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

[Steampunkette]

Because mechanics defining in-fiction role bugs me. There should be multiple ways mechanically to represent you’re empowered by a god or spirit, or you have a pact with an entity, or you’ve learned ritual magic from a book

Try it the other way around, TwoSix.

You're a Sorcerer mechanically, and a Cleric Narratively. That's what I'm trying to express. The out of character mechanics are Sorcerer, the in-character conceit (and the way people talk to you and treat you within the setting) is Cleric/Priest/Cultist.

Yeah I wholeheartedly agree.

Dark Sun is particularly interesting because whilst it doesn't play nice with standard D&D classes, it does deeply embed some concepts that other settings kept on the periphery - psionics particularly, with both Psionicists and wild talents being very integrated into the setting, and "unnecessary" classes for the setting simply eliminated. It also massively re-jigs Bards, but actually makes them part of setting, rather than "rando jack of all trades dude who can cast massive spells for no apparent reason" (as they were in 2E).

Eberron is interesting in a different way, because it's a 3E setting, and did a good job of integrating 3E stuff in a very 3E way. Basically with 3E rules, Eberron works and makes complete sense (arguably 3E is the closest to "generic fantasy RPG" too - I say arguably but I think most would agree). In 4E, the rules changes made you go "hmm" about a few things, but it largely worked, just now things weren't perfectly aligned, and the importance of casters didn't make quite as much sense. In 5E, whilst it's absolutely still possible to run the setting in D&D, and run it well, things are way wonkier, because 5E doesn't map well to what Eberron was intended to do in 3E. The "no feats" mandate in particular caused an absolute car-crash of design, where instead of the neat way dragonmarks were done in 3E and 4E, with feats, they had to create pointless subraces of most of the "basic" races to allow them to have dragonmarks.

I think the same story is true for a lot of settings, like they integrate the classes in a way that makes sense to that one edition (Dragonlance and 1E, Forgotten Realms was 1E, but elaborately re-embedded classes with 2E's Godswar, and kind of tried the same thing with less success with 3E and 4E and then half-arsed it with 5E), then people want to move on. However, in 5E you can also see the bending and stretching of D&D to try and use it as a "generic fantasy RPG" even with official settings, thanks to the MtG settings. Most of them align extremely poorly with D&D conceits about magic and classes. But they work well enough - the classes aren't really integrated, but people overlook it.

But yeah, if it was up to me, I'd say all settings should integrate the classes/archetypes that they want to use - then leave it up to individual groups/DMs if they want to bring in other stuff (and how much they integrate it).

I think there's also a case to be made that instead of:

A) Re-hashing old settings.

and

B) Attempting to jam non-D&D fantasy settings into D&D-shaped boxes.

Each edition should get new settings, which properly integrate that edition. Or at least one setting like 3E did with Eberron. 5E has no settings like this. All 5E settings are box-jamming or revivals/continuations of settings for other editions. It works okay, but with full integration it could be Earthdawn levels of cool.

YES! Absolutely!

I'd like to add that while Eberron was 3e in format and design, 3.5e was D&D trying to be Eberron. Trying to be -more- like the way it fit that world, to mold to it even more closely.

Maybe every setting needs to let go of the "Bring Everything In" identity of D&D and instead say "Incorporate Everything in the Given World"

Like in a world with no sorcerers -narratively- say that both Sorcerers and Wizards are available for play, but are interchangeably called "Mage" and don't have the Bloodline fantasy tied to them so much as a particular direction of magical understanding, or something.

I think that would go a long way to making things work. And I think LevelUp's classes (Particularly the Ranger) will make a great impact on that in the future, since Rangers will again be Hunters and Nature-Dwelling Warriors instead of "Druid-Warriors"

 

[TwoSix]

So like, it's not unreasonable or invalid to have your perspective, but it is harshly at odds with a lot of perspectives. Personally, I'm not fond of it, because my experience is that when the mechanics have a more consistent link to the setting, the game as a whole tends to be both more compelling, and simply easier for people to RP in.

I absolutely agree it's a harsh perspective, that's at odds with a lot of people's normal play style.

But I still think it's better, so I continue to advocate for it on the forums.

 

[Minigiant]

I like this. I mean not specifically using Xanathar's (though this is a pretty decent list, really). But could be fun to run up a list of particular characters that are setting specific.

