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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Suppose the following scenario occurs while playing a game of D&D3.5.

The PCs meet a local baron who impresses them as being very competent: He can kill 4 kobolds with 4 different greatsword strokes in 6 seconds; he can regularly make a long jump of 30 feet; he can swim underwater for 1.5 minutes (or hold his breath motionless for 3 minutes); etc.

The DM tells the players that, while out riding one day, the baron fell off his horse and hit his head on a rock, which instantly killed the baron.

The players reason as follows: According to the player's handbook, for a human to make 4 attacks per round with a greatsword, he must be a fighter of at least 16th level. This is supported by his ability to regularly make DC 30 jump checks (i.e. ~ +4 Str plus 16 ranks in jump gives him a +20 modifier). If he can swim underwater for 90 seconds, the baron must have at least a 15 Con. Minimum hit points for a 16th level fighter with 15 Con is 48 hit points (with the unlikely assumption he rolled 1 every time).

Falling 10 feet off a horse does 1d6 damage. Perhaps the DM added another 1d6 for the rock. Maybe even assume that the fall did "critical damage" and doubled. That still means the fall did at most 24 hit points of damage, and could not have killed the baron.

Therefore, the players reason that that something else must have gone, and they go off in search of the baron's murderer.

As a DM, is your reaction:

A. The players are very clever. By knowing the way the game world works, they have discovered something important.

B. The world doesn't work that way. Hit points, character classes, etc. are constructs only to describe how the PCs interact with the world.

IMHO, for D&D3.5, the correct answer is A. The world really does operate according to a set of rules, even if those rules aren't always visible to the PCs. (Absent some bizzarre prestige class or something similar)

However, for D&D5e (and 4e), I would say the correct answer is B. It is entirely consistent for a baron to have all kinds of ad hoc special abilities (multi-attack, hold breath) that don't come packaged with high hit points.

Right, and my answer is that ALL OF THE RULES are just conveniences, conventions that exist so that we can get on with the story. They are 'real' to the extent that they model the in-game reality and they are not 'laws of nature' in any edition of the game. If the Duke fell of his horse and died, its just because its quite possible for a character to die that way. The DM would NOT end a PC that way (arbitrarily at any rate) by decreeing that he fell off a horse and died, but he'd certainly be in his rights to do so for an NPC. The Characters might question the story of the fall, reasoning that such an expert rider was unlikely to fall off a horse, and look for some nefarious reason for it. They might find one, or not. The reasoning is consistent with the rules, but not stemming from or based on them. I would call the sort of chain of reason you outline as meta-gaming and to be frowned on, though I think all players do it to some degree.

And I believe that Gygax, to the extent that we want to analyze his style and intent in writing the game, would agree with me. There are various places where he calls out meta-gaming and various times when he invokes realism and plot over rules. He certainly never intended a rule to get in the way of the fun.

So, maybe the answer is "the Duke is very athletic, but he's not 16th level, he's a 5HD stat block with some special sword fighting techniques as a special ability" If he fell and broke his head, that's maybe statistically unusual, but not impossible.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Point of order: the Baron may have abilities such as the "Cleave" feat which would allow him to kill 4 Kobolds with less then 4 "attacks" making him less then 16th level.

Kobolds are less than one hit die creatures and thus a level 4 fighter in AD&D can kill 4 of them in one round. A fighter with double specialization in long sword could get 4 attacks in a round long before level 16 as well, and there are probably various kits and other stuff in 2e that would allow it. An OA Kensei might also be able to do that, I'm not sure.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes, because that's a potentially interesting story. DW even recommends it, after a fashion, and I'd call it a pretty fair game.

Sure! In fact that's how I have interpreted my own campaign world. In days of yore, going all the way back to Holmes Basic when it first was born, I never liked the idea of hierarchies of levels of NPCs that was sometimes implied. Honestly, I didn't say to myself back then "nothing but the PCs uses a class", but I always considered it shorthand for what existed, not laws of nature that generated every individual that was more than a 'commoner' like cookies.

Prefaced with all the "Your campaign, your fun" stuff.

