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

[Ovinomancer]

Irregardless, I was commenting directly to Ariel Black's assertion that without a PHB, in game NPCs can't divide the classes into, well, classes. That's a false statement. I couldn't care less what everyone else does in their individual tables. I care about provablely false statements.

In the default D&D setting (Forgotten Realms for 5e, but this applies to 4e and 3e as well), the classes are distinct roles that are known about in character. The D&D writers, novelists, and video game designers make a point to talk about classes in character, such as a rivalry between wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers, about paladin and monk orders, about the roles of rangers, and so on. This is the standard supported by the various D&D media. This is the style setting that Chaosmancer started his argument from, this is the same setting that Ariel Black had to use to try and refute Chaosmancer.

Ovinomancer, individual table has a way that its doesn't make sense to divide things up by class. And that's fine. But its not what I was talking about. There are demonstrative abilities that each class has that differentiate them from other classes. These abilities have a direct impact on the story.

Sure, if all you have is classed people, you'd notice that. I think that, in the absence of a majority or large minority of classed people running around, though, you couldn't pick out the classed individuals. For instance, in a sea of thousands of thugs, it would be hard to pick out the handful of fighters.

Also, if you allow refluffing, you'll have cases where some people with the barbarian class look like and act like Friar Tuck, who channels the will of his god in combat, some look like a smelly guy from the slums that has a violent temper problem, and some that are tribal warriors who have been shriven and enter battle as if already dead. Pick out the specific barbarian classed people there.

I take your argument with the unspoken caveat that classes have objective meaning in game, and, if so, people can identify those with classes and sort them. I don't object to this, but some of use don't run with your caveat -- classes are refluffed as needed to fit a concept.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Your framing, while perhaps true in for others, doesn't work for me. Everyone who casts fireball by memorizing the formula isn't a wizard class in my game. NPCs do not follow PC rules for the most part. Most NPCs don't have a class at all. They do similar things, but they aren't wizards or clerics or rogues or fighters. To me, class is an entirely mechanical device that exists between the player and the game world, but isn't in the game world. It's an interface only, designed to offer modelling to a themed array of abilities using mechanics that try to balance the experience across the players. The NPCs, though, existing in the game world only, don't need that interface and can adopt any mechanics necessary to properly model the challenge they represent.

So, yeah, my player may be playing a wizard class, but there aren't a bunch of other NPCs around with the same set of mechanics governing their abilities. This severely limits the usefulness of 'well, I know he's a fighter even if he calls himself a boogabooga.' There's no way to know that he's a fighter class, because he may be the only one in the area, while there are a bunch of NPCs calling themselves boogaboogas, because boogaboogas are known as fearsome warriors of the plains and they live on the plains and are fearsome warriors without a single level of any class whatsoever.

There is a serious flaw with your analysis here.

Sure, a creature in game could experiment scientifically, and observe results, and (within acceptable margins of error) conclude that Person A matches the PHB's description of the fighter class, while B must be a paladin from the PHB while C is obviously a barbarian because what we can observe in game matches the PHB's description of the class almost perfectly.

But the point is that creatures in the game do not have the PHB to refer to!

The things they can observe may or may not be tied to class features. When a 2nd level spell is cast, it is knowable in game by observation. Spell levels are a thing. But different classes can cast the same spells, so seeing a fireball doesn't give away an identity that precisely matches one class while denying another.

Using Spell Points to get more spell slots...how 'observable' is that?

What about increasing crit range to 19-20? Surely, that denotes a Champion Fighter, yeah? Er...no. Some Moonblade wielders would disagree. Plus, how 'observable' is that? How can an observer know that an attack was a crit? Some non-crit attacks do more damage than some crits, whether or not a hit takes the target down is more a function of their remaining hit points. Plus, the mere chance of getting twice as many crits because you crit on 19 and 20 doesn't mean that you will crit twice as often, because observers cannot tell whether a crit was generated by a 19 or a 20 (let alone being certain that a hit was a crit).

A barbarian's damage resistance? How can an observer tell the difference between that and simply having twice as many hit points?

All this is assuming that creatures let you perform experiments on them. And even this is assuming that there is any creature in game who could be motivated to discover how well the people he knows conform to the 5E rules set that he can know nothing about!

So, when meeting someone, no you don't know what class they are. 'Class' is a game construct, not an actual in game 'thing'.

Both of these have similar responses, so I'll try and address everything at once.

