D&D 5E What if everyone in the setting had a [Class]?

[jmartkdr2]

Definitely doable. Although I do like the idea of Dragons becoming Sorcerers or Fighters; they just level fairly slowly because few things actually challenge them.

They could multiclass, assuming that's still a thing.

 

[TwoSix]

They could multiclass, assuming that's still a thing.

For sure. Something like a Dragon would definitely have some kinds of Prestige Classes or Class Transformations available, as well.

 

[kigmatzomat]

D&D is a combat game, and D&D classes represent fighting styles.

It is what the D&D rules are.

Meanwhile, translating every nonplayer character into a class, defacto means every nonplayer character is competent in combat.

D&d evolved from miniature warfare (napoleon, iirc). They named the characters, added magic, hirelings, followers, crafting and even some level of investing. Then they published it as D&D.

Each edition has had varying levels of non-combat. Over the last 3 decades, 3e had hyper-granular knowledge, social and crafting skills with every demihuman having classes. 4e had fixed skill bonus and only a few skills for each class. Now 5e swung back with a variable proficiency bonus, tool proficiencies, and feats.

 

[kigmatzomat]

This. I, personally, do not run my games with everyone having a class. I don't run with class really being anything in the world at all, I use class purely as a metagame tool to make PCs.

But, I'm interested in understanding how people who do like to use [Class] as a real thing in the setting, that an NPC can recognize another NPC (or PC) as belonging to, utilize that concept in their own fiction.

I was fond of 3e where everyone had a class. Not just because of that but because they also had demographics.

Pick up any classless/point buy system and you almost always have archetypes or skill thresholds that show various levels of competency. A police officer with +3 firearms vs a sniper with +5, or where 50%/60%/70%/80% is high school-semitrained/ BS trained/MS professional/PhD-expert/olympian-legend. We know that most people are going to be in that 50-60% zone, with 70% being exceptional in the overall populace and 80% is just rare. We can tell if a character can hold their own in a bar fight or drive a car in a hurricane.

5e gives you....nothing. abso-smurfly nothing.
How good are the social skills of the mayor of a city of 1,000 likely to be? What about the mayor of a city of 25,000? Will it be +3? +9? +12?

In 3e you could look at a city's size and have a clue what was likely the best available. The 3e demographics set the highest level of each class and how many of each lower level there are. It sets expectations. Any 13th level 3e character can't have a skill greater than 16 and likely a bonus of +4 for a total of +20. A 3rd level character skill max is 6 and stat bonuses will be closer to +1 for a +7.

 

[Yaarel]

I want to focus here for a second. Because this I think is a fundamental problem with your approach to this question.

The question is "What if everyone in the setting had a [Class]?" And your answer is "Not everyone in the setting would have a class, classes are special."

You are fundamentally altering the premise of the question.

Classes are something "special", namely combat competency.

In my current settings, "not everyone would have a class". Not everyone is competent in combat.

And yes, you would get a positive response from those in the thread who do not like the idea of a setting where everyone has a class, but you are not actually answering the question.

I answer the question. Even if in my current settings not everyone is competent in combat, many are. Many cultures train for combat, including warriors of a clan, and militia of town. It is easy to imagine where everyone in a setting has at least some combat training, hence levels in a class.

And secondly, your approach of "just give them backgrounds" fundamentally creates a massive amount of tension. Because you would have some people with a "class" that grants them these abilities, something they can point to. And other people, people who are usually far weaker, not having a "class" but something else that does not give all the benefits of the "class".

Well, yes. A character without a class is "weaker" in combat.

But the noncombatant still has skills, toolsets, proficiency, and feats that they can point to with regard to noncombat areas of life.

And since you can be born with a class, which is a necessity for Sorcerers to be a thing, then you have some people who are born more special and more powerful, in a demonstrably objective way.

Even the Sorcerer class needs training and experience to advance from background to level 1 to higher levels.

Nothing assumes that innate magic must be for combat. Perhaps the sorcerous magic is strictly for noncombat and weaving clothing (Weavers Toolset, Performance Skill).

The weaponization of sorcerous magic is combat training and experience.

One of the fun things, as a person who enjoys stories where classes are a real concept within the world, is not seeing what a level 20 fighter can do, but what a level 20 Farmer or Barkeeper can do. In asking the question "what does it look like to be a practical demigod in THIS field or THIS specialty." But by separating them out and declaring "anyone who isn't doing combat and going to combat schools to get real classes can't do that" you are taking out a big element of what makes the exercise worthwhile in the first place.

There is such thing as a Farmer background whose Nature skill and so on eventually advance to proficiency +6 (and expertise +12).

However, I dislike the design concept of a "Farmer class". A high priority for the design of any D&D class is to be balanced compared to other classes thus equally effective in combat. Unless weirdly weaponizing the concept of a Farmer, the hypothetical Farmer class would be strictly inferior in combat, thus no longer be a viable player class, or even a "class" at all.

Or, the DnD rules don't accurately represent the totality of reality. Only the combat section.

The question, to me, is aimed far more at "building a world with classes" and far less at "make DnD combat classes a real thing" because if everyone has to be good at fighting, the world strains far more than if you allow non-combat classes. Which DnD has had in the past and make sense for building this sort of world.

D&D evolved from a combat game, and a "class" represents a combat style, and doesnt represent the totality of reality.

At the same time, there is no need to translate everything into some kind class. There are other design spaces to describe noncombat things, especially background, proficiency, and feats. Where each class level is worth about a feat, it is hypothetically possible to build a character without combat features, without a class, who only selects noncombat feats. However, at this point, the character would be unsuitable for D&D adventures that require combat. Also, it becomes more straightforward to use a statblock instead of a character sheet to represent the character.

 

[Shardstone]

D&D is a combat game, and D&D classes represent fighting styles.

It is what the D&D rules are.

Meanwhile, translating every nonplayer character into a class, defacto means every nonplayer character is competent in combat.

No, D&D is a game about being Fantasy heroes, a big part of which is combat. It says it right in the PHB.

 

[Yaarel]

No, D&D is a game about being Fantasy heroes, a big part of which is combat. It says it right in the PHB.

Does the "no" refer to social challenges and exploration challenges, including their skill challenges?

 

[Shardstone]

Does the "no" refer to social challenges and exploration challenges, including their skill challenges?

and that class features include non combat features.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Anyone who's read my posts (all 5 of you!) knows that I'm very much NOT a fan of the idea that class, as a concept, is a recognizable element within the setting.

But [...]

The premise is an interesting one; it raises the question of the difference between the results of a system where everyone (or nearly everyone) has an implied class, and the hard-coding of class into the mythic reality of the game world.

I agree with the various sentiments that it needs some kind of divine or metaphysical justification in order to be embedded in the world so explicitly - my mind immediately goes to the four varnas of the Vedic class system, and the much more stratified and complex castes which they underpin, as the mythological template for something like this.

It seems that some kind of monocuture is implied.

 

[Horwath]

I believe that this better goes with more open classes, that is a lot less fixed features and more feat slots.

I.E. if you trained in you high school to be an expert(rogue and expertise) does it really mean that you need to learn how to stab in the kidneys or poke someones eyes out(sneak atttack)?

maybe you practiced archery a lot while you were learning, longbow proficiency+archery style instead of +1d6 sneak attack?

bit I agree that as a 1st level of "whatever", you should have same power budget as all classes.

maybe no features from background and class and just have 3 feats to take at 1st level and one or two feats every level after.