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

[empireofchaos]

A katana is traditionally use two-handed I think the longsword would be a better fit than a scimitar. The dual wielding style of the katana and wakizashi wasn't a common fighting style.

But it can be used one-handed with a shorter weapon, whereas a longsword, as a one-and-a half-handed weapon, really, cannot. Your point is equally applicable to a scimitar, which is not a weapon you can generally wield with another (that allowance was made for a certain drow, who is also the reason that a scimitar, which dealt 1d8 damage in most previous editions has now been reduced to a d6). On top of that, the katana, tulwar, scimitar are all still single-edged weapons.

I'd also say that a spy would likely be more of a background with different classes making up the personnel. They would have some skills in common, such as those from the criminal background, it's suggested in the PHB that this background could be a variant for a spy character, but they may each have vastly different abilities. For DnD, some may make up the rogue class, some might be fighters, and I could see a bard as having good infiltration skills but instead of sneaking in they go in through the front door using a false identity.

But in many modern-themed games, the spy is much closer to a class, and much more intertwined with the crunch that dictates what the character can do. It has a professional ethos. People trained in different countries in different techniques - weapons, IT, humint, etc. would have no trouble recognizing their counterparts. My point was that the "spy" character concept, far from marking someone as a unique member of another class, would rather unify them as part of a particular class (the only question is, which one, and would that class be appropriate for a pseudo-medieval setting?).

 

[Ovinomancer]

But it can be used one-handed with a shorter weapon, whereas a longsword, as a one-and-a half-handed weapon, really, cannot. Your point is equally applicable to a scimitar, which is not a weapon you can generally wield with another (that allowance was made for a certain drow, who is also the reason that a scimitar, which dealt 1d8 damage in most previous editions has now been reduced to a d6). On top of that, the katana, tulwar, scimitar are all still single-edged weapons.

So can a longsword. Take the duel wielder feat to represent your uncommon fighting style.

But in many modern-themed games, the spy is much closer to a class, and much more intertwined with the crunch that dictates what the character can do. It has a professional ethos. People trained in different countries in different techniques - weapons, IT, humint, etc. would have no trouble recognizing their counterparts. My point was that the "spy" character concept, far from marking someone as a unique member of another class, would rather unify them as part of a particular class (the only question is, which one, and would that class be appropriate for a pseudo-medieval setting?).

Oh, I disagree with this. Real spies run the gamut.

 

[Mephista]

No, but it dilutes the flavor the barbarian class and monk class,

Only if you narrowly define the barbarian class in such a way. Totem barbarians already have a number of monastic qualities to them as it is. Or are you going to say barbarians can't grow up in a technologically advanced culture?

an elven spy is a rogue who isn't a rogue

Spies are variant Criminal Backgrounds, if you want to go strictly by the book. They can be any class.

That's the interesting thing about these conversations. People ascribe meaning to classes that, if you look, is actually placed in other mechanics and areas of the game.

 

[Remathilis]

Only if you narrowly define the barbarian class in such a way. Totem barbarians already have a number of monastic qualities to them as it is. Or are you going to say barbarians can't grow up in a technologically advanced culture?

Monastic qualities? Mystical yes, but nothing about a totem barbarian says "grew up in a monastery away from civilization".

As to your point, a barbarian does not need to be tribal, but it should be barbaric. A barbarian grows up on the edges of civilization, even if that is the ghettos of a major city, and comes from an uncivilized, uneducated or brutal lifestyle. They are the antithesis of monastic training, who demands physical and mental training and contemplation.

Spies are variant Criminal Backgrounds, if you want to go strictly by the book. They can be any class.

True (and I did forget it was a background variant), so that changes the narrative some. Spies are monks, rogues, fighters, wizards, or whatever IN ADDITION to being a spy. Key Words is "in addition"; he's also a monk as well as a spy. Which is what background does; it makes you an X and a Y. But Y doesn't invalidate X, it augments it.

That's the interesting thing about these conversations. People ascribe meaning to classes that, if you look, is actually placed in other mechanics and areas of the game.

