log in or register to remove this ad

 

General Is character class an in-world concept in your campaigns?

That will take some time. But i can dig around a bit. Ill find it eventually it seriously may be a while though. Under the mountain of shoddy misinformation saturation that exists. They are one of the oldest known examples of measured and tested use of psychotropic and even psychedelic drugs for battle performance enhancement though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
Look it up. it is well known.

It is well known in the United States that 1 mile of every 5 of the original Eisenhauer interstate system, was made straight, in order to provide expedient field runways for the USAF in the event that the United States was invaded.

It is also entirely false, which you will easily verify when you start looking for an actual source.

In this case, I haven't the slightest idea how I would go about verifying the claim that was made, which, as far as I know, involves a number of highly specific assertions about the Berserker cult for which I know of no textual evidences in the eddas and sagas. Now, I'm not an expert in those things, and I can only read English, so it's entirely possible that I don't know the source he's referencing.

Hence, I'm asking for the source.
 
Last edited:


It is well known in the United States that 1 mile of every 5 of the original Eisenhauer interstate system, was made straight, in order to provide expedient field runways for the USAF in the event that the United States was invaded.

Never heard anything about the interstate system being using for that, but it was modeled on the German Autobahn, in that it was designed to be used during a potential war inside the US for fast movement of military vehicles around the country.
 

Yes, mostly.

Martial abilities are somewhat abstract, but a Battle Master knows that his ability to trip someone is superior to others because of his extensive training (trip maneuver). A Champion knows that his training (or fighting spirit, etc) makes him “better” at making use of weapons than others (improved critical). A Rogue is specially trained to target weak spots to devastating effect (sneak attack). Because certain abilities tend to be grouped together, these are noticeable to those familiar with such things, and adventuring types can be classified by them. The names applied to such classes and subclasses can of course vary.

With magic and supernatural abilities it is even more overt. The fluff in the PHB is assumed in my world (unless specifically over-ridden). Wizardry, Sorcery, spell levels and spell slots are all actual things, as is the ki that empowers a Budoka (the term “monk” is used as it is in the real world to refer to monastics in various cultures, not to refer only to ascetic ki-focused martial artists), the divine powers possessed by paladins, clerics, druids, and rangers, etc. All of this is in game and forms a part of the character’s identity.

I also have a clear divide between magic/supernatural things and non-magical things that bounds fluff. A Budoka’s Ki is supernatural, for instance, and it isn’t possible to refluff the class as a brawler. Rangers are supernaturally empowered spellcasters, not wilderness warriors with some inexplicable tricks.

Part of my enjoyment of D&D involves experiencing D&Disms, and the in-world reality of such things is a D&Dism that was presented to me in almost all of my formative D&D experience.
 

Yes and no. Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, and Rangers are concepts that exist in my game world, and while most characters will use the title associated with their class, they don't have to. Barbarians, Cleric, Fighters, Rogues are not specifically tied to any specific profession or title. To those unskilled in arcane lore, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards all fit under the classification of "mage."
 


cbwjm

Hero
Just another thought, backgrounds are often what people are known by rather than classes. A pirate, a sage, a merchant. A guild crafter might be known by where his skill lies, a folk hero might consider himself a simple farmer. If you're known as a soldier, it doesn't matter if you are a fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian, or rogue; to others, you are a soldier. I know in a previous game that I thought of one of my players more as a pirate than as a fighter/cleric.
 

Saelorn

Hero
So, is character class an in-world concept in your campaigns?
It's obviously true that there's an in-world difference between characters with 'wizard' written on their sheet and characters with 'sorcerer' written on their sheet. If that in-world distinction didn't exist, then we wouldn't be able to use different rules in order to model those characters.

As to whether those distinctions are recognized within the game world, well... the rules in the book are intended to model one specific world: The Forgotten Realms. While you don't have to play your campaign in that setting, you do need to make changes to account for any differences between that world and the world you're actually using.

While you could use the word 'monk' to describe the character concept labelled 'paladin', doing so adds complexity to the system with no real benefit. I mean, it's not like the characters in the game world are actually speaking English. Whatever their term is for the knight in shining armor, it translates into our language as 'paladin'.
 

While you could use the word 'monk' to describe the character concept labelled 'paladin', doing so adds complexity to the system with no real benefit. I mean, it's not like the characters in the game world are actually speaking English. Whatever their term is for the knight in shining armor, it translates into our language as 'paladin'.
The amount of wordplay used in official modules for riddles, puzzles and the like suggests that the characters in the game world are actually speaking English.

Since we've already got human beings of clearly recognizable terrestrial ethnicities running around on this world that is not and never has been Earth, to say nothing of all the cows and pigs and lobsters and pine trees, the English language would be the least of D&D's plausibility problems.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Class is a rules mechanical concept, not an in-world concept. Now, words such as "fighter" or "wizard" might be used at times, but so could "warrior" or "mage" - it's not a class. Also, people are unique - the PCs follow class rules, but nothing says others do, and most (almost all) do not.

This is reinforced by the NPCs in the monster manual, where the same name is used but it's definitely for an in-game description and not the actual class. For example there's a Druid, who has 4th level casting but no wildshape. If "Druid" referred in-game to the class, that would not be called a druid.
 