Class is a game construct, however, every person who has that class at the same level shares some of the same abilities and those abilities all have end results that are the same.

Let's take a paladin's divine smite. Multiple different fluff reasons it might exist, but the end result of expending a magical resource to deal radiant damage with a melee weapon attack is the exact same. Now, maybe Joe the farmer can't tell you that, but Orcus or Demogorgon probably could recognize all paladins as being the same thing, because they've lived for centuries and seen it repeatedly. Could they say "Ah, that is the paladin's Divine Smite ability?" no, probably not, but they could easily say "Ah, he's like those other guys I've fought, bet he has some magic auras to make it harder to magic him to and can heal with a touch" (representing the charisma buff to saving throws all paladins give and lay on hands). This is true, no matter how it is fluffed they have the same observable end results on the world. Because of this they are concrete things, they exist, they have effects. I don't care if other things have similar effects, after all like it was said casting fireball does not mean wizard, it could mean eldritch knight, sorcerer, or warlock as well. But, if they wear armor, cast fireball, and can summon their weapon to their hand from a different room, well that's an eldritch knight no matter what name they have, those are things that these type of people are capable of doing.

As to the moonblade, obviously magical items are obviously magical items so people would make assumptions based on the sword not the wielder. However, if you saw a guy do the same thing with a club that another guy needed a fancy magic sword to do, you'd be able to tell the difference would you not?

You say that NPC's do not ever get class levels, but if they did would they not all have the same abilities? Isn't the fact that there is a difference in power and ability between a 17th level wizard and an "archmage" from the MM mean that class and level have an observable effect on the game world?

Could I tell the difference between the barbarians rage resistance and have double hp? Most likely, because rage also comes with increased damage, increased strength (shown thru advantage), and the need to stay in combat to keep these abilities. It is an entirely different state, the barbarian now looks and acts differently than he once did. And whether they are drunk on blood or divine fervor these results are the same.

I remember one person on this thread that when his character who is a cleric mechanically is asked if he is a cleric he says no, because he identifies as an archaeologists. But the fact that you can draw parallels between the clerics and this character means that there is something concretely similar about them.

I'm not saying that just anyone can walk up and ID who your character is and what they do, I'm not saying you can't have crazy fluff explaining it all in a completely different context than what the book states, I'm saying that classes are concretely real in the world because they represent what your character does in a consistent manner, a+b = c and every time a and b are the same number they will equal c.

This isn't about being able to quote the PHB in the game world, this is recognizing that things in the PHB have real effects in the game world and are more than just concepts in our mind, otherwise they would not be as consistent within the game world.

I can say Acolyte is a background metagame concept, no creature in the world knows that Acolytes get the Shelter Faithful ability nor do they know about the proficiency rules, however, they understand there is a connection behind all these people that serve churches and have a certain set of specialized knowledge. Metagame and concrete game reality at the same time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Both of these have similar responses, so I'll try and address everything at once.

Class is a game construct, however, every person who has that class at the same level shares some of the same abilities and those abilities all have end results that are the same.

Let's take a paladin's divine smite. Multiple different fluff reasons it might exist, but the end result of expending a magical resource to deal radiant damage with a melee weapon attack is the exact same. Now, maybe Joe the farmer can't tell you that, but Orcus or Demogorgon probably could recognize all paladins as being the same thing, because they've lived for centuries and seen it repeatedly. Could they say "Ah, that is the paladin's Divine Smite ability?" no, probably not, but they could easily say "Ah, he's like those other guys I've fought, bet he has some magic auras to make it harder to magic him to and can heal with a touch" (representing the charisma buff to saving throws all paladins give and lay on hands). This is true, no matter how it is fluffed they have the same observable end results on the world. Because of this they are concrete things, they exist, they have effects. I don't care if other things have similar effects, after all like it was said casting fireball does not mean wizard, it could mean eldritch knight, sorcerer, or warlock as well. But, if they wear armor, cast fireball, and can summon their weapon to their hand from a different room, well that's an eldritch knight no matter what name they have, those are things that these type of people are capable of doing.

As to the moonblade, obviously magical items are obviously magical items so people would make assumptions based on the sword not the wielder. However, if you saw a guy do the same thing with a club that another guy needed a fancy magic sword to do, you'd be able to tell the difference would you not?