Again, class should be a tangible element of the game. If it isn't, we have exactly 11 more than we need. Which ultimately is where these conversations lead: if I can build a "ranger" with any class and a few tweaks, I don't need a ranger class. If a warlock can be a dragon-caster, than the draconic bloodline is redundant. If "barbarian" is nothing more than a set of rage-mechanics, then the next logical step is to strip out the rage mechanic and allow anyone to take it as long as "it's justified".

If classes mean nothing but suites of related mechanics, then classes are redundant and should be abolished for some universal "build your own" system like Mutants & Masterminds has.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Monastic qualities? Mystical yes, but nothing about a totem barbarian says "grew up in a monastery away from civilization".

As to your point, a barbarian does not need to be tribal, but it should be barbaric. A barbarian grows up on the edges of civilization, even if that is the ghettos of a major city, and comes from an uncivilized, uneducated or brutal lifestyle. They are the antithesis of monastic training, who demands physical and mental training and contemplation.



True (and I did forget it was a background variant), so that changes the narrative some. Spies are monks, rogues, fighters, wizards, or whatever IN ADDITION to being a spy. Key Words is "in addition"; he's also a monk as well as a spy. Which is what background does; it makes you an X and a Y. But Y doesn't invalidate X, it augments it.



Again, class should be a tangible element of the game. If it isn't, we have exactly 11 more than we need. Which ultimately is where these conversations lead: if I can build a "ranger" with any class and a few tweaks, I don't need a ranger class. If a warlock can be a dragon-caster, than the draconic bloodline is redundant. If "barbarian" is nothing more than a set of rage-mechanics, then the next logical step is to strip out the rage mechanic and allow anyone to take it as long as "it's justified".

If classes mean nothing but suites of related mechanics, then classes are redundant and should be abolished for some universal "build your own" system like Mutants & Masterminds has.

Sorry, but I completely reject the argument that if you don't make classes concrete fictional entities in your game world, that you MUST then discard all classes as redundant. It's silly that there can only be two ways to play the game -- your way and no way.

To me, class doesn't equal profession. That's the sum of it. Much like a degree doesn't equal profession out here in the real world. Classes (and degrees) suggest profession, and can qualify you for a profession, but there's no need to force the two to be the same thing. If you'd like or if that way makes the most sense for you, then great! Have fun! But that, in no way, requires me to do it your way or play a different game.

 

[Remathilis]

Sorry, but I completely reject the argument that if you don't make classes concrete fictional entities in your game world, that you MUST then discard all classes as redundant. It's silly that there can only be two ways to play the game -- your way and no way.

To me, class doesn't equal profession. That's the sum of it. Much like a degree doesn't equal profession out here in the real world. Classes (and degrees) suggest profession, and can qualify you for a profession, but there's no need to force the two to be the same thing. If you'd like or if that way makes the most sense for you, then great! Have fun! But that, in no way, requires me to do it your way or play a different game.

Well, that's always the answer, if my way works for me and my group and yours works for you and your group, then the problem is moot.

I've brought up this example before, and its more a "3e" problem than anything, but a good example of what I mean. A guy joined my game for a session. We were moderate level (8th) and it was a college pickup game so nobody really minded one-shot PCs. He came in with an 8th level character he called a "Thief": Rog2/Bbn1/Ftr3/Guild Thief PrC2. Basically, he took the rage/fast movement from bbn, the 3 bonus feats from fighter, and the starting skills and evasion of a rogue to make his "thief" with little explanation on how he started as a rogue, learned how to become a barbarian, and then moved onto fighter, before ending up a "guild thief" again. He was essentially min-maxing by cherry picking the best of three classes and then spackling them together with "thief" as his archetype.

It left a bitter taste in my mouth, and subsequent 3e games (and 5e now) of mine requires a far more complex "in game" explanation on multi-classing other than "I picked X class this level". If classes are "professions", then the "thief" should be able to explain how he learned each of his class changes, if they are metagame constructions, then he is free to pick from any "ability tree" he wants.

