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

[The Human Target]

I voted option 3, No. Why? Because a character introducing themselves as "Hello, I'm Bob, I'm a fifth level Paladin who can attack twice and I also know how to Lay on Hands! Who wants to adventure with me" is stupid... I hate when a character is role played and introduced as their class. Characters should be whatever their profession or background is. So unless your class equals whatever your profession is (Bard, Ranger, Monk, etc.) then you should go with a more specific explanation.

Paladin = Guardian of ________, Knight of the Temple, etc.
Rogue = Pickpocket, Cutthroat, Con Artist, etc.
Fighter = Mercenary, Sellsword, Gladiator, Knight, etc.

"I'm a former soldier in the King James army. Once I served my contract I became a sellsword and soldier of fortune." sounds a lot better than "I'm a fighter!"

I get what you mean.

But you can be a Sellsword without being a Fighter.

You can be a Pickpocket without being a Rogue.

A Knight of the Temple could be a Fighter or Cleric instead of a Paladin.

Those terms don't actually answer the question of your character's very specific game world abilities.

I don't think it's odd that the people in that world would have terminology to explain those things.

 

[The Human Target]

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.

See I think a sorcerer for sure would be called that by people or identify as such.

 

[The Human Target]

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.

Right there with ya.

 

[Valador]

Those terms don't actually answer the question of your character's very specific game world abilities.

Do you think a Paladin actually calls his Lay on Hands ability Lay on Hands in character? Do you think he says "Stay near me, I have an Aura of ____". This isn't a cartoon where you gotta yell "Go go gadget Lay on Hands!". The terms I use perfectly answer the question as to what the character is from an RP perspective. What you're worried about is defining mechanics, which is a meta thing unless you're a Wizard and you're telling them what spells you know, etc.

Example -
"Hello, I'm a Paladin!"
``Oh great, because you're a Paladin I MUST know that you can Lay on Hands and Aura of Protection and Divine Smite! Welcome, I'm a Rogue.``
"Oh cool, then I expect you can Sneak Attack, Disarm Traps and steal all my crap and leave me when in dire need of help!"

Lame and meta.

Regardless, what ever happened to people learning about one anothers abilities as they journey together? Hey this guy said he was a Knight of a temple and now he's using all kinds of crazy holy magic on these undead we're surrounded by, that's pretty badass.

Now you know more about them from a mechanics POV.

I hope I'm making sense, I'm sleep deprived at the moment.

 

[JohnLynch]

The best thing 5th edition ever did was use backgrounds to separate in game roles from classes.

So to answer the original question my answer is: Somewhat. All clerics and paladins are priests. But not all priests are clerics or paladins. Druids also always belong to Circles (other classes can as well though) and everyone understands what it means to be a wizard or a warlock. Monks, rogues, rangers, fighters, barbarians, sorcerers and bards are much more varied.

Tribals for example are most likely to be "fighters" than beserkers or totem warriors. There are exceptions (Uthgardt warriors) but the rest remains true. Beserkers however could be found in any profession.

That said I have had spells exist in game as they do out of game. Spells are given a rating between 0 and 9 on the Vancian scale and are split further into different schools of magic. It is known that prepared casters can prepare a certain number of spells depending on their comparative strength in magic. This was Pathfinder though.

His example was 'if someone says they're a Wizard, everyone knows what that means." My counter was that wizard was a title in my game, earned by graduating from a wizard school, and that people of that class that did not graduate from such a school were not know as wizards, instead being called hedge mages or similar. This seemed to be very disturbing to my new addition, who told me that he knew of no one else that played that way.

I can back up your player and confirm I have never heard of anyone doing it this way. Unlike your player though I think it's fantastic.

Using classes as having a meaning in game is supported by D&D at least as far back as 2nd ed. The Forgotten Realms Faiths and Avatars had some gods demand that their priests switch from clerics to specialty priests. This is clearly talking about mechanics on an in-game level.

As for the thieves cant discussion. If a player wanted to swap it out for another language or tool proficiency, I would let them. I'd also be having a "fighting" language that consists of a sign language warriors to communicate silently. I'd also be happy to have a scout language which consists of leaving messages in the terrain that have an indepth meaning to those who know what they are, but are otherwise unnoticeable to everyone else. I'd also let any language be learned by taking the linguist feat so long as there is an in character justification for it.