You say that NPC's do not ever get class levels, but if they did would they not all have the same abilities? Isn't the fact that there is a difference in power and ability between a 17th level wizard and an "archmage" from the MM mean that class and level have an observable effect on the game world?

Could I tell the difference between the barbarians rage resistance and have double hp? Most likely, because rage also comes with increased damage, increased strength (shown thru advantage), and the need to stay in combat to keep these abilities. It is an entirely different state, the barbarian now looks and acts differently than he once did. And whether they are drunk on blood or divine fervor these results are the same.

I remember one person on this thread that when his character who is a cleric mechanically is asked if he is a cleric he says no, because he identifies as an archaeologists. But the fact that you can draw parallels between the clerics and this character means that there is something concretely similar about them.

I'm not saying that just anyone can walk up and ID who your character is and what they do, I'm not saying you can't have crazy fluff explaining it all in a completely different context than what the book states, I'm saying that classes are concretely real in the world because they represent what your character does in a consistent manner, a+b = c and every time a and b are the same number they will equal c.

This isn't about being able to quote the PHB in the game world, this is recognizing that things in the PHB have real effects in the game world and are more than just concepts in our mind, otherwise they would not be as consistent within the game world.

I can say Acolyte is a background metagame concept, no creature in the world knows that Acolytes get the Shelter Faithful ability nor do they know about the proficiency rules, however, they understand there is a connection behind all these people that serve churches and have a certain set of specialized knowledge. Metagame and concrete game reality at the same time.

The cleric example is mine, in my current game, and I find it interesting that, despite me saying that you really can't tell in my game, you assume that clerics in my game are identifiable, in some way, as the cleric class. They aren't. About half of the priests and clerics in my game don't cast spells at all. The other half is an odd mix of occasional cleric classed NPC (very rare) and a mixup of NPC builds that do things that makes sense for their gods spheres of influence. When you look at 'clerics' in my game, even just the magic using ones, there isn't a set of abilities that jumps out and says 'ah, that right there means cleric.' There's divine magic, yes, and you could tell that the character in question uses it when he casts, but there's not enough of a group to classify him as anything other than a follower of a god who uses divine magic on occasion.

So, yeah, again, it's not the rules that allow identification as a class in the fiction, it's the setting. My extensive use of NPC building that doesn't follow the character classes really obfuscates the whole thing.

 

[sierkejd]

I'm glad I found this topic. I was just thinking today about a new concept of class that I would like to introduce: class as archetype. With this system, the class of a character isn't a chosen profession, but a deeply-felt, intuitive drive. Although I'm drawing for some of my inspiration from the classical concepts of the four humours, it also stems from Jungian psychology. It's a vocation, in the spiritual sense of the word, and few members of the general population ever have the natural abilities, drive, or desire to leave the comfortable predictability of an ordinary life to pursue the ideals of a class. The character isn't the archetype. The archetype is some legendary ideal to which the character aspires, and along which path the immortal powers pull the character. Although 5th edition handles this somewhat through background, I think this concept of class as archetype can work beautifully for character development. After all, a character with a criminal background might be drawn into the rigid discipline of a monk through some kind of life-changing event. An entertainer might become a warrior out of an overwhelming desire for revenge for a past wrong. The class is the path of heart for the character, and needs little to do with the character's upbringing.

 

[empireofchaos]

I'm glad I found this topic. I was just thinking today about a new concept of class that I would like to introduce: class as archetype. With this system, the class of a character isn't a chosen profession, but a deeply-felt, intuitive drive. Although I'm drawing for some of my inspiration from the classical concepts of the four humours, it also stems from Jungian psychology. It's a vocation, in the spiritual sense of the word, and few members of the general population ever have the natural abilities, drive, or desire to leave the comfortable predictability of an ordinary life to pursue the ideals of a class. The character isn't the archetype. The archetype is some legendary ideal to which the character aspires, and along which path the immortal powers pull the character. Although 5th edition handles this somewhat through background, I think this concept of class as archetype can work beautifully for character development. After all, a character with a criminal background might be drawn into the rigid discipline of a monk through some kind of life-changing event. An entertainer might become a warrior out of an overwhelming desire for revenge for a past wrong. The class is the path of heart for the character, and needs little to do with the character's upbringing.

