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

[Dit464]

Actually thinking back on the topic, I rescind my previous post and believe that class really doesn't hold true. Out of game its just a generalization that gamers use to describe their skillset, but even when I say that my PC is a wizard or fighter its usually just how I would describe the generalization that the character, he casts spells or he fights physically.

Moving on to NPCs, Classes hold virtually no merit a NPC could be a fighter that can cast sorcerer spells emblazoned with druidic sigils, just because of the DM's whims of the character or the backstory that the NPC has. They don't really fall into a single class and can be applied to several classes even when being very basic

 

[EscherEnigma]

How do the creatures in the game world know where someone else gets their spells?

Can't say for sure it's true in 5e, but in 3.Xe (the edition I'm most familiar with) that would be a Spellcraft check. So probably an Arcana check in 5e.

Either way though, whether someone can easily identify a "class" is a different question from whether there are classes as the world's denizens (or more accurately, the world's magical scholars) know them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All four of them are wizards.

Numbers 1 and 4 are using a different title. I can call myself a lot of things: teacher, professor, tutor, instructor, pedant, academian, scholar, sage, but my degree is in Secondary Education and my training is in that field. I can choose to call myself by the common title of my profession (teacher), a name of lower rank (tutor) or one of the highest rank (professor) just as the wizard can call himself a hedge mage or an archmage.

Number 3 is lying, or at least posing. He is either a wizard pretending to be a sorcerer (using the title of another profession to hide his own) or a sorcerer who is attempting to mimic the actions of a wizard (fruitlessly, as he doesn't need the spellbook and gets no benefit from it). In either case, he is mis-identifying himself willfully or not. (I am a teacher, but I can say I'm a graphic design artist if I want. I could also play around in Photoshop for hours, but nobody is going to pay me to do so).

Number 2, if I am reading it right, is a wizard in the meaning of fictional-identification (rather than game-rule identification). If so, he's using the generally assumed term that most people understand. I often introduce myself (when the question of profession comes up) as a teacher, even if the title doesn't encompass my job description perfectly, because it explains my skills and area of employment. I COULD get more specific (High School Literature Teacher) just as the Wizard could (A Fire-focused Evoker) if I wanted to.

Now, if you wanted to be sneaky, you'd claim one of them was a Tome-Pact Fiend Warlock who was studying his Book of Shadows for rituals earlier and using Fireball (gained from the Fiend Pact) later and the two actions were unconnected. (It would be the equivalent of a School counselor coming in to talk with my students for a class period; to the outside observer he is a "teacher" teaching even though that is actually his job description). One observation would not be enough to identify the subject. However, a pattern of behavior and reasonable cause-and-effect could deduce some correlation between in-game behavior and "rules" governing said behavior.

Else, we create a reality where regardless of my actual training or abilities, I can claim to be a chef, an engineer, an airline pilot, or the President and I am not wrong to say that.

~ Remathilis, President of the United States of America.[/QUOTE]

I would think about 'magic users' much like we might think about counsellors. There are a LOT of different kinds, they operate based on different theories, have somewhat different goals and purposes, work with different populations of people in different contexts etc. However, at some level, they all have basically the same core skill set and do essentially the same sort of thing. They talk to people, advise them, help them solve their problems, provide some form of coaching, encouragement, etc. There are related professions, Psychiatrists for instance, that also do a lot of the same things, though they have additional and somewhat different skills.

A given 'warlock' might well be hard to tell from a wizard. While he may not study to memorize a spell, he's almost certainly got a lot of arcane knowledge, probably books and other paraphernalia he uses to learn his craft of wheedling power out of higher beings, etc. His patron may well have a desire for arcane knowledge, may even be a patron of wizards as well, etc. There are a million shades of grey. A given wizard might instead of having a spell book per-se, carry around a bunch of augury sticks that tell him which symbols to use today to cast his spells.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think a more pertinent question is, why would a class choose to imitate a class feature of another class?

If we disregard the "because roleplaying", it could be because either their class is penalised and/or persecuted for some reason or the other class receives preferential treatment and/or benefits. Which means that the NPCs within that game world have at least the rudimentary knowledge of class to know that a Witch, for example, weighs as much as a Duck.

