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

[Neonchameleon]

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.

I'm going to disagree hard and say that I find that one of D&D's active strengths is that it refuses to pick a goddamn straightjacket. And its greatest failures in worldbuilding have been cases where they've done things like hard coding the multiclass rules by species.

If we look at just about any biological rule or sociological system and start dividing it into two groups we'll find it's not as simple as that. That we can mostly do so but there are exceptions. Cases where e.g. the SRY gene has migrated to the X Chromosome being an obvious one.

It doesn't take much thought to see that this would be the case in cases on this thread as well. Even if we go right back to the start and have sorcerers as the nobility of the kingdom? How many groups of rich, powerful, and privileged people do you think are going to consistently and as an entire class keep it in their pants? Seriously? And as for pogroms against unsanctioned casters? D&D societies are fundamentally unstable and any group that tries destroying three quarters of its magical firepower is going to either get taken down from within or without. It's a great plot but not a normal baseline for a functional society.

On the flipside things get invented again and again and stances between unarmed HEMA and Japanese martial arts frequently overlap.

To sum up "In this kingdom all nobles are warlocks" makes some sense and implies oaths and rites for the nobility. But "All warlocks are nobles" had better be a central facet of the power structure of the setting. And "Warlocks are likely to become nobles if they don't die first" makes sense. The one of these that's least plausible is the one where people stick to a lane because neither nature nor people work that way.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd like to point out, Minigiant: It's not about -names- exactly, or nomenclature. It's about identity and impact on culture and narrative.

Wizards matter in the narrative. Not just as a specific name, but a specific identity. The "Old Wizard in the Tower" or the "Teacher of Apprentices" is always clearly a Wizard character. The class fantasy is there, whether the character is called Wizard or not. Because having a spellbook and high intelligence are core details of being a Wizard.

Same thing with Fighter. Fighter as a word doesn't need to specifically refer to someone who gets Combat Maneuvers, Action Surges, and 4 attacks in a round. A Knight can represent a fighter. So can a General. Or a folk hero. Or a wandering swordsman. All of these concepts fit into the identity of "Fighter". In fact as an umbrella term, a -ton- of class identity is written into every world for them.

But Sorcerer has a very -specific- story to tell. One of magical lineage. And that story is almost never a part of a setting's narrative.

Similarly, Druids are often a bit lacking in representative fiction for a setting. Artificers. Rangers. Barbarians usually have at least one or two "Savage Tribes" which has it's own problems, obviously, but carries their fiction...

The general thrust is that the class identity should be a part of the world. That there should be exemplars of "This is what it means to be a Sorcerer" and a cultural identity to be carried with that. Whether a character holds themself to that or sets themself apart from it is a different question, but can help cement identity through negative inference. "I'm not like other sorcerers"

My point is for some classes this is true, for others it is false,and some others are in between.

A Fighter is just a more efficient Warrior in combat. The Orc Fighter, Orc Warrior, and Orc Tribesorc share the same story. They can be any kind of combat orc. They just get their combat power at different acceleration rates.

"Watch out. That Orc is a fighter" tells me nothing in the story and culture as Fighters, Warriors, and HD humaniods sit in the same seats.

Whereas Sorcerers, Rangers, Warlocks, and the rest can easy hint to specific narratives in a setting.

Therefore if you want classes to mean something, you must ditch the general classesor refine them to specific stories (ie: Only formal trained weapon users mentored by another fighter are Fighters).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well it depends on the setting's identity given to knights or different knightly orders. Really how deep you go.
If you don't build to a specific setting, a knight is a fighter/cavalier.

I’m really not looking for a debate on this. Fighter subclasses don’t satisfyingly change what the character does for iconic archetypes like The Knight. You clearly are satisfied by options like the cavalier, which is great for you. I’m not. Since we don’t play together, there’s no reason to dig into that any more than that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

This is a good thing.

It is part of why D&D 5e has such broad appeal. The same party can have someone who is really into being a Ranger, and a Fighter whose class is basically unrelated to who the character is in the fiction and the player doesn’t have to think about it.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think it really depends on the class but for the more story-focused classes them being better integrated would really help.
like how the monk seems like it has no real place in the settings.

I’m really not looking for a debate on this. Fighter subclasses don’t satisfyingly change what the character does for iconic archetypes like The Knight. You clearly are satisfied by options like the cavalier, which is great for you. I’m not. Since we don’t play together, there’s no reason to dig into that any more than that.

that might have to do with fighter being perceived as the basic class thus it has to be simple or some other rot.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think it really depends on the class but for the more story-focused classes them being better integrated would really help.
like how the monk seems like it has no real place in the settings.

that might have to do with fighter being perceived as the basic class thus it has to be simple or some other rot.