This is pretty similar to how I think of class, and the vision of it I tried to lay out in this thread. Humors or elements can be impressed into service in conceptualizing archetypes, or the suits in a tarot deck (especially for those of us who have experience with Everway). For me, Weber is more important than Jung (because it's his concept of calling that lies at the root of the way class is conceptualized in the new PHB, but ultimately, it's a question of personal background. And speaking of background, I like the way you lay out the relationship between that feature and class. That's precisely why I have a problem with people who say that the ranger class (e.g.) has become irrelevant now that there is an outlander background, and skills that fighters can select. They're not the same thing, and not felt with the same intensity. I would only add that the archetype has to be experienced as just that - a type - because belonging to a class makes little sense unless its a category to which you sense you belong, with others.

 

[Mephista]

For instance, in a sea of thousands of thugs, it would be hard to pick out the handful of fighters.

Fighter and Rogue are admittedly the hardest to differentiate considering they're the most varied, but take that sea of a thousand thugs, and you'll easily pick out the oathbreaker paladins, the evil clerics and warlocks, etc. And, again, that's assuming that they don't all have classes - we could easily be looking at a sea of fighters, barbarians, rogues, and the occasional other. We've already agreed that individual tables can vary how many people have classes, from everyone to PCs only. That makes your entire argument meaningless, because you're using different assumptions than others.

The only way to solve this argument is if we come up with a baseline. Without a baseline, no one is arguing about the same thing. Its like trying to argue which is better for you - healthy foods, or therapy. The two are incomparable, since they both touch on very different things.

I take your argument with the unspoken caveat that classes have objective meaning in game, and, if so, people can identify those with classes and sort them. I don't object to this, but some of use don't run with your caveat -- classes are refluffed as needed to fit a concept.

And I find this particularly amusing, because that's not my argument at all. In fact, my argument is "I object to the assessment someone cannot differentiate between classes without a PHB to reference in the default D&D setting." You are attempting to shoehorn me into a "side" when I'm not on either side. And I only spoke up against a specific flawed argument. It was unscientific, it made no sense. In a world where there are multiple instances of monks, barbarians, wizard, etc, you can compile and analyze abitlies and differences. And you will come up with the same division of classes.

The only other argument I might have been making is that the default D&D setting uses the "everyone has classes and roles" baseline stance. And (related to that last one) it might include "it depends on the table, since homebrew settings are the most popular."

At your table, you're right, and things work like you describe. At an Adventure League table, you'd be wrong (since the AL uses the default setting). Want to argue that the default setting (without any local interpretations, as strict to the official rules as possible) for 5e doesn't use classes for humanoids, I'd say that's one argument we could actually have. As things stand, however, no one is on the same page. Hells. I'm going to argue no one is on the same -book-.

 

[Arial Black]

Let's take a paladin's divine smite. Multiple different fluff reasons it might exist, but the end result of expending a magical resource to deal radiant damage with a melee weapon attack is the exact same. Now, maybe Joe the farmer can't tell you that, but Orcus or Demogorgon probably could recognize all paladins as being the same thing, because they've lived for centuries and seen it repeatedly. Could they say "Ah, that is the paladin's Divine Smite ability?" no, probably not, but they could easily say "Ah, he's like those other guys I've fought, bet he has some magic auras to make it harder to magic him to and can heal with a touch" (representing the charisma buff to saving throws all paladins give and lay on hands). This is true, no matter how it is fluffed they have the same observable end results on the world.

How can an observer know the radiant damage was caused by Divine Smite rather than a spell?

Wait, wait, wait!!! "His weapon did some radiant damage, therefore I bet he can heal with a touch and has a magic aura that make it harder to magic him"??? Think about that for a moment!!

Radiant damage is not only caused by paladins, healing by a touch is done by anyone with cure wounds, and what magic aura? Even if you see a glow from them to represent an aura (which is bogus BTW), there is no way that an observer could know that it makes his friends less likely to suffer from magic. How is that observable? The aura adds +1 to +5 to saving throws, yet whether or not a save is made or failed is not observably attributed to that bonus. Anyone with that bonus could easily fail a save, and anyone without it could easily make a save. And what could be observed? Creatures cannot directly observe die rolls, all they can observe is what actually happens. Let's take fireball; everyone in it gets burned. Some take full damage, some take half damage, some take none because they have Evasion. But how can an observer in game know if a creature took half or full damage? If full damage is 30 and half is 15, but the guy who takes full is still up because he has 40 remaining but the guy who only took half goes down because he only had 14 left before he took half damage, how could an observer possibly know that the guy who fell took less damage than the guy who stayed up? Even the Evasion ability is not directly observable; what is observable is that he seems to be agile/lucky, not that he must have evasion, therefore must be a 'monk' or a 'rogue'!

