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

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
That’s generic, not specific, though.

I’m not playing a game that resembles a game in FR or even Eberron, I’m playing a space opera game. It’s more similar to Star Wars than to FR.
No... that's specific.

I get that it's not FR or Eberron in space. It's D&D in space. From that single description I can extrapolate SO MUCH about the setting. I can imagine Beholders as an Alien Species. Space-Dragons of all the colors and metals. Illithid Empires stretching across the stars. Astral Dreadnoughts lurking on the dark side of a planet's moon(s). Cannons on a starship that allow a Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Eldritch Knight to fire Fireball spells at targets in ship-to-ship combat in space. Magic Missiles pinging enemy targets with unerring accuracy. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Escape Pod.

Some guy climbing into an Apparatus of Qualish to use it on an "Away Mission" on a hostile planet. Quall's Laser Rifle Token. Dwarves mining Adamantine from Asteroids rather than waiting for the space-rocks to crash into a planet to snag the precious metal.

Orcs as Klingons. Hobgoblins as Romulans. Elves as Vulcans. Goblin Engineering Squads. Deities taking on the role of Q. Catfolk pole dancers in skeezy Mos Eisley type locations. The "Jedi Temple" being a Wizard School with a heavy focus on Bladesinging. Lightsaber? Sunswords for everyone! Undead ships with Death Knight Captains and Liches searching the stars for endless knowledge.

All of the specific details of "D&D" paint a pretty strong picture because of all kinds of assumptions about what is actually -in- D&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
Being a Wizard in a society doesn’t mean that much until he does some concrete work.

What kind of work can do a wizard in a society?

The classic loner researcher.
Army officier, for strategy, intel, battlefield control.
Field researcher, for exotic plant, creatures, old ruin
Private investigation
operate an arcane facility. May produce mundane or magic good.
Active field job, hitman, sellsword, bodyguard, bounty hunter, law enforcement
Criminal activity

We can’t put all these wizard in a annual meeting of the Kingdom wizard guild, They are not linked by their class, they do very different jobs with a common tools, spells.
This isn't about player characters or a Wizard's guild or some kind of limit on concept or even a specific character, Krachek.

It's about the cultural impacts wizard-like characters have had on the world so that someone who might want to play a wizard can go "Oh. Look. The guy was probably a wizard." and then decide whether to play a Wizard -like- that guy, or not like that guy. Or kinda like that guy, maybe, in some ways? Just generally cements the idea that Wizards are a thing, in general, and that society is aware Magic User Nerds who have to Study Magic are a thing.

How a given "Wizard" uses that knowledge and spellcasting and whatever else in play is entirely up to him.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
Sure, but that still implies to me that there's some kind of connection between the gods and the ways clerical magic works; that diametrically opposed deities would still have followers that use the same methodology of magic. I can get behind that if the gods are specified as one facet of reality (maybe they're the protectors of the mortal races and their civilization), but not if the gods are running everything, as they're often presented.
Oh sure. I mean...mine are kind of "both," I guess. Each deity has their portfolio, and is "in charge" of their own particular facet(s) of reality. But they're still "running everything." But they aren't omnipresent or omnipotent (other than within their own spheres of influence)... nor omniscient, for that matter (except for that one deity of knowledge, history, and the mind whose epithet is, literally, "the All-knowing.").

Some, but not all, deities have revealed themselves to various peoples in various forms, with various names, and related (if not exactly matching) portfolios, but they are all simply different faces of the same entities. E.g. the king of the gods is known by a different name and form as the supreme king/lord of the dwarven pantheon, supreme authority of all Dwarven law and talents. He's also an overarching sky deity of the desert empire (whose religion is focused around the cardinal elements), the godly savior of the world to a sea-faring society who only worship him and the ocean/water goddess as a mated pair. To the elves of the northern woods, who watch and revere the skies and celestial bodies, he is the North/White/"Eternal" (immovable) Star. And there are other identities, all embodied by this one "guy." He is, naturally, (receiving the most worship across the continent) the most powerful deity of the setting -or among the very few "most powerful."

Generally, they are responsible for making sure their piece of reality is doing what it's supposed to. E.g. the King of the Gods, a god of Good, Order, civilization & beneficent ruling/rulers. To him is attributed justice and honor, compassion and kindness, all the things that fall beneath "the Forces of Good" even though there are other deities that are more specifically "in charge of" the Justice, Law, Mercy, and Honor bits. He empowers his clerics and paladins to ensure that Order, civilization, and justice and all that other stuff is present in the world -and victorious over evil and chaos in any way they can.

The goddess of Green, growing, useful/benevolent/tamed Nature is responsible for seeing to the turning of seasons (and, so, a general command of weather), the blooming of flowers and fruits, the proper times of planting and harvesting, with a toe dipped into medicines/healing by useful plants/herbs, agriculture, and the like. There are other deities for the Wild/passionate/bestial/"untamed" elements of Nature, the command of the seas (and, largely, the weather over the seas), mountains and stone, etc... She empowers her clerics to the betterment of and command over plants, planting and farming, the health and well-being of the natural world, production of bounty, etc. Need someone with command of metal and the magics of weapon-making/improving/damage dealing? You're going to have find someone other than a cleric of her.

So, they have their facets of reality overwhich they hold sway, is what I'm saying. But in doing "their part," as it were, they are responsible for and hold stewardship over (by their very existance) this world/setting as a whole, commonly referred to as "Creation." The deities that currently exist as the pantheons of the setting are not the ones who MADE the setting. They are just the guys who are supposed to watch over/"take care of" it, make sure it "functions" as well as possible.
 

