Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnLynch" data-source="post: 6762275" data-attributes="member: 6749563">The best thing 5th edition ever did was use backgrounds to separate in game roles from classes.So to answer the original question my answer is: Somewhat. All clerics and paladins are priests. But not all priests are clerics or paladins. Druids also always belong to Circles (other classes can as well though) and everyone understands what it means to be a wizard or a warlock. Monks, rogues, rangers, fighters, barbarians, sorcerers and bards are much more varied.Tribals for example are most likely to be "fighters" than beserkers or totem warriors. There are exceptions (Uthgardt warriors) but the rest remains true. Beserkers however could be found in any profession.That said I have had spells exist in game as they do out of game. Spells are given a rating between 0 and 9 on the Vancian scale and are split further into different schools of magic. It is known that prepared casters can prepare a certain number of spells depending on their comparative strength in magic. This was Pathfinder though.I can back up your player and confirm I have never heard of anyone doing it this way. Unlike your player though I think it's fantastic.Using classes as having a meaning in game is supported by D&D at least as far back as 2nd ed. The Forgotten Realms Faiths and Avatars had some gods demand that their priests switch from clerics to specialty priests. This is clearly talking about mechanics on an in-game level.As for the thieves cant discussion. If a player wanted to swap it out for another language or tool proficiency, I would let them. I'd also be having a "fighting" language that consists of a sign language warriors to communicate silently. I'd also be happy to have a scout language which consists of leaving messages in the terrain that have an indepth meaning to those who know what they are, but are otherwise unnoticeable to everyone else. I'd also let any language be learned by taking the linguist feat so long as there is an in character justification for it.I can, however, understand people's reticence at allowing class reflavours. In 4th ed a player told me "Humans are suboptimal for the build I want. Can I play a warforged instead and we just reflavour him as human." I wasn't impressed. So I can understand issues with "I want to play a monk but I want the barbarian chassis instead." I dunno what I'd do about that. For this hypothetical you could go one step further and say "My quarterstaff deals the same damage as a greataxe because that resembles the closest mechanics I want." I expect a lot more DMs would not allow that further step.</blockquote>

Verification