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

[AbdulAlhazred]

You could use Ancient Egpyt as an example, all of the kings and pharaohs were warriors, it was a central part of their identity. From Narmer, the first king who united Upper and Lower Egypt (or Aha, if you prefer) through the Senwosrets of the Middle Kingdom, the Thutmossids of the New, and the Ramsses of the Late Kingdom, all were warrior-kings. Even if much of their wall engravings were exaggeration (Looking at you Ramsses II) being a warrior was a key part of their identity.

'warrior', yes, but how many of these people actually personally engaged in combat? Their main attributes, as far as I know, were as God-Kings. Some had great reputations as generals, and obviously in an age when power was acquired only by force being a great general was pretty much mandatory if you were going to build a new dynasty. I could still represent any of these people with 0-level stat blocks.

As for the Greek 'Kings', the evidence is that 'King' is an anachronistic concept that we have placed on them. They were warriors in a time and place when war was a sort of tribal affair that involved a lot of personal combat. Were they heads of state or rulers in a modern sense? No, probably not. In any case the plains of Troy were host to MANY figures, and probably few of them were really extraordinary warriors that need to be anything beyond 0-level man-at-arms rules-wise. And again, nobody says that higher level figures don't exist, the question is does class form some sort of iron-clad law that they're locked into, or is it just a DM convenience at most?

I'd also note that many different attributes are assigned to different heroes in the Illiad, and not all of them appear to be straight up fighters at all. So its not clear to me that class would represent them all very well anyway.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was going to spread an even wider net. Start with Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, both were great warriors as well as kings.

Were they? Really? They were both great leaders, though I don't know of any specific personal exploits attributed to either one of them. Not to say they couldn't have been fine warriors, but even if they were nobody is arguing that there were NO warriors who were kings.

We've got King Leonidus who led the 300 Spartans and their allies.

OK, but again, was he in any sense a particularly competent warrior? Or just one of the soldiers? Also 'King Leonidas' didn't RULE Sparta. The position he held was one of being assigned to lead an army, not ruler of a country in anything like the sense we mean when we would say "King Henry II of England" or something. The point being, his ONLY function was as a warrior/general.

Xerxes (according to a history channel video I saw while teaching a class) was locked in a room and forced to kill a lion with a spear, has his father had before him, to prove himself a warrior.

Perhaps. I don't know of any personal exploits attributed to Persian Emperors. They are ALWAYS described as being commanders directing things from the rear.

Tokugawa Ieyasu was a warlord and General during Japan's Sengoku Jidai and rose I believe either to Emperor or directly under the Emperor.

He became Shogun, which means something like "Barbarian-Expelling General". Tokugawa Ieyasu is a very well-known historical figure who's actions are quite well attested. I don't think there's any indication that he was personally an extraordinary warrior. He was certainly an able general and politician. I'd note that he was almost assassinated on several occasions and he had a number of highly regarded warriors whom he tended to surround himself with, probably for protection.

Looking closer to the Medieval Europe I remember hearing of at least half a dozen kings who fought in the Crusades, I think the Scottish Kings were actually on a few battlefields while the English invaded them. Many African Kings including the leader of the Zulu during the war with the English fought on the front lines That is just from the top of my head, with no research beyond spelling Tokugawa's name.

Yes, numbers of kings fought in the Crusades, but recall that Richard the Lion-Hearted, one of the most important, was particularly known as a great warrior (and a terrible king). If all these kings were all such great warriors then why is that Richard is so esteemed for this trait? Isn't it more likely that most of these other guys were NOT warriors. If you examine the history of the French Kings you will find that practically NONE of them were warriors, or even great generals. Neither the Spanish, nor the various dynasties of Holy Roman Emperors, etc. Scotland was pretty much 'barbarian' up to the 17th Century, and Chaka Zulu etc were all pretty much leading 'primitive' tribes. Even so Chaka Zulu is remembered for raising a large army, training it to a high standard, and using effective tactics against the British, not personal warrior exploits.

Even king's not famous for leading wars and fighting were trained in the art of the sword and expected to know how to fight for many, many years. The idea proposed a few pages back about how 99% of all kings of all time never picked up a sword is beyond ludicrous, and if it was mis-interpreted then I apologize.

Some were, some weren't. Every man-at-arms (0 level human with d6 hit die, or veteran with d8 hit die) is 'trained in the art of the sword', that doesn't make them high level classed NPCs. There's nothing 'ludicrous' about what I stated. Its the objective truth. The vast majority of kings and similar leaders probably wouldn't stand out as particularly skilled warriors. They weren't chosen for their prowess in most cases, and aren't remembered for it in most either. The majority of your counter-examples, where they have some merit, are specifically instances of warriors who MAY have had a secondary political function, such as the Greek heroes.

