What do the D&D classes mean to you?

[wedgeski]

Amongst all the discussions about roles, power sources, classes, etc., several contradictory versions of the different D&D classes often emerge. For example, all of the following have been said on this board over the years:

"I want a non-healing cleric"
"I want a Paladin without a deity"
"I want a cleric that doesn't have to hit anything to heal"
"I want a Fighter that uses longbows exclusively but I don't want to play a Ranger"
"I want a lightly-armoured skirmisher that uses only daggers but I don't want to play a Rogue"

It won't be news to Mearls et al. that everyone's notion of a "class", what it means to them, and how much it defines their character's mechanics and personality changes radically from person-to-person.

So my question is, what do the well-known classes (Fighter, Cleric, Thief/Rogue, Paladin, Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Druid) mean to you? Do they represent a theme, a "feel", a lifestyle, a personality, a set of mechanics, a combat role, a non-combat role, or some mixture? If a mixture, which should be prioritised?

 

[Yora]

Basically, a class is a set of abilities based on a basic character theme. Since these themes are quite well set in our minds, this makes character creation and advancement a lot simpler than purely classless systems.

 

[Li Shenron]

For me they are mostly a mix of theme, playstyle and non-combat role.

By the latter I mean overall role i.e. not restricted to out-of-combat only but also including whether they are key players or merely supporters during combat, although I don't see classes instead to imply at all too specific combat tactics.

I also add that it's nice to see different mechanics across classes, while it is not strictly needed that every class has a different mechanic. The difference between attacking and casting a spell is already for example a mechanical difference that yields different experiences when playing different classes.

 

[Minigiant]

A class is a collection of abilities that make up an adventurer archetype.

A fighter is a trained warrior of many fighting styles from any culture. Fighters train with and can use all common miltiary grade weapons and armors. This allows fighters to pursue many styles of combat and many roles in a fight. They have join a martial subculture or society and exemplify the aspects of militaristic values of toughness and strength of body and mind.

A rogue is a sneaky scoundrel who uses wits and finesse to get what he want rather than formal training. They have less of a problem using dirty or tricky tactics and honing unappreciated skills like lockpicking and trap engineering. This can be said to make of for other proficiencies but it is due to the additional time to take up other pursuits. Because of this rogues tend to have various skills of offer an adventuring group.

A wizard is a trained spellcaster of the arcane arts. They value knowledge and study and are unlikely to pursue athletic and social endeavors.

A ranger is a warrior who lives and survives in the wilderness. They learn skills that aid them in their secluded lifestyle like healing, animal handing, and stealth as they are often alone. Their combat styles are one that work best when dealing with the harshness of nature.

A warlock is a nontraditional magic user who bargained with a more powerful being for power. The nature of their method of power typically shows their studious nature to find their patron and their persuasive nature to convince the patron to make the pact. The extra time given by not having to spend years in training in magic allows them to divine into a bit of combat and noncombat skill. The pact they make allows for more numerous and destructivd uses of magic. This also forces them to be creative due to the lower default utility of their powers.

 

[trancejeremy]

I would say it's their job.

A paladin is a perfect knight, not questing for honor or fame or fortune, but simply to help people.

A ranger is someone who patrols the wilderness around towns and borderlands, keeping people safe from danger from beyond.

A fighter fights, a thief steals, a mage casts spells, a cleric prays and advances the cause of his deity (where by having a church or questing), an assassin murders for hire using guile and stealth, etc.

Some perhaps cross into theme and personality, like how I envision a Paladin (like the real Paladins, where the name came from, the peers of Charlemagne)

 

[steeldragons]

A character Class in the Dungeons & Dragons Role-playing Game is:

1) A defined and generally accepted archetype of a fantasy world hero (or villain)...this may or may not impact the personality of the character, depending on the archetype.
2) For the sheer necessity of playing the game, the Class requires a set of skills/abilities/talents/etc... that are categorized in a group of "mechanics" that allow and facilitate that archetype's interaction, of all kinds, in the game world.

In short, the Class is the (at least "starting") Fluff and the (pre-set) Crunch.

--SD

 

[FireLance]

Basically, a class is a set of abilities based on a basic character theme.

Pretty much says it all. "Character Theme" does not have to be grounded in an existing archetype, although classic archetypes have an advantage in that they would already have the traction that new ones will have to gain.

 

[Ahnehnois]

A class is a way of organizing our thoughts. It packages mechanics together so we don't have to learn every rule in order to make a character. I also think there's a distinctive "feel" at the table when you're playing a particular class. I think if I summarized the events of a session without class names, a D&D player would be able to call which character was which class pretty accurately.

That said, I don't think it forces you into a particular combat or noncombat role or makes any choices about your background or personality. Each class can have an enormous variety of goals, backgrounds, and ways of achieving them.

For example, a fighter is often the primary damage dealer in the party, especially at low levels and tends to absorb a lot of punishment. However, some focus more on defense and did not deal damage competitive with other characters, and some eschew defense for TWF or other highly aggressive techniques. However, a polearm-based fighter or other trip/disarm/etc. character is great at controlling the battlefield and influencing opponents' actions. A highly charismatic fighter can lead the party (and at one point, fighters got strongholds through the rules). Thus, a fighter can fill, at a minimum, all of the 4e combat roles, but is bound to none of them. The same is true of any of the other core classes, and there are plenty of other roles. Similarly, almost any archetypical roleplaying theme (peasant turned king, vengeance driven orphan, etc.) works for any class.

 

[Sound of Azure]

When I first started playing in 2e, classes were great shorthand for my character's basic personality and theme. Then my friend bought the player's option books, and the customisation bug hit me hard.

Since then, through 3e and 4e, I've placed theme (flavour) first, then set about using the mechanics of what ever class/s I've chosen to achieve my conception of the character (usually coupled with backgrounds, kits, themes, feats, what ever).

It's one of the reasons I've rarely played a thief/rogue who was actually some kind of sneakthief or rapscallion. The class to me has always been the unseen internals of my character. It affects the combat role they play (how they go about what they do), as well as the out of combat role (skills, access to feats or abilities), but always subservient to the character concept.

The tinkerer in me has ever been fascinated with discovering the best way to represent the character in my head with the classes at hand, no matter the basic flavour in the PHB.

 

[billd91]

Classes, to me, encompass the vocational training, development, and, to an extent, lifestyles of the characters.