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

[Necrozius]

What I liked about the game Dungeon World was that it explicitly stated to the players and the DM that the available classes are unique in the world, like super heroes. For example, you are the "Cleric". There are other religious practitioners in your setting who may call themselves clerics, but they are not the 'Cleric' with the same powers as you. There may be other magic users too, but none of them are the "Wizard". And so on.

It's an interesting take that frees up world building significantly if you want that kind of campaign in which the PCs are super special and important in some way.

Otherwise, yeah, I'd prefer to create a campaign setting where there are some things grounded and accepted. Player and DM agree that Warlocks are the only spellcasters in this specific world (for whatever reasons, thematically or mechanically) and that their Prime Ability Score is Intelligence or Charisma, depending on their patron or personality or whatever. The PC might have a new pact from an as-yet-unknown source (which makes them special and unique) but generally "Warlocks" in that setting (who may not even be CALLED warlocks) typically make pacts with the Serpent Queen or the God of the Unconquered Sun.

 

[steeldragons]

I've gotten a bit lost about what it is the OP and subsequent discussion are arguing for...or against.

• Do [or Should?] the "class names" get used -like in conversation, amongst people- and/or have a meaning [I'm guessing, as understood in metagame] something within a setting?

My answer to that is: (Do?) Yes. (Should?) Yes. And (understood in-world as they are at-table?) I'm going to say, Yes here too.

• Do [or Should?] the "class names" mean nothing in-setting and just supply an "on paper" bunch of mechanics? For example, a Cleric or a Paladin or a Divine Sorcerer with weapon proficiencies/combat feats all being able to present a, basically, "same" character type within the game world.

My answer to that is, (Do?) Not for me, no. (Should?) Not for me, no. However, "Can they...?" Yes. Absolutely. It is part of the DNA (from 3e onward. But, really, available in certain cases through multiclassing in earlier iterations) of how the game is constructed.

I think my general point/contribution to this discussion is there isn't and, imho, really "shouldn't" be an either/or situation. The game allows for, and I think, works best and presents the most fun (fairly synonymous) when both are permitted/present within a campaign's setting.

Couple examples, from my homebrew setting/world -and yes, I would submit that individual homebrew campaigns/settings/worlds IS what D&D "is" regardless of what WotC uses as their "default/example" setting for their marketing/branding/pockets purposes-

Guy walks down the street of a rough n' tumble trading market town. Not a huge place, kinda sits on the outskirts of the kingdom, but a good sized population and a favorite place for the rural folk to come sell their wares or seek out goods/services they can't get in their farming hamlets.

He's wearing some ring mail. Heavy "traveler's" cloak, darkly colored, that's clearly seen some wear. Basic leather breeches. Looks like his fur-wrapped soft boots have seen some leagues of muddy road. He's got a bow and quiver slung over his shoulder. A longsword hangs on his left hip. The glint of a dagger's pommel catches the sun at the back of his waist as his cloak flutters in a momentary breeze. Several days of growth on his face and his shoulder length hair, both sandy brown with the tell-tale golden streaks, immediately identify him as hailing from one of the southern kingdoms. But, even behind the grit of some time on the road, there is something strong and pleasing in his countenance. Those fortunate enough to catch his gaze note the sparkling light green of his eyes.

The goodwives and merchants begin to whisper from market stall to shop to stall as he makes his way into town. Looks like he's heading for the sheriff's office.

"Who is this stranger? Looks like he could be one of them Peregriff Rangers. Thought they just wandered 'round Lindril. What's 'e doin' here?" supposes the smith's wife at the washing well in the square.​

​

"Mmm. I don't like it. He's shifty in the eyes. Beware the shining one's from the south. Clothes in light and gold, they'll cut yer throat soon as smile." says the elderly washerwoman.​

​

"Look at that baring. He's some noble's son for sure. Maybe some officer from Duke Denil's army come to talk about the war with Ovinan. Ole Buddy at the pub said, last week, the Count's goblin armies was headin' this way. D'ja think he'd teach me how to use that sword?" the baker's son, a young man of age eager to get out of town, mutters excitedly to his friends. ​

