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

[Ruin Explorer]

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...

There's very little reason it shouldn't be (indeed, I would bet actual money that in some setting in D&D or a close D&D relative it has been). Clerics could just get free casts of it at a heightened spell level or whatever, if you wanted to retain that capacity without impacting their main spellcasting.

 

[Steampunkette]

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...

How about Turn Undead as a -RITUAL- Spell?

Make it so the world has Wizards who can do the big flashy magic (Healing, too), but anyone with the time and interest (and money!) can learn Ritual spells.

Have a village frantically trying to keep the undead from overwhelming the defenders at the edges of a small chapel while one of the villagers tries, hastily, to perform the "Turn Undead" ritual while the players are doing their best to protect her and the other members of the congregation for long enough for the spell to go off.

And when it does, it ripples through the Holy Ground to strike at -all- of the undead in the churchyard to force their retreat, at least for another night...

Combining a thrilling wave-based combat scenario with Ritual Casting as a core narrative and location-based magic enhancement to create a really cool story moment!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How about Turn Undead as a -RITUAL- Spell?

Make it so the world has Wizards who can do the big flashy magic (Healing, too), but anyone with the time and interest (and money!) can learn Ritual spells.

Have a village frantically trying to keep the undead from overwhelming the defenders at the edges of a small chapel while one of the villagers tries, hastily, to perform the "Turn Undead" ritual while the players are doing their best to protect her and the other members of the congregation for long enough for the spell to go off.

And when it does, it ripples through the Holy Ground to strike at -all- of the undead in the churchyard to force their retreat, at least for another night...

Combining a thrilling wave-based combat scenario with Ritual Casting as a core narrative and location-based magic enhancement to create a really cool story moment!

Honestly ritual spells in general are terminally half-arsed in their usage in 5E, they're one of those things where they clearly wanted to retain them, but didn't want to offend non-4E players, so implemented them in a clumsy way that's actually TOO consistent. The ten-minute casting time is dumb, the fact that they're always at the same power and so on as the normal spell is dumb - they should have let there be ritual versions which were vastly more powerful, or had relatively longer or shorter casting times from each other - one ritual might take an hour, another a minute - both prevent in-combat usage equally, but are very different thematically and in the world. So the ritual Turn Undead could take longer to cast, but last far longer and perhaps have strong effects.

 

[LordEntrails]

and should be at any table

See, this statement right here that you nearly start with is what is... offensive. I'm an old and entitled grognard; and even I don't believe that anyone outside of a table gets to tell those at a table what they should be doing.

Wouldn't such families do what we did in reality and try to keep the power for themselves?

Depends on the setting. In some settings, sure. But in all settings? Uh, no. You don't get to tell others what they should be doing.

Now, you could make arguments about how useful, interesting, beneficial, etc about how doing so in a setting can be. But in every setting at every table? No.

Artificers, similarly, have this problem. They exist in most D&D settings for the purpose of existing.

My experience is that artificers actually don't exist on most settings. Outside of Eberron, I don't recall any of the settings in which they are canon. Of course, I would never suggest another table should allow them in the Realms or GreyHawk or Dark Sun. But my experience is that no, they don't exist in most settings.

But what are some character classes that you feel need some kind of narrative anchor to not feel "Extra"?

Warlocks. Agree with you on this. Without a setting tie in and cultural impacts, to me, they are just an excuse for a different set of mechanics for magic. But, even though, I rarely implement such in my settings that I allow warlocks, because I'm lazy.

Characters are built on character, not stats. Being royalty, a merchant's child, a former criminal, etc... all should have more of an effect on who they are than their class.

I agree with this. I cringe when I play at tables where "classes" are tied to some sort of cultural label. Fighters don't claim to be "fighters". Nor rogues, or in most cases other classes. Sure, in most settings their are people called "wizards", "clerics", "sorcerers" and such. But they might go by other names too, and what they are called in common doesn't mean its a class.

But, again, it's not up to me to tell others what they should do at their tables or how they should envision their settings.

Warlocks are a great example of this phenomenon.

Yep, as said above, this is the one that I have trouble with. But to me this is because the power comes from a specific entity in the lore and not something that is nebulous to the settings (the weave, dragon blood, etc)

But beyond mechanics, things should have a narrative connection to the setting. Something that a player can look at and say "Yes. That is the setting's narrative for my class and I like it and want to explore it!" or "Yes. That is the setting's narrative for my class and I would prefer to not have that."

Yea... no. You settings or your table, great. Go for it. It can help build a rich and interesting settings and add depth to a campaign. But it's not the only way, nor does it mean one game/table/campaign is objectively "better".

 

[Krachek]

I have repeatedly stated, both in descriptive prose and in direct declarative statements: This isn't about PC Straitjackets.

This is about the cultural impact of character classes in the setting's narrative. If a player at my table wants to use the Sorcerer class and call themself a Wizard and wear the pointy hat and study spellbooks (that they get no mechanical benefit from) then they're a Wizard and the world will treat them as such, with all the social expectations provided to a Wizard.

