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

[Minigiant]

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.

None of that is a setting based definition. The whole point of the discussion.

Rangers being part of an organization that require skills, martial ability, and magic to defend an area.
Sorcerers being part of noble bloodlines of dragon descendants.

What is the setting based tie to the setting for Fighters? If that are all part of a fighter's guild or knights, then the "everyone who fights with weapons" definition is not theirs anymore.

 

[Delazar]

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.

Do they really represent classes, though? Or do they represent the "fluff"?

A Guard, a Veteran, a Gladiator, I don't think they represent the Fighter (some of them have abilities that not even fighters have, like Brave or Brute). They are a mechanical representation of what the fluff needs, at any given moment.

If anything, this goes to show even more that "class" is a purely mechanical artefact, that should have no fixed connection with fluff, but to be used to represent whatever fluff we need to represent.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

There's certainly some degree of correlation between the conceptual swashbuckler and the concept of the fighter class. However, it isn't a strong correlation IMO. Yes, you could play a fighter who is a swashbuckler. You could just as easily be a rogue, ranger or kensai monk though. In the case of swashbuckler NPCs, they might not have anything in common with any of the aforementioned classes beyond a propensity for poking folks with a sharpened bit of steel (custom made NPC).

The "class fantasy" exists irrespective of whether a game has classes. I can make a character in Savage Worlds (classless system) who is a swashbuckler. Classes are simply a useful shortcut to that same end. The concept of a swashbuckler exists in the game world regardless.

I don't agree that your examples bring the class into the game in a meaningful way. If all dragon sorcerers trace their lineage to the ancient Dragon Blooded figure, that's nifty but doesn't really add much IMO. I'll read it, think to myself "that's neat" or "whatever", and then forget about it unless it actually becomes relevant at a later date. I don't think it adds much, unlike organizations which can provide a variety of hooks. It's much easier to leverage an organization at the table than some obscure historical factoid that the players might or might not even read.

I'm not saying it's bad or anything. If it works for you, go for it. I just don't agree that it's worth significant effort. I'd much rather a player give me a creative origin for their character, than provide one for them. They'll actually remember the one they come up with, and that's something that's easy to leverage at the table. They'll be far more invested, because they've made the investment of coming up with it themselves.

That's not to say that you can't have an ancient mage who was called the Dragon Blooded and was a mighty and feared individual. That's just building a historical context for your setting, which is useful because it creates depth. However, if I were creating such a character, their "class" wouldn't be stated. It would left up to the players to guess what it might have been. There might be a myth which states that this figure sired a powerful bloodline whose magic is drawn from draconic ancestry, but I would leave it as no more than a myth. A player who wants to hook into that can, whereas a player who wants to go their own way with their custom origin is equally valid. It's a subtle but important distinction to me.

 

[Necrozius]

Hm if the default assumption is that D&D classes are meant to just be abstract collections of mechanics that a player chooses purely for individual preference on how to “be” some role (striker, tank etc) I personally would have written the game the other way around (player picks a role, chooses the “trappings”). Like, I want to be a swashbuckler. Am I an agile, clever opportunist with sneak attacks? Or do I get my fighting skills from a Sea God? Or did I get my abilities from lifelong combat training in the Marines? Or from my life as a river ranger?

And then explicitly explain to DMs and players that Classes are not diagetic. As in, saying to a random NPC that you’re a Paladin or Druid will get blank stares.

Personally, I think I prefer games to be free form like Savage Worlds or games in which the available classes ARE diagetic. D&D is coming across as a mix of both, which is confusing to me.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Every one of those "Unique Flower" (I must be clear I do not mean this in a derogatory way, I recognized about half an hour later it might come across that way) Sorcerers requires just -so- much supposition, though. About the setting.

I think Sorcerers are the epitome of the “weird fluke” as to how they got their powers. And that’s fine. It also naturally explains why there aren’t a lot of them and they aren’t systematized.

If you accept that a sorcerer is a once-in-a-generation weird occurrence, you don’t really need to postulate a clear origin for all sorcerers or a magical aristocracy of sorcerers (though you could if you wanted to).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I think that in reality this kind of thing - i.e. re-skinning a class to represent something it isn't, particularly another class, is both rare enough in practice, that it doesn't really matter, and more importantly would happen regardless of whether the classes were worked into the world, because to do what you're describing means you're already ignoring the lore associated with the class.

A point was made earlier that one player might be totally into a their Druid (or w/e) as part of the world, and another player might be a Fighter but be all about the character who he isn't particularly classically "Fighter-ish", and I think there's a bit more truth to that, rather than the notion you have here. But that doesn't really mean that you can't have classes that are part of the world.

