practicalm
Explorer
The lore can be changed to fit your world. It doesn't have to stay with the character.
D&D 5E Fluff & Rule, Lore & Crunch. The Interplay of Class, System, and Color in D&D
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Personally, I play with classes as a grab bag of mechanical abilities, linked together for gamist purposes, with some optional flavor slathered on to provide an introduction to D&D tropes for novices. In my own settings, class does not exist as a recognizable attribute within in the settings, and prominent NPCs all have unique abilities that do not exist within the existing class framework.
Now, do I think the game is designed that way? Almost certainly not. Everything published suggests to me that NPCs linked together by commonality of class is something the designers think of as extant within the fiction. (Rangers train other rangers, wizards form schools of other wizards, etc.) But I find treating classes purely as out-of-game entities a much more natural, enjoyable way to play.
Now, do I think the game is designed that way? Almost certainly not. Everything published suggests to me that NPCs linked together by commonality of class is something the designers think of as extant within the fiction. (Rangers train other rangers, wizards form schools of other wizards, etc.) But I find treating classes purely as out-of-game entities a much more natural, enjoyable way to play.
jgsugden
Legend
I absolutely agree with this. My current monk is reskinned and has nothing to do with monasteries - his supernatural abilities come from his ancestors, and (due to human variant / magic initiate) manifest mostly as extensions of a mage hand spell (pulling him along for his speed, doing extra attacks for his unarmed attack / martial arts, etc...)
However, I also think they put effort into making the default lore of each class different.
grimslade
Krampus ate my d20s
This is the crux. Currently, classes are rules and lore. In the future...?
I like a class with a nice lore example. Paladins and their oaths in 5E are a good example of the crunch being supported by the fluff. Spell lists and oath abilities lead to a nice thematic whole. Warlocks and pacts are similar, but some classes are a bit weaker. The Ranger stands out as being more like a fighter subclass than its own theme. Monk is a muddled mess, the lore does not reinforce the crunch and the class feels rickety. Fun to play but every monk I have played with seems (in)different. Having reinforcing lore is a boon for players new to the game and people who want to be able to pick up and play without the huge customization/ optimization minigame. Part of the longevity of D&D as a system is the class archetype.
I would like there to be some advanced options for a more robust system, like Level Up is doing. There are some cool system things that were brought up during the D&D Next playtest that was put aside as the rules focused. Remember the different focus items transforming wizard magic? A wand user and a tome user would have subtly different effects on the spells they cast. Some of this came through in the Warlock class, but imagine a less class defined and more about the technique employed. Maybe something that could span all spellcasters. A wand using cleric and a wand wielding sorcerer might produce a similar spell effect. There are many ways to break down the ribbons of each class and put them in a pool to choose from to create a custom character. No two characters are fully the same until the inevitable Treantmonk guide comes out and says which combination is statistically better.
aco175
Legend
My first thoughts were that classes will of course have lore that goes with them- that's what makes a class and the rules just support that. Than I read what @Sabathius42 said about using the mechanical abilities of a class to fit a concept you want to play. I can see both sides now, especially in 5e. I do think that older editions were more themed with each class having a role.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
This is a poll about warlocks, isn't it?
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
I generally view class lore as mostly optional, but only to an extent: A Monk does not have to come from a shaolin-style monastery or practise mystical martial arts, but they are still channelling magic. A Paladin does not need a god but they still swore, and are bound by, their oath. A Druid does not need to be a nature-priest will all the trappings, but they will still not wear metal armour.
In the context of 4e D&D, as I experienced, classes serve as thematic "pathways to" or "bundles of" player-side engagement with the game.
The theme results from the mechanical abilities that flow from a particular class, and the associated fiction.
For example, being a cleric or a paladin means worshipping a god. And that manifest through abilities that tend towards the radiant - which is a reflection of the "fact" that, in the fiction of 4e D&D, gods mostly live or are connected to the Astral Sea and radiance is a manifestation of divine power. (The 4e DMG has a little section offering advice on how to change this feature of divine abilities to make it better fit clerics and paladins of deities, evil ones, who are not associated with the Astral Sea.)
Being a fighter means having a high armour class and this is generally reflected, in the fiction, by wearing heavy armour. (An alternative, but not a build I've personally seen in play, is to be a STR/DEX fighter in which case AC should still be good but in the fiction this would be understood as being quick on one's feet and adept at dodging attacks.)
