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

[JohnLynch]

That's pretty classic refluffing, but I can't help but think that this is making do when there'd be a better way to represent that archetype with better class mechanics.

This is the type of thinking I tend to employ in 5th edition. I really like the idea of monks being priests and rather than martial artists. Rather than try to use a barbarian or a monk to explore that option, I've instead created an Alternate Class Kit which lets a cleric swap out the heavy armor bonus proficiency from their cleric domain to instead gain have an AC equal to 12 + Wis mod when not using a shield or wearing armor. They can now use a quarterstaff, still cast spells and walk around in robes. Your AC will only be as good as a light armoured character. But you don't have disadvantage on saving throws nor do you have to meet a minimum strength requirement.

Of course, I also allow monks to be priests. They largely just need to choose a monk path that is thematically connected to their deity. I'm all for more options.

 

[Lanefan]

Depends.

Wizard-types usually self-identify as what they are...it's an ego thing.

Clerics (War, Normal and Nature) often have little or no choice: the holy symbol and specific deity colours are often a dead giveaway.

Bards also often self-identify, and self-promote!

Thieves and Assassins will often try to masquerade as other classes. (side note: I did away with Thieves' Cant 20+ years ago) That said, someone sneaking around in a city and climbing over rooftops is probably one of these classes.

Paladins and Cavaliers may or may not self-identify but it's usually pretty obvious on sight you're dealing with one or the other, and after it's spoken about three sentences (assuming it can coherently string that many together; these classes are not traditionally known for their smarts around here) you'll know which one you've got by the presence or lack of holiness.

Monks are an odd duck, as always: they don't necessarily self-identify as Monks but they tend to look and dress a bit different thus anyone who knows what to look for can probably pull one.

Rangers...hard to notice among the crowd unless one wants to be noticed.

And Fighters can be anything, but some would self-identify as "fighter" or "warrior". Barbarian's a race in my game, not a class, and usually pretty obvious.

While it's often pretty easy to know what someone is to begin with, it's almost never known at first sight how good they are at it. A 3rd-level Necromancer might look just like a 14th-level Necromancer; how can you tell the difference?

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.

We haven't talked about a single magic-user class since 0e, or have you forgotten the Illusionist subclass. And in 2e what looked like a single MU class was really 8 classes in one - each school was pretty much its own subclass just like the 1e Illusionist. But I actually like the Fighter being as broad-based as it is, it gives more flexibility.

Lanefan

 

[Mouseferatu]

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?

The "other weapon" issue is a problem for any melee character the player envisions as a staff-fighter. You just have to go with it.

As far as the others... Well, yes. His Str and Con are his primary stats; it's just that, in his case, they (flavor-wise) come from his faith and not just his muscle. Ditto the lack of armor; it's part of the "divine protection of his faith" I mentioned. Those not only aren't "squints," they're fully intentional and part of the reason I want to build him as a barbarian.

 

[Valador]

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

Because it's solid and tangible? When a dwarf says he's a dwarf, it's 100% correct and it's most likely wide spread knowledge of what a dwarf is, unless they're super rare in your campaign. A fighter could mean a host of things, a rogue could mean a host of things. A dwarf usually means a dwarf, means a dwarf, means a dwarf...

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

Greataxe? No, because the quarterstaff has other mechanical traits, such as being usable with the Polearm Master feat, that the greataxe doesn't. But halberd, just changed to bludgeoning damage? If the character was already proficient with the halberd--IOW, if it was truly just a flavor request, and not a mechanical advantage--I'd absolutely allow it. I'd just say the staff was heavier than most, perhaps reinforced by iron bands or caps.

Edit: Forgot halberd has reach, so that may not be the best example, but you get the idea. I'd allow "swapping up" on damage, as long as it wasn't superior, with a combination of damage and traits, to any other weapon the character could legally use.

 

[JohnLynch]

No dex mod?

Not this time. The cleric's simple weapon proficiency means that finesse weapons aren't really viable out of the box. However if they take the Weapon Master feat (such as from being human) and gain proficiency in finesse weapons then their damage output will be comparable depending on if they use their bonus action to TWF (1d10+Str mod vs 1d6+Dex/1d6), however their AC can potentially be 16 at first level (the highest in the game) and maxes out at 20 at 16th level (higher than full plate or equal to full plate with a shield). That would make 10 + Dex mod + Wis mod equal to gaining +2 AC from a feat. I know of no feat that gives clerics a +2 to AC.