I mean more specific than this. Assign them to the classes to nations/regions within a setting. And, basically, make...I don't know, 3 seems fair -and resulting in a reasonably sized list- 3 different setting versions of each "base" class. So a total for a particular game, maybe a cut off/"top" of 15 (maybe 16) classes for a given setting.

Heck, with proper prep, for the world-builders out there, you could change the whole campaign/setting you are playing in every few months depending on how often you get to game these days, or every session for that matter, with a completely new group of "classes." Takes some of the creative fun out of things for some players, but might be useful for enforcing/encouraging immersion and flavor for those more...narratively/creatively or imaginatively challenged but still want to "play a game."

But could that be a step back into/towards the "TT D&D as video game" problem with 4e's design? I don't know if it is or would be. Just a concern/question.

That is kinda my idea for a Warring Pantheon setting.

For example, druids and rangers would only come out of the nations who follow the Nature Pantheon. You have to be taught druidic magic and a druid wont teach you if you don't worship the Earth Mother. Now the druids are openlyhostile to the other pantheon so rangers would ntwant to reveal their magic outside their homelands often.

Whereas Not-Odin doesn't empower is clerics at all. Barbarian rage is Not-Odin's, Not-Thor's, Not-Loki's, or Not-Hel's blessing. Not-Odin is all about WAR and is basically Smart Khorne. His priests are straight up warriors. If you see an berserker, it's likely an invasion. Berserkers are elite Northern tribal warriors blessed by a Northern god. A storm herald is a literal herald of the Noterrn Storm god. If you make an all Northern campaign, don't expect much healing.

 

[TwoSix]

Try it the other way around, TwoSix.

You're a Sorcerer mechanically, and a Cleric Narratively. That's what Longinus is trying to express. The out of character mechanics are Sorcerer, the in-character conceit (and the way people talk to you and treat you within the setting) is Cleric/Priest/Cultist.

But that wasn't what Longinus was saying. Longinus said, paraphrasing "Why would you use another set of mechanics for a narrative concept of a cleric?"

The way you're phrasing it (I can use Sorcerer mechanics to play a Priest/Cleric/divine agent) is exactly how I run it, and is an idea that has received a ton of pushback over the years on these forums.

Like in a world with no sorcerers -narratively- say that both Sorcerers and Wizards are available for play, but are interchangeably called "Mage" and don't have the Bloodline fantasy tied to them so much as a particular direction of magical understanding, or something.

This is something I'm much more of a fan of.

And I love Eberron for much of the same reason. But I'm a big fan that Keith Baker specifically says you can use Warlock or Cleric or Sorcerer to represent your Dragonmarked character, or your character touched by the Mournland, or your Pilgrim of the Silver Flame if you would like. Or that a Ashsworn "druid" could be a druid, or a ranger, or an Ancients paladin, or a sorcerer. That's the kind of worldbuilding I like.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because mechanics defining in-fiction role bugs me. There should be multiple ways mechanically to represent you’re empowered by a god or spirit, or you have a pact with an entity, or you’ve learned ritual magic from a book

And the lack of mechano-thematic connection bugs me. If a sorcerer can be a cleric an cleric can be sorcerer, then why the hell we have two separate classes to begin with? At that point just remove the classes and let the players choose whatever spells and features best suit their unique theme.

 

[Steampunkette]

But that wasn't what Longinus was saying. Longinus said, paraphrasing "Why would you use another set of mechanics for a narrative concept of a cleric?"

The way you're phrasing it (I can use Sorcerer mechanics to play a Priest/Cleric/divine agent) is exactly how I run it, and is an idea that has received a ton of pushback over the years on these forums.



This is something I'm much more of a fan of.

And I love Eberron for much of the same reason. But I'm a big fan that Keith Baker specifically says you can use Warlock or Cleric or Sorcerer to represent your Dragonmarked character, or your character touched by the Mournland, or your Pilgrim of the Silver Flame if you would like. Or that a Ashsworn "druid" could be a druid, or a ranger, or an Ancients paladin, or a sorcerer. That's the kind of worldbuilding I like.

Yeah, I misunderstood Longinus. I edited my post to reflect that.

And yeah. I'm definitely a fan of different ways to do the same character, or -unique- characters that don't fit into specific narrative roles for classes in the game...

But I -want- those specific narrative roles for characters to have some kind of place in the world, whether they choose to reject it or not.

