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

[Mouseferatu]

The other advantage to reflavoring over new mechanics, of course, is that there's no question in the DM's mind how balanced something else, or whether it needs substantial playtesting. There's no game-balance- or mechanics-related worry involved, nor any "Is the player trying (intentionally or not) to sneak something by me?"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It varies, both in terms of which game I'm playing, and what the particular group has agreed upon.

In one sense, class absolutely means something concrete in my Dungeon World games. There really is no other Paladin but mine--that's been made abundantly clear. And, to a certain extent, there is no other Fighter but our group's Fighter (there are mercs, but only one "Equalizer" ), and almost no Thieves but our Thief. (The Thief has a former love interest, gained as a follower at one point, who has essentially become the second part of a deadly dynamic duo with the Thief, their skills similar but complimentary.)

The case is strongest for my Paladin (who has almost single-handedly reinvigorated religious practice on their continent), and weakest for Wizards (who, as a whole, have become a fantastically important aspect of our campaign, what with their demigod-like Avatars and their Towers and their magic both subtle and world-bending). Particularly because we had a Kobold Wizard at one point, who was specifically unusual for being the only Arcane caster in the world (that we knew of, anyway) that wasn't trained by the Conclave (the loose and fractious 'government' of the five Towers of Magic).

But in other games I like (4e) or have some interest in (13A), class really doesn't mean much of anything. The games explicitly and intentionally encourage players to re-interpret things as they see fit--refluffing, or even rewriting, where appropriate, to generate the right look and feel. A "bow Fighter" is a carefully-fluffed Ranger; an offense-minded Jedi is an Avenger; a prince could be either a Bard or a Warlord while still being exactly the same person; etc. The precise mechanics are only important in as much as they help you feel like a contributor and give you enough engagement, and you can assign to them (nearly) whatever fluff you like.

For me, personally? I'm sort of on the fence. On the one hand, I really like the idea that "being a Paladin" means something, signifies a particular kind of character archetype (self-sacrifice, service to a higher calling, etc.), just as "being a Warlock" or slightly further afield "being a Dragonborn." On the other, I hate it when I have a particular conception in mind, and the game I'm playing actively gets in my way when I try to implement it, even though it's neither exploitative nor particularly "out there" compared to the rest of the game. So I guess I would say I like it when the default fluff is really cool and distinct, but the game makes it clear that the default fluff need not be the only fluff and that player-generated ideas are just as good. So you can have "Monk" really mean something, and you can also have "I'm not a Sorcerer, I'm a Firebender, I'm way more like a Monk than those dumb rampaging magic-flingers!"

 

[Celtavian]

I have to add that in 5E I would allow a player to modify abilities of a class or archetype. I find 5E to be the most malleable edition of D&D I've yet played. It's so easy to modify and not break anything compared to 3E and other editions. The abilities are so fluid that modifying them to have a different creative basis is very easy. More so than other editions class designations do not mean much when you can modify a class to do something else very easily just as DMs do monsters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have to add that in 5E I would allow a player to modify abilities of a class or archetype. I find 5E to be the most malleable edition of D&D I've yet played. It's so easy to modify and not break anything compared to 3E and other editions. The abilities are so fluid that modifying them to have a different creative basis is very easy. More so than other editions class designations do not mean much when you can modify a class to do something else very easily just as DMs do monsters.

Do you mean actual mechanical modification (Cleric that can Rage, Fighter giving up having Second Wind and getting Lay on Hands in exchange), or do you mean modification of the narrative (e.g. a Warlock whose patron is actually a deity of beauty, an intuitive Wizard that's totally not a Sorcerer casting from Intelligence)?

Because the latter was bread-and-butter for 4e. There was even an article in either Dungeon or Dragon, can't remember which, where the 4e devs not only said that the game should be open to refluffing, but to a level of mechanical rewriting too, as long as it wasn't exploitative (the example given was, IIRC, a Wizard wanting to specialize in cold magic, but really liking a power with the Fire keyword--the devs pretty much saying, "Totally feel free to make thematic changes, just watch out for exploits.")

 

[Li Shenron]

To clarify, do class names have a concrete meaning in your game world?