I think that’s possible, but it’s also possible that it’s because fighters should have gotten bigger subclasses that take up more levels, rather than extra ASIs.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think that’s possible, but it’s also possible that it’s because fighters should have gotten bigger subclasses that take up more levels, rather than extra ASIs.

that could also be true but it all likely stems from the fighter being seen as basic for some reason.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

that could also be true but it all likely stems from the fighter being seen as basic for some reason.

Well, I’m all for the fighter base class being simple, but they could have supported different styles a lot better by making the archetype more of the class, and having both simple and complex archetypes.

Which is probably why I am all for making classes like Archer and Knight or Warrior.

 

[Steampunkette]

My point is for some classes this is true, for others it is false,and some others are in between.

A Fighter is just a more efficient Warrior in combat. The Orc Fighter, Orc Warrior, and Orc Tribesorc share the same story. They can be any kind of combat orc. They just get their combat power at different acceleration rates.

"Watch out. That Orc is a fighter" tells me nothing in the story and culture as Fighters, Warriors, and HD humaniods sit in the same seats.

Whereas Sorcerers, Rangers, Warlocks, and the rest can easy hint to specific narratives in a setting.

Therefore if you want classes to mean something, you must ditch the general classesor refine them to specific stories (ie: Only formal trained weapon users mentored by another fighter are Fighters).

No... you don't have to ditch the general class names because it's not about Nomenclature. It's not about naming classes. It's about Class Fantasy and the Setting.

The "Class Fantasy" of Fighter isn't "People know you're a fighter and thus do 4 attacks per round". It's about being a warrior, knight, general, etc. It being generic or fitting multiple concepts doesn't mean the class needs to be broken into each possibly interpretation so there is only one -true- "Fighter" and two dozen separately titled clones of the class.

Similarly "Wizards" can fit many roles. From Necromancers and Aged Mentors to Court Advisors and Mad Mages. The core identity of the class is in every one of the potential representatives and supported by the narrative and setting through example.

Sorcerer isn't in most settings.

My point isn't "Every class needs one and only one interpretation per setting for everyone to understand what it is!" my point is "Every class needs one, at -least- one, solidifying narrative identity so that it can have meaning for the setting"

Fighter getting two dozen just reflects the fact that the class's flexibility is largely dependent on the cultural conceptions we have about the wide variety of possible "People who hit other people with weapons" we have. It isn't a bad thing, and it's not a bad thing that if you claim to be a Fighter in-character the NPCs try and figure out what -kind- of fighter you are based on culturally relevant touchstones.

But without a supporting narrative for individuals with special Magical Lineages if you tell someone you're a Sorcerer the word is just interchangeable for Wizard, which is another class and not yours. The class fantasy of "Descended from a Bloodline of POWER" isn't there.

That's my problem.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sorcerer isn't in most settings.
...
But without a supporting narrative for individuals with special Magical Lineages if you tell someone you're a Sorcerer the word is just interchangeable for Wizard, which is another class and not yours. The class fantasy of "Descended from a Bloodline of POWER" isn't there.

You are absolutely right that the "supporting narrative for individuals with special Magical Lineages" is thin. But why in the name of the little black pig are you using the Pathfinder fluff for the sorcerer rather than the 5e fluff? Wizards got their power through study of books. Warlocks from their patrons. Bards get their power from magic. And Sorcerers? None of the above.

To copy and paste from D&D Beyond:

Sorcerers carry a magical birthright conferred upon them by an exotic bloodline, some otherworldly influence, or exposure to unknown cosmic forces. One can’t study sorcery as one learns a language, any more than one can learn to live a legendary life. No one chooses sorcery; the power chooses the sorcerer.
...
Most of the time, the talents of sorcery appear as apparent flukes. Some sorcerers can’t name the origin of their power, while others trace it to strange events in their own lives. The touch of a demon, the blessing of a dryad at a baby’s birth, or a taste of the water from a mysterious spring might spark the gift of sorcery. So too might the gift of a deity of magic, exposure to the elemental forces of the Inner Planes or the maddening chaos of Limbo, or a glimpse into the inner workings of reality.

Only one of the sorcerer subclasses in 5e is a bloodline (the draconic bloodline). And for other sorcerous backgrounds? The seventh son of a seventh son is classically a sorcerer. Also that guy who gained lightning powers because they were struck by lightning is obviously a storm sorcerer. And the person born at precisely midnight on the turn of the millennium at the lunar eclipse. And the Chosen One gifted with magic powers. And ... it doesn't even need a reason the sorcerer knows.

And in settings with a lot of magic there being people able to wield magic with unusual origins rather than books, pacts, gods or music are common. No one reason would be common enough to justify a class - but all of them combined underlining that magic can come from anywhere? That's enough.