Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7825754" data-attributes="member: 71699">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 &quot;wizard&quot;, 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&amp;D have preternatural abilities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7825754, member: 71699"] 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 [I]mage [/I]casts wizard spells. An MM [I]mage[/I] has no school, but a VGtM [I]abjurer[/I] 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 [I]mage[/I] could cast [I]magic missile[/I]. 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 [I]archmage[/I]. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification