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

[Arial Black]

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.

So you're not talking about the game as-is; you're talking about your version of the game, where you have decided that players are only allowed to imagine their PC if they fluff it like you want. They are not allowed to learn unarmed combat unless they come from one of three monasteries.

Basically, you have invented a world where the only allowed fluff is the fluff that you have dictated...and then use that as evidence that D&D 5E itself does the same.

This fallacy even has a name: No True Scotsman.

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.

But D&D 5E already has the rules for creating every single D&D PC I create! How? Because I only turn up with characters that are rules-legal! The idea that my only option is to use a different game system is given the lie by the very fact that it has been executed using the 5E rules!

My Rogue/Monk spy has already been perfectly realised using the 5E rules set. I don't need to find a different game engine to model that concept.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My point is simply that if you emphasize the distinction between class as mechanic and character knowledge, and make that an issue for many characters, then you should in principle be prepared to accept the same kind of emphasis on the difference between race as mechanic (which it is) and character knowledge or concept - and not just on an individual basis, but commonly.

Meh. Race and class both try to model genre characters. Race models ancestry, place in the world, physical appearance, and so forth. A D&D 'elf' isn't exactly like a Tolkien elf or an ElfQuest elf or an Aldriyami or a lot of other things that are on some level 'elves,' but it's probably the closest race for a lot of 'em. A human is a single race in D&D, IRL there are some people who'll disagree with being told their the 'the same' as another human with very different ancestry.

Background is a bit more abstract. A 5e D&D PC has one background. The character may be the 7th son of a minor noble who served in the military before turning to a life of crime, but the player's going to have to pick Noble, Soldier, or Criminal for his background, and just hint around at the other aspects.

Class as a model for the abilities of fictional characters is even looser. Vanishingly few wizards in genre cast spells the way D&D wizards do. Not very many fighters swing their sword 1/minute, no matter how abstractly you take that old-school mechanic. Hit points don't exactly simulate anything too closely.

If you're using 3e-style MCing, class becomes even more a mechanical building-block you use to create a character a class-level at a time with little direct connection to the game-world making much sense.

PrCs, in stark contrast to base classes & sub-classes, tie in directly to the world with that in-character prerequisite, so could very well provide a more concrete connection.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't agree, at least in terms of calling your character the name of another class that it isn't a part of.

Want to call your sorcerer a dragon shaman? Sure.

A wizard? Not unless you're lying.

What's wrong with that?

Hiding one's true class(es) is a time-honoured tradition. A Druid with a small pet could easily call herself a Sorcerer with a familiar if she wanted to...

Pcs are people too! The idea that every single PC in the world is set apart like a leper and instantly recognisable, whether or not they've seen a 'dungeon' in their lives, is absurd!

There are thousands upon thousands of sentient humanoids in our campaign worlds. We can play any of them. As soon as we do, this doesn't turn them into an 'adventurer' as if that were what you are rather than what you do. The idea that 'adventurer' is an in-world profession-like a plumber-complete with apprentices, journeyman and masters, is absurd to me. happens, people deal with it as best they can. They can certainly self-identify as an 'adventurer' if they want, and find 'dungeons' to delve, but the very fact that your character is controlled by a player instead of the DM should not dictate that they somehow become 'other' in-game. If your PC artisan blacksmith gets ambushed by an orc on his way home, he hasn't stopped being a 'blacksmith' and started being an 'adventurer'; he's just a guy who survived a mugging. When he walks into a bar in the next village afterward, before the news of the ambush reached there, why would the barkeep exclaim, "Ah, an adventurer!"

Apprentice adventurers = 1st level; journeymen = 5th level, masters = 9th level.

Other than that, you're bang on here in that characters should fit in seamlessly with the rest of the living game world.

However, there's most likely quite a few "tells" that show any party (that isn't taking pains to disguise itself) to be adventurers of some sort to anyone who's at all familiar with the type; let's take a typical party-walks-into-a-bar setup:
- they haven't bathed in a month
- they're of unusually mixed racial stock: a Dwarf, an Elf, a Part-Orc and a what-the-hell-is-that? walk in together in a mostly Human-Hobbit town - yep, adventurers
- they have (and spend) way more money than the common folk yet don't look the least like they're high class or nobility {edit: and the bar is probably in the wrong part of town for such types}
- they act like they're the baddest asses in the place, mostly because they probably are the baddest asses in the place
- they dress funny; by that I mean you've got the wizard in robes, the cleric in holy raiment (or at least holy colours), the warriors look like warriors, etc.
- the party Bard inevitably becomes the evening's entertainment, supplanting whatever house band might have been playing

Shall I go on?

A D&D 'elf' isn't exactly like a Tolkien elf or an ElfQuest elf or an Aldriyami or a lot of other things that are on some level 'elves,' but it's probably the closest race for a lot of 'em.

I've got sub-races of Elves for exactly this. Tolkein Elves are the Fair Elves, standard Elves are similar but shorter than Tolkein has them; and Elfquest Elves are the Arctic Elves, kind of a barbarian Elf race.

And as for race in general: race is locked in at initial roll-up and cannot be wilfully changed thereafter, though it can in rare cases be forcibly changed usually via some sort of curse. It can't be changed or augmented or trained into at each level-up like a class can...it just can't.

Race has a concrete meaning...about as concrete as gender in real life: sure there's times where it's not clear but most of the time it is, and if it looks like a Dwarf and swears like a Dwarf and drinks like a Dwarf - and can keep doing all these things long beyond the duration of a polymorph spell - chances are high that it's a Dwarf.

Lan-"adventurer and proud of it"-efan

 

[delericho]

In 5e, I don't get why your half-orc boxer can speak every language or why they can't be magically aged.

I don't really get why 5e Monks get those abilities as standard in the first place.

But, in any case, they're teen-level abilities. By that point the character is so far into superhuman territory that I don't really care.

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.

Changing fluff is a lot easier than changing mechanics. And it's not just that he's good with his fists - I'd be looking for a fast-moving, unarmed, and unarmoured combatant. The Fighter class as presented is too dependent on his gear to really be suitable without significant changes.

Plus, labeling him a Thug would be as wrong as labeling him a Monk.

 

[delericho]

Do you think a Paladin actually calls his Lay on Hands ability Lay on Hands in character?

Probably - D&D didn't invent the term; it came from real-world religions.

 

[Valador]

Probably - D&D didn't invent the term; it came from real-world religions.

It's from the 12 Peers in Charlemagne's court, which doesn't exist in D&D. It's not a very broad term, its quite specific.

Anyways, people can just run their game with as much or as little cheese as they want. I think at this point it's really just a matter of preference and I don't want to keep doing circles.

 

[delericho]

It's from the 12 Peers in Charlemagne's court, which doesn't exist in D&D. It's not a very broad term, its quite specific.

Firstly, the term is way older than that - Genesis 27:27 may be the oldest reference, but it may even predate that.

Secondly, the Paladin class itself has at least some of its roots in those same 12 Peers of Charlemagne. So it's entirely appropriate that it retains some of their trappings.

But, thirdly, the term "lay on hands" doesn't just have a strong pedigree - it also describes the physical action he is taking. That is, when the Paladin uses that ability, he does so via the laying on of hands.

 

[Valador]

Firstly, the term is way older than that - Genesis 27:27 may be the oldest reference, but it may even predate that.

I don't see the term Paladin or any variant of it when I google this verse.

Anyways, Lay on Hands was just an example. Action Surge, Cunning Action, Reckless Attack, Uncanny dodge, etc. My point is a lot of abilities sounds stupid if you try to explain them by name only in character, unless you're RPing some kind of anime campaign... Just like saying fighter, monk, rogue, barbarian, etc. is stupid simply because it lacks detail and it assumes everyone knows what every "class" they come across can do just by their "class."

 

[delericho]

Maybe it's because I don't read childrens story books, but I don't see the term Paladin or any variant of it when I google this verse.

Doesn't matter. That's where it comes from.

Also, there's a rule against attacking religions around here. Or do you not read those, either?

Anyways, Lay on Hands was just an example. Action Surge, Cunning Action, Reckless Attack, Uncanny dodge, etc. My point is a lot of abilities sounds stupid if you try to explain them by name only in character

Some of them do. You picked a bad example. "Reckless attack" being another, given that that also describes what the character is doing.

Just like saying fighter, monk, rogue, barbarian, etc.

Of those, "Fighter" is the only one that isn't a fine, descriptive term.

 

[Valador]

Doesn't matter. That's where it comes from.

Also, there's a rule against attacking religions around here. Or do you not read those, either?



Some of them do. You picked a bad example. "Reckless attack" being another, given that that also describes what the character is doing.



Of those, "Fighter" is the only one that isn't a fine, descriptive term.

1.) It's not an attack, it's my opinion. 2.) Just because you post something in a forum doesn't make it true.

This is obviously going nowhere. So if you're fine with role playing your characters broken down Barney style then by all means.