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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I guess then I find your phrasing a bit frustrating. It implies that this--or at least a major portion of it--is something brand-new to D&D with 5e. I doubt any negative feeling was intended, but statements like that help contribute to the feeling of frustration felt by some fans.

Though I have to say, I'm...really, seriously skeptical about your "characters are as malleable as monsters" claim. Is that actually the case, even at your own table, to say nothing of 5e generally? Things like the genuine errata and Sage Advice seem to indicate that no, PCs are not so flexible that you can literally decide "eh, I don't feel like this character should have spellcasting, I'll give it something else instead." You can do that with monsters--it's relatively common, actually, for higher-CR options (something like 5+, IIRC?)--but not with PCs.

 

[Arial Black]

I've played since AD&D, and from the beginning I despised the meta-game mechanics being treated as in-game narrative. How many problems and absurdities has it created over the years....?

"I'm a thief. It's not my fault that I steal from the party; it's what I'm supposed to do!"

"You're not playing your character correctly. A (insert class name here) wouldn't do that!"

DM: You see four guys. One is wearing leather armour and has daggers, another wears robes and a pointy hat with stars embroidered on them, a third wears plate and a greatsword, the fourth plate and a mace."

Players: I'll attack the thief, you attack the mage, you attack the fighter and we'll leave the cleric alive for questioning."

I hate the idea that you can see what a person is wearing, therefore you know what his class abilities are!

Another meta-game concept I hate is 'adventurer', like every single NPC in the world can tell if you're an adventurer with the merest glance. I purposefully have my PCs dress in ways that don't make it obvious what my class is (and I commonly multi-class anyway); my monk certainly won't be wearing a dressing gown, my wizard certainly won't be wearing a robe with stars on it with a pointy hat, and my swashbuckler certainly won't be wearing armour-plate or otherwise! They will all be dressed in...clothes. Normal clothes. Just like everyone else in town on a Friday night. Yet, when we walk into a bar, looking just like everyone else, the barkeep invariably says, "Ah, adventurers!"

Bite me.

My latest 5E PC for organised play is a wood elf Rog 1/Mnk 2 criminal (spy) in game terms. In concept, she works for a secret elven group as a spy, graduated to be a field agent (learning some very efficient, deadly and non-flashy unarmed combat) and will get her imaginary 'license to kill' at Rog (assassin) 3/(shadow) Mnk 6. But she would never think of herself as a 'monk'. She's never visited a monastery in her life, never uttered the word 'Ommm', and doesn't try to copy an animal when she kicks you in the 'nads.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Arial:
I've always felt the "Ah, adventurers!" thing was more about all the crap you have to carry around with you. Normal people don't have a backpack on most of the time. Normal people don't keep a sword/dagger/staff/etc. on their belt/back every second of every day that they aren't spending using those weapons. Normal people aren't tanned from long days hiking in the sun, nor sallow from week-long slogs through a tomb. Normal people--that aren't nobility--don't sling dozens or hundreds of gold pieces like it's nothing. And on the subject of nobility, adventurers (that live any appreciable length of time) eventually amass wealth akin to a minor noble, but continue to dress, behave, and (presumably) bathe more like a commoner--that, too, will leave its mark. Finally, being an Adventurer means you've seen some s**t; even the most cowardly and cringing Adventurer, once they reach (say) level 5, has endured many more traumatic experiences than most non-Adventurers see in a lifetime. It hardens you, it changes your stance and demeanor in subtle ways, so you always check the room for exit paths as you enter, do a quick scan for unusually large or small patrons, etc. A people-person tavern-owner can pick up on that sort of thing.

It's not necessarily that your everyday clothes are especially different, it's that being an Adventurer means using/doing a bunch of stuff to make your Adventuring life easier and simpler--which will leave telltale signs. Signs in the accouterments you wear and in your bearing.

Edit:
Though I will say, your "spy/thief" character makes a halfway-decent case for a character that wouldn't give off such telltale signs. Not specifically because of either of her classes, but because of her background and character design. She's a spy, a trickster, someone whose bread-and-butter is concealing her real self and confusing others' perception of her. That makes a good case for a character that wouldn't even have the subtle demeanor signs, and certainly could choose to hide the "work-a-day" carried-gear type signs if she so chose (though where she's keeping her pack with her stuff when she does this is an important question, one I'd expect to be answered if she's genuinely trying to pass herself off as a Perfectly Normal Gal).

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Mostly yes, all are concrete in my games, but....sort of.

Generally speaking a couple generic archtypes will generally be known. For example, Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, and sometimes Rogues might be thought of as "warriors", or a more specific and narrower subset thereof. Clerics and paladins might be recognizable members of a particular religion - particularly if they hold a specific rank or title. Rogues and rangers (and occasionally druids) might be known as scouts, spies, woodsmen or the like. (Rogues might alternately be thought of as thieves, brigands, pirates...and share those general roles with other individuals). Most people probably lump Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards, and Warlocks together as mages, magicians, or any of the specific class titles without directly MEANING those particular ones.