Another thing, since I'm typing, is that we really need to stop throwing the word "shallow" around when describing other people's games. It really is in bad form and has been making the rounds for a while. Just because a world pulls on different tropes or focuses on different elements does not make it "shallow" by any stretch of the imagination.

Its a descriptor, not a value judgement.

Personally, I like having higher level adventurers in positions of power or rule. The Feudal system I tend to have in DnD is based of the idea that the people provide goods and services and the nobles provide protection, which was the idea of the Feudal System to begin with. Since DnD is so much more dangerous than the traditional world it makes sense to me that some of the people who have lived long enough while in that role as protector have gained strength and skill as the players have. It also, subtly I hope, informs the players of a few things. One, adventurers have come before you and are a force in the world, your adventure is not the only adventure going on. People have fought, beat, or sealed great evil before you, this is the world you are left with as a result. Second, nobility or noble titles is something you can aspire to, while the nobles are generally people of certain bloodlines, if a person proves themselves a capable defender of the realm they could be rewarded with a noble title, and if you want to live out your days as a baron of some land then you could.

I don't believe any of that, or any of the other things I have placed into my world, qualify it as "shallow" despite the fact that I recognize class as a real thing in the world.

I was responding to the notion that it was NECESSARY to make all these high level classed NPCs because otherwise the PCs have no incentive not to just run amok and make a mess of the campaign world. Such a world seems shallow to me. Having high level NPCs in all the positions of power OTOH doesn't automatically make a campaign shallow. I personally feel that it is limiting and fairly unrealistic, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Arial Black]

Except that they get distinct sets of abilities that only other people that have the same class (and level) can get.

Really?

What observable abilities do they get? Which of those observable abilities could only be explained by the people in the game world as proving that there is such a thing as 'class', and what the inhabitants understand by each observable 'class' perfectly resembles the rules for each class in the PHB?

What 'distinct set of abilities' does a champion fighter have? How can those be observed by people in the game?

 

[Arial Black]

All of those things you have suggested are possible ways a game could choose to do it. That there are multiple possibilities does not mean that you can say that absolutely every world can't do it.

Agreed, but that is not what I'm arguing against.

To be clear, I'm not saying that it's impossible for a DM to make D&D 'class' a real thing in his game! I am saying that:-

* if his world is like that, this is because he said so; the PHB certainly doesn't mandate that!

* game mechanics are not directly observable, only the results of them in the game world are, but there are so many things that could be affecting what happens that it cannot be certain that they know about D&D class

You seem to be arguing two different things here.... The first is "class-awareness is never possible," while the second is "class-awareness is not guaranteed." I fully agree with the second claim, but completely disagree with the first.

If 'class' is sometimes observable and sometimes not, then the result is that class is not 'knowable'.

The assertion that I'm arguing against is that 'a creature in the game knows that people fall into distinct 'classes', and that these groupings ARE their D&D class'. If you can sometimes tell if someone is, say, a paladin and sometimes you can't, then this demonstrates that they cannot know.

What if I told you that, in my campaign world...*goes on to describe a world EzekielRaiden made up himself in which a creatures D&D class is magically apparent to observers*

Yet again, it's not the rules that did this; it's you!

And, once again, it's absurd. It's absurd that the creatures in any particular fantasy world produce a scent that perfectly matches their 'class' as described in the 5E PHB written in OUR world in the early 21st century!

And here you are again with the arguing that I have to prove it's universal. You have, repeatedly, claimed that it is universally IMPOSSIBLE for a character to know their class. That claim IS invalidated by my example: to prove that something is not impossible, I only need to prove that it has happened at least once. That leaves you only with the much weaker claim, that it is not guaranteed--a claim I have already long granted you.

It's the other way round: when constructing a proof that 'D&D class is observable', and experiment finds a creature whose class is not observable, then it has been disproved.

You can have the creatures in the game group themselves along any lines that they can observe, but they cannot know, without possibility of doubt, what a creature's D&D class is. Therefore, any group of (say) paladins cannot be absolutely certain that every member of that group has levels in the D&D paladin class. They cannot read each others character sheets. There may be some abilities that they can observe, but since those things can be produced in other ways than 'paladin class abilities' then they cannot be sure.

Similarly, there may be creatures with levels in the D&D paladin class who are not part of that in game grouping. They may not want to. Other people could not tell, with certainty, that they are D&D paladins; it's just not possible.