This is about the cultural and narrative assumptions in the game's setting about what Sorcerers, Druids, Artificers, Rangers, and members of other classes are on a societal level.

Do people hate Sorcerers? Are they hunted as "Abominations" due to their wildly mingled bloodlines? Are they considered largely indistinct from Wizards? Does their magical heritage afford them social status in the way wealth or political power would? What does your average nobleman think/feel/expect when a player character says to him "I am not a Wizard. I am a Sorcerer!" ?

Setting. Not Player Character.

I agree a DM can propose that some classes are view as criminal Or shoot on sight.
It is the great fun of home brew setting, and players can find these proposals very appealing.

The dm guide is pretty clear on this, the dm can alter classes, races, spells available to players, and also How a class dwell in his setting.

Don’t hope to find this in official setting, they aim middle ground and let all classes dwell freely.

 

[jasper]

Why would a cultist of a storm god be a sorcerer and not a cleric? The cleric is a person who worships a divine being and receives power from them. Why have randomly different mechanics for the same concept?

Why can't they be a sorcerer cultists? I knew/know Star Trek fans who are doctors, lawyers, grunts, accountant, programmer, and actors. Why would a class limit to who or what you worship? Beside the barbarian would freak out when the cultists start magic missiling him.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think this is an interesting facet of D&D I haven't really thought of before.

In my own homebrew campaigns, I tend to have a very light sketch of the world before the characters are made, then I add to and change the world based on choices the players made.

In my current game, different aspects of character creation have had more or less of an impact on the setting.

For the Goliath Gladiator Barbarian, their identity as a Goliath and a Gladiator build much more of their identity in the world than their class. There are only a few Goliaths in the area, so them being a Goliath is very significant. And they are always wanting to do Pit Fighting during downtime, so I've added fighting competitions to various parts of the setting.

For the Aasimar Hermit Cleric, their background and class definitely impact the setting. Their hermitage is an important location, and they are frequently called upon for their services.

For the Tiefling Acolyte Warlock of the Divine, they are recognized much more by their background as an Acolyte than their identity as a Warlock. They are basically treated like a Cleric.

For the Gnome Sage Artificer, their subclass of Alchemist has a big impact on the setting and their role within it. Being an Alchemist means something, because there are others who study and master alchemy.

And for the Kenku Haunted One Rogue, their identity is almost entirely wrapped up in being a Kenku, who are a persecuted and mistrusted people in this setting. Very few NPCs would think of the character as a "rogue" at all.

So overall, what I see in my homebrew campaign is that some characters' classes "mean something" to the setting, but for others it's their lineage, background, or even subclass that has a greater impact.

 

[Steampunkette]

Honestly ritual spells in general are terminally half-arsed in their usage in 5E, they're one of those things where they clearly wanted to retain them, but didn't want to offend non-4E players, so implemented them in a clumsy way that's actually TOO consistent. The ten-minute casting time is dumb, the fact that they're always at the same power and so on as the normal spell is dumb - they should have let there be ritual versions which were vastly more powerful, or had relatively longer or shorter casting times from each other - one ritual might take an hour, another a minute - both prevent in-combat usage equally, but are very different thematically and in the world. So the ritual Turn Undead could take longer to cast, but last far longer and perhaps have strong effects.

I -absolutely- agree.

I think Ritual Spells should take anywhere from 5 rounds (30 seconds of prayer before trying something stupid) to a Week (Massive elaborate festivals meant to harness a lot of power to achieve some greater goal)

I should write that down for the Ashen Lands... I already removed the "Must be a Spellcaster" component from the feat, but when I finish restructuring the spell lists into 4 categories (Arcane, Divine, Occult, Primal) and start working on the spells themselves I'll need to think about how the rituals can interact with their functions...

Also joint-casting rituals for non-ritual spells. Like a group of Warmages all simulcasting a single spell over the course of, like, 20 seconds to massively increase it's area for setpiece scale warfare or something. I dunno. Just like the imagery.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Also joint-casting rituals for non-ritual spells. Like a group of Warmages all simulcasting a single spell over the course of, like, 20 seconds to massively increase it's area for setpiece scale warfare or something. I dunno. Just like the imagery.

Yes! I was thinking just yesterday that this should be a thing!

 

[TwoSix]

Honestly ritual spells in general are terminally half-arsed in their usage in 5E, they're one of those things where they clearly wanted to retain them, but didn't want to offend non-4E players, so implemented them in a clumsy way that's actually TOO consistent. The ten-minute casting time is dumb, the fact that they're always at the same power and so on as the normal spell is dumb - they should have let there be ritual versions which were vastly more powerful, or had relatively longer or shorter casting times from each other - one ritual might take an hour, another a minute - both prevent in-combat usage equally, but are very different thematically and in the world. So the ritual Turn Undead could take longer to cast, but last far longer and perhaps have strong effects.

They could have simply said put “Casting time: X min (ritual)” in the spell description, and explain that a spell with a ritual casting time doesn’t consume a spell slot. Quick and easy. Most spells that are ritual simply don’t need a fast cast version, and would honestly be more flavorful if they weren’t able to be fast cast.

So yes, totally agree.