That said, I'm also not against cutting entire classes for a setting, both narratively -and- mechanically. If I'm making a low-magic setting where Warlocks are the only spellcasters and all the monsters are going to be fairly mundane without a bunch of special resistances to high end magic spells to help reinforce the amount of relative -power- that a Warlock wields...

I won't let you roll up a Druid in -that- setting and claim to be a Warlock. Just 'cause for that particular setting, and it's stakes, it won't fit.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Particularly it's related to the "D&D isn't D&D, it's a generic fantasy game" perspective. It's treating the mechanics as something that aren't actually related to the world, but are just arbitrary mechanical packages that you can pick from. This is comparable to a lot of older points-based superhero RPGs, where two characters could have nigh-identical themes, even ones that, in-setting, claimed to have the same source, but have built entirely different mechanical structures to support them behind the scenes.

Yeah, I hate this sort of disconnect. If one anti-matter beam has certain sort of rules then another anti-matter beam should have same or very similar rules. Otherwise it is just total chaos and the rules don't mean anything.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I absolutely agree it's a harsh perspective, that's at odds with a lot of people's normal play style.

But I still think it's better, so I continue to advocate for it on the forums.

I sort of agree.

What I think is that, ideally, D&D need to PICK A GODDAMN LANE < honks horn repeatedly >

D&D currently, and this is particularly the case in 5E, does a weird thing where randomly some classes, and some archetypes are in-setting things, which have a definite, comprehensible and reliably meaning, and others are merely mechanical frameworks, which might be used for anything which fits within that broad mechanical conceit - they're almost like 4E's roles, more than actual classes.

D&D is thus basically swerving all over the road on this point, or at least repeatedly drifting over the center-line. They could, however, pick a lane.

Lane 1) Classes become largely mechanical frameworks, to be re-flavoured at will, with little/no hard link to the setting. Ideally classes would be re-designed a bit at this point as well. Whilst some people will say "why not go points-based?" I'd say, because everything points-based is a total balance/min-maxing disaster of the worst kind. Keeping classes, at least in the background, means you'd be able to have something which was both more accessible, and more flexible than what we have now. You'd obviously have examples which showed really simple/obvious ways to use the frameworks, but they'd be options, not fixed.

Lane 2) The Earthdawn lane, you make classes very much not mere frameworks, but actual things. This too would probably involve re-jigging the classes a bit, and would probably involve some settings simply not having certain classes and archetypes by default (always available if the group wants of course). It would also mean less compatibility of older settings, but I'd be fine with that. I'd kind of want to do it with every class, too, but there is perhaps another way:

Lane 3) There are some very bland base classes which are clearly just mechanical frameworks and don't need to be tied to the setting because they're just that generic (Expert, Warrior, Mage, and Partial Class), but all the actual magic-magic of setting is extremely specific so tied to that setting, and there are also some very specific setting-tied classes, just for that setting, in addition to the base classes. This is the approach Worlds Without Number* takes.

* WWN is a fascinating combination of OSR and modern concepts, the only place I feel it seems a bit confused on is healing, as it takes a very 2E approach to natural healing but a 5E approach to magical healing, which basically means a group with a healer will be 5E-ish energizer bunnies, leaping off the floor back into the fray (or at least fully recovering between fights), whereas one without will be 2E-ish dullards, ruined for a week or more by a single PC being downed.

 

[Steampunkette]

And the lack of mechano-thematic connection bugs me. If a sorcerer can be a cleric an cleric can be sorcerer, then why the hell we have two separate classes to begin with? At that point just remove the classes and let the players choose whatever spells and features best suit their unique theme.

Balance. That's all.

I definitely understand your perspective, and for some settings/stories agree with it to the point of excluding entire classes from play and from the story.

But there's value in both ways of playing. If only to create mechanical variety for the gameyness of the game at the end of the day.

 

[Necrozius]

Fascinating discussion. Honestly my perspectives have changed while reading this. @Steampunkette ’s view definitely appeals to me.

I guess it comes down to which mechanics one prefers for handling magic to help support a specific campaign setting’s take on it. For example, having only Wizards as an available caster class in a particular world, but allowing them to take healing spells.

I’ve also always wanted Turn Undead to be a spell, not a class feature, as an aside. Imagine the possibilities for world building there...