I mean, having read Worlds Without Number recently, I'm increasingly leaning towards the idea that you could mix more specific diegetic and more generic non-diegetic classes, so long as you relatively cleanly delineated them, and WWN also shows you could freely re-skin the diegetic classes, them existing diegetically as part of the world is absolutely no bar to that.

It's notable that D&D basically already has a diegetic/non-diegetic split, and it's basically "who has magic powers and who doesn't". If you don't have magic powers, you're non-diegetic. If you do, you're diegetic. This is generally reflected in settings, which often spend some time situating magic-power-havers in the world, particularly full casters, but relatively little on martials. 4E was the real exception as just about all the classes were equally diegetic/non-diegetic. 5E feels largely like a return to the older approach, slightly confused by the fact that more "martials" have actual magic powers. I think 5E is slightly holding back the remaining martial classes by keeping them non-diegetic yet also non-generic.

One additional point I'd make would be that if it wasn't for Vancian casting, the specific scenario you outline would likely never come to pass. D&D's lack of a developed alternative (Warlock being the closest we have right now - spellpoints being underdeveloped as an option) to Vancian casting is the source of a lot of the woes it has, class-wise, frankly.

Personally, I think I prefer games to be free form like Savage Worlds or games in which the available classes ARE diagetic. D&D is coming across as a mix of both, which is confusing to me.

I don't find it confusing, personally, but I do think the game would be better off making a clearer decision. None of the arguments to the contrary seem particularly convincing. To whit:

"It's why D&D is so popular" - This is an argument as hollow as a maraca. There's almost nothing it's not applied to. We've seen it wildly applied to different aspects of D&D over and over, particularly in the last few weeks. It's basically a kind of logical fallacy, because there's never any particularly strong argumentation to support it, just an assertion that obviously it is the case.

"We need to be able to re-skin classes!" - This is possible regardless of whether the classes are diegetic or not. But I would argue that having a default position of making them diegetic would be helpful to a lot of players and also helpful with some worldbuilding.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It doesn't matter that there are 6 options or 100 options if none of them are in the setting as something for your character to be tied to.

No option (or 100 options) will work for every setting. Which is why writers propose multiple options and leave you free to come up with others.

So I’m not sure I understand your point? Would it be better if there was a single option and it was forced on all settings?

The Gods can do what they want in any setting. But if it's something they've -never- done before this one level 1 Divine Soul Sorcerer in the entire history of the world: What in the heck is going on -there-? Also: Not every setting has interventionist deities.

How does anyone know that the Gods have never done it before? This could be a once-in-a-generation thing? Or a desperate-times-call-for-desperate measures thing?

But maybe the setting doesn’t have gods or they are non-interventionist. In that case, my first question is going to be: are there any clerics (because honestly, that’s going to be a bigger issue than Divine Soul sorcerers)? If so, can the Divine Soul use the same power source as they can? If not, can the DS use one of the other possible origins of DS sorcerers? If none of that works, then well, not every setting needs to support every subclass.

That being said, I’m probably going to look a bit askance at a DM that allows you to play a cleric in a setting without gods but draws the line at Divine Soul sorcerers.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't agree that your examples bring the class into the game in a meaningful way. If all dragon sorcerers trace their lineage to the ancient Dragon Blooded figure, that's nifty but doesn't really add much IMO. I'll read it, think to myself "that's neat" or "whatever", and then forget about it unless it actually becomes relevant at a later date. I don't think it adds much, unlike organizations which can provide a variety of hooks. It's much easier to leverage an organization at the table than some obscure historical factoid that the players might or might not even read.

I think this rather flip dismissal of the concept is deeply undermined by Earthdawn, though I also don't think anyone wants an article-sized piece on how Earthdawn demonstrates that this is flip and ill-considered so I'll stop there.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think this rather flip dismissal of the concept is deeply undermined by Earthdawn, though I also don't think anyone wants an article-sized piece on how Earthdawn demonstrates that this is flip and ill-considered so I'll stop there.

Earthdawn is Earthdawn. It doesn't try to be D&D. Neither is D&D trying to be Earthdawn.

You can try to make your D&D more like Earthdawn, but I think you'll lose some of the advantages unique to D&D (and you still won't end up with Earthdawn).

YMMV

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It doesn't try to be D&D.

I think both false and that that's a huge topic to unpack, actually and again you're in with the flip dismissals!

I absolutely think there's a ton more to this than you're suggesting, but maybe I'll start a separate thread about ED and other attempts to "fix" D&D in various senses of the word.