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

[cmad1977]

Depends.

 

[Morrus]

No.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

In general, no. To someone versed in arcana, the distinction between someone who learned magic and someone who was granted it through a pact with another being is known, although full details of the class mechanics aren't.
To most people however, the distinction is unimportant.

This is made fuzzier by me generally allowing a certain amount of thematic leeway in classes.
I have had a Paladin, Cleric, Warlock, and Divine Soul sorceror all have been given their powers through the Silver Flame for example.

 

[5ekyu]

No.

 

[Fanaelialae]

To an extent. A wizard would consider himself distinct from a sorcerer who would consider herself quite different from a warlock or cleric. They would each probably refer to themselves in specific terms to distinguish themselves as such. A wizard might refer to himself as a Conjurer (though not of cheap tricks) but would identify as a practitioner of wizardry, which is distinct from sorcery.

The same cannot be said of the average person living in the world, who would probably use the terms almost interchangeably. In the common vernacular, they're effectively the same thing.

That said, a fighter almost certainly would not identify as a fighter. They'd probably call themselves a swordsman, mercenary, knight, or somesuch. Others would do the same.

Class is not a known quantity in my campaign settings per se, but the abilities and trappings thereof can be, and oftentimes those are identified using a similar nomenclature.

 

[Kurotowa]

In the last campaign I played in, one of the elements of the setting was that "adventurer" was a recognized profession, the same as soldier or mercenary. As a body adventurers had certain conventions and a basic set of knowledge passed around between them. And part of that was a rough categorization of adventurers into different types and specialties based on their skill set. Some were more clear cut (Druids, Paladins) while others were more imprecise and open to self-identification (Fighter vs Ranger vs Rogue), but they acted a bit like modern military designations. Other adventurers would nod their heads when you described someone as Rogue or a Bard, while civilians would not really have any idea what you were talking about.

 

[digitalelf]

Yes, though not necessarily by the same names as those within the PHB (e.g. fighters would not be called fighters). I run 2nd edition, and in that edition, the classes were treated akin to professions, so it makes since that they are recognized by some name appropriate to the setting.

 

[ad_hoc]

As defined by the OP? No.

NPCs don't have classes, only PCs do. So we're not talking about enough characters to categorize.

 

[MGibster]

My first 5E campaign was tongue-in-cheek with the player characters being members of the adventurers guild and each one of them having gone to their class school to learn the trade. I had a NPC whose wealthy father couldn't say no to his daughter and sent her to barbarian school. She wore a pink dress (Princess Peach style), wore a tiara, and carried a huge two handed club into battle.

But even in some of my serious campaigns classes are often a thing. A Paladin is a distinct type of warrior from a Fighter or Ranger. A Warlock is not the same as a Wizard. Uneducated peasants might not know the difference, or better yet might have the wrong ideas about how it all works, but they usually know something is up.

 

[Tonguez]

I go more for traditions so the Wind Dancers of Al-Majh might be Bards or Wizards or Warlocks all linked by a Wind theme, then you will have Thieves Guilds, and Ranger Septs and Orders of Knights-Cleric, mercenaries can be either Fighters or Rogues and a few might even be Barbarians