I can, however, understand people's reticence at allowing class reflavours. In 4th ed a player told me "Humans are suboptimal for the build I want. Can I play a warforged instead and we just reflavour him as human." I wasn't impressed. So I can understand issues with "I want to play a monk but I want the barbarian chassis instead." I dunno what I'd do about that. For this hypothetical you could go one step further and say "My quarterstaff deals the same damage as a greataxe because that resembles the closest mechanics I want." I expect a lot more DMs would not allow that further step.

 

[The Human Target]

Why wouldn't he call it Lay on Hands?

Unless he's the only paladin in existence, someone would have named the ability they all share at some point.

 

[Valador]

Why wouldn't he call it Lay on Hands?

Unless he's the only paladin in existence, someone would have named the ability they all share at some point.

If you want it to be a named technique or w/e, thats fine and totally plausible if that's what you prefer. What I don't like is that basically you want all of the characters abilities to be spelled out for someone as soon as they name their class to someone. A character should not automatically know all of someones skills based on what class they say they are. Besides I could always be a Fighter/Cleric and my character can just SAY he's a Paladin. I could SAY I'm a fighter, but since that's a very broad term I could really be ANY martial class that fights.

Class names are just dumb in character IMO. It's cheese and lazy.

"I'm a former soldier in the Holy ____ Army and now hunt down evil as a Divine Knight of _____" really explains just as much as saying "I'm a Paladin". It explains they most likely have martial prowess, they hunt down evil and they're akin to a knight type person.

But I mean if you just want your group sitting in a tavern yelling "Rogue, Wizard, Cleric looking for a Fighter tank for dungeon run group!!" it's all up to you. To each their own.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

But that's the point. Would someone who was watching my guy fight notice him afterward speaking in cant to his companions and then say "you know, I thought that guy might have been a fighter, but he's using cant, so obviously he must be a rogue." It just doesn't make sense.

But again, this is just how my table handles this stuff. And even then only generally. Player speak and character speak blends at times and we don't let it bother us.

I get what you mean.

But you can be a Sellsword without being a Fighter.

You can be a Pickpocket without being a Rogue.

A Knight of the Temple could be a Fighter or Cleric instead of a Paladin.

Those terms don't actually answer the question of your character's very specific game world abilities.

I don't think it's odd that the people in that world would have terminology to explain those things.

Some of the things, maybe. Thieves cant is a good example. It's specific, and in general only certain types of people will know it. A spellbook would be pretty specific.

But what about Action Surge? What about Cunning Action? Are these game mechanics known by the characters in world?

Would a fighter ever think "This guy's tough...I better use my action surge to put him down as quick as possible"? A player might, absolutely...but if I read that in a book, I'd toss it across the room.

 

[Valador]

Would a fighter ever think "This guy's tough...I better use my action surge to put him down as quick as possible"? A player might, absolutely...but if I read that in a book, I'd toss it across the room.

Hey now, it works in Dragon Ball Z!!

 

[empireofchaos]

A lot of this is still semantics. Is every Cant speaker a rogue, or is everyone who establishes a pact with a powerful fae/fiend/celestial a warlock? No. it's a question of rules and exceptions.

Does Joe say he is a Captain in Lord Fauntleroy's Guard, as opposed to a "Fighter"? Great! But that doesn't mean Joe, and many people who know him, don't recognize the reality of what a fighter is? Do no historical or conceivable societies have warrior castes, which monopolize (to a known extent) martial training?

Do Joe and Daisy, both fighters, identify with their Background (now that it's a thing) than their class? Maybe. Even in a restrictive society, fighters can come from a variety of backgrounds. Some were raised as knights. Others were peasants who were recognized for their great strength, taught to fight, and given a freehold by their lord for some reason. Background is more about family and socioeconomic standing; class is more about achieved status. There is a gray area, of course, but specialized Backgrounds are largely the province of artisans, who are a minority, and a group that usually doesn't fit to well in premodern societies. Fundamentally, Background is not the same as class, and does not replace class, or become the main carrier of fluff, pushing class off into pure metagame mechanic.

And lastly, to restate a point: if class is better as metagame fluff, why not race, too?