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

[Ovinomancer]

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

Good grief, I said that more than a week ago. You, for one, kept insisting that the game requires class as fiction, to the point of suggesting that doing otherwise meant you'd be better served playing a different game. But, I'm glad you've finally joined onto the conclusion that neither side will convince the other because the source material has no slam dunks for either side.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

And yet ironically, that problem was caused because you assumed that an NPC who fits a certain definition must be have some mechanical synchronicity with the PCs. If the NPC at the end of the adventure had been called a "warlock" or a "cleric", no one would have batted an eye that the wizard couldn't learn the spell.

The issue I see is that it doesn't have to be a PC/NPC divide. It could simply be a world-building feature that casters aren't easily able to share spells, because casting styles are entirely idiosyncratic. I mean, there's no rules for either PC or NPC wizards to share spells outside of rituals in 4e either. You and your players brought in that assumption from earlier editions, and then made it into a "PCs and NPCs are different" issue.

 

[Remathilis]

Good grief, I said that more than a week ago. You, for one, kept insisting that the game requires class as fiction, to the point of suggesting that doing otherwise meant you'd be better served playing a different game. But, I'm glad you've finally joined onto the conclusion that neither side will convince the other because the source material has no slam dunks for either side.

There were several nuances to this argument that I think have been resolved.

* Do classes have a concrete meaning in your game? Differs based on the DM, but for my game Yes.
* Do classes have concrete meaning in the core rules? Yes, but the DM can feel free to change that.
* Can you use a class to model something other than the archetype the class was designed for? Yes, if the DM allows it.
* Does the game assume that classes will be used for things other than the archetype it was designed for? No, that's purely DM fiat.
* Is the DM obligated to use allow classes to be used in ways different from the archetype they were designed for? No, not if it its going to go against his setting.

I think its safe to say that the game assumes class-as-fiction is the default setting, but like many other things in D&D can be changed to suit the group playing. Just don't give the line that the default setting is class-as-metagame, since there is enough evidence to refute that.

It CAN be done, but that's not how its assumed to be done.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There were several nuances to this argument that I think have been resolved.

* Do classes have a concrete meaning in your game? Differs based on the DM, but for my game Yes.
* Do classes have concrete meaning in the core rules? Yes, but the DM can feel free to change that.
* Can you use a class to model something other than the archetype the class was designed for? Yes, if the DM allows it.
* Does the game assume that classes will be used for things other than the archetype it was designed for? No, that's purely DM fiat.
* Is the DM obligated to use allow classes to be used in ways different from the archetype they were designed for? No, not if it its going to go against his setting.

I think its safe to say that the game assumes class-as-fiction is the default setting, but like many other things in D&D can be changed to suit the group playing. Just don't give the line that the default setting is class-as-metagame, since there is enough evidence to refute that.

It CAN be done, but that's not how its assumed to be done.

I don't think it's safe to assume that at all, especially given the results of the poll which has this question widely split. If it was the base assumption, I would think that the poll would be much more heavily skewed in favor of the base assumption. As it is, it seems pretty evenly split between 'yes', 'no', and 'somewhere in between.' So either two thirds of the respondents to this highly self-selecting poll don't read too well or choose to ignore a base assumption of the game (but not many others?) or it's not as clear an assumption as you state.

 

[Remathilis]

And yet ironically, that problem was caused because you assumed that an NPC who fits a certain definition must be have some mechanical synchronicity with the PCs. If the NPC at the end of the adventure had been called a "warlock" or a "cleric", no one would have batted an eye that the wizard couldn't learn the spell.

The issue I see is that it doesn't have to be a PC/NPC divide. It could simply be a world-building feature that casters aren't easily able to share spells, because casting styles are entirely idiosyncratic. I mean, there's no rules for either PC or NPC wizards to share spells outside of rituals in 4e either. You and your players brought in that assumption from earlier editions, and then made it into a "PCs and NPCs are different" issue.

So I found my old copy of Into the Shadow Haunt to refresh my memory of the event, and this is what I saw...

The NPC was named Helvec. His stat-block doesn't list a class (naturally) but he's described as "A sinister looking elf in dark robes stands atop a platform. He looks up from a dusty old tome open in his hands and glares at you with pure malice."

