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

Are Classes Concrete Things In Your Game?


But in general, we can make do with what we have with a little adjustment to the story of the class rather than the mechanics.

I actually have no problem with "little adjustments to the story of class" - I - at any rate, have allowed all along that it is fuzzy around the edges. But the argument that I've seen all along is "if the fits with the mechanics, the fluff is irrelevant". That's not about class - at all. That's about what one of the "no class partisans" called character concept.

The question asked by us about the Friar Tuck barbarian is - OK, you're a little adjustment of the story of the barbarian class. Fine - but what's the connection to the story? You can adjust a tale, or an ideology to another setting - but you should still be able to explain in what sense it's still connected - not to the mechanics, but to the older story. If you can't - it may be a good story, but it's not an adjustment - it's a new thing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

In my campaigns the classes do have somewhat concrete meanings. A wizard is a wizard, and the way they do magic differs from how a warlock or a sorc uses magic. A cleric is a cleric and how they work and what they do is known at least to some. The different types of rogue are what they are a thief is a thief. Now they might not steal anything on the regular but that's the skillset they have they just choose not to use it all the time. However for some of these classes and archetypes the implications of those class and archetype may change depending upon the campaign or setting I've invented.

In the case of the friar tuck monk that's just a monk with the acolyte background, bam he's an ascetic holyman. Considering the nonmagical setting friar tuck was in a cleric wouldn't make sense for friar tuck anyways, he's just a guy with the acolyte background. That's why we have backgrounds.
 

The question asked by us about the Friar Tuck barbarian is - OK, you're a little adjustment of the story of the barbarian class. Fine - but what's the connection to the story? You can adjust a tale, or an ideology to another setting - but you should still be able to explain in what sense it's still connected - not to the mechanics, but to the older story. If you can't - it may be a good story, but it's not an adjustment - it's a new thing.
Which story are you referring to?

If you mean "the story of the class", then for many classes it hasn't been consistent. For instance, the barbarian class is introduced in 1st ed AD&D, and is not distinguished by raging. It is much closer to what many identify as the essence of the range: lots of hp, ability to function solo in the wilderness, but not a particularly heavy hitter combat-wise (eg no weapon specialisation). Rage as the centrepiece of the barbarian is a 3E thing.

If you mean "the story of the archetype", then the lawful alignment restriction on monks limited monks beyond what the archetype would allow for, because an important part of the monastic/martial arts tradition is true neutral (I won't mention the real world religions, but in fiction certain elements of this are displayed by the Jedi). So opening up the class beyond the tradition-bound monasteries opens up the class to incorporate certain important elements of the archetype.

Look at the arguments made wrt particular classes: we don't need the ranger anymore, he can just be a fighter with outlander background, and Survival, Animal Handling, etc. skills. I'm sure you've heard these, too. Well, that can really be extended to most other classes. Clerics with armor, weapons and spells? Make them into paladins, or land druids wit a specialty in healing, and an armor feat! And barbarians? Fighters with some sort of rage feat. So I don't see people telling you how to run your game - I see people worrying that these sentiments will become so pervasive that class begins to recede or disappear for those of us who want it in, especially those who want it in as a tangible thing.
I don't see how you envisage class receding or disappearing. D&D is a class-based game. But it has always been pluralistic in its mapping of class to archetype.

For instance, as I already noted, the original barbarian overlapped heavily with the ranger. (Eg if you look through the pre-barbarian DDG, you'll see many characters with levels in ranger which, once the barbarian was introduced into the game, would be better served by barbarian levels.)

The original cleric and the original paladin are almost identical in respect of archetype - the heavily armed and armoured holy warrior who is a miracle worker.

In my 4e game, we have two "paladins". One is built as a paladin, with a multi-class that I can't remember (maybe avenger?) to get access to Athletics skill. The other is built as a fighter/cleric. The existence of these multiple pathways to the same broad archetype (heavily armoured, miracle working holy warrior) doesn't make the various classes redundant or irrelevant. And just as with the cleric and the paladin in original AD&D, there are mechanical differences between the two builds which are not very important from the perspective of archetype, but are quite important from the perspective of actual D&D play at the table.