Basically, when you start viewing classes as Lego blocks rather than archetypes, the archetypes becoming meaningless. "barbarian" is just a slightly shorter way of saying "Rage-based powers with a side of toughness powers". They start looking like the "suggested builds" rather than professions.

 

[Greg K]

Classes (and degrees) suggest profession, and can qualify you for a profession, but there's no need to force the two to be the same thing.

And there is nothing wrong with that in your game (Note: As a DM, I often modify/tailor classes to meet more specific archetypes (similar to the approach of 2e kits, 3e class variants, and 5e UA class variants) as appropriate to the campaign). However, the the games describes a class as your vocation. Specifically, it states:

"Every adventurer is a member of a class. Class broadly describes a character’s vocation, what special talents he or she possesses, and the tactics he or she is most likely to employ when exploring a dungeon, fighting monsters, or engaging in a tense negotiation"

"Class is the primary definition of what your character can do. It’s more than a profession; it’s your character’s calling. Class shapes the way you think about the world and interact with it and your relationship with other people and powers in the multiverse."

Now let's look at definitions of vocation

Vocation (from Webster's Dictionary)

Full Definition of VOCATION

1
a : a summons or strong inclination to a particular state or course of action; especially : a divine call to the religious life
b : an entry into the priesthood or a religious order
2
a : the work in which a person is employed : occupation
b : the persons engaged in a particular occupation

Definitions of Vocation from other sources

Vocation:
a strong feeling of suitability for a particular career or occupation. "not all of us have a vocation to be nurses or doctors"
synonyms: calling, life's work, mission, purpose, function;

• a person's employment or main occupation, especially regarded as particularly worthy and requiring great dedication. "her vocation as a poet"
• a trade or profession

Vocation:
A vocation (from Latin vocātiō, meaning "a call, summons") is an occupation to which a person is specially drawn or for which she/he is suited, trained, or qualified.

So given the above, the game defines class as career/occupation/trade/profession and to which the character has a strong feeling of suitability or dedication and to which he is trained or qualified.

 

[Mephista]

Monastic qualities? Mystical yes, but nothing about a totem barbarian says "grew up in a monastery away from civilization".

Actually, there is. One, barbarians are generally considered to grow up away from civilization. Two, monasteries are just buildies that house a commuity of "monks." And monks are defined as people who practice religious asceticism; living in tune with an animal totem can be considered a form of asceticism.

So, sorry, but the totem barbarians easily fit your standard.

As to your point, a barbarian does not need to be tribal, but it should be barbaric. A barbarian grows up on the edges of civilization, even if that is the ghettos of a major city, and comes from an uncivilized, uneducated or brutal lifestyle. They are the antithesis of monastic training, who demands physical and mental training and contemplation.

I honestly don't think you understand what barbaric means. Or what a barbarian is. Irregardless, the only definition that matters here is the one in D&D books. The PHB heavily suggests tribal - all three examples in the beginning are tribal, the A Life of Danger section talks about relations to tribal people, the Creating a Barbarian talks about being lured to civilized lands, implying you started away from them. Frankly, your street thug is as much of a departure from the D&D Barbarian as Mouse's monastic rapture; you are breaking your own standard here.

Futhermore, I'd like to point out the SCAG new Barbarian subclass. The dwarf battlerager. These guys are fully part of dwarven society, not in the edges of it. They are not the product of an uncivilized, uneducated, or brutal lifestyle. A brutal fighting style, maybe, but not a brutal life.

True (and I did forget it was a background variant), so that changes the narrative some. Spies are monks, rogues, fighters, wizards, or whatever IN ADDITION to being a spy. Key Words is "in addition"; he's also a monk as well as a spy. Which is what background does; it makes you an X and a Y. But Y doesn't invalidate X, it augments it.

Y has nothing to do with X. Its just there. It doesn't augment, it doesn't negate. It just is.

Again, class should be a tangible element of the game.

Sure. I'm all for invoking archetypes and tropes. However, that's the thing with tropes - they need flexibility, or they become nothing more than boring, two dimensional stereotypes. There are lots of ways to twist an archetype here. I'm not suggesting to ignore the story, but I'm also not recommending that you slavishly adhere to the most strict style of story ever.