As to the moonblade, obviously magical items are obviously magical items so people would make assumptions based on the sword not the wielder. However, if you saw a guy do the same thing with a club that another guy needed a fancy magic sword to do, you'd be able to tell the difference would you not?

What observable 'fancy thing' would that be? Score a crit on a 19? Definitely not observable. Score a crit? Not observable either, but even if it was the observer could not know that the crit was caused by rolling a 19 instead of a 20.

Could I tell the difference between the barbarians rage resistance and have double hp? Most likely, because rage also comes with increased damage, increased strength (shown thru advantage), and the need to stay in combat to keep these abilities.

Er, no. 'Increased damage' is not observable because damage rolls are random and a high roll without a bonus can do more damage than a low roll with a bonus, and the effect the damage has on the target (which is observable) depends as much on his hit points as it does on the incoming damage. 'Increased strength' is not observable in combat, because you can't know that he has less strength out of combat; creatures cannot check his character sheet. 'Advantage' is not observable, because in game there was only a single result (either a hit or a miss) which doesn't look any different to a roll made without advantage. If you observe that he hits consistently over time, this cannot result in you knowing that he must be attacking with advantage, just that he's having a good day at the office, or that he's good with an axe!

I'm not saying that just anyone can walk up and ID who your character is and what they do, I'm not saying you can't have crazy fluff explaining it all in a completely different context than what the book states, I'm saying that classes are concretely real in the world because they represent what your character does in a consistent manner, a+b = c and every time a and b are the same number they will equal c.

Again, no, because the observable results of the game mechanics could be caused in several ways not even related to a single class. He turned into a bear? He must be a druid! Unless it's a wizard, or sorcerer, or bard...!

I can say Acolyte is a background metagame concept, no creature in the world knows that Acolytes get the Shelter Faithful ability nor do they know about the proficiency rules, however, they understand there is a connection behind all these people that serve churches and have a certain set of specialized knowledge. Metagame and concrete game reality at the same time.

Some things are observable. Like, fluff things rather than crunch things. "I was raised in a monastery" is observable. "He was raised in a monastery, therefore he must have levels in the 'monk' class" is not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Fighter and Rogue are admittedly the hardest to differentiate considering they're the most varied, but take that sea of a thousand thugs, and you'll easily pick out the oathbreaker paladins, the evil clerics and warlocks, etc. And, again, that's assuming that they don't all have classes - we could easily be looking at a sea of fighters, barbarians, rogues, and the occasional other. We've already agreed that individual tables can vary how many people have classes, from everyone to PCs only. That makes your entire argument meaningless, because you're using different assumptions than others.

No, you won't easily pick them out, because NPCs have those abilities as well, and one that has that ability might not have any other ability from those classes and/or may have abilities from other classes as well. I mix and match abilities on the NPC side to get the result I want, and don't limit abilities to fit within class structures very often.

And my very point is that I am using a different assumption that others -- that setting, not rules is what allows the identification of class. You keep insisting that a rational observer could always pick out classes from the masses because they all share the same abilities, and I keep telling you that, with refluffing, those abilities don't have to resemble each other and that NPCs may not have the same set of abilities as classes (they can mix and match, or not have any, as needed). This would make it extremely difficult for your rational observer to pick out classes from the masses. Impossible, even.

The only way to solve this argument is if we come up with a baseline. Without a baseline, no one is arguing about the same thing. Its like trying to argue which is better for you - healthy foods, or therapy. The two are incomparable, since they both touch on very different things.

Yes, that is what people that want class to mean something in game want -- a baseline. I don't want a baseline, because I don't buy into the argument that class automatically means something in fiction. So telling my I have to establish a baseline so that you can pick out classes is anathema to my desires.

And I find this particularly amusing, because that's not my argument at all. In fact, my argument is "I object to the assessment someone cannot differentiate between classes without a PHB to reference in the default D&D setting." You are attempting to shoehorn me into a "side" when I'm not on either side. And I only spoke up against a specific flawed argument. It was unscientific, it made no sense. In a world where there are multiple instances of monks, barbarians, wizard, etc, you can compile and analyze abitlies and differences. And you will come up with the same division of classes.

