The multiple choice version... do characters know their (and others) classes?

[Kahuna Burger]

from the closed thread to make it multiple choice...

Basicly the question is, does every cleric say "I am a cleric"? When someone does massive damage from a flanking position, does everyone suddenly say "oh you're a rogue"? Can a expert with tons of perform and social skills call himself a bard, or will people say "You can't cast any spells, you're not a real Bard!" If someone introduces himself as a paladin, will evryone just say "Oh, yes, you are lawful good and we will now kiss your ass" or can any fanatic with a good bab call himself a paladin as he enforces his view of religion by sword? Do the townsfolk actually know which soldier is a Warrior and which is a Fighter (and which is a paladin)?

How much are the mechanics of the classes metagamed into social strata in your games?

Kahuna Burger

 

[diaglo]

what are classes?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

what are classes?

you know in quotes or with a tounge sticking out face this would make perfect sense, but its harder to parse with the confused face... I guess I'll just parse it as quote/rhetorical anyway...

Kahuna Burger

 

[Nifft]

IMC, many NPCs are multi-class, so they refer to themselves by role rather than class.

Clerics are generally called "Priests", or "God-Botherers", or by a church-specific title -- Bishop, Ecclesiarch, Cantor, etc.

Rogues aren't the only ones who get Sneak Attack damage -- there are Psionic powers that grant that ability temporarily, for example. So the Sneak Attack thing isn't totally accurate.

Paladins work as royal and church guards, and those specific ones get their butts kissed regularly -- they're the elite guard, everyone trusts them -- they're like cops who are liked as much as firemen. PC Paladins tend to NOT work directly as guards, since that would be boring. So, they aren't as honored by the general population.

-- N

 

[Arnwyn]

Paladins, Monks, Druids, and Barbarians are easily discernable IMC. The others - not so much at all (for example, there is no delineation between Warriors and Fighters, sometimes Rogues can be mistaken for Fighters, and only the knowledgeable know the difference between Wizards and Sorcerers). I don't have Adepts IMC.

 

[stevelabny]

i think its one of those things where metagaming makes sense.

Whether or not ther people use the word "fighter" over "warrior" for someone with more skill would be just as arbitrary in the fictional world as it is in the rulebook.
IT makes sense to use different words for a grunt soldier and an experienced combatant so why not use warrior and fighter?

And once a character uses "sneak attack" in the fictional world, the other fictional people will immediately apply the logic of "every other person i've seen do that, usually has some variation of THIS skill set, so therefore...this one probably does to"
But since there are other ways to get a sneak attack besdies levels of rogue (levels of some PrCs and theres even a feat for it somewhere too) everyone will know that they arent necessarily 100% accurate.

There would of course be a different word for "clerics" than regular priests with no magical powers or fighting skills, so WHY NOT just use cleric?

Sure, you can use flavor words in the place of class names, but thats what why you're a cleric of INSERTGODHERE or a monk of MONASTICORDER or a fighter with the FEATCHAINFIGHTINGSTYLE, etc etc.

Just because the fictional people don't have a PHB doesn't mean they can't tell the difference between two character classes when they see them use their abilities, or make logical assumptions based on clothes and accessories.

We do it in the real world every day when me make generalizations and stereotypes based on how people look. Usually they are accurate, sometimes they aren't. I would assume the fictional world to be the same way.

 

[diaglo]

I guess I'll just parse it as quote/rhetorical

indeed it was.

i find that it some ways people still miss class level titles from the earlier editions.

footpads, veterans, mediums, acolytes, etc...

but in a sense if i were joe 20th lvl commoner. would i call myself a farmer or a commoner. i think farmer makes more sense.

just as a priest of deity X would refer to himself as Jozan of Pelor

not cleric with sun and healing domain.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

i think its one of those things where metagaming makes sense.

Whether or not ther people use the word "fighter" over "warrior" for someone with more skill would be just as arbitrary in the fictional world as it is in the rulebook.
IT makes sense to use different words for a grunt soldier and an experienced combatant so why not use warrior and fighter?

except that a 10th level warrior is a better combatant than a 2nd level fighter. The terms people used wouldn't map to the classes as well as you imply.

And once a character uses "sneak attack" in the fictional world, the other fictional people will immediately apply the logic of "every other person i've seen do that, usually has some variation of THIS skill set, so therefore...this one probably does to"
But since there are other ways to get a sneak attack besdies levels of rogue (levels of some PrCs and theres even a feat for it somewhere too) everyone will know that they arent necessarily 100% accurate.

except that a sneak attack can't neccassarily be distinguished from a lucky crit or a precise strike... and Rogues tend to have wide ranging skill sets depending on how they are designed.

There would of course be a different word for "clerics" than regular priests with no magical powers or fighting skills, so WHY NOT just use cleric?

why not call a religious adept a cleric as well? or a paladin who plays up the religious servant aspect? This is the question I'm getting at - do people see characters by their actual life or the assumptions of their classes?

Sure, you can use flavor words in the place of class names, but thats what why you're a cleric of INSERTGODHERE or a monk of MONASTICORDER or a fighter with the FEATCHAINFIGHTINGSTYLE, etc etc.

the question was not flavor words entirely, but how much people stuck the classes into social roles and let everyone see them. I can play a Rogue as a damn fine bard, or a very religious Bard who veiws himself as a member of the clergy. The question is whether PCs and npcs alike will still think of them in metagame terms.

Just because the fictional people don't have a PHB doesn't mean they can't tell the difference between two character classes when they see them use their abilities, or make logical assumptions based on clothes and accessories.

We do it in the real world every day when me make generalizations and stereotypes based on how people look. Usually they are accurate, sometimes they aren't. I would assume the fictional world to be the same way.

I think you've gone in a different direction than the question asked, but I knew that what I was wondering about would be difficult to ask about effectively.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

hrm, paladins and druids are well in the lead for being recognized and typecast. IMC interestingly enough, I consider being a paladin a personal calling that isn't always understood or respected by others... Joan of Arc thinking I guess. I don't know if I'd even let characters use the word and certainly wouldn't have total strangers trusting them on assertion alone... but I've seen it happen in other folk's campaigns, so I'm not surprized.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Nifft]

IMC, Druids aren't necessarily recognizable. Plenty of them work for the Public Works Dept. and the Agriculture Dept., as well as there being many who are stereotypical people-of-the-woods types. (There are kingdoms that co-exist with Nature, and Druids work with -- and for -- these kingdoms.)

Also, you can be a Paladin without being an elite guard. If so, you're not revered by the general population. But most people who are recognized as Paladins are in the elite guard.

-- N