My longest-played 2nd ed AD&D character was a S&P cleric with a strongly martial bent. In rebuilding that PC for 4e, I looked at STR cleric options, STR paladin options (with a warlord multi-class to boost healing), and warlord options. I didn't look at fighter/cleric options, but probably could have. Each build would have captured the archetype of a religious war-leader. Each would also have been mechanically different, and therefore importantly different, because D&D is a game in which mechanical minutiae matter.

An approach to D&D play which treats classes as mechanical bundles with an important but multiply flexible relationship to archetypes isn't undermining the importance of classes to D&D. It's expressing one of the most central ways in which they've been important since the game was invented.
 

Player: Her backstory is...*several pages worth of detailed story, intertwining published lore, adventure hooks specific to this adventure, and stuff I made up that doesn't contradict any of the other sources*...and she was taught her various abilities by various individuals over 5 decades or so.

*Ouch* My heart always sinks when I get these. :.-(
I did get a 2-page backstory for a 4e Epic level Drow Warlock Chosen of Lolth, last scion of
House Nasadra in the Forgotten Realms, coming into a 4 year old campaign. In the circumstances that was fine, desirable I'd say. But multi-page backstories for 1st level PCs are always disastrous
IME, that's the last thing I want to see. A paragraph is perfect, maybe two short paras.
 

I started off voting that classes were metagame, because my 5e (and 4e) NPCs don't have PHB classes at all. I've had to revise my vote to 'it depends'.

On consideration: Classes for me do have meaning for PCs - a Monk is a Monk, a Paladin is a Paladin, and I don't use 5e multiclassing for that matter. The PC's Class says something significant in-world about the character. I'd have no problem with a player-created Order of Elven Spy Monks (and their lack of physical monastery buildings!), and for that matter I'd have no problem with a Barbarian PC who was actually an ex-paladin holy wild man, like Lancelot at the end of 'Excalibur'.
But
(a) I expect to be asked, and
(b) this doesn't mean the players can use classes purely as mechanical building blocks without reference to the 'fluff'.

Edit: Also, obviously fine with a Monk trained by a single Mr Miyagi mentor - even if it is a magical talking beast at the bottom of the garden. My main problem with the 5e Monk class is that it's too narrow, it
doesn't include the very Monk-like 4e 'Avenger' archetype, the greatsword-wielding holy assassin guys like David Carradine in 'The Warrior & the Sorceress' - or Luke Skywalker. :D
 
Last edited:

Ok, so you're an elf who lives a disciplined, ascetic lifestyle, learned martials arts from several tutors, and can harness ki to create magical effects, but she's NOT a monk how?

To me, this is just "I'm totally a monk, but I'm not a shaolin ripoff". You're still a monk. Your school of martial arts is a touch different, but you're still embracing dang near every trope of a monk. All your missing is the "seeking improvement/enlightenment" and you're there. Sure, you dirty it up with a bit of roguish training (mixing the styles of martial arts perfection with dirty street fighting, and I'd ask how you learned your rogue skills) but whether you realized it or not, you've embraced the very monk tropes you were adamant you were avoiding.

She seems very reminiscent of a (non-evil?) version of the Sueloise Scarlet Brotherhood
from Greyhawk. In 1e they were even divided into three ascending tiers: Thieves,
Assassins, & Monks. They spent a lot more time on subterfuge than on contemplating
Enlightenment.
 

She seems very reminiscent of a (non-evil?) version of the Sueloise Scarlet Brotherhood
from Greyhawk. In 1e they were even divided into three ascending tiers: Thieves,
Assassins, & Monks. They spent a lot more time on subterfuge than on contemplating
Enlightenment.

My Greyhawk-fu is weak, but IIRC, the SB monks are very monastic and disciplined, and the "enlightenment" they are reaching is Suel Superiority. (I owned the SB book, mostly for the 2e versions of the assassin and monk classes).

That said, its a good example that doesn't contradict the fluff of thieves, assassins, OR monks, but ties some of them to common origin and purpose. I could see a non-evil elven variant of this (elves DO have superiority complexes) working, but like the SB, the three Tiers are separate groups with their own unique training, not one group that pumps out all three and calls them all the same thing...
 




Remove ads

Top