And yet, if classes didn't objectively exist in game, you couldn't pick out the abilities and differences because everyone would do slightly different things across the whole range. This gets even more difficult if you add in multiclassing, which obfuscates clean class divisions even more.

When classed characters are the exception, rather than the norm, and when NPCs can have partial class suites of abilities, and when class abilities can be described as operating in many different ways (rage being the channeling of the gods' might, or a alcohol fueled anger-management issue, or a philosophy that involves welcoming death, or entering a fugue state where a rage demon possesses you), it gets really, really hard to do what you're suggesting is inevitable.

The only other argument I might have been making is that the default D&D setting uses the "everyone has classes and roles" baseline stance. And (related to that last one) it might include "it depends on the table, since homebrew settings are the most popular."

And you say you're not on a side.

I view the game mechanics as game mechanics. They exist to allow people to play a game. That game involves imagination to the extent that the imagination is supposed to overrule the game rules when it fits. So, to me, there are two things going on here, a cooperative fiction event, and a game. The fiction gives the reason to play the game, and the game allows a consistent interaction with the fiction. I don't think these need to be the same thing. To me, the game mechanics are an abstraction -- something that makes the interaction with the fiction workable; it boils down the interaction so that it is understandable and predictable (in the sense that you can predict your chances, not know them). So, yes, every character has a class, because that's the interface into the game fiction, along with the rules. But I don't see that the interface must exist in the game. Yes, the nature of the interface will affect how the game plays, but it need not necessarily affect the fiction.

So the class interface is already an abstraction to make interaction predictable. And when the world interacts with the players, it does so through that interface and the interface of the rules. But the interface is not the fiction, just as it's not the player. It's a handy set of tools and terms that allow consistent interaction. Let's say the player wants his character to use magic to blow up the bad guys in the game. The game provides the tool 'fireball' to do this, and sets preconditions for it's use. So long as the player's character has met these tool preconditions, he can then execute the tool on the fiction. The tool then interfaces with the game mechanic representations of the bad guys, does it's thing, and the players can determine the game outcomes. But, in the fiction, none of that has to occur. The character doesn't cast fireball, he calls to the elemental nature of fire, makes an offering to open the channel, and expends will to channel the result, and the bad guys blow up. No one has to think 'fireball' or 'third level spell' as those aren't fictional components, their interface components. Your fireball may look nothing like the next guy's fireball (yours is blue and whoompy, his is a giant orange face that speaks a horrid word before enlarging suddenly to engulf the area.

So I disagree that having roles and classes means that those things then exist, as a matter of course, in the game fiction.

At your table, you're right, and things work like you describe. At an Adventure League table, you'd be wrong (since the AL uses the default setting). Want to argue that the default setting (without any local interpretations, as strict to the official rules as possible) for 5e doesn't use classes for humanoids, I'd say that's one argument we could actually have. As things stand, however, no one is on the same page. Hells. I'm going to argue no one is on the same -book-.

Duh, of course I'd be wrong, because I wouldn't be representing that setting properly. I have no issues with that at all. I'm not saying that there's a default or not, I'm saying that, with all of the fluff, you can choose to ignore it, change it, or go with it however you please in your games. In AL, there's the requirement that you use their setting and assumptions, and that's perfectly reasonable. I'd be upset if they didn't require it.

 

[Miladoon]

"Fear me, mighty Red Adult Dragon, I am Fenthor, 2nd Level Cleric/14th Level Fighter with 250 hit points and killer DPR. I am here to bring your ruin!"

 

[Chaosmancer]

How can an observer know the radiant damage was caused by Divine Smite rather than a spell?

Wait, wait, wait!!! "His weapon did some radiant damage, therefore I bet he can heal with a touch and has a magic aura that make it harder to magic him"??? Think about that for a moment!!

Radiant damage is not only caused by paladins, healing by a touch is done by anyone with cure wounds, and what magic aura? Even if you see a glow from them to represent an aura (which is bogus BTW), there is no way that an observer could know that it makes his friends less likely to suffer from magic. How is that observable? The aura adds +1 to +5 to saving throws, yet whether or not a save is made or failed is not observably attributed to that bonus. Anyone with that bonus could easily fail a save, and anyone without it could easily make a save. And what could be observed? Creatures cannot directly observe die rolls, all they can observe is what actually happens.