So, the PC is literally the first Wizard in history. Who taught him? How did he learn to read magic? Where is he going to find spellbooks to get new spells from? Can he find a Staff of the Magi, or is he going to need to invent it? If he gets speared by a kobold and dies, and the Player wants to roll up another wizard, is he now screwed that the ONLY wizard in the world is now dead? If not, where did the SECOND wizard in the world come from? If a new player joins and he too wants to play a wizard, do you now say "No, only one person has be trained like this."? If not, is there an explanation on why the two people in the world trained exactly like this have now met?

Really, for me the idea that there are a small but tangible population with skills and abilities that can be collectively called "wizard" or "druid" or "paladin" (and that identify as such) is just easier to swallow than "You're the only person with these specific skills". And if there is more than one, they would logically group together in some way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Prefaced with all the "Your campaign, your fun" stuff.

So, the PC is literally the first Wizard in history. Who taught him? How did he learn to read magic? Where is he going to find spellbooks to get new spells from? Can he find a Staff of the Magi, or is he going to need to invent it? If he gets speared by a kobold and dies, and the Player wants to roll up another wizard, is he now screwed that the ONLY wizard in the world is now dead? If not, where did the SECOND wizard in the world come from? If a new player joins and he too wants to play a wizard, do you now say "No, only one person has be trained like this."? If not, is there an explanation on why the two people in the world trained exactly like this have now met?

Really, for me the idea that there are a small but tangible population with skills and abilities that can be collectively called "wizard" or "druid" or "paladin" (and that identify as such) is just easier to swallow than "You're the only person with these specific skills". And if there is more than one, they would logically group together in some way.

Well, I think I've said many times that what I do not think exists are 'laws of the world' analogous to our laws of nature that include class in them. This means that there's no such thing, in any objective sense, as the 'wizard class' in the game. So the PC is only a member of that class in a meta-game sense. Thus you can't REALLY say that because Bob the Wizard PC is a wizard class PC that he's "the only wizard in the world", nobody ever claimed that.

Beyond that, all these questions may or may not be meaningful in some measure. They could be answered any number of ways. The likely answer IMHO is that Bob was trained by Ralf, who was commonly known to others as a 'wizard', and if Ralf is still in the picture he's got a statblock of some sort and the ability to cast various spells. In a 'classic' D&D system he's probably got a spell book. He may or may not conform in other respects to aspects of the wizard class that Bob's player is restricted to using to determine the values on Bob's character sheet. So, NARRATIVELY, Bob is the apprentice of Ralf, who trains him, and if he dies then maybe Ralf's other apprentice, Joe, will take up the adventuring life. Ralf probably belongs to some guild or something that facilitates transfers of arcane knowledge, or something, and so there are probably other 'wizards' out there.

I'd note that, in my campaign at least, these other wizards aren't necessarily using d4 hit dice, limited to a small set of weapons from the PHB, may have different and unique spell progressions, may even access magic in some different ways than Bob does. This may be true of Ralf as well. The wizard class rules are a set of rules by which a player can generate a playable character which conforms to the 'wizard archetype', NOT the rules by which the world functions with respect to wizards.

It all makes perfectly good sense. Class has no objective reality and is a set of rules that applies to players. DMs MAY sometimes choose to leverage those same rules to generate NPCs, if they wish.

 

[Remathilis]

I think I'm finally seeing where our communication breakdown lies...

Is class a real thing in the world isn't just one question, but a series of them.

1.) Do the class titles,like "Fighter", "Paladin", "Druid" or "Bard" exist in the world in some recognizable form? (IE "I"m a a ranger of the North" or "He's one of them Druids".)

2.) Do all PCs with that class automatically belong to that class title? (IE. Are all members of the Paladin class "Paladins"?)

3.) Are ONLY members of that class considered to belong to a class title? (IE are only members of the Paladin class "Paladins"?)

4.) Can the character tell what class (mechanical) or others belong to? (IE is there a way to identify a Paladin in the world?)

Question one seems like a no-brainer: Yes, most if not all of the class titles exist or else there the world has no concept for things like "holy warrior" or "member of the old faith" or even "well-trained ne'er-do-well". There cannot exist Bardic Colleges without Bards to belong to them, nor Wizard Guilds without wizards to join them. You MIGHT argue Fighter doesn't have a direct title worth noting, but nearly every other class name can double as a particular group of people that share some commonality. I don't think there is anyone suggesting now (and prove me wrong if I am) that there is no such things in D&D either explicitly or implicitly as Druidic Orders, Bard Colleges, Monk Monasteries, or Wizard Guilds.

