely not. It was pure fantasy.

That's my point.

You tied fighters to the setting and created similiarity in fighters by... banning a large group of people and backgrounds from it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

To address your first Unique Point: The Alchemist's guild isn't -exclusively- Artificers. But Artificers, which are a rare group of people whose profession largely sprang up in recent years in a single town, are the most well known members because of their unusual method of handling things. Like I said, in a different thread about the Ashen Lands, their original purpose was keeping the sewers of Falconhurst clean and functional, so anyone with skills in:

1) Alchemy
2) Chemistry
3) Investigation
4) Architectural Engineering
5) Fighting criminals, misfits, or monsters in the sewers

Is more than welcome to join. But the class fantasy of Artificers for the setting is tied up in the Alchemist's Guild. That's also why it isn't called "The Artificer's Guild" when that would be more reasonable for an Artificer-Only group.

To address your second Unique Point: Not all Nobles or even Royalty are actually Sorcerers. But sorcery runs in Royal Families (and many old Noble families) due to the power initially bred into the bloodline by the various sources. And any Sorcerer who -is- a Sorcerer and -is- a Royal can always go Prince Harry, marry Megan Markle, and move out to pursue his own lifestyle away from the Royal Family... but everyone sill knows he's Prince Flippin' Henry wherever he goes.

Again, the point isn't to shoehorn every character into a neatly constructed box and keep them there, it's just to give players a sense of place in the setting for their character's skills, talents, and origin in the world's narrative, so that they and the NPCs have a shared understanding... Which of course can be directly undermined or manipulated for gain on one side or the other.

Fair enough. I wasn't accusing you of trying to shoehorn characters. Rather, one of the points I was trying to make is that you can reap all the benefits of these types of organizations without associating them with a class (or even requiring that class be anything more than a metagame concept). Moreover, that there are potential advantages to avoiding such associations, namely, broadening accessibility to those organizations.

Obviously, certain groups are going to attract more people with particular skill sets and interests than others. The Arcane Society is likely to have a lot more mage types than barbarian types. I wouldn't describe it to my players as a group for arcane magic using classes however. I'd simply describe the goals and interests of the society. The players can certainly make the basic inference that this is a group that a sorcerer or wizard would likely want to join, but I feel like this approach leaves it more open to non-arcane-magic-users who have interests that align with those of the organization.

It seems like we're mostly in agreement, I think. It seems to me as though we're just coming at the same thing from different perspectives. You say you want to ground the classes in the setting. I would instead say that I want to ground the characters in the setting. In part because the concept of a class doesn't really exist in my settings. It's mostly the same, with my only objection being basing it on class (which I admit is my own preference).

 

[Steampunkette]

Fair enough. I wasn't accusing you of trying to shoehorn characters. Rather, one of the points I was trying to make is that you can reap all the benefits of these types of organizations without associating them with a class (or even requiring that class be anything more than a metagame concept). Moreover, that there are potential advantages to avoiding such associations, namely, broadening accessibility to those organizations.

Obviously, certain groups are going to attract more people with particular skill sets and interests than others. The Arcane Society is likely to have a lot more mage types than barbarian types. I wouldn't describe it to my players as a group for arcane magic using classes however. I'd simply describe the goals and interests of the society. The players can certainly make the basic inference that this is a group that a sorcerer or wizard would likely want to join, but I feel like this approach leaves it more open to non-arcane-magic-users who have interests that align with those of the organization.

It seems like we're mostly in agreement, I think. It seems to me as though we're just coming at the same thing from different perspectives. You say you want to ground the classes in the setting. I would instead say that I want to ground the characters in the setting. In part because the concept of a class doesn't really exist in my settings. It's mostly the same, with my only objection being basing it on class (which I admit is my own preference).

Six of one half a dozen of the other on the character/class grounding.

If you've got noble warriors and generals, swashbucklers and knights, then the class fantasy of "Fighter" is a part of your setting. Same thing for important NPC figures in history who are wizards, or modern day schools or whatever other imagery you have.

It's not "Fighter, the word, has to be represented" so much as the concept should be represented in the world. And it also doesn't have to be as a guild or a social class or any other strict central identity, as Fighter shows with it's variety.

But there should be -something- that gives the class meaning in the world. Some examples in history, or sources of the class, by any other name.

Having a historical or mythical figure called "The Dragon-Blooded" as a powerful spellcaster is enough to convey that sorcery as magical lineage exists. Making a note in some eldritch text about some ancient power of darkness that afflicts minds with psionic power, or an arcane tome discussing how ceremorphisis isn't always fatal and doesn't always make a mind flayer.

These kinds of details are more than enough to bring the class into the setting in a meaningful way without it being an order or a social class or some flat out understanding between NPCs about game mechanics.

 

[Sithlord]

That's my point.

You tied fighters to the setting and created similiarity in fighters by... banning a large group of people and backgrounds from it.

Yes. And I would not do every setting like that. But I see nothing wrong with a setting being done like that if a DN wants to do that.

 

[Delazar]

Do you actually give "classes" to the rest of the world? I mean, in my campaigns, only PCs have "classes", the rest of the world have stats-blocks.

 

[cbwjm]

Do you actually give "classes" to the rest of the world? I mean, in my campaigns, only PCs have "classes", the rest of the world have stats-blocks.

Those stat blocks can represent classes though, we have some standard classes that have stat blocks like illusionists or evokers. That's the thing with NPCs, they don't need all of the class features in their stat blocks to represent those classes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why does this one wizard operate differently than other wizards? Why does they operate similarly than warlocks?

Who's looking in detail and conducting this census to check that all wizards operate the same way? Even if we have a wizarding school and exams then the odds are the warlock can pass most of the wizarding exams - after all they can cast spells and most of the wizard's ritual.

That's just weird and incoherent.

I'd have said this census and ensuring that everyone was cookie cutter clones so wizards who swap spell books are almost functionally identical to each other with only a little study was just weird and creepy myself. (And yes I'm aware this was improved by the way 4e/5e handles specialisations).

Sure, if there are no other wizards or warlocks in the game then it doesn't matter terribly much, but if there are then it is jarring. Rules actually need to represent something and do so somewhat consistently and coherently. A dagger and a halberd are different sort of weapons, thus they have differnt rules.

I'm not even sure that a Partisan and a Ranseur are different weapons but they've had different rules. Clearly D&D has historically had different rules where the distinctions were trivial. And the difference between two people is not.

A bugbear and bulette are different sort of monsters thus they get differnt rules.

Well, yes. But two named bugbears can also have different rules.

Firebolt and crossbow are differnt sort of attacks thus they get different rules. Wizard and warlock are differnt sort of casters thus they get differnt rules.

And Elminster and Tasha are different sorts of casters therefore they get different rules. The idea that just because they prepare spells from books two people must do so using the exact same mechanics irrespective of e.g. individual study patterns is something I find weird. This is a non-trivial difference, especially when you are supposed to be all about studying and casting.