​

"That sure is a nice bow. Might even be elvish-make. He's undoubtedly a talented archer t'have a bow like that. Lookit his eyes...he's got elvish blood. I'd bet my hat." the fletcher mentions to a customer.​

​

"Elvish blood, you say?" the apothecary in the shop beside the fletcher/bowyer, answers. She is a beatuy of a woman. Her skill with formulating potions and healing the locals have long fostered rumors about her acumen being magical or elvish in nature. "He could be from the south. Of course, he could a northman... Might have wandered down from the Naradun. He moves swiftly, he has a purpose. He might be a hunter of those tribes...or seeking a bounty. They day the Gorunduun are trackers beyond, even, the elves."​

​

"They who?" replied the fletcher's customer with a raised eyebrow.​

Who is he?
1) Human (or half-elf) Ranger (from somewhere in the south)?
2) Human/Half-Elf Fighter, noble background... soldier background? some kind of "military officer/commander" feat? Connected to the Duke's army? A scout? A deserter?!
3) Human/Half-Elf Fighter who's really an adventurer looking for a worthy quest?
4) Human/Half-Elf Rogue? Treasure hunter? Assassin?
5) Human/Half-Elf Barbarian (from somewhere called Gorunduun)? Bounty Hunter?
6) Gnome Illusionist who's trying to infiltrate the town, knowing they arrest gnomes on sight.

The answer, to any/all, is Yes. This guy could be any of these things. NPCs could refer to him as "Fighter" or "Ranger" or "Rogue [would probably hold off and calling him a "Thief" until he did something worthy of accusation) or "Barbarian"...all terms in the game world. OR they can talk about the "Soldier" or "Bounty Hunter" or "Scout/Tracker" or "Northman"...all completely common and usable terms in the game world, as well.

Does the class name have a meaning within the world? Absolutely. Are "all persons" called this class name a cookie-cutter individual from a single place/meaning in the world? Not at all necessarily. Could be, if the setting is set up that way. But certainly doesn't HAVE to be.

A divine sorcerer who takes some armor proficiency and the cleric to the light god of awesomeness could both be present, going about religious duties, doing their jobs, in the same Temple of Awesomeness. Or they might be members of two different sects to the Light God of Awesomeness who get along/work together often, but just keep different temples/abbeys/cloisters, what have you. OR who each think the other is "wrong/heretical" in some way and needs to be wiped out. But fluff like that, that level of lore/detail, I think is probably best kept to a limited number of classes to a specific setting. Most settings, certainly the big four "defaults" shouldn't be strapped in that way.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The idea is that as writers -we- should develop connections for the classes in our own settings. That we should consider all the different classes and races we intend to include as we build our campaign settings and develop ways for them to have impacted the narrative we're constructing about the history of the world and the plots moving forward. About the cultures and ideals, structures and politics, of the kingdoms, nations, and organizations we're building.

And the -writer- knows whether the Gods have done it before because the Writer writes the Gods. The setting's author. Us. Gods in fiction do not do anything that we do not say that they do. Because they have no agency. Only the writer has agency.

First, the GM is not the Storyteller - and this is not a good model.

Second, as someone who writes for fun and has friends who are professional writers, if your characters are something more than 2d cut outs following a set script they will reveal themselves to be actual characters and do things that you didn't expect. You may have written it but planned it is another matter. And people are more complex and varied not only than we imagine but than we can imagine and there will always be outliers.

In the settings that don't have interventionist deities you generally don't have Clerics, either. Just sayin'.

In the settings that don't have interventionist deities you generally don't have magic either. Just sayin'.

Being somewhat less flippant the second biggest D&D setting right now, Eberron, has clerics but does not generally have interventionist gods. Possibly the biggest high fantasy setting right now, period, the Warcraft universe has clerics but does not have interventionist gods. So clerics without interventionist gods are a major thing in major (and consequently in minor) fantasy settings.

 

[Steampunkette]

What I liked about the game Dungeon World was that it explicitly stated to the players and the DM that the available classes are unique in the world, like super heroes. For example, you are the "Cleric". There are other religious practitioners in your setting who may call themselves clerics, but they are not the 'Cleric' with the same powers as you. There may be other magic users too, but none of them are the "Wizard". And so on.