Question two is where the dispute begins. I'm on the side of "Yes" if you belong to the Paladin class, you have also joined the group also-called "paladin". Arial and Ovi disagree, saying the Paladin Class does not make you a part of the Paladin group in the world, you can be a member of the Paladin class and instead identify as a Monk, Druid, Barbarian, Cobbler, or Dung-Farmer as long as you can explain your abilities satisfactorily.

Question three is the flip to two: can anyone claim a Class Title regardless of what their stats actually are? Do all "Paladins" in the world need levels of the Paladin class to claim that title? I'm a little fuzzier here: Some NPCs who do not actually have "Paladin" written in their stat-block can represent Paladins, but they need to make an effort to somewhat resemble the PC class. I wouldn't use the Archmage NPC stat-block to represent a "Paladin", for example, but I could use it to represent the Wizard (despite not officially having the "Wizard" class).

The last question asks if the characters in the world are aware if a particular PC belongs to a certain class. Is there a way to tell a PC has the Paladin class "from an in-game perspective" and if so, what would that in-world person think to call that PC? For me, since I associate the Paladin class with the title "Paladin" in game, the two are synonymous. Others say there is no way to make such a tell, and that a guy using Lay on Hands and Smites might be a Paladin, a Priest, an Exorcist, a demigod-in-training, or just a unique individual who defies any and all attempts to categorize him.

To recap:

For me, 1.) Paladin is a group in the world, 2.) All members of the Paladin class belong to said group 3.) But not all members of the Paladin group have to have levels in the Paladin class, and 4.) Most members of the Paladin class can be identified as belonging to the paladin group in world.

For others. 1.) Paladin may be a group in the world 2.) Not all members of the Paladin class belong to the paladin group. 3.) Not all members (or even none-at-all) of the paladin group have levels in the Paladin class and 4.) therefore, it is impossible to identify if a person belongs to the Paladin class in world.

Does that sound like a fair assessment?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think I'm finally seeing where our communication breakdown lies...

Is class a real thing in the world isn't just one question, but a series of them.

I entirely agree, but of course this is the Internet, so I must instead invent some sort of alternate definition that forces us to disagree MORE!

1.) Do the class titles,like "Fighter", "Paladin", "Druid" or "Bard" exist in the world in some recognizable form? (IE "I"m a a ranger of the North" or "He's one of them Druids".)

2.) Do all PCs with that class automatically belong to that class title? (IE. Are all members of the Paladin class "Paladins"?)

3.) Are ONLY members of that class considered to belong to a class title? (IE are only members of the Paladin class "Paladins"?)

4.) Can the character tell what class (mechanical) or others belong to? (IE is there a way to identify a Paladin in the world?)

Question one seems like a no-brainer: Yes, most if not all of the class titles exist or else there the world has no concept for things like "holy warrior" or "member of the old faith" or even "well-trained ne'er-do-well". There cannot exist Bardic Colleges without Bards to belong to them, nor Wizard Guilds without wizards to join them. You MIGHT argue Fighter doesn't have a direct title worth noting, but nearly every other class name can double as a particular group of people that share some commonality. I don't think there is anyone suggesting now (and prove me wrong if I am) that there is no such things in D&D either explicitly or implicitly as Druidic Orders, Bard Colleges, Monk Monasteries, or Wizard Guilds.

Right, the words exist, they must have been coined to describe something, so presumably that something was definable, even if only in a somewhat fictional sense. And Yeah, fighter is sort of an exception, though certainly only in a technical sense, as people would surely use words like "warrior" or "soldier" or something to describe most fighters.

Question two is where the dispute begins. I'm on the side of "Yes" if you belong to the Paladin class, you have also joined the group also-called "paladin". Arial and Ovi disagree, saying the Paladin Class does not make you a part of the Paladin group in the world, you can be a member of the Paladin class and instead identify as a Monk, Druid, Barbarian, Cobbler, or Dung-Farmer as long as you can explain your abilities satisfactorily.