The purpose of Heavy Armor Proficiency is so a melee cleric isn't so MAD and instead of needing Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom a cleric simply needs Strength and Wisdom. By going 12 + Wisdom you replicate that feature and at the cost of -1 to AC you don't need a minimum Strength score and don't have disadvantage on stealth rolls and never needs to worry about being caught without armour in a fight.

 

[empireofchaos]

Because it's solid and tangible? When a dwarf says he's a dwarf, it's 100% correct and it's most likely wide spread knowledge of what a dwarf is, unless they're super rare in your campaign. A fighter could mean a host of things, a rogue could mean a host of things. A dwarf usually means a dwarf, means a dwarf, means a dwarf...

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=472788#ixzz3rzX5jnbx

I've already dealt with the race is 100% correct thing, and what the out-of-game source of this claim is.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

Regarding class...yes, some of this is semantics. We're discussing if the label used to specify what in game mechanics a character possesses has the same in world meaning, so opinions will vary.

I think sometimes those labels match, and other times they don't. Which is why I don't think the term "concrete" applies.

As for the question about race, I don't know if I think it's the same as class...perhaps because you can't add a new race when you gain a new level?

 

[JohnLynch]

Greataxe? No, because the quarterstaff has other mechanical traits, such as being usable with the Polearm Master feat, that the greataxe doesn't.

That's okay. This "monk" simply has no aptitude towards that fighting style and so isn't eligbile for the feat (i.e. can't take feats which affect quarterstaffs). He has instead perfect a different fighting style that gives him a bonus to damage when wielding his "quarterstaff" (i.e. higher damage dice).

But the thing was, it's not really about whether or not I can convince a particular DM to allow me to use my "special quarterstaff training" to use a greataxe with the fluff of a quarterstaff. It's to demonstrate that everyone ultimately has their limit as to how much reflavouring they allow. Some people will be comfortable with reflavouring either certain classes or all classes. Others will be comfortable with reflavouring races while some will be comfortable with reflavouring armor or weapons. Everyone draws those lines differently and it's not so strange to respond to someone asking to reflavour something with a "no". I know some DMing styles consider no to be a forbidden word, but for many of us it makes the game more enjoyable to have the mechanics represent SOMETHING in game. How much emphasis we place on a mechanic is simply a matter of personal taste.

 

[empireofchaos]

Regarding class...yes, some of this is semantics. We're discussing if the label used to specify what in game mechanics a character possesses has the same in world meaning, so opinions will vary.

I think sometimes those labels match, and other times they don't. Which is why I don't think the term "concrete" applies.

Right, but some of us think it's at least possible for all/most of the classes to match to at least some key aspect of character identity, whereas others don't care/care less. It's a stylistic question, which is precisely why it's so important, and why it generates such strong opinions about how it should work.

As for the question about race, I don't know if I think it's the same as class...perhaps because you can't add a new race when you gain a new level?

Yes, but it became separate (in 1e) because designers thought race was a real, natural category (in the real world), whereas class was an achieved status and had to to with personal advancement. And the separation was never entirely complete (duergar that gain racial traits up to 5th level, monsters as PCs, etc.).

My point in bringing up the question of whether race is "obviously" concrete, whereas class is just a metagame concept is, you can make precisely the same kinds of arguments about race that people here are making about class.

Let's say @Mouseferatu wants to play Friar Tuck as a barbarian, but doesn't want the fluff that goes with being some sort of Hyperborean savage.

But let's say I want to play a goblin from the George McDonald books, or a troll from Elfquest, or something similar. I don't want to design a "monster as a PC" class. I am not a monster. I don't demand that my character regenerate. I am not especially sneaky. Most of my relatives are not evil in alignment. But I'm a miner, and in fact, mechanically, what I can do is pretty much covered by the racial category called "dwarf". But I'm not interested in having a beard, speaking "dwarvish" (whatever that is), holding grudges, or hoarding gold. Why must my DM demand that I conform to the dwarvish stereotypes when really all I'm interested in are the mechanics?

So the question is, if we can view class as being about crunch and not specific archetypes, why can't we do it with race? If we're being consistent, it shouldn't detract from the game: as long as we have a well-RP'd character concept, I should be able to exercise the power of choice so I can contribute to the collective story-telling as a full-fledged participant.

EDIT: Oh, and about being able to add a new race after gaining a level: My non-dwarf troll character who uses dwarf stats has just become 4th level. In-game, I have recently learned that my mother is an elf. So I ask my DM to let me pick up a feat that gives me fae ancestry - resistance vs. sleep and charm, no need t sleep, etc.