In many ways I see this as similar to Gygax's AD&D, but with a few differences (which in my view are mostly strengths):
* Moreso than AD&D, there is a focus on player-side abilities that will support the thematic play at which the class is aimed. Eg in 4e, fighters have abilities that strongly encourage the player of a fighter to put his/her PC into the heart of any fray. Gygax expresses a similar view about how fighters should be played (PHB p 18: "Fighters generally seek to engage in hand-to-hand combat, for they have more hit points and better weaponry in general than do other classes; DMG p 86: "fighters who hang back from combat . . . or fail to boldly lead . . . are . . . clear examples of a POOR rating), but there is less in the actual design of class abilities - at least in the case of fighters and I think some other classes too - to help ensure that this will be an emergent consequence of playing the class well in a tactical/technical sense.
* Moreso than AD&D, these thematic aspects of classes are coupled to the default cosmology and campaign history. This is particularly visible in the warlock class for 4e, but even with fighters there is more of a sense in 4e of what it is about the fantasy world that brings it about that people like this exist in it. (A comparison could be made here with Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed.)
* 4e is overall a bit more permissive than AD&D (especially for human characters) in allowing combinations of classes, either via multi-class rules or hybrid rules or both. As the PHB 3 expressly warns about hybrid characters, they generate a risk of creating an unplayable character. I think there is a corresponding risk of creating a thematically dislocated or incoherent character. But equally these can be used to create strong thematic characters, especially when the role of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies is also considered. In my long-running game, for instance, we had two "paladins" (to use the term in a loose sense) though mechanically one of them was a paladin and the other was a fighter with a cleric multi-class feat and the cleric Warpriest Paragon Path. Both character were melee-oriented heavily armed and armoured god-fearing and divinely inspired warriors, ie paladins.
The theme results from the mechanical abilities that flow from a particular class, and the associated fiction.
For example, being a cleric or a paladin means worshipping a god. And that manifest through abilities that tend towards the radiant - which is a reflection of the "fact" that, in the fiction of 4e D&D, gods mostly live or are connected to the Astral Sea and radiance is a manifestation of divine power. (The 4e DMG has a little section offering advice on how to change this feature of divine abilities to make it better fit clerics and paladins of deities, evil ones, who are not associated with the Astral Sea.)
Being a fighter means having a high armour class and this is generally reflected, in the fiction, by wearing heavy armour. (An alternative, but not a build I've personally seen in play, is to be a STR/DEX fighter in which case AC should still be good but in the fiction this would be understood as being quick on one's feet and adept at dodging attacks.)
In many ways I see this as similar to Gygax's AD&D, but with a few differences (which in my view are mostly strengths):
* Moreso than AD&D, there is a focus on player-side abilities that will support the thematic play at which the class is aimed. Eg in 4e, fighters have abilities that strongly encourage the player of a fighter to put his/her PC into the heart of any fray. Gygax expresses a similar view about how fighters should be played (PHB p 18: "Fighters generally seek to engage in hand-to-hand combat, for they have more hit points and better weaponry in general than do other classes; DMG p 86: "fighters who hang back from combat . . . or fail to boldly lead . . . are . . . clear examples of a POOR rating), but there is less in the actual design of class abilities - at least in the case of fighters and I think some other classes too - to help ensure that this will be an emergent consequence of playing the class well in a tactical/technical sense.
* Moreso than AD&D, these thematic aspects of classes are coupled to the default cosmology and campaign history. This is particularly visible in the warlock class for 4e, but even with fighters there is more of a sense in 4e of what it is about the fantasy world that brings it about that people like this exist in it. (A comparison could be made here with Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed.)
* 4e is overall a bit more permissive than AD&D (especially for human characters) in allowing combinations of classes, either via multi-class rules or hybrid rules or both. As the PHB 3 expressly warns about hybrid characters, they generate a risk of creating an unplayable character. I think there is a corresponding risk of creating a thematically dislocated or incoherent character. But equally these can be used to create strong thematic characters, especially when the role of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies is also considered. In my long-running game, for instance, we had two "paladins" (to use the term in a loose sense) though mechanically one of them was a paladin and the other was a fighter with a cleric multi-class feat and the cleric Warpriest Paragon Path. Both character were melee-oriented heavily armed and armoured god-fearing and divinely inspired warriors, ie paladins.
MichaelSomething
Legend
Would you let me call my Fighter/Bard a Warlord?
Similar Threads
