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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I disagree archetypes become meaningless. I just don't define archetypes by class, but by function. A classic Arthurian knight is sworn to a lord or ideal, wears armor, follows a chivalric code, rides horses, and display puissant skill at arms. That could be a paladin class, a fighter class, a barbarian with some feats -- I don't see any reason to restrict a class to one fiction or have a fiction only be playable by one class.

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."

I've never been super happy with argument by dictionary, but 'broadly defines' is exactly what I allow. The class doesn't determine the vocation, but the skills and abilities you gain from the class broadly define what you do do. Again, I don't require that a player must fit a specific fiction just because he picks a class. That's far too limiting for me (and my group), and I'd rather not sit at a table as be told I can't play a Franciscan monk that uses the barbarian class and describes rage as channeling the might of their god. I wouldn't like being told that I can't because barbarians can only be wildmen from a savage tribe.

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.

Again with this 'it's my interpretation or go play a different game'?! Seriously, can you not conceive of a situation in which a group likes the broad grouping a skills and abilities as being easy and fast to use, but also creative enough to be able to reflavor them for their games?

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.
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.

Funny, and I think I recall that you're not a 5e guy, but an older edition guy, right? Backgrounds aren't like that at all. And, as for what defines what a character does as an adventurer, what exactly is wrong with the answer, "the player?" You seem to want it to be the game, fixed and rigid, that has that answer. I let my players tell me what kind of adventurer they want to be.

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.

Eh, I'm sorry that it doesn't trigger your imagination like it does ours. I can't help that. But I certainly don't think that you should be trying to shove people that don't have a problem imagining new fictions for classes into a box of 'plays the game wrong.' I'm not doing that to you, so, maybe, some reciprocity is in order?

 

[empireofchaos]

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

With scimitar as currently written for 5e, you don't have to - it's a light weapon, and can be dual-wielded without taking an extra feat. And tulwar and sabre (unclear on katana) have been subtypes of scimitars since 1e.

But the key point, again, is whether a tulwar or katana can "fill in" for a longsword where the chainsaw or light sabre cannot. I think there's little difference between them, in the sense that they all break the flavor if the DM feels they do.

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

The question is - do spies exist, is spy a real "thing" in Bourne's world? Yes, obviously it does, and it is. It is his profession, and if so...

To me, class doesn't equal profession.

We can play Humpty-Dumpty games about what words actually mean. But I quoted long ago, and several people have now requoted the fact that the PHB clearly states: class is more than a profession, it is a calling. It defines what your character can do in that capacity. It can't be stated any more clearly than that.

Background, as the name itself indicates, is what you used to do before setting onto your new path which is now increasingly defined as class. In most cases, like peasant, outlander, noble - it's not a profession, but a general social category. In only a few cases, like guild artisan, is it a profession, but it is not a heroic calling, and it does not define the trajectory along which your character will advance in the game.

Now, you can run your world as you please, and I hope we can stop debating whether anyone is telling you how to do that properly. But I, for one, would appreciate that people stop dogmatically insisting on how the "rules" are to be properly interpreted, and how "rules" only include that which is quantitatively measurable, and not the qualitative aspects that are dismissed as "fluff".

 

[Remathilis]

I disagree archetypes become meaningless. I just don't define archetypes by class, but by function. A classic Arthurian knight is sworn to a lord or ideal, wears armor, follows a chivalric code, rides horses, and display puissant skill at arms. That could be a paladin class, a fighter class, a barbarian with some feats -- I don't see any reason to restrict a class to one fiction or have a fiction only be playable by one class.

True, but my problem still lies in places where the Barbarian Knight says "I'm a dashing, chivalric upper-class warrior with a oath of loyalty and a code of honor, but I also have a bad temper problem, so I'm a barbarian class." To me, it's trying to get the best of a paladin (nobility, wealth, and honor) with the mechanics of the barbarian (rage/toughness) without the downsides to either (a paladin's devotion to his oath/deity, a barbarian's "otherness"). To me, its akin to my "chainmail that refluffs as leather", it's got the mechanics of chain when it's convenient (AC, Heavy Armor Mastery) and the fluff of leather then its appropriate ("I'm only wearing leather, so I don't look like a combatant").

Again with this 'it's my interpretation or go play a different game'?! Seriously, can you not conceive of a situation in which a group likes the broad grouping a skills and abilities as being easy and fast to use, but also creative enough to be able to reflavor them for their games?