I don't think there's likely to be one coherent group of paladins. The world is likely full of different organizations and people. One group might contain paladins, maybe possibly even exclusively, but other paladins may be elsewhere, and its likely that any group will contain some members of different classes, and that some of them may well be thought of as 'the same thing' with variations. But again, I don't think NPCs generally HAVE a specific class that they belong to in absolute terms, so to me question 2 is on somewhat shaky ground. I think that there are 'archetypes' which are looser than classes that most NPCs are built to, maybe 'tropes' in the way tvtropes uses it is a better term.

Question three is the flip to two: can anyone claim a Class Title regardless of what their stats actually are? Do all "Paladins" in the world need levels of the Paladin class to claim that title? I'm a little fuzzier here: Some NPCs who do not actually have "Paladin" written in their stat-block can represent Paladins, but they need to make an effort to somewhat resemble the PC class. I wouldn't use the Archmage NPC stat-block to represent a "Paladin", for example, but I could use it to represent the Wizard (despite not officially having the "Wizard" class).

Well, I'd put it a bit different way. PCs often will group in with certain NPCs and consider them to be "like me" in some sense, maybe "we're all paladins". Presumably there's some actual likeness going on in these cases. So I don't really have an argument with what you're saying here. I wouldn't make an NPC that was "like a wizard" and call him a Paladin either, except rhetorically or symbolically, but the characters in-game would be aware of that.

The last question asks if the characters in the world are aware if a particular PC belongs to a certain class. Is there a way to tell a PC has the Paladin class "from an in-game perspective" and if so, what would that in-world person think to call that PC? For me, since I associate the Paladin class with the title "Paladin" in game, the two are synonymous. Others say there is no way to make such a tell, and that a guy using Lay on Hands and Smites might be a Paladin, a Priest, an Exorcist, a demigod-in-training, or just a unique individual who defies any and all attempts to categorize him.

I think you know my response, NPCs don't exactly have classes, so its only something that relates to a PC, and since the status NPC/PC is surely meta-game, the question isn't really relevant in its most exact form. In general terms of course I would say that characters know the wizard is a 'wizard', though they aren't going to be able to reason from that that he can't possibly pick up a sword. OTOH they may well consider wizards to be mostly not very capable melee combatants. At least they can judge them on appearance and decide on a case-by-case basis, which might lead them to call some PCs other things than wizard (IE an elf fighter/magic user might be called wizard, or he might be called 'Sir Elf' and treated like a fighter, sort of).

To recap:

For me, 1.) Paladin is a group in the world, 2.) All members of the Paladin class belong to said group 3.) But not all members of the Paladin group have to have levels in the Paladin class, and 4.) Most members of the Paladin class can be identified as belonging to the paladin group in world.

For others. 1.) Paladin may be a group in the world 2.) Not all members of the Paladin class belong to the paladin group. 3.) Not all members (or even none-at-all) of the paladin group have levels in the Paladin class and 4.) therefore, it is impossible to identify if a person belongs to the Paladin class in world.

Does that sound like a fair assessment?

Yeah, I think that overall there isn't really some huge divide, its just that many of us don't lean on class heavily to describe NPCs and therefore some questions don't have the same sorts of answers, simply due to that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think I'm finally seeing where our communication breakdown lies...

Is class a real thing in the world isn't just one question, but a series of them.

1.) Do the class titles,like "Fighter", "Paladin", "Druid" or "Bard" exist in the world in some recognizable form? (IE "I"m a a ranger of the North" or "He's one of them Druids".)

2.) Do all PCs with that class automatically belong to that class title? (IE. Are all members of the Paladin class "Paladins"?)

3.) Are ONLY members of that class considered to belong to a class title? (IE are only members of the Paladin class "Paladins"?)

4.) Can the character tell what class (mechanical) or others belong to? (IE is there a way to identify a Paladin in the world?)

