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

[Fedge123]

I used to love in the old edition that each class had a different name associated with it at each level, like a title. You weren't a 1st level Fighter, you were a "Veteran". We all wanted to be the cool names at the higher levels: a "Myrmidon" or "Champion" (6th and 7th level fighter).

In those days you could only be a "Wizard" at 11th level.

 

[Remathilis]

Based on that description, can we even say for certain what class the character is?

Not enough info. Does he know Thieves Cant? Does he fight with reckless abandon, using tactical maneuvers, prefer to gang-up and strike when enemies are unaware, or does he use strange katas and stances? Does he rely on magic in any way? The description vague enough that he could be any non-caster class. Its on par with me saying "The man in robes with an owl on his shoulder just cast light when he entered the room. What class is he?" They're both trap questions because yes, they don't wear nametags with their class on them, but that doesn't mean that the idea of a class doesn't exist. Your enforcer still knows he's not a wizard or a paladin, my robed caster knows he isn't a rogue or barbarian.

 

[Miladoon]

I think an interesting way to look at the topic is to look at multiclass characters. How would they be labeled? How would they self identify?

I would find any in world reference to a "wizard-fighter" as odd.

I was thinking the same thing.

"I am a palladinbarbarianfighter..."

Wuh?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.

It depends. Are you talking about Adventurer's League? Then sure. But if you are playing in my campaign your character most definitely will fit into the parameters, and other players are free to bring up concerns if it's breaking the feel for them.

In my game, classes and levels most definitely are understood to a certain degree. While names of classes can be flexible, the flavor of the discrete skill sets is pretty much set, and the subclasses have in-world reality. For example, I change the name of the Monk class to Budoku, but the class is an Asian-themed, ki-wielding martial artist, period. The class isn't even available without access to the proper cultural background. It isn't just a way to pick up some "punch." Levels are also visible to a degree. 1st level is half-way through your apprenticeship and is the adventurers' equivalent of a bachelor's degree. 3rd level is journeyman, and is the equivalent of a doctorate, while 5th level is mastery, and is equivalent of, say, a tenured professor or a physician who has done everything he needs to in order to qualify for a private practice. They might or might not use the terms "apprentice, journeyman, master", but the concepts are clear. In the case of our Budoku, leaving your school to go adventuring without permission before level 3 (when you officially have completed your initial training) probably means you'll have a hard time being allowed back in, and leaving at level 3 or 4 would be permissible, but most masters will strongly encourage you to stay until you've fully mastered your art (level 5), before heading out into the world. Wizard of levels 3-4 are generally seen as just glorified apprentices, and wizards below level 9 are discouraged from taking on apprentices, even if they establishment might consider it technically acceptable to do so at level 5. The spell levels ("circles") they have learned to cast (which of course are mechanically derived from their level) indicate how advanced they are for in-character purposes.

Now, when a player has an idea for a character that can't fit into the standard D&D class structure, and it's not something I feel is D&D enough to create a new class/subclass for it, then I could suggest that we start up a game of Savage Worlds, or d6, or Fate, (or etc), and try out that character in a system that allows you do exactly what you want to do without messing around with the identity of D&D classes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It depends. Are you talking about Adventurer's League? Then sure. But if you are playing in my campaign your character most definitely will fit into the parameters, and other players are free to bring up concerns if it's breaking the feel for them.