Because the rules clearly only capture a small fraction of what is going on in the practice of magic. Imagine that studying and memorizing certain mystical symbols actually gave you supernatural power over nature ala AD&D Vancian Magic User. That still leaves off a vast array of actual activities that real practitioners of magic would be up to. I mean the WHOLE CONCEIT is that massive amounts of study and acquisition of deep knowledge of this magic is what allows Magic Users, and not anyone else except the occasional rogue, from understanding and employing it. So clearly there's a wide range of studying, research, etc that happens JUST TO BE A WIZARD AT ALL. None of this is specifically mandated to be accounted for (aside from 1e's level up rules, but even those are highly abstract). So, yes, just by the rules of the game, any wizard is going to be doing all this activity that has no direct translation to any specific capability in-game. So in our imaginary world of magic there would be a lot of people running around studying, copying, writing, and expounding about various theories and applications of magic, etc.

Now imagine there were also 'sorcerers' that accessed magic in a more natural way through internal power, and 'warlocks' who conjured up and bound higher powers, or supplicated them, and were granted these magics. They also are special, they have levels, they most certainly undertake some sort of activities which allow them to understand and enhance their powers. These activities are, just like with magic users, outside the strictly accounted mechanics of the game, but they obviously exist or everyone would be using the same skills.

How do you know you can distinguish between these things? They'd all be 'studying magic' in some sense, and probably the same arcane principles govern ALL of these types of magic to some degree. So they would all have common references, be able to discuss magic with each other, teach each other at least some core skills, etc. Now through in that there are endless variations of these magical traditions that fall below the level of changing mechanics (IE AD&D's "spell books come in many forms" and such) as well there being various mechanically differentiated types within each tradition (warlock pacts, magic schools, subclasses, etc).

It seems to me that distinguishing between them all in anything close to a realistic setting would be, at best, difficult. Even if you had some idea that so-and-so was an "Academy Trained Wizard" and thus memorized from a spell book every day, cast spells of specific levels and types, etc you could well be surprised because, by gosh, he's actually a Transmuter and he gets some extra spells and casts them at different levels, and can make Philosopher's Stone (in 5e anyway).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Can't say for sure it's true in 5e, but in 3.Xe (the edition I'm most familiar with) that would be a Spellcraft check. So probably an Arcana check in 5e.

Either way though, whether someone can easily identify a "class" is a different question from whether there are classes as the world's denizens (or more accurately, the world's magical scholars) know them.

Furthermore, whether or not classes have concrete meaning is neither caused nor refuted by the stuff in the books. It's a choice as part of world-building. Harry Potter is a Wizard; Argus Filch is a Squib (which is not the same as being a Muggle, as there are many magical things Muggles cannot see that Squibs can). And in some worlds, certain people just are paladins, or choose to become them, and that's a meaningful change-of-state. Etc., etc. How do you know these things? Perhaps sometimes it's never completely knowable. Perhaps sometimes there are simple tests (as in the Harry Potter case; there are many things Muggles cannot see that Squibs, Witches, and Wizards can--and only a Witch or Wizard can use a wand). Perhaps, like having "perfect pitch"--a real phenomenon among actual human beings--it is something that can be demonstrated but never utterly-perfectly-absolutely proven.

Or, since as I said the rules neither require nor prevent these things having concrete meaning, perhaps they just don't in some worlds. In some worlds, maybe like "hit points" and "hit" and "initiative," these things are merely abstractions employed to give simple, effective structure to something that is truly sprawling, multifaceted, and ultimately ineffable or unphysical.

The rules tell us how to operate the world; the commentary gives us advice on what will happen if we make changes to that how. But it is up to us--players and DMs both--to decide why to operate the world as we do. And that "why"--which must, by its very nature, lie above and beyond the text itself--is what determines whether classes do have concrete meaning in any particular world.

And thus, it is still an interesting question precisely as the OP framed it: do classes have concrete meaning in your world?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Can't say for sure it's true in 5e, but in 3.Xe (the edition I'm most familiar with) that would be a Spellcraft check. So probably an Arcana check in 5e.

Either way though, whether someone can easily identify a "class" is a different question from whether there are classes as the world's denizens (or more accurately, the world's magical scholars) know them.

Now, see, in my 4e game, I would say if you run into a Tiefling and he's wreathed in flames, and casting spells, then you might make an Arcana check and you'd find out "He's invoking the name of Asmodeus to call down hellfire!" He could still be a warlock, a sorcerer, and elementalist, a wizard, a hexblade, a bladesinger, a swordmage, etc (even a wizard might use a flametongue as an implement for instance, and ANY of these other classes could, so use of a weapon or not isn't even truly diagnostic). Now, maybe if your Arcana check is good enough you get some more clues "He's marked with the sign of the servants of Asmodeus!" which you might know indicates practitioners who have made a pact with the Arch Fiend. HOWEVER, you don't have to be base class warlock to have such a pact, a wizard could make one using a feat, which he might do for various reasons. You couldn't even ENTIRELY rule out Invoker or possibly a couple other options. 5e is a LITTLE less rich in such options, but it still has a lot. I wouldn't narratively in-game tell PCs that a character is of the warlock class. The player can figure that out, if they want, but it probably doesn't matter. Since I wouldn't usually give an NPC a class anyway the players probably already all know this information, since it would have to reference another PC.

