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

[Arial Black]

You know, I was going to tackle this... but what's the point?

Well, this is a debate...

I could ask if you use the Holy Avenger or the Staff of the Magi in your game, as those require specific classes to attune to them, and I don't believe it is logical to conclude that a person could build and craft an item to reflect something that doesn't exist. But of course you are going to tell me how you've home-brewed this or make some claim about some twisting that makes it absolutely impossible to tell.

No homebrew required. Just because the magic items have game mechanics which mesh with the game mechanics of class, this doesn't mean that the creatures in game are aware of these mechanics.

I could also tell you that denying the law of averages because a wheel rolled the same type of number 17 times in a row seems to indicate you don't have a good grasp of what that means. Check the last 10,000 numbers and I'm sure it is more even than that. Check 10,000,000 and it will be even more even. That is, if it was designed to be fair and not designed to favor one side more than another.

The last 10000 numbers are more likely to be even, but that doesn't mean that they actually were even! In fact, that would be astonishingly unlikely! If your only clue to the likelihood of each is simple observation of results, it is astonishingly unlikely to lead you to the correct conclusion.

Oh, and yes, the wheels are checked to make sure they stay fair. It would not even help a casino to increase the chance of one colour at the expense of the other because the players can choose to bet on either, and we provide the means for them to track the numbers that do come up. If we made it more likely that, say, red comes up, the players can just bet on red. This would be bad for the casino; it's in their own interest to make sure the wheel is fair.

What's the point? At this crossroads it is just abundantly clear that you are bound and determined to bend over backwards to avoid any sort of title to your character beyond the backstory you thought up, and that you if hearing the term ranger or paladin used to describe a player at the table, and not having an in-game specific group that follows those names, will likely rage about it or at least be insulted by it, despite the fact that the base assumption of the game is that these are things that people can know and recognize in the world.

Assigning the lowest motives to your opponent is a common fallacy. My 'point' is simply that there is no way that the in game creature can know the mechanics of the game.

Edit: this may be coming across more angry than I intend. I am very tired at the moment, and my phrasing may be slightly off. I just don't see the point in arguing something when it has become abundantly clear we cannot agree to a baseline and you seem determined to deny any sort of baseline agreement we could come to.

I can sympathise with the lack of sleep thing, so I'm not going to get stroppy or anything. I'm not agreeing to your baseline, not out of a determination to avoid agreement, but simply because I don't agree with you.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If they had concrete meanings, this would have all been over on page 2 or 3 of the thread after everyone involved simply posted "Yes of course".

The debate for 46 pages is a pretty strong argument that classes do not have concrete meaning in the game world.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If they had concrete meanings, this would have all been over on page 2 or 3 of the thread after everyone involved simply posted "Yes of course".

The debate for 46 pages is a pretty strong argument that classes do not have concrete meaning in the game world.

Well, to be nitpicky, the question was 'in your game' not 'the game'. I'd rather avoid absolute statements on something that's a clearly divided opinion.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, to be nitpicky, the question was 'in your game' not 'the game'. I'd rather avoid absolute statements on something that's a clearly divided opinion.

Absolutely. I agree, it's all a matter of opinion. The problem is that people are debating as if their opinion is fact, and the opposing opinion is somehow wrong.

There's no wrong answer.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Well, this is a debate...

No, it's a discussion. Debates have moderator (of content and style, not merely civility), scores, winners, losers, and, most importantly, a fixed duration with set number of arguments. Discussions have none of those. The fact that some people argue academically or argue ceaselessly is one of the problems with discussion boards. It leads to last-word, ad nauseum arguing. Nobody is obligated to make a point and stick to it, nor accept a good counter-argument.

If they had concrete meanings, this would have all been over on page 2 or 3 of the thread after everyone involved simply posted "Yes of course".

The quantity of the discussion has no bearing on the quality of the arguments, nor even on the size of the parties. This is the Internet, where people still argue Playstation vs Xbox. Quantity represents persistence, and nothing more.

Consider the climate discussion in US politics. The scientific breakdown is about 95% to 5%, but in the political arena it appears to be 50-50 because the argument falls on party lines. Essentially nobody really doubts anthropogenic climate change, but the arguing goes on, and on, and on.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, it's a discussion. Debates have moderator (of content and style, not merely civility), scores, winners, losers, and, most importantly, a fixed duration with set number of arguments. Discussions have none of those. The fact that some people argue academically or argue ceaselessly is one of the problems with discussion boards. It leads to last-word, ad nauseum arguing. Nobody is obligated to make a point and stick to it, nor accept a good counter-argument.



The quantity of the discussion has no bearing on the quality of the arguments, nor even on the size of the parties. This is the Internet, where people still argue Playstation vs Xbox. Quantity represents persistence, and nothing more.

Consider the climate discussion in US politics. The scientific breakdown is about 95% to 5%, but in the political arena it appears to be 50-50 because the argument falls on party lines. Essentially nobody really doubts anthropogenic climate change, but the arguing goes on, and on, and on.

The length of the discussion doesn't have to have a bearing, but it certainly may. If we were discussing the color of the sky, I think a consensus would be reached pretty quickly that it was blue. Sure, it's the Internet, so some folks would say "well not always, I've seen pink sunsets" or "not at night", but that wouldn't go for more than a few pages.

 

[Ovinomancer]

-snip politics-

Take that to the appropriate forum.

 

[Illithidbix]

Depends on the game.
I've rather come around to the idea that I actually like it when the fact players are superhuman is kinda acknowledged.

In the last campaign I ran the players started off as 0-level teenagers* from a mountain goat herding village who stumbled across the tomb of some ancient heroes and after being killed by the resident wight (they got better) they were infused with their power, knowledge and on occasion memories.
This granted them their class abilities, proficiency in skills and weapons they had never seen in their lives.

This was a world where magic was become legendary. Even though the realm was ruled by a line of MageKasierin

On a more metaphysical level, the concept was the players had inherited the archetypes of heroes who turn up time after time in history in the cosmic narrative.

I tied this into the idea that Players and some NPCS are exceptional (the "Unfettered") by dint of being outright superhuman resilient and magical healing reliably working on them regardless of injury.
Magical healing is unreliable on ordinary people (those without class levels), it might partially heal them, but they remain crippled, comatose and similar long term injuries that I can't be bothered inflicting upon PCs.

Not a concept that works all the time but I worked for that campaign.

* (They had ability scores but just 4+Con hitpoints, proficient in two skills and weapons like “wooden sword”)

 

[Remathilis]

No homebrew required. Just because the magic items have game mechanics which mesh with the game mechanics of class, this doesn't mean that the creatures in game are aware of these mechanics.

Well, one does have to wonder why Thomas the Troubadour, a human arcane trickster with the entertainer background, can't use a Doss lute, or why Grungar the Knight of Heironeous can't attune to a holy avenger. Or even why a Talisman of Pure Good only works for people who identify abstractly as "Good". I guess that Doss lute can only attune to very unique specific individuals and its just bad luck Thomas wasn't one of them.

 

[Xvartslayer]

Well, one does have to wonder why Thomas the Troubadour, a human arcane trickster with the entertainer background, can't use a Doss lute, or why Grungar the Knight of Heironeous can't attune to a holy avenger. Or even why a Talisman of Pure Good only works for people who identify abstractly as "Good". I guess that Doss lute can only attune to very unique specific individuals and its just bad luck Thomas wasn't one of them.

If only we had some person who's role was to answer that question with a campaign-specific answer satisfactory to the players. Or even to ignore the result of a random treasure roll, choose not to include the item or to create a story-specific exception.