The grizzled war vet can be of any class. Some classes may required more inspiration to write the story. Class can help build an identity, but it’s not mandatory.
D&D General Class vs Identity
- Thread starter Redwizard007
- Start date
jmartkdr2
Hero
For me, it's the moment the class interferes with the concept. The concept always wins.
I make a concept first, start on backstory, and then pick mechanics. I want mechanics that support the concept and are fun to play, and will fiddle with choices until the criteria are met. I then adjust backstory and character details to mesh better.
On the other hand: I would say yes, if only as a template/default. I shouldn't need to invent a connection between my character's powers/class features and the world. At least one idea should be presented for me to riff off of. Or reject, if that strikes my fancy.
For example: it's quite alright to say "Rune Knights are generally part of an order that worships Amman." And it's just as alright for my to declare that this character uses dragon runes instead.
MGibster
Legend
I've always disliked multi classing for a variety of reasons but I've never forbidden the practice in any game I run. I came to dislike multi classing in 3rd edition because it was too easy for players to come up with ridiculously broken combinations. And you had a few classes that people just dipped their toes in for some of the benefits that came with it at level 1.
But as to the OP, most of my players tell the other PCs their class during introductions. I don't really see it necessarily as in game though. Oddly enough, someone can be a sorcerer, wizard, or warlock in game but nobody's really a fighter. You might be a knight, a warrior, man-at-arms, gladiator, etc., etc. but almost never a Fighter.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Same with rogue. A fighter, bard, wizard, any class can be a rogue, but the class is not really an in fiction identity.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
When I'm playing as a PC, introduction is usually race/class followed with a quick description - looks and mannerisms. If anyone ever asks my alignment, I just glare at them (it's usually Chaotic Good, but that's just insulting 
).
As DM, NPCs are introduced with a description; their outward profession might be noticable, but I don't state any metagame information. "The man walking up to you is dressed in charcoal-colored banded mail, his raven hair slicked back and held by a tarnished golden band. He holds a massive iron hammer slung over his shoulder and he disdainfully studies you before breaking into a toothy grin and extending his free hand in friendship."
).As DM, NPCs are introduced with a description; their outward profession might be noticable, but I don't state any metagame information. "The man walking up to you is dressed in charcoal-colored banded mail, his raven hair slicked back and held by a tarnished golden band. He holds a massive iron hammer slung over his shoulder and he disdainfully studies you before breaking into a toothy grin and extending his free hand in friendship."
Older Beholder
Hero
At level 1 I usually find the background is a more accurate description of the character, as they're still just learning their class at that point.
A year into a campaign, one of the guys I play with still has no idea my character is cleric. I think being an Arcana domain might have thrown him a little, but it's still a bit insulting whenever his character goes to a temple to find an NPC cleric to pay for healing.
I've played with people that see all rogues as thieves which kinda bugs me.
Assassins and swashbucklers (for example) aren't pick pockets and might see such things as beneath them.
A year into a campaign, one of the guys I play with still has no idea my character is cleric. I think being an Arcana domain might have thrown him a little, but it's still a bit insulting whenever his character goes to a temple to find an NPC cleric to pay for healing.
I've played with people that see all rogues as thieves which kinda bugs me.
Assassins and swashbucklers (for example) aren't pick pockets and might see such things as beneath them.
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
Yeah I rarely use the Class names in world, A soldier, a hunter, a Knight and a guard can all be based of Fighter while an archer or sentry or soldier might be a Rogue. I‘ve used rogue as the base for NPC merchants and diplomats. Orbril the gnome is an Alchemist who is part Scorcerer, part Rogue.
It sometimes helps to mess with PCs too by calling someone the Ranger and yet have them be a Barbarian/Druid
It sometimes helps to mess with PCs too by calling someone the Ranger and yet have them be a Barbarian/Druid
Last edited:
aco175
Legend
This is why I liked 3e to be able to have a PC you wanted. Just look at how many time Drizzt's stats changed over the editions to see what people think he is described as.
When I' talking to the player for information purposes, I use classes. As a player at a convention, I'll tell them the class since both of these are for the other players to know what is going on. I would not just tell them "not your business" or try to be coy and just frustrate them. Everyone is there to have a good time and act as a team.
When the PCs are asking about a NPC, I may say that he looks like a fighter-type or Mage-type. The NPC may be more range instead of fighter, but all my NPCs are not classed like the PHB and I add powers and abilities like in 4e.
Neonchameleon
Legend
It depends on the character - and what my character says isn't always the truth. A warlock might introduce themselves as a wizard or even (in the case of a celestial warlock) a cleric although wizards and clerics are likely to be truthful. Meanwhile a fighter isn't likely to use that word but more like something like "protection" and let their armour and weapons do the talking, while a rogue is more likely to claim to be either a fighter, a ranger, or a scout.
Similar Threads
