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

[Shasarak]

Just because we do not know what class Michael Jordan has in real life does not prevent us from determining his class in the game world. I bet there is even an app for it, I mean spell.

 

[Remathilis]

I just don't think that class models identity or even profession very well. Its a general guide, but I don't think any strong conclusions should be drawn from it about a given character. Mostly I don't think if you go the other way you get far, you can't divine a class from looking at someone. You might guess, but people in-game don't have that hard and fast an idea of these categories.

Whereas I find that removing the idea of classes sharing common, identifiable traits waters them down to nothing but "starting packages" of mechanics at best renders the term used to describe the class meaningless and at worst abusable by min-maxers. The idea that a member of the Paladin class wouldn't think of himself as a paladin, use that term to describe himself, or find commonalities with other members of the Paladin class is too much for me to swallow. I'd rather deal with characters introducing themselves as "Bob the Fighter" than have Warlocks joining "Wizard" Guilds, "Druid" Circles with no actual Druids in them, or Assassins wandering around calling themselves "Paladins".

In short: I want the name on the Tin (class) to represent what's inside the can (character).

 

[empireofchaos]

But, see, that's just it. My friend is pretty athletic, by ordinary standards, but only got interested in these (purely amateur) competitions pretty recently. So, to say her 'class' is 'Athlete' isn't really sensible, she's a management consultant (class Office Worker? lol). You could of course reflect this sort of thing in any post-2e version of D&D (somewhat in 2e perhaps as well) by various mechanisms. My point is, the man-at-arms and the hero don't particularly share a class, though they may identify with the same profession, or culture, etc. to some degree.

I don't know your friend, obviously, but if your friend's calling or vocation isn't an athlete, then it isn't a very illustrative example. And there is nothing that says that 0-level commoners can't go into another line of work - they just don't switch careers with anywhere the same kind of frequency as we do in a premodern-type setting.

Yeah, but think about it this way. The followers of Otillis, some of them may be hunters, guides, scouts, priests, or just ordinary folk that are woodsmen, etc. Obviously they don't share a class, but is there a class for each of these categories, and what about other aspects of each character? Maybe one scout is a devotee of Otillis, but he's also streetwise and was built as a rogue (maybe with some background that reflects his wilderness aspect). Another might be a ranger class character, more of a 'classic', and a 3rd might simply be an old codger of an NPC that doesn't have any class at all, or used to be a sergeant and has a couple levels in fighter/battlemaster. Even if you translate this to AD&D the same kind of mix can exist. In some ways they identify together, and in some ways they group with other people unrelated to their religious affiliation and nature-going ways.

I just don't think that class models identity or even profession very well. Its a general guide, but I don't think any strong conclusions should be drawn from it about a given character. Mostly I don't think if you go the other way you get far, you can't divine a class from looking at someone. You might guess, but people in-game don't have that hard and fast an idea of these categories.

I'm guessing we'll continue to disagree, but it seems to me that class models profession or identity well enough. I won't rehearse all the arguments that have already been made, or list the descriptions of individual classes in the PHB that make it clear they represent particular social entities - whether monastics, a criminal/outlaw underclass, a warrior or priestly aristocracy, or military order, and so on down the line. The idea that you have soapmakers (qua soapmakers) training wizards, or accountants qua accountants training paladins isn't really worth running with further, for me.

 

[Miladoon]

Yeah, right.

"Hello, my name is Michael Jordan, I am a 19th level Basketball Player and a 1st level Baseball Player. I also sell underpants."

 

[Yardiff]

Friend is Office Worker (profession/class) who has proficiency in athletics (probably from school/background). Fits fine into the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Whereas I find that removing the idea of classes sharing common, identifiable traits waters them down to nothing but "starting packages" of mechanics at best renders the term used to describe the class meaningless and at worst abusable by min-maxers. The idea that a member of the Paladin class wouldn't think of himself as a paladin, use that term to describe himself, or find commonalities with other members of the Paladin class is too much for me to swallow. I'd rather deal with characters introducing themselves as "Bob the Fighter" than have Warlocks joining "Wizard" Guilds, "Druid" Circles with no actual Druids in them, or Assassins wandering around calling themselves "Paladins".

In short: I want the name on the Tin (class) to represent what's inside the can (character).

Yeah, I think class is more than 'starting package', but to me there's nothing strange about "the Followers of the Old Faith" being from all different walks of life. The idea that they're all these highly regimented specific type of people who's entire set of attributes is focused on that one narrow bit of life seems stultifying and unnatural to me. IMHO the Miller down the road is the Keeper of the Circle because its a tradition in his family. He's not some high falutin' guy that knows the inner mysteries of the Oak and the Holly. He probably doesn't cast spells, or maybe he knows ONE simple invocation. Even the local head of the chapter isn't a druid per-se, he's actually a local knight from an ancient family. Now, the old man in the wood that keeps the old lore and such, HE's modelled using the druid class, because that's what he mostly does.

Now in 4e NONE of them would actually have a class, but their stat blocks would probably reflect elements drawn from the same ideas that druid powers and such are. The old man might well have a host of rituals suitable to druids, etc. He'd probably be CALLED a druid. The other characters I mentioned might also be called 'druids', they attend the rituals, they follow the faith, they've been inducted into at least some part of the secrets, etc.

Its not that I have a problem with the idea that holy warriors are easily represented by the rules of the paladin class, etc. There may even be a whole order of people that contain these warriors and they call themselves paladins, great! Its just there's probably a lot of ordinary fighters in there too, maybe they're not afforded the same status, I don't know. Maybe they can earn the TITLE 'paladin' too, even if they don't lay on hands, if they do something worthy. Class is IMHO too rigid to serve as the primary descriptor of characters in the world. To me each character is unique and sometimes its best to represent them with rules for a certain class, but their station in the world is not based entirely on class, that's only one dimension of the character.

So, yes, warlocks sometimes join wizard's guilds! Fighters, rangers, and rogues sometimes belong to holy orders of warriors. Clerics sometimes make their way in the world as thieves, and maybe that noble is an Avenger. Its all just tools. Flexibility in conception to me is the first brick in the house of being an outstanding DM or player.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The idea that you have soapmakers (qua soapmakers) training wizards, or accountants qua accountants training paladins isn't really worth running with further, for me.

See, this doesn't advance any discussion when its made nonsensical. Nobody is suggesting that some random 'accountant' will train a paladin. HOWEVER, I will state that the accountant of the Order of the Holy Light probably isn't a paladin. He's still a full member in good standing, and maybe he's a fighter or a more advanced statblock due to his exposure to all the training (perhaps he started out as one of the recruits, he just gravitated to what he does well). In game he's considered to be a Holy Brother, and is called 'Paladin'. And yes, he can train lower-level paladin class members of his order, at least up to a certain point. He knows and follows all the strictures and codes of his order, he's just not chosen to be filled with the Light of Atur, instead he keeps track of all the beehives and sacks of grain they need to be able to eat every night.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, I think class is more than 'starting package', but to me there's nothing strange about "the Followers of the Old Faith" being from all different walks of life. The idea that they're all these highly regimented specific type of people who's entire set of attributes is focused on that one narrow bit of life seems stultifying and unnatural to me. IMHO the Miller down the road is the Keeper of the Circle because its a tradition in his family. He's not some high falutin' guy that knows the inner mysteries of the Oak and the Holly. He probably doesn't cast spells, or maybe he knows ONE simple invocation. Even the local head of the chapter isn't a druid per-se, he's actually a local knight from an ancient family. Now, the old man in the wood that keeps the old lore and such, HE's modelled using the druid class, because that's what he mostly does.

The Miller isn't a Druid, even if he follows the Old Faith. He's a miller. Nobody goes to him when the wolves are getting too numerous, the crops need a storm to grow, or orcs are despoiling the forest. They go to a Druid. The Druid is trained in the ancient arts of the Faith. He has magic, he can shapechange. He was trained by another druid. He belongs to an ancient order of people who was trained in the same way he was. They share a common language, a common set of skills, and a belief. The miller or the knight is just a miller or knight that follows a particular faith, they aren't DRUIDS in terms of the world or game any more than I can become a minister and claim I'm the Pope.

Now in 4e NONE of them would actually have a class, but their stat blocks would probably reflect elements drawn from the same ideas that druid powers and such are. The old man might well have a host of rituals suitable to druids, etc. He'd probably be CALLED a druid. The other characters I mentioned might also be called 'druids', they attend the rituals, they follow the faith, they've been inducted into at least some part of the secrets, etc.

Yeah, not a selling point. I remember in the very first 4e game I ran (Into the Shadowhaunt), there is a wizard at the end with some cool spells (one I remember was called Bone-Wearying Gaze, which weakened you). Now, I had a PC wizard at the time who thought it was a cool spell and, like wizards of yore, wanted to steal and learn that spell. I had to tell him that spell was "NPC only" and he couldn't learn it. It was the first time I ever told a PC that NPCs and PCs played by different rules IN WORLD as well as IN GAME.