This isn't about player characters or a Wizard's guild or some kind of limit on concept or even a specific character, Krachek.

It's about the cultural impacts wizard-like characters have had on the world so that someone who might want to play a wizard can go "Oh. Look. The guy was probably a wizard." and then decide whether to play a Wizard -like- that guy, or not like that guy. Or kinda like that guy, maybe, in some ways? Just generally cements the idea that Wizards are a thing, in general, and that society is aware Magic User Nerds who have to Study Magic are a thing.

How a given "Wizard" uses that knowledge and spellcasting and whatever else in play is entirely up to him.
It is exactly what I try to do, show the multiple way a Wizard may be useful in a society.
There is no limit in a fantasy world for associating classes and work or social position.
A kingdom with no wizard but only cleric, a kingdom with only warlock, a kingdom with npc no beyond 7th level, a kingdom with a few very high level character, a setting creator has plenty of variation to put in place. In all those place meeting a npc that is kind of wizard may be a total different experience. Depending on the kingdom you are, it may be more or less difficult to size that npc.
 

Because fighter and rogue are not the same thing.

So if there is no difference between warlocks and wizards why they are separate classes ?
I’m not seeing the difference. A Dex-based fighter with the criminal background plays the same narrative role as a rogue. The fact that they have different mechanics isn’t an issue.

An academically-inclined Pact of the Tome warlock plays the same narrative role as a wizard. Once again, different mechanics are not an issue.
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.
Because classes aren’t straitjackets to begin with? I mean, if your starting point is that classes are inherent and you can’t play around with them, then I guess it follows that having your swashbuckler be a Swords Bard may cross a line somewhere, but coming up with different approaches to classes is as old as D&D.
 

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.
That does explain your perspective better, though I still disagree.

Every setting is going to exist in a continuum from “Tightly thematic” to “Kitchen Sink”. Each one is going to have its strengths and weaknesses.

One strength of “Tightly thematic” is that the DM can more tightly tie in classes and races into the setting. Part of what makes this easier is the possibility of simply excluding certain races and classes.

“Kitchen Sink” gives players more freedom to realize their characters. This isn’t always about “having a super unique character”. Sometimes, a player is in the mood to play something different, or wants to try a different mechanic.

I do feel that “let’s tie in races and classes tightly to the setting” tends to ignore that it limits player choices about their characters. There may be a trade-off in terms of immersion, but the player who wants to play the mad scientist artificer probably won’t be happy if all artificers in your setting are required to belong to an order of mage hunters.
 

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
That does explain your perspective better, though I still disagree.

Every setting is going to exist in a continuum from “Tightly thematic” to “Kitchen Sink”. Each one is going to have its strengths and weaknesses.

One strength of “Tightly thematic” is that the DM can more tightly tie in classes and races into the setting. Part of what makes this easier is the possibility of simply excluding certain races and classes.

“Kitchen Sink” gives players more freedom to realize their characters. This isn’t always about “having a super unique character”. Sometimes, a player is in the mood to play something different, or wants to try a different mechanic.

I do feel that “let’s tie in races and classes tightly to the setting” tends to ignore that it limits player choices about their characters. There may be a trade-off in terms of immersion, but the player who wants to play the mad scientist artificer probably won’t be happy if all artificers in your setting are required to belong to an order of mage hunters.
... as previously noted, -many- times, and also added to the Original Post as a big ol' Disclaimer:

This isn't about requiring people to follow a strict set of guidelines for their characters. Artificers in the Ashen Lands can be mad scientists or a jungle dwelling character who mingles potions and puts together biodegradable bamboo-based clockwork technology.

Only ensuring that there are examples of the character's class/race in the narrative and cultural background that is the campaign setting.
 

If I'm understanding OP correctly, this is looking at the issue they're concerned with backwards: the problem isn't "how do I fit my sorcerer/rogue/warlock into the setting?" The issue is "why aren't there sorcerers already in the setting?" Which is getting lost, I think, because OP just refers to "the setting," which isn't really a thing in DnD.
This response was to Crimson Longinus who seemed to have an issue with an academically-inclined Tomelock being a wizard.

But as to the general point, I guess it depends on how much detail you provide on your settings, and what detail is necessary.

In my current campaign, the party has come across stories of a mythical hero. The mythical hero is described as clever, preferring brains and guile to brute strength, and using magic (though mostly in conjunction with magical items).

Does it matter whether that hero was a fighter, rogue, sorcerer, artificer or wizard? No. In fact, I would argue that this is better design as (1) it doesn’t restrict player choice; and (2) it is easier on the DM who doesn’t have to populate the backstory with examples of every class.
 


Necrozius

Explorer
Even in Dungeon World the -cultural- impact of "Wizards" is still there.

Those other Magic Users who aren't actually "Wizards" still have a narrative impact and support the class-fantasy -of- the Wizard. Same thing with the Cleric and Priests thing. Or the Fighter and Soldiers. Or the Barbarian and Tribal Warriors. Or whatever other class-fantasy you're creating.

Because it's not about the name, it's about the identity. Whether you're "The Most Powerful" example of that class fantasy in the world or not, it's still -there-. Still part of the story.
Ah yes, very true. Again, unless your campaign is Xmen in a Fantasy setting, I guess.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top