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

[FrozenNorth]

Why does this one wizard operate differently than other wizards? Why does they operate similarly than warlocks? That's just weird and incoherent. Sure, if there are no other wizards or warlocks in the game then it doesn't matter terribly much, but if there are then it is jarring.

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.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think both false and that that's a huge topic to unpack, actually and again you're in with the flip dismissals!

I absolutely think there's a ton more to this than you're suggesting, but maybe I'll start a separate thread about ED and other attempts to "fix" D&D in various senses of the word.

A major strength of D&D is that it is fairly generic. You can use it for settings ranging from Forgotten Realms, to Eberron, to Darksun. Quite the variety.

Earthdawn doesn't even attempt that. It's been a while since I last cracked my copy open, but I daresay that if you tried to use it to run such a diverse array of settings you'd have your work cut out for you. Earthdawn aims to work for the setting of Earthdawn, and nothing else. It does this well, but the tradeoff is in versatility.

If a player has an idea for an atypical character origin in Earthdawn, I would say that it would be a lot more difficult to implement than in D&D. "My character was granted his magic by a servant of the dragon god after he helped rescue a dragon egg." In D&D, I wouldn't bat an eye. In Earthdawn, I wouldn't know where to start.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A major strength of D&D is that it is fairly generic.

I think this a popular if somewhat outdated idea (it was a lot more popular in the 1990s and '00s than the last decade or so) but not one well-supported by any kind of analysis.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).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

D&D is not generic. It has a huge amount if weird and very specific assumptions. Classes come as fixed collections of traits and magic works unlike in any fantasy fiction that is not directly derived from D&D. (Not even Vance's books have 'D&D magic.')

 

[Ruin Explorer]

D&D is not generic. It has a huge amount if weird and very specific assumptions. Classes come as fixed collections of traits and magic works unlike in any fantasy fiction that is not directly derived from D&D. (Not even Vance's books have 'D&D magic.')

Yup if it's generic Earthdawn is. D&D doesn't assume a specific setting quite as transparently as ED but in terms of implications (from everything - races, classes, spells, magic items, how magic works, monsters, etc.) it may even go further. It's arguable which is more specific but not really viable to argue D&D is "generic". I daresay if ED had been a huge hit we'd have actually have seen a gradual proliferation of settings and perhaps the classes moving away from being as consciously diegetic as they were.

4E was the one edition which did sort of openly/transparently assume a specific setting (even though that is questionable), and I know a lot of people noted the similarities to ED as a result - even the people who wrote ED, as an 4E-ized/hybrid version of ED was in production at one point - it wasn't completed/released, but that appeared to be largely down to the foolish constraints of the GSL (and a couple of other boring factors).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

Because fighter and rogue are not the same thing.

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?

Because cleric and bard are not the same thing. The bard derives their magic from their music, the cleric derives their magic from their god. That the cleric knows how to play an instrument doesn't change that.

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.

There certainly can be academically inclined warlocks just like there can be clerics who can play an instrument. This does't change the metaphysical source of their magic. Furthermore, at the point you reskin classes and then houserule them to better fit their reskinning, using a class-bases game to begin with starts to seem pretty counterproductive. Just use a system which is designed to allow building customisable characters without relying on fixed packages built upon archetypes.

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.

So if there is no difference between warlocks and wizards why they are separate classes ?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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 the god has a musical instrument as their holy symbol they probably can.

Also, this is why speciality priests which had more rules for this sort of thing made more sense that SUPERGENERICCLERIC which post-2E D&Ds have loved.

 

[TwoSix]

If the god has a musical instrument as their holy symbol they probably can.

Also, this is why speciality priests which had more rules for this sort of thing made more sense that SUPERGENERICCLERIC which post-2E D&Ds have loved.

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.

 

[Krachek]

Classes have some distinctive mechanics, but less and less with new feats.
But does a class have a distinctive role in a society? not that much.
A woodsman can be implemented by several classes,
A hitman, a general, a mafia boss, a bounty hunter, any class can be used to play these roles.

 

[Steampunkette]

Do you actually give "classes" to the rest of the world? I mean, in my campaigns, only PCs have "classes", the rest of the world have stats-blocks.

Some important NPCs have classes, sure. I don't just use the Monster Manual to build encounters, after all. A lot of foes my players fight are full on characters. But even if they weren't: The start of the NPC Statblocks section of the Monster Manual on page 246 is the Archmage.

Slapping him into the Wizard's Tower or School of Magic gets across the class fantasy of "Wizard in the World" just as well as rolling him up as a level 18 Wizard would.

It's not about having "Wizards" it's about having the -idea- of Wizards or Wizardly characters being a part of the setting and it's narrative. About being a part of the story and the shape of the world. Class Fantasy shaping the Cultures of the world.

None of that is a setting based definition. The whole point of the discussion.

Rangers being part of an organization that require skills, martial ability, and magic to defend an area.
Sorcerers being part of noble bloodlines of dragon descendants.

What is the setting based tie to the setting for Fighters? If that are all part of a fighter's guild or knights, then the "everyone who fights with weapons" definition is not theirs anymore.

No. That's not the "Whole point of the discussion". I think it's pretty clear you came at this idea on a slight tangent just a few degrees off-center of where I'm aiming, and that makes sense. And it's okay.

It's not about having a setting-based definition or a singular "Word" which encapsulates all that something is and excludes all that something isn't (I.E. a Name). It's about having a cultural and narrative connection to the world.

Like the aforementioned Archmage NPC being representative of the Class Fantasy of Wizard, even though they're not strictly an 18th level fully statted out Human Wizard with a background and flaw. Even if no one ever -calls- them a Wizard in the game or out of the game, they're still a part of the wizardly fantasy of "Has Spellbook, High Intelligence, Not Great at Melee, Manipulates the Universe with Magic".

The character identity should be a part of the world. Not exclusive to other identities, but with some sort of narrative connection to it. Most of the royalty and nobility who are part of the Sorcerous Bloodline that gives them their political authority aren't going to be Sorcerers, or might be Variant Humans with the "Magic Adept" feat for Sorcery to get a cantrip to confirm their claim. But certainly the most powerful Sorcerer of the bloodline that is alive would immediately become the magocratic center of the family, and thus rulership over their domain.

It's not about making sure everyone in the world knows what a "Fighter" is. It's about giving players narrative examples of how different fighter type characters have impacted the world and shaped it's culture.

Does that make more sense in context of what I've been saying across the thread?

No option (or 100 options) will work for every setting. Which is why writers propose multiple options and leave you free to come up with others.

So I’m not sure I understand your point? Would it be better if there was a single option and it was forced on all settings?


How does anyone know that the Gods have never done it before? This could be a once-in-a-generation thing? Or a desperate-times-call-for-desperate measures thing?

But maybe the setting doesn’t have gods or they are non-interventionist. In that case, my first question is going to be: are there any clerics (because honestly, that’s going to be a bigger issue than Divine Soul sorcerers)? If so, can the Divine Soul use the same power source as they can? If not, can the DS use one of the other possible origins of DS sorcerers? If none of that works, then well, not every setting needs to support every subclass.

That being said, I’m probably going to look a bit askance at a DM that allows you to play a cleric in a setting without gods but draws the line at Divine Soul sorcerers.

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.

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

I'm not going to try to argue through every potential pitfall or narrative loophole you want to construct about any one of a bajillion different angles for different character concepts. The general idea is that we should connect characters to the world through writing class fantasy into the world, as well. Whether that means having a bajillion different ideas about how Sorcerers can exist or just a handful of examples and let players' imagination fly from there.