Its not that I have a problem with the idea that holy warriors are easily represented by the rules of the paladin class, etc. There may even be a whole order of people that contain these warriors and they call themselves paladins, great! Its just there's probably a lot of ordinary fighters in there too, maybe they're not afforded the same status, I don't know. Maybe they can earn the TITLE 'paladin' too, even if they don't lay on hands, if they do something worthy. Class is IMHO too rigid to serve as the primary descriptor of characters in the world. To me each character is unique and sometimes its best to represent them with rules for a certain class, but their station in the world is not based entirely on class, that's only one dimension of the character.

Oh, a Holy Order might contain Fighters, Paladins, and Clerics, but they all don't call themselves PALADINS. That is like every person in a hospital calling themselves a doctor. A doctor has a certain set of skills and responsibilities, you can't have nurses, techs and aides doing a doctor's job. A nurse doesn't get to call himself a doctor, he doesn't have the training. I doesn't matter that they're all there to heal the sick and injured, they aren't all doctors and they don't get that title.

So, yes, warlocks sometimes join wizard's guilds! Fighters, rangers, and rogues sometimes belong to holy orders of warriors. Clerics sometimes make their way in the world as thieves, and maybe that noble is an Avenger. Its all just tools. Flexibility in conception to me is the first brick in the house of being an outstanding DM or player.

The warlock joins a wizard guild and realizes he has nothing to add or need when they all discuss swapping spell research and copying spells in their spellbooks and all he's there doing is drinking their mead. Fighter's rangers, and rogues all join a Holy Order and then are kicked out because they aren't adhering to the Code of Conduct a Paladin must. A cleric of the god of theft might be closely aligned with a thieves guild, but he's not sent out to do pick pockets or burgle houses. An avenger might have been a noble in his background, but he had to swear an oath of vengeance and train as a paladin.

You can have flexibility and still have the classes mean something.

 

[empireofchaos]

See, this doesn't advance any discussion when its made nonsensical. Nobody is suggesting that some random 'accountant' will train a paladin. HOWEVER, I will state that the accountant of the Order of the Holy Light probably isn't a paladin. He's still a full member in good standing, and maybe he's a fighter or a more advanced statblock due to his exposure to all the training (perhaps he started out as one of the recruits, he just gravitated to what he does well). In game he's considered to be a Holy Brother, and is called 'Paladin'. And yes, he can train lower-level paladin class members of his order, at least up to a certain point. He knows and follows all the strictures and codes of his order, he's just not chosen to be filled with the Light of Atur, instead he keeps track of all the beehives and sacks of grain they need to be able to eat every night.

Well, no, it doesn't, but I actually laid out a number of different alternatives in the post I referred to, and the rulebooks, which clearly say class is a profession and then some, and then describe the specific character of each class in some detail, do, too, so when all of that is followed by "class just doesn't model profession very well", it's not terribly helpful in terms of encouraging further discussion, either.

I don't think the above examples are implausible - the question is, how common or likely is it going to be in terms of perpetuating class structure relative to a normal case. There are many examples of fictional characters whose class may be ambiguous (and that's given that fiction tends to focus on exceptional cases), but plenty of examples of where class is pretty clearly recognizable. Someone like Boromir or Ned Stark, are pretty clear examples of fighters that are products of military aristocracies, and would recognize themselves as something along those lines. The accountant may be an important person in familiarizing new recruits with an order's structure and finances (which is why I said lay brothers may be regarded as class members in some sense), but they will have little to do with training a paladin to function as warrior that channels divine energy, deals with the order's (and the god's) strict ethical demands, engages in spiritual exercises that focus her energy (learning spells, in game terms). It's possible that all of these things just spontaneously happen due to divine will (though even then, the god probably has a plan, and is probably conducting similar experiments with other people). It's more plausible that they are parts of structures that are taught, trained, explained. Even the idea of an "oath" presupposes something developed by someone, that it is a concrete set of words that are formulated and written down. Druids and rogues perpetuate some semblance of corporate identity through distinct languages. With mage schools, sorcerous bloodlines, warlock pacts, structural elements seem clear as well.

 

[Remathilis]

Really, this thread has outlived its usefulness. It's basically devolved into "nu-uh" "ya-ha" over and over again.