Question one seems like a no-brainer: Yes, most if not all of the class titles exist or else there the world has no concept for things like "holy warrior" or "member of the old faith" or even "well-trained ne'er-do-well". There cannot exist Bardic Colleges without Bards to belong to them, nor Wizard Guilds without wizards to join them. You MIGHT argue Fighter doesn't have a direct title worth noting, but nearly every other class name can double as a particular group of people that share some commonality. I don't think there is anyone suggesting now (and prove me wrong if I am) that there is no such things in D&D either explicitly or implicitly as Druidic Orders, Bard Colleges, Monk Monasteries, or Wizard Guilds.

Question two is where the dispute begins. I'm on the side of "Yes" if you belong to the Paladin class, you have also joined the group also-called "paladin". Arial and Ovi disagree, saying the Paladin Class does not make you a part of the Paladin group in the world, you can be a member of the Paladin class and instead identify as a Monk, Druid, Barbarian, Cobbler, or Dung-Farmer as long as you can explain your abilities satisfactorily.

Question three is the flip to two: can anyone claim a Class Title regardless of what their stats actually are? Do all "Paladins" in the world need levels of the Paladin class to claim that title? I'm a little fuzzier here: Some NPCs who do not actually have "Paladin" written in their stat-block can represent Paladins, but they need to make an effort to somewhat resemble the PC class. I wouldn't use the Archmage NPC stat-block to represent a "Paladin", for example, but I could use it to represent the Wizard (despite not officially having the "Wizard" class).

The last question asks if the characters in the world are aware if a particular PC belongs to a certain class. Is there a way to tell a PC has the Paladin class "from an in-game perspective" and if so, what would that in-world person think to call that PC? For me, since I associate the Paladin class with the title "Paladin" in game, the two are synonymous. Others say there is no way to make such a tell, and that a guy using Lay on Hands and Smites might be a Paladin, a Priest, an Exorcist, a demigod-in-training, or just a unique individual who defies any and all attempts to categorize him.

To recap:

For me, 1.) Paladin is a group in the world, 2.) All members of the Paladin class belong to said group 3.) But not all members of the Paladin group have to have levels in the Paladin class, and 4.) Most members of the Paladin class can be identified as belonging to the paladin group in world.

For others. 1.) Paladin may be a group in the world 2.) Not all members of the Paladin class belong to the paladin group. 3.) Not all members (or even none-at-all) of the paladin group have levels in the Paladin class and 4.) therefore, it is impossible to identify if a person belongs to the Paladin class in world.

Does that sound like a fair assessment?

Pretty much. It's fair to note that your numbered points are all questions about setting assumptions which, since that's been the crux of my argument, would make it very rude of me to not agree with your assessment.

 

[empireofchaos]

What, by mining through 1000's of years of myth to come up with a few examples? ALL of which are of course totally fantastic and never existed in the real world. I don't see how that makes any sort of normality at all.

I ran with Trojan War heroes because Arial was using them to make the opposite point. There happened to be lots of kings, who I think clearly fall into a particular class, on one battlefield at one time (I didn't hit all of them, and didn't even get into the princes). Their existence? Unclear - Agamemnon seems to have been real, at any rate. But the main point is - I could have used any other military aristocracy anywhere in the world over a roughly 6000-year period. So no, not totally fantastic, and perfect fodder for a fantasy role-playing game.

Obviously you can make up a world filled with nothing but hero-kings if you want. I stand by my assertion that it would be a bizarre world, not even resembling Bronze Age Greek myth all that much.

You can continue with your hyperbole, though it's really not taking the discussion anywhere. The point is, GMs try to root players in the setting by various means. You say class can't be one of them. I say it can, that it is one of the main ways (along with race and background, but arguably more important) and the above example is one of many that illustrates how it can be done. And for my part, I find the combat-centric scenarios that flow out of the 4e rules to be the main sources of bizarre settings, that are about as far from history or myth as you can get.

So we can argue on the basis of well-constructed examples, or failing that, we can just agree to disagree.

Or 2/3 agree with me, etc. You can really conclude nothing from that.

I'm not, actually. The poll is difficult to read on the basis of just the one question and the 3 (de facto) options, plus it's unscientific. But to all appearances, both positions appear to be well-represented.

And yet they don't conform well to PC rules even when they're granted a 'class'. As I've said before, my question is more about the MEANING part of the topic. IMHO class is simply a tool, it isn't any more real even for PCs than hit points, armor class, etc. These things reflect some aspects of the world or the character, no doubt, but they're only very general things, tools to use to get what you want out of the game.