It's not "go play a different game", it's the fact some of people don't like the idea that classes are just "skill trees" anyone can mix, match or repurpose. To us, that is playing a different game. I mean, if "barbarian" is a term that applies to anyone and "rage" is a mechanic that can represent anything from aggressive martial arts or bad tempers, why not go the next step and remove the labels and class the classes "rage ability tree" "music ability tree" "divine magic ability tree", "martial combat ability tree", etc? That's effectively what you're doing. Pick an archetype (priest, spy, knight, druid) and pick an ability tree and make your PC.

 

[Arnwolf]

Where do people get the idea that Leather Armor doesn't look like armor. Leather armor is way more than just a nice leather jacket. And it is unmistakably armor, not something you wear under normal clothes or something that would be mistaken for clothing.

 

[Mouseferatu]

[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION], it sounds to me like you've had some truly bad experiences with players abusing the multiclass rules or trying to eke out extra bonuses or eliminate RPG challenges. While those certainly can be symptoms of reflavoring, they certainly aren't an inevitable consequence. I'm a huge proponent of reflavoring--obviously --but that multiclass character you mentioned rubs me the wrong way as well. I just feel that it's its own problem, not a problem with reflavoring itself.

Fortunately, multiclassing abuse is a lot harder in 5E, due to stat minimums.

Using my "monastic barbarian" as an example, yes, it's eliminating the barbarian's "otherness," but it's replacing it with its own RP challenges: behavioral restrictions coming from monastic vows, the same challenges facing other religious characters like clerics or some paladins, etc.

(Note that, at this point, I'm not trying to change your mind as far as your own games. Just discussing some of the specific problems you've raised.)

 

[Remathilis]

Where do people get the idea that Leather Armor doesn't look like armor. Leather armor is way more than just a nice leather jacket. And it is unmistakably armor, not something you wear under normal clothes or something that would be mistaken for clothing.

 

[Remathilis]

[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] Perhaps its been an over-reaction, but for me, it was a response to a lot of related phenomenon. You had Franken-PC level-dippers of 3e. You had the 4e "you want to be a fighter with bow powers? Pick ranger, and say he's a fighter" hack. You had the "best of both worlds" fluff/mechanic mishmash. I could try to fix each of those problems separately, but I found the more elegant solution was simply to enforce the fluff attached to the class in the PHB.

Now, if you came to me with your PC, I'd suggest the following change: You were a student in a monastery trying to become a monk, but you found you could never quell that inner rage enough to achieve body-mind harmony. Eventually, you left frustrated having never grasped the power of ki, but took some of the monastic traditions you had while living with them. You wandered alone and harnessed the inner rage you had all along and eventually wound up in whatever starting location the game begins at. You're a barbarian (but not a tribal one), your rage is fueled by whatever power fuels barbarians, but you hold on to some monastic elements (perhaps dictating your choice of weapon, dress, or whatever else). Any monk watching you fight will note you begin with some rudimentary monk stances and maneuvers, but your rage and recklessness resembles a wild animal more than a disciplined martial artist. I could almost imagine a kind of "Wolverine in Japan Era" mix of honorable warrior desperately trying to keep the beast in check.

This way, we don't invalidate the monk or barbarian archetypes, create an unique character, and nothing has to refluff. It requires a bit of give-and-take, but the character could work within the parameters.

 

[Mouseferatu]

See, whereas that would alter the character concept beyond the point where I'd want to play it. For me, the flavor I came up with--the idea that he gains his power through faith, that it's not true rage or "physical" strength, his background in civilization--is integral. Part of it is the character concept itself, and part of it is that I enjoy using mechanics in new ways.

But as I said, I'm not trying to change how you play at your table; I'd just either find a different group or play a different character.

 

[Ovinomancer]

With scimitar as currently written for 5e, you don't have to - it's a light weapon, and can be dual-wielded without taking an extra feat. And tulwar and sabre (unclear on katana) have been subtypes of scimitars since 1e.

Sure, but then you're missing the ability to wield a katana in both hands, which is, by far, the most common way one is used.

But the key point, again, is whether a tulwar or katana can "fill in" for a longsword where the chainsaw or light sabre cannot. I think there's little difference between them, in the sense that they all break the flavor if the DM feels they do.

Yeah, other bladed weapons vs laser sword that cuts through anything and a gas powered rotary axe. I really don't see how those things are remotely close, but I'll accept that you think swapping a longsword for a katana is the same as longsword for chainsaw. I don't have any issues, personally, as I wouldn't even consider a fluff rewrite from longsword to laser sword or chainsaw.

The question is - do spies exist, is spy a real "thing" in Bourne's world? Yes, obviously it does, and it is. It is his profession, and if so...

I think I've been very clear that I don't equate profession with class, so... what? Was this meant to be a telling point against or something?

We can play Humpty-Dumpty games about what words actually mean. But I quoted long ago, and several people have now requoted the fact that the PHB clearly states: class is more than a profession, it is a calling. It defines what your character can do in that capacity. It can't be stated any more clearly than that.