 

[TwoSix]

How do you know you can distinguish between these things? They'd all be 'studying magic' in some sense, and probably the same arcane principles govern ALL of these types of magic to some degree. So they would all have common references, be able to discuss magic with each other, teach each other at least some core skills, etc. Now through in that there are endless variations of these magical traditions that fall below the level of changing mechanics (IE AD&D's "spell books come in many forms" and such) as well there being various mechanically differentiated types within each tradition (warlock pacts, magic schools, subclasses, etc).

Somewhat tangential, but does the concept of arcane and divine have any mechanical relevance at all in 5e? As far as I can tell, there aren't any mechanics that unite clerics and druids as "divine" casters, or wizards, sorcerers, bards, and warlocks as "arcane". No more arcane spell failure, no more arcane or divine scrolls, no more powers with a power source. If anything, abilities like the bard's magical secrets argues for magic being more unified, and classes simply defining the method of access and training.

 

[EscherEnigma]

Now, see, in my 4e game, I would say if you run into a Tiefling and he's wreathed in flames, and casting spells, then you might make an Arcana check and you'd find out "He's invoking the name of Asmodeus to call down hellfire!" He could still be a warlock, a sorcerer, and elementalist, a wizard, a hexblade, a bladesinger, a swordmage, etc (even a wizard might use a flametongue as an implement for instance, and ANY of these other classes could, so use of a weapon or not isn't even truly diagnostic). Now, maybe if your Arcana check is good enough you get some more clues "He's marked with the sign of the servants of Asmodeus!" which you might know indicates practitioners who have made a pact with the Arch Fiend. HOWEVER, you don't have to be base class warlock to have such a pact, a wizard could make one using a feat, which he might do for various reasons. You couldn't even ENTIRELY rule out Invoker or possibly a couple other options. 5e is a LITTLE less rich in such options, but it still has a lot. I wouldn't narratively in-game tell PCs that a character is of the warlock class. The player can figure that out, if they want, but it probably doesn't matter. Since I wouldn't usually give an NPC a class anyway the players probably already all know this information, since it would have to reference another PC.

Two things don't have to be casually distinguishable to have real known differences.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Somewhat tangential, but does the concept of arcane and divine have any mechanical relevance at all in 5e? As far as I can tell, there aren't any mechanics that unite clerics and druids as "divine" casters, or wizards, sorcerers, bards, and warlocks as "arcane". No more arcane spell failure, no more arcane or divine scrolls, no more powers with a power source. If anything, abilities like the bard's magical secrets argues for magic being more unified, and classes simply defining the method of access and training.

Yeah, I don't know, I don't think there really is any overarching concept there. Each class has a spell list, but there aren't even different variations of common spells anymore, so it does seem like everyone is casting the same spells, just powered in different ways. I think you COULD assume an AD&D-esque division, ala 2e specifically, or not as you wish.

 

[Shasarak]

Now, see, in my 4e game, I would say if you run into a Tiefling and he's wreathed in flames, and casting spells, then you might make an Arcana check and you'd find out "He's invoking the name of Asmodeus to call down hellfire!" He could still be a warlock, a sorcerer, and elementalist, a wizard, a hexblade, a bladesinger, a swordmage, etc (even a wizard might use a flametongue as an implement for instance, and ANY of these other classes could, so use of a weapon or not isn't even truly diagnostic). Now, maybe if your Arcana check is good enough you get some more clues "He's marked with the sign of the servants of Asmodeus!" which you might know indicates practitioners who have made a pact with the Arch Fiend. HOWEVER, you don't have to be base class warlock to have such a pact, a wizard could make one using a feat, which he might do for various reasons. You couldn't even ENTIRELY rule out Invoker or possibly a couple other options. 5e is a LITTLE less rich in such options, but it still has a lot. I wouldn't narratively in-game tell PCs that a character is of the warlock class. The player can figure that out, if they want, but it probably doesn't matter. Since I wouldn't usually give an NPC a class anyway the players probably already all know this information, since it would have to reference another PC.

Yeah, I probably would not bother trying to differentiate class in 4e. In most cases role is more important then class plus the fact that everyone gets powers means that there is not much difference between a real class and a NPC monster except for a but load of hit points.