Members of a class or others with appropriate in depth knowledge...WILL be able to recognize the particular differences and peculiarities, however. A Wizard would realize that a Sorcerer is casting spells through somewhat different means then the Wizard himself is using. A Fighter would be able to recognize that a Barbarian is fighting in some sort of altered mental state, etc.

 

[Arial Black]

Arial:
I've always felt the "Ah, adventurers!" thing was more about all the crap you have to carry around with you. Normal people don't have a backpack on most of the time. Normal people don't keep a sword/dagger/staff/etc. on their belt/back every second of every day that they aren't spending using those weapons. Normal people aren't tanned from long days hiking in the sun, nor sallow from week-long slogs through a tomb. Normal people--that aren't nobility--don't sling dozens or hundreds of gold pieces like it's nothing. And on the subject of nobility, adventurers (that live any appreciable length of time) eventually amass wealth akin to a minor noble, but continue to dress, behave, and (presumably) bathe more like a commoner--that, too, will leave its mark. Finally, being an Adventurer means you've seen some s**t; even the most cowardly and cringing Adventurer, once they reach (say) level 5, has endured many more traumatic experiences than most non-Adventurers see in a lifetime. It hardens you, it changes your stance and demeanor in subtle ways, so you always check the room for exit paths as you enter, do a quick scan for unusually large or small patrons, etc. A people-person tavern-owner can pick up on that sort of thing.

It's not necessarily that your everyday clothes are especially different, it's that being an Adventurer means using/doing a bunch of stuff to make your Adventuring life easier and simpler--which will leave telltale signs. Signs in the accouterments you wear and in your bearing.

I've always hated the idea that other people tell me what my character 'must' be like! Whether it's body language or behaviour, based on their preconceptions of what (class X) are like.

Though I will say, your "spy/thief" character makes a halfway-decent case for a character that wouldn't give off such telltale signs. Not specifically because of either of her classes, but because of her background and character design. She's a spy, a trickster, someone whose bread-and-butter is concealing her real self and confusing others' perception of her. That makes a good case for a character that wouldn't even have the subtle demeanor signs, and certainly could choose to hide the "work-a-day" carried-gear type signs if she so chose (though where she's keeping her pack with her stuff when she does this is an important question, one I'd expect to be answered if she's genuinely trying to pass herself off as a Perfectly Normal Gal).

Thanks. If you ask her, 'What are you?', her answer would probably be, 'I'm a chef'. She is proficient in cooks utensils, and is a good general-purpose reason for wanting to gain entry into...wherever she thinks that they might want a chef.

Of course, although she could answer 'locksmith', 'forger', 'scout', 'spy' (schoolboy error, there!), 'field agent', 'Lachryma Shevarash (Tear of Shevarash, elven god of vengeance. The 'tears' are a group within a larger group trying to unite the elves of the High Forest into a single nation), or whatever specific cover she might have at the time. One thing she would never say, that wouldn't even make sense to say, is 'I'm a monk rogue'.

 

[S'mon]

I think they're definitely metagame in my 5e campaign. Eg there is an NPC referred to as "Lady Meda the Sorceress", but her spellcasting ability actually keys off the Bard PC class since I realised that the Bard list fitted my concept of her much better. Likewise Barbarian is a much broader concept than the PC class. Our Barbarian PC is as likely to be called a Slayer in-game, our Rogue might be referred to as a Lord or Swashbuckler, perhaps. The Cleric might be called a Priest, War-Priest or Father.

My Classic D&D game I try to keep it old-school and use classes & level titles as actual things in-world.

 

[S'mon]

I've always hated the idea that other people tell me what my character 'must' be like! Whether it's body language or behaviour, based on their preconceptions of what (class X) are like.



Thanks. If you ask her, 'What are you?', her answer would probably be, 'I'm a chef'. She is proficient in cooks utensils, and is a good general-purpose reason for wanting to gain entry into...wherever she thinks that they might want a chef.

Of course, although she could answer 'locksmith', 'forger', 'scout', 'spy' (schoolboy error, there!), 'field agent', 'Lachryma Shevarash (Tear of Shevarash, elven god of vengeance. The 'tears' are a group within a larger group trying to unite the elves of the High Forest into a single nation), or whatever specific cover she might have at the time. One thing she would never say, that wouldn't even make sense to say, is 'I'm a monk rogue'.

Her concept would make a good Rogue-9 (Assassin) with the perfect disguise ability they get then. I don't like the non-Monk-Monk "don't tell me what my PC is like!" thing, though. Personally as GM this is a good example of why I don't use the 5e optional multiclassing rule, there is too much of a clash of expectations around what it means to be Monk class - is it purely mechanics crunch (as you seem to think) or does it say something about your character's role in the world. I don't want to be constantly doing a double-take "Oh yeah she's a Monk, only not really..."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've always hated the idea that other people tell me what my character 'must' be like! Whether it's body language or behaviour, based on their preconceptions of what (class X) are like.