How can they know it wasn't a spell? Because a spell wasn't cast. I don't think there is a single spell in the game that doesn't at the very least have a verbal component. And before we get into what exactly they are saying and if your paladin always declares "For Helm" before activating Divine Smite and how that could be construed as the verbal component for a spell, again I'll say that for the paladin example I was talking about Orcus. An immortal being who has fought many, many paladins as well as clerics. I think he might even have truesight (will need to confirm) which could allow him to see enough to know the difference between a spell and a magical ability. Also, he would know that while he normally can effect people with his spells, he historically has a harder time of it when Paladins are around, law of averages plays in here by extension of my example being that you are fighting a Demon Lord.

But hey, let's say it isn't Orcus, lets say it is Asmosdeus instead, who in some versions is a minor god and probably even older and has fought even more paladins, clerics, angels and ect. Does that change anything?

The point is that if it is real, concrete, then beings can observe it. Even if it is only those beings whom are so massively powerful that they are end game fights, if they can make these connections and observations then classes are real and concrete.

If in the Forgotten Realms AO is the only one who could tell the difference between a Paladin and a War Cleric, that means there is still a difference and it has a real impact in the game world.

Let's take fireball; everyone in it gets burned. Some take full damage, some take half damage, some take none because they have Evasion. But how can an observer in game know if a creature took half or full damage? If full damage is 30 and half is 15, but the guy who takes full is still up because he has 40 remaining but the guy who only took half goes down because he only had 14 left before he took half damage, how could an observer possibly know that the guy who fell took less damage than the guy who stayed up? Even the Evasion ability is not directly observable; what is observable is that he seems to be agile/lucky, not that he must have evasion, therefore must be a 'monk' or a 'rogue'!

Damage is observable through more than effect. Rolling a 1 on a swing of the greataxe would have to be a different swing than rolling a 12. A fireball that does 40 damage is different than one that does 10.

However, none of that matters. When I brought up the Fireball it was in direct reference to the Evoker Wizard's ability to create pockets of safe space within the fireball, where targets he/she chose were not effected. No matter how you flavor the creation of those pockets, they exist and have the same effect, and are also only possible to be created by Evoker Wizards.

What observable 'fancy thing' would that be? Score a crit on a 19? Definitely not observable. Score a crit? Not observable either, but even if it was the observer could not know that the crit was caused by rolling a 19 instead of a 20.

And bringing up the fact that using a magical blade designed to do that same "fancy thing" however you would do that would be indistinguishable from just being able to use it with any weapon at any time meant sidestepping a point. A point which actually, I don't think I ever made. The increased Crit range was not something I brought up in the first place, since crits and their increasing or decreasing is hard to conceptualize

Yeah, critical hits are based on luck and a bad example. Does not invalidate the other parts of the discussion, because even though they are difficult to observe, all Champions do get crits more often than normal people, so it still has to have some meaningful impact on the game world

Er, no. 'Increased damage' is not observable because damage rolls are random and a high roll without a bonus can do more damage than a low roll with a bonus, and the effect the damage has on the target (which is observable) depends as much on his hit points as it does on the incoming damage. 'Increased strength' is not observable in combat, because you can't know that he has less strength out of combat; creatures cannot check his character sheet. 'Advantage' is not observable, because in game there was only a single result (either a hit or a miss) which doesn't look any different to a roll made without advantage. If you observe that he hits consistently over time, this cannot result in you knowing that he must be attacking with advantage, just that he's having a good day at the office, or that he's good with an axe!

Again, no, because the observable results of the game mechanics could be caused in several ways not even related to a single class. He turned into a bear? He must be a druid! Unless it's a wizard, or sorcerer, or bard...!

Some things are observable. Like, fluff things rather than crunch things. "I was raised in a monastery" is observable. "He was raised in a monastery, therefore he must have levels in the 'monk' class" is not.

Does he turn into a bear by casting a spell? Or does it just happen? Can he also turn into an Elemental? Is he capable of becoming a dragon? There is a difference between casting Polymorph and using Wildshape, even if it is just the use of the bonus action instead of an action and the fact that a wizard, sorcerer and bard all approach magic differently than a druid.

That's the other part of the argument by the way. It isn't just each individual ability. It is the fact that these abilities tie into other ablities. If you can do one thing you can most likely do this other thing or you will in the future.

The entirety of my point is that class effects the game world. Since it effects the game world it is real. Since it is real, as per my understanding of the term, they are concrete. It is more than fluff, it is real in some way, shape or form