I've said it before, but Mouseferatu's character is actually something that fits well within the barbarian archetype. Its not a cliche stereotype, but it is absolutely recognizable as a D&D Barbarian. Rogue has historically been a class used by human nobility, and not just spies, thieves, and assassins. These archetypes are a lot more flexible than you're making it out to be.

Now, I'm the type of person that thinks that, if you want to play a warlock, you need a Patron. If you're a wizard, you need to study books for spells. If you're a paladin, you've got an Oath (or you're an Oathbreaker, but even then, you're defined by an oath, albite a broken one). But if you want your patron to be a sleeping god's memories you contact in dreams, if you carry around a book that mystically writes itself, or have an oath sworn to the mob, I'm all for it.

 

[Lanefan]

In AD&D, they then decided that part of the class mechanics was being a knight (and hence seeking alliances or service with noble fighters and clerics). In 5e, though, they didn't write that particular aspect of the archetype into the rules. Which means that someone who plays a resolutely commoner paladin in 5e is not changing or breaking any rule.

So if Paladin isn't the "Knight" class then who is? The knight in shining armour is a big enough archetype to easily be worth its own class; and 5e doesn't have Cavaliers.

Sure, you can houserule that stuff back in. But that doesn't mean that its there as part of the published game system.

Well...technically it is, as an option.

There has been a general trend, over the past 35 years, to relax or eliminate those elements of AD&D class mechanics that mandated a particular social or campaign logic for particular classes: alignment restrictions have been relaxed, racial limitations have been relaxed,

These I don't mind; they were mostly-artificial game mechanics that didn't make sense in the game world anyway. I've made similar changes over time.

training/fight-to-level-up mechanics have been dropped, the idea of "name level" and automatic attraction of followers has been dropped, etc.

Fight-to-level sometimes makes sense in the game world provided there's a rider covering situations where the higher-level position is vacant (a glaring hole in 1e RAW); I'm neutral on it. Training makes loads of in-game sense to me, never mind that as a nice side effect it mechanically acts as a way of slowing advancement and forcing some downtime. "Name level" also makes sense and in effect has been sort-of kept and even expanded upon: it now appears as the tier system. And the omission of stronghold rules is to me a loss for 5e.

These are real changes to the game systems. One consequence of them is that the social/background interpretation of many classes has been freed up, compared to what it was in early AD&D.

Which leads to the next obvious question: is this a good thing?

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Sorry, but I completely reject the argument that if you don't make classes concrete fictional entities in your game world,

OK, let's say they're not concrete fictional entities in the game world.

The question then becomes, what are they?

And if the answer is that they're nothing more than game-mechanics and building blocks in pre-fabricated but malleable sections - malleable enough that you can easily swap bits in and out like some here seem to want to do - then [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] is right: you might as well just chuck 'em out and go to a classless building-block system.

To me, class doesn't equal profession. That's the sum of it.

Quite right; one could argue your background sets your profession e.g. baker, jeweller, engineer, etc.; and if that's more important to your character than being a Fighter-3 or a Cleric-7 then so be it.

Much like a degree doesn't equal profession out here in the real world. Classes (and degrees) suggest profession, and can qualify you for a profession, but there's no need to force the two to be the same thing.

Except it's your class that defines what you do as an adventurer; and as the game usually revolves around adventuring your at-the-table identity is quickly going to become Calime the Fighter (maybe even one day progressing to Calime the Demonslayer if you're lucky) and not Calime the Baker.

And being Calime the Fighter kinda auto-suggests certain things about you, though with that particular class there's loads of room for variance. Being Detelia the Monk, however, suggest a much narrower range of things; among which are you really don't need weapons to hurt things, you're a part of some highly structured organization about which the average joe knows little, and while your powers and abilities aren't magical as such they're sure going to look like they are once you really get going. Chances are also high that you're of a culture not common to the area in which the game takes place, assuming standard proto-Eurpoean fantasy.

Lan-"in almost 35 years of doing this there is but one class I have never played: Monk"-efan