While that's fair, I wasn't really talking about [class X] preconceptions. I was talking only about the "oh, you're an Adventurer..." preconceptions. Which I don't think are unwarranted, most of the time, specifically because "Adventuring" almost always signifies engaging in an awful lot of violence, and acquiring an awful lot of money, over a very short period. (How many campaigns cover more than, say, a 5-year span of in-game time?) Just as becoming a soldier who fights on the front lines changes a person's behavior and the way they equip themselves, so too does becoming an Adventurer who goes spelunking, tomb-raiding, monster-slaying, and evil-wizard-squishing.

That said, I do think there are some things that can work on preconceptions. People who wear armor made from furs, for example, will probably be assumed to be from a "less civilized" area and therefore more familiar with the wilderness than the city. People who do wear robes will probably be taken as clerks at the least, and potentially wizards (especially if wizards are a common sight in a particular area). People who wear plate are, quite naturally, going to be seen as soldiers of some kind--probably mercenaries, unless they wear some heraldic or religious symbol. If you've got leather armor, and you take decent care of it, you'll probably be taken for a mercenary of some kind (everyday people don't wear armor of any kind). Somebody's got a great weapon on their back, or a sword at their side, people are going to assume they know how to fight and probably don't have too many qualms about doing so when properly incentivized. Etc.

Now, if a given character intentionally tries to subvert these rules-of-thumb (a Fighter who prefers extra-light leather armor, or wearing armor under slightly baggy clothing, for example), then sure, people will probably draw mistaken conclusions. But if your character gets seen "properly" kitted up, people are going to draw conclusions from that--and I find it difficult to believe that you can quickly and easily switch back and forth between "civilian" and "adventuring" gear unless you explain how and where you're making the change, and what you're doing with the gear you stow/stash.

 

[Celtavian]

I guess then I find your phrasing a bit frustrating. It implies that this--or at least a major portion of it--is something brand-new to D&D with 5e. I doubt any negative feeling was intended, but statements like that help contribute to the feeling of frustration felt by some fans.

Though I have to say, I'm...really, seriously skeptical about your "characters are as malleable as monsters" claim. Is that actually the case, even at your own table, to say nothing of 5e generally? Things like the genuine errata and Sage Advice seem to indicate that no, PCs are not so flexible that you can literally decide "eh, I don't feel like this character should have spellcasting, I'll give it something else instead." You can do that with monsters--it's relatively common, actually, for higher-CR options (something like 5+, IIRC?)--but not with PCs.

It's not brand new. You could do it with any edition. It's just easier in this edition because of the simplicity of the mechanics.

It was very hard to write new material for 3E because of the amount of material and the complexity of the rules. You could write something, but it might cause all kinds of headaches interacting with other rules. That isn't the case with 5E. Everything is very compact, simple, and hard to cause balance issues.

I'm not talking about replacing spellcasting. Levels limit customization for players. With multiclassing and creative manipulation, you can do some very unique customization, even writing archetypes that give abilities nothing else provides without breaking or damaging the balance of the game.

 

[Arial Black]

Her concept would make a good Rogue-9 (Assassin) with the perfect disguise ability they get then. I don't like the non-Monk-Monk "don't tell me what my PC is like!" thing, though. Personally as GM this is a good example of why I don't use the 5e optional multiclassing rule, there is too much of a clash of expectations around what it means to be Monk class - is it purely mechanics crunch (as you seem to think) or does it say something about your character's role in the world. I don't want to be constantly doing a double-take "Oh yeah she's a Monk, only not really..."

She's not a monk, in terms of studying at a monastery. She was taught deadly unarmed combat techniques; think special forces/commando/Jason Bourne.

And this is the point re: this thread. The classes are not 'real' in the game world. A person can certainly be a 'monk', think of themselves as a monk and call themselves a monk, but that would mean that they studied at a monastery, not that they were experts at unarmed combat.

In world descriptions/titles may or may not be the same words as the name of a game-mechanic character class, but if you introduce yourself as a 'fighter', they may believe that you, er, are good at fighting, but there's no way they'll think, 'Ah, you must be able to heal yourself once per hour, then!'

What you said earlier about the body language of veterans: this is true to a greater or lesser extent, but there's no way that every NPC on the planet is an expert in body language!

For 'adventurer', that may be applied (as a pejorative) to those who act recklessly, but it is a result of how you've behaved, not something intrinsic to you (like your race), and not something that every Tom, Dick or Harry can tell by looking. Although it's most often the Dicks...

One of the things I like about multi-classing is that it makes it easier to avoid other people's imposed stereotypes based on game mechanics that creatures in the game world cannot possibly know.

As for, 'Oh yeah, she's a monk but not really'....No! They have absolutely no reason to think 'monk' at all! Therefore, not being a monk isn't a difficult concept.

It's the unearned stereotype I hate. If a person sees me smashing someone's nose with my elbow, this should not give them the (erroneous) belief that I was raised in a monastery!

The 'expectations of what it means to be a monk class': whose expectations? Creatures in the world? They have no concept of the game mechanics of 'class & level', so they have no expectation that those who can kick someone's teeth out must have been raised in a monastery or any other 'monk' stereotype. Expectations of the players? My legal character can do exactly what its game mechanics say it can, and it's wrong for other players or DMs to tell me that my characterisation must live up to their stereotypes.