It's an interesting take that frees up world building significantly if you want that kind of campaign in which the PCs are super special and important in some way.

Otherwise, yeah, I'd prefer to create a campaign setting where there are some things grounded and accepted. Player and DM agree that Warlocks are the only spellcasters in this specific world (for whatever reasons, thematically or mechanically) and that their Prime Ability Score is Intelligence or Charisma, depending on their patron or personality or whatever. The PC might have a new pact from an as-yet-unknown source (which makes them special and unique) but generally "Warlocks" in that setting (who may not even be CALLED warlocks) typically make pacts with the Serpent Queen or the God of the Unconquered Sun.

Even in Dungeon World the -cultural- impact of "Wizards" is still there.

Those other Magic Users who aren't actually "Wizards" still have a narrative impact and support the class-fantasy -of- the Wizard. Same thing with the Cleric and Priests thing. Or the Fighter and Soldiers. Or the Barbarian and Tribal Warriors. Or whatever other class-fantasy you're creating.

Because it's not about the name, it's about the identity. Whether you're "The Most Powerful" example of that class fantasy in the world or not, it's still -there-. Still part of the story.

 

[jmartkdr2]

But that is true of everything in a fantasy game. Why does a non-magical rogue get sneak attack while a non-magical Dex fighter doesn’t? Why can a bard use a musical instrument as a focus and no one else can? My cleric is devoted to music and invested in the Performance skill. Why can’t she use an instrument of the bards?

If a player wants to be an academically inclined spellcaster, but wants to play a Pact of the Tome Warlock, I’d probably let her. I’d probably also allow her to switch the casting stat to Int for that character.

As to why this wizard operates differently from other wizards, how do you know? Maybe there are a whole bunch of warlocks that are thematically wizards.

If I'm understanding OP correctly, this is looking at the issue they're concerned with backwards: the problem isn't "how do I fit my sorcerer/rogue/warlock into the setting?" The issue is "why aren't there sorcerers already in the setting?" Which is getting lost, I think, because OP just refers to "the setting," which isn't really a thing in DnD.

But it's not a crazy standard to apply to a built world: if pc's can play sorcerers in this game, there should already be sorcery in the world, and the world should account for that. (or you should deliberately choose to not include it and make any pc sorcerer the first sorcerer.)

 

[Steampunkette]

First, the GM is not the Storyteller - and this is not a good model.

Second, as someone who writes for fun and has friends who are professional writers, if your characters are something more than 2d cut outs following a set script they will reveal themselves to be actual characters and do things that you didn't expect. You may have written it but planned it is another matter. And people are more complex and varied not only than we imagine but than we can imagine and there will always be outliers.

In the settings that don't have interventionist deities you generally don't have magic either. Just sayin'.

Being somewhat less flippant the second biggest D&D setting right now, Eberron, has clerics but does not generally have interventionist gods. Possibly the biggest high fantasy setting right now, period, the Warcraft universe has clerics but does not have interventionist gods. So clerics without interventionist gods are a major thing in major (and consequently in minor) fantasy settings.

... First off: That is a RADICAL interpretation of what I -actually- said.

I'm not talking about writing out the player characters and what they will or will not do in the story. I'm talking about DESIGNING and WRITING a CAMPAIGN SETTING before the game ever starts. Y'know, History of the World, Nation-States, Cultural Trappings, Architectural Stylings, Languages, Cosmology, Religious Beliefs, Deities, Monsters, Etc.

-THAT- is where I'm talking about making sure Character Class Fantasies needs to be included. So that when your players pick up your setting notes for the first time and start writing up their own characters they've got a baseline of what the world is like and what the world would be like for a particular character. (Like Orcs being despised in Elftown or Dwarves being sought after for their Stonework or Wizards being constantly chased down 'cause everyone hates magic)

Before you even have your players write up characters. The -baseline- setting. The "History and Geography of the World So Far"

That part. I'm talking about.

 

[steeldragons]

Yep. Being able to have customized spell access (as 2e priests did) is really the bare minimum you need to have "priest" be acceptable as its own class. The fact that a cleric of a hearth god and a cleric of a storm god have access to the same overall spell list is an annoying flaw in D&D's inherent cosmology.