In my game, classes and levels most definitely are understood to a certain degree. While names of classes can be flexible, the flavor of the discrete skill sets is pretty much set, and the subclasses have in-world reality. For example, I change the name of the Monk class to Budoku, but the class is an Asian-themed, ki-wielding martial artist, period. The class isn't even available without access to the proper cultural background. It isn't just a way to pick up some "punch." Levels are also visible to a degree. 1st level is half-way through your apprenticeship and is the adventurers' equivalent of a bachelor's degree. 3rd level is journeyman, and is the equivalent of a doctorate, while 5th level is mastery, and is equivalent of, say, a tenured professor or a physician who has done everything he needs to in order to qualify for a private practice. They might or might not use the terms "apprentice, journeyman, master", but the concepts are clear. In the case of our Budoku, leaving your school to go adventuring without permission before level 3 (when you officially have completed your initial training) probably means you'll have a hard time being allowed back in, and leaving at level 3 or 4 would be permissible, but most masters will strongly encourage you to stay until you've fully mastered your art (level 5), before heading out into the world. Wizard of levels 3-4 are generally seen as just glorified apprentices, and wizards below level 9 are discouraged from taking on apprentices, even if they establishment might consider it technically acceptable to do so at level 5. The spell levels ("circles") they have learned to cast (which of course are mechanically derived from their level) indicate how advanced they are for in-character purposes.

Now, when a player has an idea for a character that can't fit into the standard D&D class structure, and it's not something I feel is D&D enough to create a new class/subclass for it, then I could suggest that we start up a game of Savage Worlds, or d6, or Fate, (or etc), and try out that character in a system that allows you do exactly what you want to do without messing around with the identity of D&D classes.

I'm confused by this. You're more than willing to change the fluff and flavor of a class (changing the name of monk and restricting it to a narrow subset of cultural origins in your game) but still insist that the classes as presented in the PHB are so iconic that you'd rather play a different system than allow a concept that didn't fit within the presented fluff of the classes. It's like having tea and no tea (tea substitute, which is, almost, but not quite, utterly unlike tea, is something no one should have).

 

[Celtavian]

Reading through the read.

When this conversation comes up the Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian tend to be the classes that people say wouldn't self identify.

I feel like in part that's because of D&Ds tradition of " A class without spells? Who cares?"

Magic classes are specific and special, mundane classes are for dummies and generic.

I doubt a sorcerer would self-identify. He might even call himself a wizard or even pawn himself off as a cleric.

Classes that might self-identify due to the type of training they do are likely wizards, druids, clerics (though they probably call themselves priests), and maybe paladins. Most other classes probably wouldn't self-identify because their powers manifest in many different ways.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yep. One of my favourite characters that I never got to play (mostly 'cos I never get to 'just' play) is a half-orc boxer - the kid who was raised in the slums, fell in with a trainer who taught him martial skills and the discipline to go with it (see the plot of basically any boxing movie, ever).

Said character would be a member of the Monk class, but certainly wouldn't be a 'monk' in-setting.

In 5e, I don't get why your half-orc boxer can speak every language or why they can't be magically aged. I could probably think of an excuse or two, but that's that "squinting" I mentioned. If the idea is just to have a half-orc who is good at fighting with their fists, that just seems to me to speak to maybe a new Fighter subclass (the thug!), or even a simple feat. In general, 5e supports modifying class proficiencies like this.

In my example above, for instance, I don't feel like I'm "squinting" at all. It's doing exactly what I want it to do.

Even when your pious monk is tempted to use a friggin' magical greataxe instead of their trusty quarterstaff and is getting boosts to their Strength score and plateauing their Wisdom and doesn't want to wear armor?

My intent here isn't to say that refluffing isn't good enough or anything. It works just fine, sometimes. But I'd really hate to see D&D designed with that in mind. I'd even say that mechanics that don't give a strong in-world feel are guilty of being bland and uninspiring - a class should be an archetype, a kind of character you want to play, and if it can be easily reinterpreted, it's not really doing a great job of being that specific archetype.

I recall when Arcana Unearthed was announced, Monte wanted the classes to have no "bearing" on what the PC was, so he made up nonsensical names for them (Unfettered, Oathsworn, Greenbond, Champion) that didn't sound like titles or professions. Its way too late for D&D to do that (tradition/nostalgia and all) but imagine an alternate D&D with classes in the same name.