Look, talking past each other ("yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes it is") is unproductive. Why don't you come up with specific RULES examples (as opposed to a game setting you made up) that prove that a PC of a particular class must be able to be observed in game as having levels in that D&D class. Concrete examples will do more to clarify what we mean.

 

[Arial Black]

I think I'm finally seeing where our communication breakdown lies...

Is class a real thing in the world isn't just one question, but a series of them.

1.) Do the class titles,like "Fighter", "Paladin", "Druid" or "Bard" exist in the world in some recognizable form? (IE "I"m a a ranger of the North" or "He's one of them Druids".)

2.) Do all PCs with that class automatically belong to that class title? (IE. Are all members of the Paladin class "Paladins"?)

3.) Are ONLY members of that class considered to belong to a class title? (IE are only members of the Paladin class "Paladins"?)

4.) Can the character tell what class (mechanical) or others belong to? (IE is there a way to identify a Paladin in the world?)

Question one seems like a no-brainer: Yes, most if not all of the class titles exist or else there the world has no concept for things like "holy warrior" or "member of the old faith" or even "well-trained ne'er-do-well". There cannot exist Bardic Colleges without Bards to belong to them, nor Wizard Guilds without wizards to join them. You MIGHT argue Fighter doesn't have a direct title worth noting, but nearly every other class name can double as a particular group of people that share some commonality. I don't think there is anyone suggesting now (and prove me wrong if I am) that there is no such things in D&D either explicitly or implicitly as Druidic Orders, Bard Colleges, Monk Monasteries, or Wizard Guilds.

Question two is where the dispute begins. I'm on the side of "Yes" if you belong to the Paladin class, you have also joined the group also-called "paladin". Arial and Ovi disagree, saying the Paladin Class does not make you a part of the Paladin group in the world, you can be a member of the Paladin class and instead identify as a Monk, Druid, Barbarian, Cobbler, or Dung-Farmer as long as you can explain your abilities satisfactorily.

Question three is the flip to two: can anyone claim a Class Title regardless of what their stats actually are? Do all "Paladins" in the world need levels of the Paladin class to claim that title? I'm a little fuzzier here: Some NPCs who do not actually have "Paladin" written in their stat-block can represent Paladins, but they need to make an effort to somewhat resemble the PC class. I wouldn't use the Archmage NPC stat-block to represent a "Paladin", for example, but I could use it to represent the Wizard (despite not officially having the "Wizard" class).

The last question asks if the characters in the world are aware if a particular PC belongs to a certain class. Is there a way to tell a PC has the Paladin class "from an in-game perspective" and if so, what would that in-world person think to call that PC? For me, since I associate the Paladin class with the title "Paladin" in game, the two are synonymous. Others say there is no way to make such a tell, and that a guy using Lay on Hands and Smites might be a Paladin, a Priest, an Exorcist, a demigod-in-training, or just a unique individual who defies any and all attempts to categorize him.

To recap:

For me, 1.) Paladin is a group in the world, 2.) All members of the Paladin class belong to said group 3.) But not all members of the Paladin group have to have levels in the Paladin class, and 4.) Most members of the Paladin class can be identified as belonging to the paladin group in world.

For others. 1.) Paladin may be a group in the world 2.) Not all members of the Paladin class belong to the paladin group. 3.) Not all members (or even none-at-all) of the paladin group have levels in the Paladin class and 4.) therefore, it is impossible to identify if a person belongs to the Paladin class in world.

Does that sound like a fair assessment?

This really is an excellent breakdown, so well done.

The 'for me' side shows what my point is. You can only have (say) paladins whose membership must be exclusively made up of D&D class paladins AND every single D&D class paladin must belong to that in game group if the DM artificially makes it so!

But it is absurd. I'm not using the word 'absurd' as some random insult, but specifically to point out that the game mechanics of 'class' cannot be known to the creatures in game, and any attempt to artificially impose that knowledge is just as unrealistic as knowledge of their own hit point total, or even the concept of 'hit points'.

They simply cannot equate the things they can observe to match the D&D classes. No sage in the world could observe what people can do and then write the D&D class system as the only possible way to describe what he observed! We know that ourselves, because D&D has been through more than five iterations already.

If the sage did make those observations and write a treatise explaining it, we absolutely could not be certain that he would unfailingly, unknowingly be copying the crunch of the 'Class' chapter of the 5E PHB. A thousand sages could write a thousand treatises, and no two would be alike. If 'class' really was knowable in game, then every sage would write an identical treatise.

 

[Remathilis]

'warrior', yes, but how many of these people actually personally engaged in combat? Their main attributes, as far as I know, were as God-Kings. Some had great reputations as generals, and obviously in an age when power was acquired only by force being a great general was pretty much mandatory if you were going to build a new dynasty. I could still represent any of these people with 0-level stat blocks.