It's one of the main reasons clerics bug me so much as a class; in a henotheistic setting, virtually any class should be able to have "I'm the clergy of the god of X" or "I've been empowered by the god of Y" as one possible explanation of their abilities.

I've been fiddling with, for years and with varying success, working on a way to incorporate both.

That is, having the "Cleric's spell list" that any/all clerics would have access to. The, kind of, "baseline/basics" of what clerics must learn and master, wielding/handling the channeled power of their deity's (deities') cosmic greatness.

"Can you make Light? Can you Cure Wounds? Can you invoke the divine Protection from Evil/Sancutary/Resistance to flame/cold/etc...?"

Got all of that under your proverbial belt? Ok then, the God of Thunder now answers your prayers [for a third level slot] with Lightning Bolt and the Booming Smite of Loudness. The Goddess of Agriculture grants you access (with any number of your slots of any castable level) to the Druid Spell list. etc...

I waffle on which level of the cleric to introduce this...and/or -more accurately- which level of spells it begins. I think beyond 3rd level spells is reasonable/makes sense...but then, the cleric has to be 5th level before this kicks in...and that seems late.

So I tinker and then forget about it and then tinker. But I am certain there is a way to have BOTH a standardized Cleric/Divine Spell List AND "Specialty Spell Spheres" for diversity (and realism, if you ask me) of cleric types/religions/practices.

 

[Emerikol]

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 think it's a good idea when designing your world to think of all these things. It's a fun way to deepen the game. Don't be afraid to include or ban certain classes to make the flavor fit what you are trying to do. D&D is a toolkit and not a shackles.

 

[Steampunkette]

I've been fiddling with, for years and with varying success, working on a way to incorporate both.

That is, having the "Cleric's spell list" that any/all clerics would have access to. The, kind of, "baseline/basics" of what clerics must learn and master, wielding/handling the channeled power of their deity's (deities') cosmic greatness.

"Can you make Light? Can you Cure Wounds? Can you invoke the divine Protection from Evil/Sancutary/Resistance to flame/cold/etc...?"

Got all of that under your proverbial belt? Ok then, the God of Thunder now answers your prayers [for a third level slot] with Lightning Bolt and the Booming Smite of Loudness. The Goddess of Agriculture grants you access (with any number of your slots of any castable level) to the Druid Spell list. etc...

I waffle on which level of the cleric to introduce this...and/or -more accurately- which level of spells it begins. I think beyond 3rd level spells is reasonable/makes sense...but then, the cleric has to be 5th level before this kicks in...and that seems late.

So I tinker and then forget about it and then tinker. But I am certain there is a way to have BOTH a standardized Cleric/Divine Spell List AND "Specialty Spell Spheres" for diversity (and realism, if you ask me) of cleric types/religions/practices.

This subdiscussion in particular makes me want to design three of the spell lists I have planned (Divine, Occult, Primal) into a -very- pared down central pillar, then do class expansions for unique spells (Bard occult spell list being sound/music for example in addition to standard occult spells as opposed to Warlock occult spell list including Necromancy)... and then give the Cleric's separate Domains spells that are essentially unique to them...

Not 100% sure I'll put in that much work, but it would create a ton of granularity!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think this a popular if somewhat outdated idea (it was a lot more popular in the 1990s and '00s than the last decade or so) but not one well-supported by any kind of analysis. To the contrary D&D, which is quite specific and weird, has been forced on to so many settings, and is partially-diegetic in them, that it's sort of dominated the industry despite being pretty terrible as a "generic" fantasy RPG. But again that's not really the focus here so I'll save lengthy analysis for another thread (in short it would be more about the first-mover advantage combined with specific mechanical peculiarities, particularly level-based advancement that is what has kept it ahead).

You know, I’ve seen this sentiment before, and I just don’t buy it. D&D is quite generic, 5e in particular.

Its a generic fantasy adventure game, and runs pretty much any variant of fantasy adventure you want, with very little work to convert. Mostly, I just add character options and monsters to fit a setting, theme, and genre/game style.

Hell, in my Space Fantasy game, we barely add anything. We just...play D&D in Space.