Last edited:

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
Class is a rules mechanical concept, not an in-world concept. Now, words such as "fighter" or "wizard" might be used at times, but so could "warrior" or "mage" - it's not a class. Also, people are unique - the PCs follow class rules, but nothing says others do, and most (almost all) do not.

This is reinforced by the NPCs in the monster manual, where the same name is used but it's definitely for an in-game description and not the actual class. For example there's a Druid, who has 4th level casting but no wildshape. If "Druid" referred in-game to the class, that would not be called a druid.
I feel like labels like class are shorthand, ultimately. Their use depends on what value is gained from talking around the subject.

So I do agree with you that those (what I call) character-class-equivalents (CCEQs for short) in the MM and similar imply a lot more flexibility in the collections of features associated with classes than is represented in the PHB (and relevant supplements). Still, an MM mage casts wizard spells. An MM mage has no school, but a VGtM abjurer evidently does have one: suggesting an in-world organisation or categorisation.

That makes me feel that an in-world person might guess at the kinds of things a CCEQ or PC will be capable of, based on observation of other things they are capable of along with any organisational labels they know to be applicable, e.g. they might guess that a mage could cast magic missile.

I assume awareness of power sources and feature groups. No doubt the language if overheard in-world would be more roundabout, but it amounts to X is a Y, so X's capabilities very well could include Z. As a DM, I don't mind players abbreviating that using class appellations, and I do likewise. It doesn't bother me if players call Mordenkainen a "wizard", for example. In my campaign he was a modified archmage. Calling someone a wizard amounts to a prediction about what they might be capable of. It's a convenient label because the nth time I take up time at the table waffling about circles and puissance... could hold low value.

Like other posters, I feel like this knowledge would be scalable. One NPC could have a very clear knowledge of paladins and their tiers. Another might never have heard of them. I would not differentiate between casters and melee in that regard, because all classes in D&D have preternatural abilities.
 


Yaarel

Adventurer
Do classes exist as identities in world?

There can be groups whose members are the same class. High Elf tree-town militias are mainly Eldritch Knights. The scholars of a wizard academy are Wizards. The Norse-esque shamans are psionic Bards. And so on.



Level is an in-world identity! Levels 1 to 4 are all students or the equivalent. Levels 5 to 8 are all professionals or the equivalent. Levels 9 to 12 are all masters or the equivalent, and tend to head an institution (academy, business, fortress, guild, etcetera). Levels 13 to 16 are political elites. Level 17 to 20 are legends in every way.

The identity of leveling tier is pretty clear.
 

Mercule

Adventurer
Nope. I absolutely hate the notion and have gone out of my way to make trying to do so confusing, in my home brew world. I have a nation with an elite military group called "rangers", that are actually well known for their arcane knowledge -- they started as explorers and, effectively, state-sanctioned adventurers, but the arcane knowledge kinda piled up. There's also a group known as "paladins", and they tend toward the religious zealot, lawful good, stick up the butt sort, but their unwavering incorruptibility turned into a major political liability and they were exiled. So, while they still have a lot of actual paladins in their number, along with folks of other classes, to actually be a paladin pretty much makes one an outcast.
 

digitalelf

Explorer
I know 2nd edition is a different animal than 5th edition, but as an example of how class is an in-game concept in 2nd edition, the World of Greyhawk "From the Ashes" boxed set details an organization of Rangers that protect the Gnarly Forest. They are called the "Rangers of the Forest". They are in fact, Rangers.
 

While I know some really like the idea that NPCs don't have to follow the same rules as PCs, I've never cared for it. The way I look at it, 5e strikes a balance by making NPC statblocks that represent simplified class members for quick use rather than ongoing development.

The alternative that everyone else in the world works one way, and whatever party of adventures you are playing in a particular campaign are each the sole representative of their organized skill set (despite the fact that the class write-ups tend to imply there are many people of each class and subclass), is inherently unsatisfying to me, as someone who runs a "persistent world" D&D campaign, where more than one group of players and characters can participate in the world's ongoing history.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
So, is character class an in-world concept in your campaigns?

Yes.

A few classes like Fighter, Barbarian and Rogue are more loose, so it makes sense that everyone belonging to a barbarian tribe is called "Barbarian" no matter their class (if they have any). It's possible for someone with the class being then referred to as a "true Barbarian". But we really never gave too much thoughts to labels.

The rest of the classes easily have a strong identity in the fantasy world.
 

Hussar

Legend
I'd go with "sometimes". It really depends on how tightly wound the lore is in a given class. Paladins, of whatever Oath, are pretty strongly tied to the lore of their class. It would be difficult to mistake a paladin for anything else. Other classes, like fighter and rogue? Not so much. Both are largely interchangeable and frankly, unless someone is dropping a spell, how would you tell a ranger from a fighter?
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
The alternative that everyone else in the world works one way, and whatever party of adventures you are playing in a particular campaign are each the sole representative of their organized skill set...
This seems to be saying that envisioning flexibility in collections of features forces us to believe that PCs are sole representatives of their class as presented in the PHB. I think one could decide that, but it is not forced. Rather one can envision flexibility and that the PHB classes are well populated.

So in my world I envision that there could be a "wizard" who lacks arcane recovery, yet still casts as a wizard and draws spells from the wizard spell list, and might even have a wizard school. They would be identified as a wizard.

... how would you tell a ranger from a fighter?
The ranger is the one who can't get lost ;)
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top