Barbarian = Furyborn
Bard = Maestro
Cleric = Godsworn
Druid = Primordial
Fighter = Warrior (Fighter is still pretty good)
Monk = Martial Artist
Ranger = Huntsman
Paladin = Oathbound
Rogue = Adroit
Sorcerer = Spellbinder
Warlock = Occultist
Wizard = Magician
Mystic = Mentalist (Psion might still work)

This goes deeper. If you want to see class as a pure metagame construct, and design the game around that, you ultimately drift away from a class-based game entirely. You have one "adventurer" class who, at any level, can improve their spellcasting or their martial ability, and, depending on their proficiencies in various types of spells or martial abilities, can do different things in the adventure. You get to point-based or package-based or skill-based character construction, super customizable, but without any bearing on what your character is in the world.

D&D started that way - that's why we still have "fighters" - but it rapidly drifted away from that (clerics had pretty strong flavor, and thieves kind of sealed the deal). IMO, for the better: the class is an archetypal package of abilities that anchors you to the setting in a significant way. It's a fantastic aid to imagination and role playing.

D&D's still in a bit of a middle ground, but 5e is pretty strongly on the side of "your class has meaning," to the extent that the generic abilities of the fighter are something that the design team thinks they might've missed the boat on. Refluffing isn't impossible (it never really is), but 5e is anchored in the narrative, and I think that's a great thing.

As an aside, Of all the sacred cows that I wished 4e would've slaughtered, the existence of a single monolithic "fighter" class would've been one of the big ones (and, by narrowing the fighter's focus and giving them a party role and floating alternate classes like the Warlord, 4e almost did that!). I'd even like to see the Rogue broken up and given renewed purpose! We haven't talked about a single "magic-user" class since at least 2e, and no one seems to miss it all that much.

 

[Remathilis]

This goes deeper. If you want to see class as a pure metagame construct, and design the game around that, you ultimately drift away from a class-based game entirely. You have one "adventurer" class who, at any level, can improve their spellcasting or their martial ability, and, depending on their proficiencies in various types of spells or martial abilities, can do different things in the adventure. You get to point-based or package-based or skill-based character construction, super customizable, but without any bearing on what your character is in the world.

There are a couple of ways to skin this catoblepas: a single monolithic class (adventurer), dual classes based on fighting/casting, (or three-classes: fighting/casting/skilling), a generic core-four (warrior, magician, healer, expert) or something similar. Everything else is the heavy lifting of feats, skill trees, subclasses, or whatever mechanic you want.

I think the main thing is some classes are generic enough (fighter, rogue, sorcerer) to encompass a number of different types, while others (bard, druid, monk) really emulate their archetype and not much else barring some heavy squinting and reflavoring.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There are a couple of ways to skin this catoblepas: a single monolithic class (adventurer), dual classes based on fighting/casting, (or three-classes: fighting/casting/skilling), a generic core-four (warrior, magician, healer, expert) or something similar. Everything else is the heavy lifting of feats, skill trees, subclasses, or whatever mechanic you want.

I think the main thing is some classes are generic enough (fighter, rogue, sorcerer) to encompass a number of different types, while others (bard, druid, monk) really emulate their archetype and not much else barring some heavy squinting and reflavoring.

Ya could, but even that is fiction intruding on the mechanics. What's the difference between a fight and a cast and a skill? If the game is balanced, it's mostly just fluff. (4e got perhaps the closest to this out of any D&D - that's where you saw the ADEU powers system basically making every character perform similarly, with class mechanics to add some occasional mechanical variety and role-related function)

 

[Remathilis]

Ya could, but even that is fiction intruding on the mechanics. What's the difference between a fight and a cast and a skill? If the game is balanced, it's mostly just fluff. (4e got perhaps the closest to this out of any D&D - that's where you saw the ADEU powers system basically making every character perform similarly, with class mechanics to add some occasional mechanical variety and role-related function)

I don't consider that a positive...