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

[aco175]

I find that a lot of class expansion would be campaign dependent. I hardly use faction in FR except for at conventions where AL is used. My players would rather have local groups or orders that are tied to campaign. The fighter has a 'soldier' background. This can be so much more if it was a specific unit or town militia. There can be added flavor tied to it and even changed benefits like skills or powers. Same thing with sorcerers and wizards. There can be guilds and academies that they may have attended with specific schools or limited spells available to them that went there. This can be a great way to introduce some of the new spells from the advanced 5e that @Morrus is working on and has some sample spells in another thread.

This flavor is great for the setting and some players want more of this but it takes a lot of work to tie everything together.

 

[Xeviat]

I agree with the principal. That's why I like smaller class lists. The 12 classes of the PHB were my ideal; I felt most archetypes could be made with them. It took me a while, but I came on board to the Artificer as a class, because it is a firm archetype that cannot really be done with the existing classes.

I'm still on the fence personally about the Warlord: part of me can see it as it's own class, part of me can see blending it with the bard and making thr bard broader, and part of me sees splitting the warlord up into fighter and rogue subclasses.

I still hold onto hope that we will get a Mystic. I even see the Monk as a potential "half-mystic".

The primary spellcasters are firmly tied to the setting. Personally, I think Warlock and Sorcerer could be blended and have the difference between blood and pact be fluff or a choice in the class.

Likewise, Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, and Warlock feel very tied to the core D&D assumptions. It's been pointed out to me recently that the Cleric is very culturally specific too.

 

[jmartkdr2]

My first thought was "but DnD doesn't have a world, it has many worlds." It's not setting agnostic, but people play in many different settings so any way you tie a class to a setting is going to need to be reexamined when you change settings.

What I'm referring to is the Baseline of Sorcerer. The Baseline of Ranger. They should have some ties to the world that any player is, of course, free to ignore. If someone were to play a Sorcerer at my table in the Ashen Lands campaign setting I wouldn't demand a 4 page History Report on their lineage and bloodline with provided patents of nobility reaching back at least 3 generations on one side.

The thing is, sorcerers and rangers have a baseline. Sorcerers have their origin. They could choose to have their character not know about it, but they could chose to lean into it if they wanted. Maybe they're from a dragon-blooded noble house, or they spend their childhood in the shadowfell. Rangers have their circle plus the general idea of being a ranger (a protector in the wilderness).

The only classes that don't have something in the class to build off of are fighter and rogue. With fighters, most subclasses do the work for you: any of the mage-knight subclasses could be a knightly order in the setting if you want, and most of the non-magic ones could be tied to specific schools or martial traditions. Rogues are tougher - several of the subclasses just imply that you worked for a shady group, which is really vague.

But if only one class has the problem, than it's not a general problem.

 

[Steampunkette]

I've tried to make it clear that I'm talking about the Class as a feature of the Setting.

Not about how a player chooses to play the class.

I'm just not sure how I can make it any more clear, at this point.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I've tried to make it clear that I'm talking about the Class as a feature of the Setting.

Not about how a player chooses to play the class.

I'm just not sure how I can make it any more clear, at this point.

Then you need to specify which Setting.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I fully agree that the classes should have in-setting meaning. I literally have no interest in using a class based system if this is not the case. For my new game I went trough all the classes and subclasses, chose which I wanted to include, and tried to come up an in-setting context for them. So now I have an origin story for the Spell-Thieves of Shimbal (arcane tricksters), cultures which worship animal spirits from which totem barbarians and certain druids can hail from, origins for differnt martial arts schools etc. D&D classes come with weirdly specific packages of stuff and reskinning those is awkward and kludgy. If I want more freeform character creation that is not tied to strong archetypes, then I just use some other system that is not literally build upon such archetypes. And on general I don't care for having mechanics for just mechanic's sake. A mechanic must represent something, and the same thing must be represented consistently.

 

[Blue]

After reading the LevelUp Cleric I wanted to share something that I've felt is a real problem with several character classes in D&D: They have Fantasy Associations, but no World-Anchoring.

This is a valid position. It in not the only valid position. And for the historical position of D&D, it is the wrong default position.

I'm very fond of laser-focused rules and setting, like Blades in the Dark. It's great to have that level of mechanical support for a setting. It really can add to the feel.