Yes. They generally identify special individuals which are rising / have raised above normality (no hard theshold at which this happens), and are expected to have a certain type of powers and adventuring/heroic roles.

Do they exist as understood professions with associated abilities?

No. Adventuring and heroism are never really a 'profession' in my campaign settings.

If someone introduces themselves as a "Fighter" is it automatically understood and assumed that they would have the class abilities of the Fighter class, as opposed to a rogue or barbarian?

No. Abilities are too specific (except when they are truly generic, such as "I can cast spells" or "I excel at combat"), and there is always a chance that some specific characters of a certain class are missing even some iconic powers. Also, a barbarian-classed character may identify as a fighter and viceversa. It doesn't matter.

His example was 'if someone says they're a Wizard, everyone knows what that means."

They know what to expect (knows magic, can cast spells), but never the details (which spells, what limits per day). And why would they? Does a peasant really know what the doctors/lawyers/engineers know in their profession? Do they even understand those professions? Classed-characters aren't even the doctors/lawyers/engineers of the fantasy world, they are quite a lot beyond merely elite professions.

 

[Celtavian]

Do you mean actual mechanical modification (Cleric that can Rage, Fighter giving up having Second Wind and getting Lay on Hands in exchange), or do you mean modification of the narrative (e.g. a Warlock whose patron is actually a deity of beauty, an intuitive Wizard that's totally not a Sorcerer casting from Intelligence)?

Because the latter was bread-and-butter for 4e. There was even an article in either Dungeon or Dragon, can't remember which, where the 4e devs not only said that the game should be open to refluffing, but to a level of mechanical rewriting too, as long as it wasn't exploitative (the example given was, IIRC, a Wizard wanting to specialize in cold magic, but really liking a power with the Fire keyword--the devs pretty much saying, "Totally feel free to make thematic changes, just watch out for exploits.")

Both. I didn't play much 4E. I didn't care for that version of the game and went to Pathfinder.

Basically, I find that manipulating the mechanics is very, very easy in 5E, creatively and mechanically. I don't necessarily mean allowing a cleric to take rage. Rather I could write a rage mechanic for a cleric very easily that was both effective and conceptually appropriate and interesting.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I voted "Kinda". It honestly depends on the campaign world and style I'm running. In my "World of Generika", yeah, people know what one 'is' when they say "I'm a [class]". People don't really know what that can actually entail, but they do know what a "1st or 2nd" level character of that class is. In other words, if someone says "I'm a Cleric of Thellsa, Goddess of Life and Beauty", they know that the person can cast spells, turn undead, wear armor correctly, fight with most common weapons, etc. They don't know the specifics; like what spells they 'also' get (bonus for Life Domain), nor do they know anything about limitations (how many spells, how often they can 'turn undead', etc).

Once someone hits 3rd level and chooses an Archtype, that is what they are known as. So, a Fighter who chooses Eldritch Knight would introduce himself as one. Most people won't really understand what that means other than the basic "core feeling" of the class-archtype. In other worlds, they know he is a Fighter who has studied magic as well and now uses a combination of steel and mana to fight evil (or whatever).

I guess it's kind of someone saying "I'm a Doctor". We know they have a Doctorate degree in something. If they say "I'm a Neurosurgeon", we know they are a medical doctor who specializes in the brain. So, "I'm a Fighter" and "I'm an Eldritch Knight" are the equivalents as far as how much one would know or understand what that person does.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[delericho]

Thieves' Cant was left out in 3x and 4E as far as I know, and I suppose it was included for those that liked the feature pre2000.

In 3.0e it was replaced by the Innuendo skill. In 3.5e that was rolled into one of the other skills (I forget which) and largely forgotten. In 4e I think it would probably be part of Thievery.

(I always thought it was a little odd that Cant became a skill while the secret language of Druids remained a class feature.)

 

[delericho]

I'd be interested to see any quote you could find to this effect.

Sorry, my memory of things I last read some decades ago is a little hazy! It's entirely possible I'm misremembering, or indeed that the text was actually about alignments or some other thing instead.

 

[Shasarak]

Personally I could never have the one PC Fighter being the only Fighter in the game world. Just a little too new age for my preferences.