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

How are the classes used to identify and judge characters in your campaign?

  • [b]Warriors[/b] are identified as such and [b]Fighters[/b] know thay are better cause they have more

    Votes: 8 16.7%
  • A non magic using preist is not called a [b]Cleric[/b], and the whimpy ones have "[b]Adept[/b]" prin

    Votes: 5 10.4%
  • [b]Paladins[/b] are a social class which everyone knows are Lawful Good and extends respect to on as

    Votes: 21 43.8%
  • All characters with [b]Monk[/b] ranks come from monestaries and probably have shaved heads.

    Votes: 10 20.8%
  • Sneak attack once and everyone knows you are a [b]Rogue[/b] and can also sneak, disable traps and ha

    Votes: 4 8.3%
  • Everyone in the world knows the difference between a [b]Wizard[/b] and a [b]Sorcerer[/b] and identif

    Votes: 6 12.5%
  • No one calls themselves a bard unless they have [b]Bard[/b]ic Music.

    Votes: 8 16.7%
  • All characters with mostly [b]Ranger[/b] levels call themselves rangers, and know that they can use

    Votes: 5 10.4%
  • All [b]Druids[/b] are called druids, and can be identified on sight.

    Votes: 19 39.6%
  • All [b]Barbarians[/b] must be stupid and crude, and raging is a sure sign to everyone around you tha

    Votes: 8 16.7%
  • none of the above is true in my game on penalty of being called a [b]Munchkin[/b].

    Votes: 17 35.4%

PCs tend to metagame information.

NPCs in my world do not know about character classes. They may see feats, WhirlWind attack, but not know what sort of pre-reqs it has, other than the fact that not many other people can do it.

Wizards, Sorcerors, Priests, Adepts, Spell-like abilities, are all lumped together generally by NPCs. NPCs with spellcraft and/or knowledge arcana may know the differences between a Priest and a Wizard, or a Wizard and a Sorceror.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DM to Party: A horde of barbarians is charging down the hill.

On DM's Stat Sheet: 10 Rangers, 2 Fighter/Rangers, 1 Fighter, 2 Ranger/Shaman, 0 Barbarians.
 
Last edited:

Classes are only game convinience

They do not constitute definitions, except (vaguely, vaguely) for wizards. Even they use a variety of terms to describe themselves.

In my upcoming AU campaign, I am having everyone describe what they are specifically without any reference to their character class(es). I think this is very important.

A Fighter is not a Fighter -- he is a knight, an archer, a mercenary, a gladiator, a sellsword, a freelance, a highwayman, an adventurer, etc.

Classes are a "Behind The Screen" description and that is all.

Well, in my games, at least... ;)
 

For those of you against the Class term to describe a character, but in favor of some other term, like adventurer, sellsword, mercenary, Mage, magician, minstrel, etc... what's wrong with the generic D&D term that was originally picked because it seemed the best generic term for such a character? If people in a world stereotype (which, by the way, everyone does because the brain works more efficiently that way... our brains simply don;t seem to be able to handle dealing with dealing with everyone as an individual, so we stereotype based on many thing, professions being one of them. For instance, "Who's Bill?" response, "Oh, he's that Lawyer I've told you about.")

We often categorize by the vaguest of terms in professions. Lawyer instead of Board Certified Lawyer specializing in bankruptcy cases; Teacher instaed of High school French teacher teaching French 1, 2 and 3. Professor instead of Grad Student Teacher's assistant. Really, wat's so wrong with someone saying, "Oi, that guys one hell of a Fighter. Be careful when ya deal with him." Or, "He's one a them rangers." Sterotyping is a very natural and some psychologists would claim necessary way for our brain to deal with information it recieves.
 

What about class levels? Since a wizard has to prepare his spells ahead of time, he knows exactly how much he can do at any given time, and no amount of willpower or effort will allow him to do any more. And then, one day, he wakes up in the morning and says, 'Hey, I can prepare several more spells today than I could yesterday!' And when wizards sit down and take notes, it'll turn out that, in fact, all of them have experienced the same phenomenon. How can they not come to the conclusion that there is some stratified system for magic, where a person has a measurable rank?

Of course, fighter types are not terribly likely to go around, say, conducting statistical tests on how often they can hit each other, and common folk tend to have no clue what is going on. But people need a language for describing things; even Joe Sixpints at the tavern can tell (barring magical misdirections) that Timron, the King's Magician, is someone to be more afraid of than Bumplekin the apprentice, and he needs a way to express that clearly. So why not tie it to level, in an indirect way?

In my campaign, just about everyone describes other people in a numerical way... but, everyone's level is more or less a subjective thing. For a real-world analogy, consider sitting around at a bar with your friends, rating the attractiveness of other patrons. "Wow, there goes a perfect ten!" "Are you kidding? I'd say seven at best." Um. Not that I ever do that. Just looking for a common frame of reference. As for the classes themselves, people use all kinds of colloquiallisms. People who fight in melee are generally called 'blades' (or 'fists' for monks), while ranged attackers are 'slings' and 'arrows'. Rogues, depending on reputation, are either 'coins' or 'shivs', while bards are usually 'strings' or 'songs'. Casters in general are called 'scrolls'; people who know enough to know the difference between arcane and divine casting may have more specific terms for them ('books' for wizard, 'bloods' for sorceror, 'signs' for clerics). Traveling to different regions may change any or all of these terms.

As I said, all of this is based on subjective opinions. When a lush at the tavern tells you, "I wouldn't go messing with old Bodazian; he's eleven books if he's a single cantrip!", he doesn't literally mean that Bodazian is exactly an 11th-level wizard. Bodazian could be a sorceror, or even a divine caster (depending on how well-informed, and how drunk, the guy is), and he could be just about any level. It's just one man's opinion. Similarly, a 5th-level rogue could go around claiming to be 'a warrior of nine blades', and unless you want to challenge him to a trial by combat, you'll just have to believe or disbelieve him as you see fit.
 

Depends on the social climate. Most of the necromancers in Hollowfaust call themselves Journeymen/women, Masters or apprecentices. Outside of that, most define themselves by their mastery of various art things their masters taught them. For example, the High Elven Magus of Ehotivael calls himself "High Arcanist of the Waves, Master Summoner of the Watery Depth, Crystal Shaper of the Cities below the Cerulean seas." Most everyone knows what a paladin is, but they usually say something like "I'm a Madrielite Knight" or "A Justicar of Hedrad". Most Coreanic paladins of course mention their order. Brother in the Order of Silver. Sister in service of the Sword of Mithril. Etc. Rangers...most are just woodguides, but also depends on their brotherhoods.

Basically what I'm saying is class defines only so much. The rest is dependent on the place.
 

Imhc:

We use the 1st Edition class level Titles (fiddled with a bit to get rid of "SuperHero!" and Sorcerer) to distinguish both classes and "power" of said person.

We also refer to the power of spell-casters amongst each other by the level of the spell they can cast using world-specific terms. 1st level spells = "1st Circle/The Circle of the Sun" for Arcane; "Path of the 1st Miracle" for Divine (Druids have their own lingo though). 2nd level etc. have their own recognitions.

While adventurers can usually make a good guess about someone due to their actions in combat, unless they have firsthand knowledge of a person they can't accurately "know" what class/profession they are without seeing them in action.
 

Bump...

So paladins and druids remain king... I'm suprized monks aren't farther up there... they have a pretty heavey flavor burden, esp with all the "exotic" weapon proficiencies...

Kahuna Burger
 

Remove ads

Top