You know, maybe if D&D had a class that represented a LORD of WAR that was adept at leading without being personally good at combat, we could stat all these kings with a class. Alas...

 

[Shasarak]

Really?

What observable abilities do they get? Which of those observable abilities could only be explained by the people in the game world as proving that there is such a thing as 'class', and what the inhabitants understand by each observable 'class' perfectly resembles the rules for each class in the PHB?

Most obviously when they turn say level 5 and start being able to cast Fireballs and such.

Before level 5 no Fireball....after level 5 Fireball. That is a pretty clear distinction.

 

[Remathilis]

Most obviously when they turn say level 5 and start being able to cast Fireballs and such.

Before level 5 no Fireball....after level 5 Fireball. That is a pretty clear distinction.

Believe me, if "alignment" and "class" not being tangible things is a messy argument, "level" is a Grade A Clusterfudge, on par with "hit points"...

 

[Shasarak]

Believe me, if "alignment" and "class" not being tangible things is a messy argument, "level" is a Grade A Clusterfudge, on par with "hit points"...

Sure it is messy. Otherwise the thread would be over with a couple of posts. =;0)

 

[Remathilis]

This really is an excellent breakdown, so well done.

Thanks.

The 'for me' side shows what my point is. You can only have (say) paladins whose membership must be exclusively made up of D&D class paladins AND every single D&D class paladin must belong to that in game group if the DM artificially makes it so!

To me, its less "Every paladin is a member of a holy order called 'Paladin'," as much more "belongs to a certain profession or calling that call themselves 'Paladin'." To me, it would be like "Doctor", "Teacher", "Lawyer" or "Engineer", it describes a certain set of skills only some people learn and that makes them distinct. They don't all have exactly the same skills (a doctor can be a GP, a specialist, or surgeon), they don't all belong to the same fraternal order (not all teachers belong to a universal group or union) but they all can say "I'm a doctor" or "I'm a teacher" and it conveys a real thing to others.

So if we opt to play Papers & Paychecks, I could argue there very well could be a Doctor or Teacher or Lawyer class, and that class would represent something to the world in the same way a Paladin or Druid or Bard does to the D&D world.

But it is absurd. I'm not using the word 'absurd' as some random insult, but specifically to point out that the game mechanics of 'class' cannot be known to the creatures in game, and any attempt to artificially impose that knowledge is just as unrealistic as knowledge of their own hit point total, or even the concept of 'hit points'.

Again, we're assuming not all bursts of fire are viewed the same and there is a tangible, discernable difference between a wizard's fireball and a cleric's flame strike. Of course, this gets into realms of discussion about the nature of magic, the ability to discern a supernatural ability from a spell (such as Wild Shape from casting Polymorph) and the general knowledge or stereotypes of the world ("I heard that guy has a destructive temper, he might be one of them barbarians I hear about").

They simply cannot equate the things they can observe to match the D&D classes. No sage in the world could observe what people can do and then write the D&D class system as the only possible way to describe what he observed! We know that ourselves, because D&D has been through more than five iterations already.

That would only be true IF the only options in the world is to be one of the twelve classes, and no version of D&D does that. Not every minstrel needs to be a bard for there to be a "Bard" concept that encompasses the bard class. The PHB in 5e starts six classes with the phrase "Not all X are Y" where X is a related concept (tribal warriors, wandering minstrels, temple servants, soldiers) are Y class (barbarians, bards, clerics, fighters). It iS fair to ask "Are all Y a part of X" (Are all barbarians tribal warriors, are all bards wandering minstrels, all all clerics temple servants, etc) and that's really this debate.

If the sage did make those observations and write a treatise explaining it, we absolutely could not be certain that he would unfailingly, unknowingly be copying the crunch of the 'Class' chapter of the 5E PHB. A thousand sages could write a thousand treatises, and no two would be alike. If 'class' really was knowable in game, then every sage would write an identical treatise.

Well, with some variance of course; there are subclasses, feats, racial traits, multiclassing and possibly prestige classes all mucking up the observable data, but I don't think its unreasonable to draw SOME inferred abilities and attach them to a class title; such as "All paladin's can sense unnatural good or evil beings" or "All druids can transform into animals" or "All barbarian's tap into their rage to fight recklessly". To me, that would be a fair enough generalization on par with "All doctors tend toward pacifism due to the hippocratic oath" or "all teachers tend to be scholarly" or "all lawyers are Evil" . I'm sure there are exceptions, but more often than not they prove the rule.