And my position is, the crunch we read in the rulebooks is a translation of what occurs in the game world (and like all translations, the rendering is imperfect). Just because characters don't think about HP, and damage, and just because they don't discuss what it's like to belong to a "D&D class" doesn't mean they aren't members of professions, vocations, callings, or orders that translate into "D&D class" for us. IMHO.

EDIT: added missing word "class" into second sentence.

 

[empireofchaos]

You could use Ancient Egpyt as an example, all of the kings and pharaohs were warriors, it was a central part of their identity. From Narmer, the first king who united Upper and Lower Egypt (or Aha, if you prefer) through the Senwosrets of the Middle Kingdom, the Thutmossids of the New, and the Ramsses of the Late Kingdom, all were warrior-kings. Even if much of their wall engravings were exaggeration (Looking at you Ramsses II) being a warrior was a key part of their identity.

Absolutely - and there is a (somewhat heterodox) school that even considers Narmer-Aha, with the upraised hand holding a mace, to be a prototype (via the Middle Kingdom Senwosrets) for the Greek Herakles. And the Akkadian, Old Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian dynasties were also represented by warrior kings, and so on down the line.

Where the pharaohs did stand apart, however, is in their priestly functions. The pharaoh was pope as much as king. He was the head of the Egyptian religion, and technically, all temples were also dedicated to him. And though I'm not personally crazy about the cleric as an in-game model for priests in general, a warrior-priest is a pretty good model for pharaoh.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You could use Ancient Egpyt as an example, all of the kings and pharaohs were warriors, it was a central part of their identity. From Narmer, the first king who united Upper and Lower Egypt (or Aha, if you prefer) through the Senwosrets of the Middle Kingdom, the Thutmossids of the New, and the Ramsses of the Late Kingdom, all were warrior-kings. Even if much of their wall engravings were exaggeration (Looking at you Ramsses II) being a warrior was a key part of their identity.

I was going to spread an even wider net. Start with Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, both were great warriors as well as kings. We've got King Leonidus who led the 300 Spartans and their allies, Xerxes (according to a history channel video I saw while teaching a class) was locked in a room and forced to kill a lion with a spear, has his father had before him, to prove himself a warrior. Tokugawa Ieyasu was a warlord and General during Japan's Sengoku Jidai and rose I believe either to Emperor or directly under the Emperor. Looking closer to the Medieval Europe I remember hearing of at least half a dozen kings who fought in the Crusades, I think the Scottish Kings were actually on a few battlefields while the English invaded them. Many African Kings including the leader of the Zulu during the war with the English fought on the front lines That is just from the top of my head, with no research beyond spelling Tokugawa's name.

Even king's not famous for leading wars and fighting were trained in the art of the sword and expected to know how to fight for many, many years. The idea proposed a few pages back about how 99% of all kings of all time never picked up a sword is beyond ludicrous, and if it was mis-interpreted then I apologize.

Another thing, since I'm typing, is that we really need to stop throwing the word "shallow" around when describing other people's games. It really is in bad form and has been making the rounds for a while. Just because a world pulls on different tropes or focuses on different elements does not make it "shallow" by any stretch of the imagination.

Personally, I like having higher level adventurers in positions of power or rule. The Feudal system I tend to have in DnD is based of the idea that the people provide goods and services and the nobles provide protection, which was the idea of the Feudal System to begin with. Since DnD is so much more dangerous than the traditional world it makes sense to me that some of the people who have lived long enough while in that role as protector have gained strength and skill as the players have. It also, subtly I hope, informs the players of a few things. One, adventurers have come before you and are a force in the world, your adventure is not the only adventure going on. People have fought, beat, or sealed great evil before you, this is the world you are left with as a result. Second, nobility or noble titles is something you can aspire to, while the nobles are generally people of certain bloodlines, if a person proves themselves a capable defender of the realm they could be rewarded with a noble title, and if you want to live out your days as a baron of some land then you could.

I don't believe any of that, or any of the other things I have placed into my world, qualify it as "shallow" despite the fact that I recognize class as a real thing in the world.