Sure, and I think I'm within those rules. Class defines what you can do, not what you call yourself, or how you learned how to do those things, or to what ends you use those abilities. So, yeah, class is your calling, as it defines your abilities, but I don't see the need for everyone having the same class to have the exact same calling. Nor is such a thing a recognizable fiction in my games.

Background, as the name itself indicates, is what you used to do before setting onto your new path which is now increasingly defined as class. In most cases, like peasant, outlander, noble - it's not a profession, but a general social category. In only a few cases, like guild artisan, is it a profession, but it is not a heroic calling, and it does not define the trajectory along which your character will advance in the game.

It provides skills and a unique ability that is useful to your career. It's not a 'that's what you did and it has no bearing anymore.' Also, solider is a profession, noble is definitely a vocation, acolyte is as well.

Now, you can run your world as you please, and I hope we can stop debating whether anyone is telling you how to do that properly. But I, for one, would appreciate that people stop dogmatically insisting on how the "rules" are to be properly interpreted, and how "rules" only include that which is quantitatively measurable, and not the qualitative aspects that are dismissed as "fluff".

I've only gotten upset with the arguments that I should play a different game if I don't have classes with a pre-defined fiction in my game. If you can get people to stop doing that, I'll be just fine, thanks! And I certainly haven't yet told you that you can't use fluff however you want. I'm happy for you to use it however you want. I've stuck to saying how I use it, and getting a mite tired of being told I should play a different game for doing so. If you'd like to be free to associate fluff with crunch (to abuse terms), great! I support that! I think it's swell. I do it differently, and would appreciate the same attitude towards my choices as I have towards yours.

 

[Ovinomancer]

True, but my problem still lies in places where the Barbarian Knight says "I'm a dashing, chivalric upper-class warrior with a oath of loyalty and a code of honor, but I also have a bad temper problem, so I'm a barbarian class." To me, it's trying to get the best of a paladin (nobility, wealth, and honor) with the mechanics of the barbarian (rage/toughness) without the downsides to either (a paladin's devotion to his oath/deity, a barbarian's "otherness"). To me, its akin to my "chainmail that refluffs as leather", it's got the mechanics of chain when it's convenient (AC, Heavy Armor Mastery) and the fluff of leather then its appropriate ("I'm only wearing leather, so I don't look like a combatant").

Huh. I don't associate wealth and nobility with the paladin class. That's a separate thing characters have to earn in my game (or start with, depends on backgrounds). If you really see a barbarian class character taking the effort to pick up feats that allow it to behave like a Arthurian knight, and then roleplaying that, as the same as trying to change chainmail into leather, I don't think we can find a common ground. I'd probably be unhappy in a game that so locked into defined tropes without the ability to challenge them in the least to be deeply unfulfilling, but it also sounds as if you playing in my game, where you can define yourself as you want within the mechanics to be similarly unfulfilling. Different playstyles as all.

However, I'd like to take this moment to say that my game isn't a D&D version of Fluxx. If you introduce a new concept, I work with you to place it in the world in a way that makes sense. If we can't, it gets nixed and you can try something else. Longswords don't morph into chainsaws on a whim (or at all), and chainmail doesn't get refluffed as leather. I think you may think things are far more wild and wooly in my games than they are.

It's not "go play a different game", it's the fact some of people don't like the idea that classes are just "skill trees" anyone can mix, match or repurpose. To us, that is playing a different game. I mean, if "barbarian" is a term that applies to anyone and "rage" is a mechanic that can represent anything from aggressive martial arts or bad tempers, why not go the next step and remove the labels and class the classes "rage ability tree" "music ability tree" "divine magic ability tree", "martial combat ability tree", etc? That's effectively what you're doing. Pick an archetype (priest, spy, knight, druid) and pick an ability tree and make your PC.

See, you say the one thing, and then you go and say 'but if you A, then you should also B.' I don't want to B. End of slope, slippery or otherwise. If I wanted to B, then I wouldn't play a game that has A. I'm not sure how I can explain this again, or if I should bother, since the response every time I do so is to go right back to insisting that I should just play a classless game system because I must really want to do that if I allow refluffing. I don't want a classless system. I'm not going to go play a classless system. I'm just fine with how 5e works, and I'm just fine with class refluffs to match character concepts. I never, ever want to tell my players that they can't play a cool concept like the power-channeling Franciscan monk because I'm so stuck on barbarians only having one flavor and monks only having one flavor -- to the point that you can't even have non-asian monks, despite the wealth of examples of exactly such a thing. But that, most definitely, doesn't mean I want to play another game.