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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really?

What observable abilities do they get? Which of those observable abilities could only be explained by the people in the game world as proving that there is such a thing as 'class', and what the inhabitants understand by each observable 'class' perfectly resembles the rules for each class in the PHB?

What 'distinct set of abilities' does a champion fighter have? How can those be observed by people in the game?

More to the point even, why does he believe that everyone in the campaign world gets this 'distinct set of abilities'? That's NOTHING LIKE the real world, so if the rules are in any way supposed to describe a world with some realistic characteristics then clearly not everyone has a class. Since even AD&D, which leverages class in a lot of places, has plenty of provisions for characters with arbitrary 'statblock' characteristics, there is INARGUABLY many characters that don't conform to these 'templates' of abilities. Why not just assume this is the norm? Why wouldn't the assumption be that class is just a mechanic meant to make it easy to generate characters? This seems to fit with published material best, that you CAN use class as a tool, but it isn't really an objectively real thing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You know, maybe if D&D had a class that represented a LORD of WAR that was adept at leading without being personally good at combat, we could stat all these kings with a class. Alas...

hehehe, yeah, I miss 4e too. (Well, I don't, I just keep playing it).

I think one of the main forces working to break down the class concept in D&D is exactly all of this. The authors of 3e saw that the authors of 2e tried to create a 'kit' to describe every possible variation of concept of character, but it was impossible. So they went further and they invented ala-carte MCing plus PrCs, and then 4e invented backgrounds and themes, and PPs and EDs, etc. PF takes 3.x even further so that class is really pretty much meaningless in that game (though you could of course still play a basic fighter). 4e is much the same, you can play a basic fighter that's pretty generic, but given the lack of NPC class in 4e I don't think we really NEED a suite of classes anymore just for that. I was sorry to see 5e seem to regress in the provision of those tools. Its one reason I really don't care to DM it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, with some variance of course; there are subclasses, feats, racial traits, multiclassing and possibly prestige classes all mucking up the observable data, but I don't think its unreasonable to draw SOME inferred abilities and attach them to a class title; such as "All paladin's can sense unnatural good or evil beings" or "All druids can transform into animals" or "All barbarian's tap into their rage to fight recklessly". To me, that would be a fair enough generalization on par with "All doctors tend toward pacifism due to the hippocratic oath" or "all teachers tend to be scholarly" or "all lawyers are Evil" . I'm sure there are exceptions, but more often than not they prove the rule.

And yet such crass generalizations are almost universally deplored by thoughtful people. They are mere caricatures, describing reality in such a poor way as to be actively misleading and foolish.

 

[Remathilis]

And yet such crass generalizations are almost universally deplored by thoughtful people. They are mere caricatures, describing reality in such a poor way as to be actively misleading and foolish.

Yet D&D is full of them; all orcs are evil, all dragons are greedy, all dwarves are dour, etc. I don't think class-based stereotypes are any worse. They don't work in the real world, but almost nothing in D&D would.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yet D&D is full of them; all orcs are evil, all dragons are greedy, all dwarves are dour, etc. I don't think class-based stereotypes are any worse. They don't work in the real world, but almost nothing in D&D would.

No, and that's fine, but I think the point is those things weren't intended to be hard limitations on the game. We've gone beyond them, a lot. I can relish simple games of orc bashing, but I don't think that is ALL the game is able to support or all that it envisaged, even in the early days.

 

[Shasarak]

Sure there is no hard limit. Just the level-less King is the exception that proves the rule.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure there is no hard limit. Just the level-less King is the exception that proves the rule.

Yeah, I would go the other way. The higher-level king is the one that proves the general rule.

 

[Shasarak]

Yeah, I would go the other way. The higher-level king is the one that proves the general rule.

I knew there was a rule and this proves it!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I knew there was a rule and this proves it!

lol, but which is the rule and which is the exception

 

[Arial Black]

Most obviously when they turn say level 5 and start being able to cast Fireballs and such.

Before level 5 no Fireball....after level 5 Fireball. That is a pretty clear distinction.

???

A fireball can be observed in game, but what does that prove about what class the caster must be?