Robes? Tome? That sounds like a wizard to me! I assume it sounded like that to anyone playing this in 2008 (it was the WW D&D Game Day module for 4e's release; literally the first thing some people played of 4e!). Yet Helvec has spells no class had: Bone-Wearying Glance, Vampiric Embrace, Flesh-Rotting Cloud, Necromantic Rejuvenation. Those sound cool; I want those spells! However, they were for NPCs only, thanks to 4e's powers system.

In 2e, 3e, or even 5e, the NPC would have cast normal PHB spells that anyone could learn, even if they lacked the "wizard" class in the title. 4e made that impossible.

 

[Miladoon]

The poll seems to showcase the many playstyles of DnD and its root in abstract definitions.


My preference is to create a concept: Martin "El Bruce" McBanner, Doctor, Avenging Champion. Then I choose whatever race/class that supports that concept with mechanical features. The concept lives beyond any limiters the DM or WoTC tries to decree.

 

[TwoSix]

Robes? Tome? That sounds like a wizard to me! I assume it sounded like that to anyone playing this in 2008 (it was the WW D&D Game Day module for 4e's release; literally the first thing some people played of 4e!). Yet Helvec has spells no class had: Bone-Wearying Glance, Vampiric Embrace, Flesh-Rotting Cloud, Necromantic Rejuvenation. Those sound cool; I want those spells! However, they were for NPCs only, thanks to 4e's powers system.

In 2e, 3e, or even 5e, the NPC would have cast normal PHB spells that anyone could learn, even if they lacked the "wizard" class in the title. 4e made that impossible.

My point of contention is that those spells aren't for "NPCs", they're for "Helvek". If you expect previous edition's assumptions to hold, like that spells are acquirable from the tomes of other tome-oriented casters, than I imagine you would be nonplussed.

It's a question of aesthetic preference as to how much to expect previous editions world building's assumptions to hold sway over the latest editions. You and your players went in expecting 4e wizardly magic to function like previous edition's wizardly magic. It doesn't, and you found that disappointing. I just find it intriguing that when you walk in with certain expectations about the existence of things like "class existing in the fiction" (robes and tomes mean this NPC is a "wizard", this character is a wizard, wizard spells are easily tradable between two wizards), you were disappointed by 4e, while people who didn't walk in with that assumption (like AbdulAlhazred) were people who were more fans of 4e. I'm sure it didn't escape your attention that the cleavage between "class-in-fiction" and "class-as-metagame" closely aligns with the divisions between supporters and detractors of 4e on this forum.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My point of contention is that those spells aren't for "NPCs", they're for "Helvek". If you expect previous edition's assumptions to hold, like that spells are acquirable from the tomes of other tome-oriented casters, than I imagine you would be nonplussed.

It's a question of aesthetic preference as to how much to expect previous editions world building's assumptions to hold sway over the latest editions. You and your players went in expecting 4e wizardly magic to function like previous edition's wizardly magic. It doesn't, and you found that disappointing. I just find it intriguing that when you walk in with certain expectations about the existence of things like "class existing in the fiction" (robes and tomes mean this NPC is a "wizard", this character is a wizard, wizard spells are easily tradable between two wizards), you were disappointed by 4e, while people who didn't walk in with that assumption (like AbdulAlhazred) were people who were more fans of 4e. I'm sure it didn't escape your attention that the cleavage between "class-in-fiction" and "class-as-metagame" closely aligns with the divisions between supporters and detractors of 4e on this forum.

But only closely, as 4e ended up as my least favorite edition.

 

[TwoSix]

But only closely, as 4e ended up as my least favorite edition.

There's always somebody.

 

[Shasarak]

So I found my old copy of Into the Shadow Haunt to refresh my memory of the event, and this is what I saw...

The NPC was named Helvec. His stat-block doesn't list a class (naturally) but he's described as "A sinister looking elf in dark robes stands atop a platform. He looks up from a dusty old tome open in his hands and glares at you with pure malice."

Robes? Tome? That sounds like a wizard to me! I assume it sounded like that to anyone playing this in 2008 (it was the WW D&D Game Day module for 4e's release; literally the first thing some people played of 4e!). Yet Helvec has spells no class had: Bone-Wearying Glance, Vampiric Embrace, Flesh-Rotting Cloud, Necromantic Rejuvenation. Those sound cool; I want those spells! However, they were for NPCs only, thanks to 4e's powers system.

In 2e, 3e, or even 5e, the NPC would have cast normal PHB spells that anyone could learn, even if they lacked the "wizard" class in the title. 4e made that impossible.

That was certainly one of my least favourite aspects of the system.