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

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Well, let's look at those examples. Bards have no lore ties to any sort of faith, so, the lack of things like holy symbols and well, faith, would differentiate bards from clerics pretty hard.

Celestial Pact Warlock is pretty close to a cleric, true, although, again, most clerics aren't sprouting wings. I'd say that a CPW is pretty strongly tied to its own lore.

Wildfire druid and druids in general should be strongly tied to their own setting lore as well. These are servants, generally, of very specific gods.

And an artificer kinda lacks all the religious trappings just like a bard.

So, no, I don't think a couple of shared spells is enough to make clerics indistinguishable from these examples.

Nothing prevents a bard from using a holy symbol or having faith either...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Arnwolf666

Adventurer
Well, let's look at those examples. Bards have no lore ties to any sort of faith, so, the lack of things like holy symbols and well, faith, would differentiate bards from clerics pretty hard.

Celestial Pact Warlock is pretty close to a cleric, true, although, again, most clerics aren't sprouting wings. I'd say that a CPW is pretty strongly tied to its own lore.

Wildfire druid and druids in general should be strongly tied to their own setting lore as well. These are servants, generally, of very specific gods.

And an artificer kinda lacks all the religious trappings just like a bard.

So, no, I don't think a couple of shared spells is enough to make clerics indistinguishable from these examples.
Depends on the type of setting. Bards were a type of Druid.
 

BookBarbarian

Expert Long Rester
Well, let's look at those examples. Bards have no lore ties to any sort of faith, so, the lack of things like holy symbols and well, faith, would differentiate bards from clerics pretty hard.

Celestial Pact Warlock is pretty close to a cleric, true, although, again, most clerics aren't sprouting wings. I'd say that a CPW is pretty strongly tied to its own lore.

Wildfire druid and druids in general should be strongly tied to their own setting lore as well. These are servants, generally, of very specific gods.

And an artificer kinda lacks all the religious trappings just like a bard.

So, no, I don't think a couple of shared spells is enough to make clerics indistinguishable from these examples.

To initiates of those faiths maybe, but to a common lay person I could easily see the possible confusion.
 





BookBarbarian

Expert Long Rester
Yes and... One famous Bard, Sir Rob Bertplant, was touted for using his voice as an instrument and sprinkling Middle Earth references throughout his tales.

e.g Ah-ah, ah! Ah-ah, ah!
I have heard of Sir Rob Bertplant.

Indeed it is said he comes from the land of the ice and snow, from the midnight sun, where the hot springs flow. Also that he was quite the mariner and explorer of new lands. And perhaps he even wielded the hammer of the gods.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
At some point during our last game session, I turned to our warlock and said "I expected you to help us with that, sorcerer", and his answer was "I'm not a sorcerer, I'm a warlock". My reply was "warlock, sorcerer, wizard, conjurer, or mage, I don't care, it's all the same", to which he answered, "it's the same for you, who have no understanding of arcane matters".

So, is character class an in-world concept in your campaigns? Could the mightiest sorcerer in your world be in fact a 20th-level wizard? If my oath of vengeance paladin was trained as part of a monastic order, would other people disagree if he referred to himself and other members of his order as warrior monks and tell him that monks are supposed to fight unarmored?

To answer my own question, except for some very specific situations, like druids in AD&D 2e, I never treated character class as an in-world concept. In my own games, a light-armored fighter with a criminal background does not see himself as fundamentally different from someone with levels in the rogue class.

What about your own campaigns?
How I play it is that it's both. Paladins and rangers are very specific classes in D&D, but that doesn't mean that the average person will be able to tell the difference. Nor does it mean that your paladin cannot be a member of an order of warrior monks and refer to himself as one.
 

pming

Legend
Hiya!

For me, it depends on the campaign world and the version of D&D.

B/X, BECMI, Dark Dungeons, Labyrinth Lord, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, etc: Yes. Classes are "categories that encompass certain expectations, training and knowledge".

1e, 2e: Depends on Campaign Setting. (see below)

5e: Yes. Because there are simply too many "class specific give-away's" that the world as a whole would classify people with certain skills/abilities/powers...and those are the Classes. A person pulls out a sword and start swinging during a goblin attack on the town. The person points and starts directing people tactically...Battlemaster. The person screams a war-cry and leaps into the midst, froth and rage spewing from his mouth with every swing as his body takes on the power of a bear...Totem Warrior Barbarian. The person whistles loudly and a puma leaps down from the trees...Beastmaster Ranger. The same goes for EVERY 5e class. They simply have too many "whiz-bang abilities" that, well, make it pretty obvious. Thus, people would naturally classify them in some way; "Classes".

Campaign Setting: For FR, yeah, Classes are a thing people know about. For Greyhawk, maybe, maybe not...if I'm running 1e...No. If I'm running 5e...Yes. If I'm running Hackmaster 4th...Yes (but that's a HM thing more than an 'AD&D' thing).

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top