But D&D is a big tent game, not that typoe of game. It supports lots of different settings including homebrew. Trying to require the mechanical to tie into the setting is at best futile, and at worst actively limiting in how homebrew and other settings can be created because of mechanical connections that act as world limitations built into the classes.

Heck, class as an in-world concept doesn't even have to exist. Look at the NPCs in the monster manual. They weren't created using PC rules. Druids who are 4th level casters but can't wildshape, and lots of other bits. Classes are a balanced shorthand for PC creation, and players could literally be unique in the world to have that exact combination of abilities.

 

[ninjayeti]

I think it depends on how common you assume those classes are in your fantasy world. If they are relatively plentiful, then yes society would probably carve out a niche for them. But if they are rare then they could be seen as "one -offs" and make a place for themselves as individuals. So if sorcerers are common they might be the noble bloodlines of a kingdom or seen as dangerous challengers by the wizards guild (both things I have used in game worlds). But if sorcerers are rare then they probably don't have a role as a group.

The same reasoning can apply to races. If, for example, kenku are common in your game world then there should be kenku nations, or at least "rookery" districts in the major cities, a kenku culture, etc. But you could also say a kenku PC was the last of his tribe, from a remote corner of the map, the result of magical experiment, etc.

Bottom line is PCs are supposed to be exceptional - there is no reason to assume there must be lots of other people in your fantasy world with the same set of abilities.

 

[Aldarc]

As one of those people @Snarf Zagyg mentioned who find no utility in strict alignment of class to in-fiction groups, I have nothing meaningful to add to the topic.

Other than saying my response to the title of the thread is "No".

I'm more put off by halfway efforts of no in-fiction meaning of classes and yes in-fiction meaning of classes because if you want something generic, the in-fiction classes that are there will rub you the wrong way, but if you want in-fiction meaning of classes, then those that aren't will also rub you the wrong way.

 

[Steampunkette]

Then you need to specify which Setting.

Any setting..?

All Settings.

Character classes should be a part of the world. Should shape it as a narrative conceit in the hands of the writer.

The word "Paladin" (or "Herald", now, I guess) should hold weight in the Mists of Ravenloft and also on Krynn. It should be a part of the narrative structures of Faerun and Athas. It shouldn't just "Exist to Exist". Is what I'm getting at. For the purpose of the setting, of -any- setting, a character class or race or other aspect should have a purpose.

Wizards should have schools and orders and towers and spells named after them and undergo insane rituals to steal the power of the Gods for themselves or act as sages for players to call on. Clerics should proselytize for their deities whether through word or through deed and in connection to the church or as a radical heretic against it. Warlocks should seek out secret knowledge or engage in the plans of their outlandish patrons, perhaps stealing names for a Fey Trickster or swapping babies with changelings. Fighters should be part of armies or renegade bands or washed up swordsmen with legendary histories or folk heroes. Rogues should be Pirates and Conmen, Manipulators and Puckish Rakes. And Sorcerers... should... um. Do...

Something. Something that isn't just "Well a Wizard could be in this role, but I could use a sorcerer for it, too". Something that sets them apart.

For my setting I'm making them Arcane Nobility. In another setting they might be the hands and eyes of various cabals of ancient magical entities working against each other. In Ravenloft they might represent Accursed people who wield terrible magics and often undergo physical transformations as their powers grow! On Krynn maybe Dragonblood Sorcerers are the puppets of Paladine and Takhisis. Or just children playing in the garden while a war brews beyond the fence, blithely unaware of how good they have it while the danger builds.

Maybe Storm Sorcerers are descendants of Titanic Elements in a setting and their powers bear deep respect upon the High Seas for fear of angering the Sorcerer's Parentage. Or maybe the Abberation-Blooded Psionic Sorcerer has to lay low when the Order of Monster-Hunters come calling to "Purge the Land" of the abberant plague.

-Something- to make them feel like they fit into the setting. Rather than existing only to exist.

And, again, I'm talking about narrative trappings for NPCs and such, to flesh out a given campaign world separate from a player's personal characterization.

I just think it sucks that Sorcerers are often left on the wayside in most settings. Rangers and Artificers, too. They "Exist to Exist" for most worlds, with no more binding to the world than the idea that they're "Out There" and "Doing Things".