D&D 5E Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?

[empireofchaos]

Of course the flavor is true to the character and is real in-world. Nobody's arguing otherwise.

I stand to be corrected, of course, but what I'm hearing people arguing is that "Classes are strictly metagame concepts and have no meaning in game". Perhaps I heard that in the wording of the initial survey. And I hear people saying that of course there is flavor, but the flavor is a "character concept", not a class flavor. That's not the same thing.

What we're arguing is that the flavor given in the PHB is just one of the options/possibilities. The flavor is real, but isn't necessarily that flavor (or only that flavor).

And what we're arguing is:

1) The flavor given is just one of the options/possibilities, but within a certain range of possibilities (wider in the case of the "basic" classes like fighter, and considerably narrower in cases of, say, monks, paladins, barbarians, etc.)

2) We're saying that this range of flavors is inseparable from the class mechanics, that it is the spirit that connects the various elements of the class, and makes them a coherent whole, that can be understood by a character as a calling.

And we're asking 3) why the crunch has metaphysical priority over the fluff in the minds of those who disagree with us. If the player is within her rights to ask a DM to accept a refluffed version of the class that the DM sees as flying in the face of his idea of the class' identity, how is that different from a player coming and saying "I really love the description of the barbarians in the PHB as raging, foolhardy tribesmen. But in my conception, barbarians should be able to wear armor, cast spells, and have d10 instead of d12. If you're not an overbearing DM, you should let me play this barbarian (and think of recrunching some of your NPC barbarians too, while you're at it)."

 

[Shasarak]

A DM with a consistant vision of the tone and flavor of the setting. Setting is not story. Story is what happens by the characters through their actions in the setting. Two different things that your are conflating.

Furthermore, just because the game includes something does not mean they exist in every campaign. It is stated, explicitly, in the Player's Book tells players to talk with the DM about the setting he or she is running. The reason is that there are way too many influences that people can bring. Some people are influenced by Arthurian tales, some by classic swords and sorcerery (REH, Leiber, Moorcock), others visions are influenced by Lord of the Rings, others still by 80's fantasy movies (Archer and the Sorceress, Conan, Dragonslayer, Excalibur, and/or Ladyhawk), others by anime, others by videogames (Final Fantasy, Everquest, and Warcraft), and still others by more modern fantasy or even specific rpg settings). With these influences come certain expectations as to what should be included and what is not. However what is included and excluded influences the feel of the setting. Therefore, not everything can be included if the DM is going for a specific style/tone of fantasy. All of the different influences is also why it is usually not enough for a DM to say, "Hey, I am running D&D make up a character and come play".

So, f what you want included is left out, tt does not mean the DM is telling a story and the player has no influence. It means that you and the DM most likely have different influences want something completely different in tone/style from one another in play .

It must be just me that does not see the difference in tone between a Dragon Sorcerer and a Dragon Sorcerer "Warlock" or only having one type of people come up with the idea of punching people with their hands because honestly the base classes in the PHB are some of the most gonzo content that you are ever going to see even if there is ever a Psionic class introduced down the line.

 

[Lanefan]

So then what do you call it if your world can not even handle, for example, having an "alternate" Monk character in it or a Dragon Sorcerer "Warlock"?

I call it my world.

Your world can have these things in it if you want, and more power to ya; but they ain't showing up over here.

If I was feeling particularly obstinate then I would just insist on describing my character exactly the way that I wanted just to see how long it took the DM to crack but on the other hand I do not know any DMs like that in real life.

And if I-as-DM were feeling equally as obstinate I'd probably quietly reassign your class to something that fit; you'd be playing some variant of unarmed-specialized Fighter, and when you went to get training with the Monks they'd boot you out and send you to the mercenaries' guild where you belong.

Lan-"I know a fighter when I see one"-efan

 

[Shasarak]

I call it my world.

Your world can have these things in it if you want, and more power to ya; but they ain't showing up over here.

And if I-as-DM were feeling equally as obstinate I'd probably quietly reassign your class to something that fit; you'd be playing some variant of unarmed-specialized Fighter, and when you went to get training with the Monks they'd boot you out and send you to the mercenaries' guild where you belong.

Lan-"I know a fighter when I see one"-efan

If I really wanted to have training with Monks, and I am not sure that I would since..obviously my character is not a Monk, then I would make sure they owed me for saving them from being destroyed by a group of Orcs, Dragons, "Kobold" Balrogs or whatever else was around.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

You guys really consider 1E, 2E, 3E and 5E adventurers to be equivalents of bachelor's degree in a field? Soo..... the town militia is like what? Post graduates? The bandits are doctors of science (equivalent)? And the regular army is composed of Nobel laureates?

That just doesn't seam to make much sense to me. I always consider the 1st level character as a "noob" (except on 4E, where they were already heroes), a half baked "something" (commoner, noble...) that no matter what he/she/it did in life prior to adventuring, has little to no clue about this new way of life. IF i'd like to play a veteran soldier, then i'd probably start at lvl5 or something. It's true that some backgrounds (like the soldier i.e.) seam to go against my line of thinking, but i tend to abstract them into low-intensity occupations. In the said soldier background, i.e. a PC might have served in the army before and even held a rank in it, but he/she/it never saw any real action. Or not enough to develop any new skills or talents wile at it anyway.

 

[Remathilis]

You guys really consider 1E, 2E, 3E and 5E adventurers to be equivalents of bachelor's degree in a field? Soo..... the town militia is like what? Post graduates? The bandits are doctors of science (equivalent)? And the regular army is composed of Nobel laureates? .

They're NPCs. They have no class level (or, they're npc classed in 3e). A first level fighter is far better than the average town militia member; more HP, class abilities, etc. A rogue is far better (and diversely) skilled than the average bandit. A first level wizard is far more accomplished than 90% of the locals who will never see magic, much less use it. Just accounting for those class abilities alone makes them better trained than most typical people in a D&D world.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I'm not sure. From a RPG aspect maybe. From a mechanical? Not so much. At best 1st level fighter could pull a 2:1 parity against the town militia stat wise (unless treated like minions). But the average soldier or bandit would be a good match. Not to mention local hedge mages and other casters. I just don't see that much of a difference to justify the "bachelor" degree to a 1st level adventurer.

 

[S'mon]

Good thing cowardly scientists have bold gamers exposing their bunk!

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure. From a RPG aspect maybe. From a mechanical? Not so much. At best 1st level fighter could pull a 2:1 parity against the town militia stat wise (unless treated like minions). But the average soldier or bandit would be a good match. Not to mention local hedge mages and other casters. I just don't see that much of a difference to justify the "bachelor" degree to a 1st level adventurer.

1st level 5e Fighter or Barbarian is way better than the MM Guard or Bandit. A 5th level D&D PC is a greater warrior than any but a very few of the real world's best - far more resilient, but probably has a lower initiative bonus.

Yes, 1st level in 5e easily equates to a 3-4 year military veteran, unless you've generally inflated the stats in your game world. A 1st level Barbarian could probably take down a 25 hp MM Thug one to one, and can easily beat a Bandit or Guard (or Scout, or Tribesman, etc).

 

[empireofchaos]

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

“Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he [Ioannidis] says.

This simply means the validity or non-validity of a scientific proposition doesn't rest on individual studies, but on the state of the paradigm as a whole. As of now, the paradigm of "race is social" remains intact. And a scientific paradigm, because it at least provides opportunities for criticism and change is a better guide for knowledge than old prejudices.