D&D 5E (2014) What if everyone in the setting had a [Class]?

[CreamCloud0]

I grasp well what you are describing.

I would never play a game where the classes are imbalanced.

To inflict inequity between players is unfun, and the resulting power dynamic is arguably unethical.

While I dont care about symmetric features, I do care about comparable value.


Combat is central to the D&D game, and requires balance.

In the world, not every character is the same level. Thus because of respective levels, not everyone is equal in combat.

However, a party of player characters will be the same level, in my campaigns at least. Thus they will balance with each other during combat.

okay, but you understand that there are other characters in the setting beyond just the PCs, right? that merchant doesn't need to be a 4th level rogue or artificer, the farmer doesn't need to be a 2nd level druid.

 

[TwoSix]

Some thoughts on core 5e classes.

1) [Wizard], [Druid], [Paladin], [Monk], [Artificer] are the strongest fictional identity among the core classes. No notes. They have an obvious identity and are easily recognizable as a class within pretty much all baseline D&D settings.

2) [Warlock] has a strong core identity, although its story is weakened somewhat since the patron can just as easily be an involuntary boon (or curse) as opposed to a proactive choice to seek power (the "normal" warlock story). When we're talking class as diegetic element, having multiple backstories lead to the same power progression isn't a virtue.

3) [Sorcerer] has a strong concept, but its story is all over the place; it also doesn't have a real narrative place in core D&D settings (other than "outsider not-a-wizard"). It mostly exists as a contrast to [Wizard].

4) [Bard] has a strong conceptual image, it also has a strong mechanical structure (in 5e), but the two don't actually mesh very well. The fact that different conceptions of [Bard]s can go from no-magic all the way to competitive with [Wizard]s makes inserting the [Bard] as a coherent diegetic element difficult.

5) [Cleric]s are one of my major pain points for diegetic classes. Why do people who follow gods who are completely in opposition still gain 80% of the same power set? [Cleric]s work with a setting with a strong medieval church analogue, but are really problematic to explain with a pantheon like FRs.

6) [Fighter]s and [Rogue]s are the worst. How do they stand out from the masses of "people who are kinda around", other than being, ya know, not dying quite as easily? I would take them out, or barring that, move their subclass to level 1 and attach strong narrative elements to the subclass.

 

[Yaarel]

4) [Bard] has a strong conceptual image, it also has a strong mechanical structure (in 5e), but the two don't actually mesh very well. The fact that different conceptions of [Bard]s can go from no-magic all the way to competitive with [Wizard]s makes inserting the [Bard] as a coherent diegetic element difficult.

Diegetically:

Bard = shamanic

Whether they are orating satirical poem (Celtic), playing a lute (D&D), commanding a mind-altering effect (Norse), chanting a protective effect (Norse), divinating on a family drum (Sámi), shapeshifting (various), it is all shamanic magic.

In these narratives, the Bard is always a full caster.

 

[Yaarel]

6) [Fighter]s and [Rogue]s are the worst. How do they stand out from the masses of "people who are kinda around", other than being, ya know, not dying quite as easily? I would take them out, or barring that, move their subclass to level 1 and attach strong narrative elements to the subclass.

I would reorganize Fighter and Rogue into three separate classes.

• Knight (heavy infantry, tank)
• Skirmisher (light infantry, mobility)
• Rogue (covert ops, stealth)

Really, any of the three can be "artillery" if with a ranged weapon, or "cavalry" if with a mount (or other form of mobile tank).

 

[Chaosmancer]

I grasp well what you are describing.

I would never play a game where the classes are imbalanced.

If you grasp what I am saying, why are you talking about playing a game at all?

To inflict inequity between players is unfun, and the resulting power dynamic is arguably unethical.

While I dont care about symmetric features, I do care about comparable value.

There would be zero, absolutely none, zilch inequality between players. We are not talking about players in the slightest. Players don't come into the discussion at all. We are talking about world-building. You might as well tell me that Star Trek is a bad TV show because the players aren't going to feel things are balanced.

Combat is central to the D&D game, and requires balance.

In the world, not every character is the same level. Thus because of respective levels, not everyone is equal in combat.

However, a party of player characters will be the same level, in my campaigns at least. Thus they will balance with each other during combat.

Why would either the gods or the people develop classes, which give special skills and benefits, and not develop classes for non-combat purposes? If I am capable of making it so that I can always boost my skill when I take a certain action, why would I not see if, instead of getting better at stabbing an enemy, I could get better at keeping food fresh longer?

You keep talking about how combat is central to the DnD game as though I need to build the world of Zarauk to be a world where I acknowledge that DnD is a game about combat. The setting and the world building should not be influenced by the balance of people rolling at the table.

 

[Maxperson]

Some thoughts on core 5e classes.

1) [Wizard], [Druid], [Paladin], [Monk], [Artificer] are the strongest fictional identity among the core classes. No notes. They have an obvious identity and are easily recognizable as a class within pretty much all baseline D&D settings.

2) [Warlock] has a strong core identity, although its story is weakened somewhat since the patron can just as easily be an involuntary boon (or curse) as opposed to a proactive choice to seek power (the "normal" warlock story). When we're talking class as diegetic element, having multiple backstories lead to the same power progression isn't a virtue.

3) [Sorcerer] has a strong concept, but its story is all over the place; it also doesn't have a real narrative place in core D&D settings (other than "outsider not-a-wizard"). It mostly exists as a contrast to [Wizard].

4) [Bard] has a strong conceptual image, it also has a strong mechanical structure (in 5e), but the two don't actually mesh very well. The fact that different conceptions of [Bard]s can go from no-magic all the way to competitive with [Wizard]s makes inserting the [Bard] as a coherent diegetic element difficult.

5) [Cleric]s are one of my major pain points for diegetic classes. Why do people who follow gods who are completely in opposition still gain 80% of the same power set? [Cleric]s work with a setting with a strong medieval church analogue, but are really problematic to explain with a pantheon like FRs.

6) [Fighter]s and [Rogue]s are the worst. How do they stand out from the masses of "people who are kinda around", other than being, ya know, not dying quite as easily? I would take them out, or barring that, move their subclass to level 1 and attach strong narrative elements to the subclass.

Fighters are masters of arms. Their skill with them is unparalleled. That's a clear distinction to me. The Three Musketeers facing guards. The former are clearly masters of arms and easily outdo the others in skill. Rogue is tougher.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

A bloodbath. What you propose will lead to a tyrannical bloodbath.

It's a setting where everyone knows the [capabilities of classes] and that [combat bring XP] and that [XP brings level] to everyone, not just PCs who are exceptional and totally undistinguishable from everyone else. Even if it wasn't told explicitely if people know how many XP you need, charts will be made.

I can very well see an ethically-impaired leader making gladiatorial games among his own people after making them choose wizard as a class (or die, the coming of age ceremony being highly regulated and taking place in the civic temple of the God-Leader). Then have them fight to death with each other in your arena with pointy sticks until they are level 20. Then and only then, give them reagents and spellbooks, once you have ensured their loyalty (a geas is a way, but propaganda will work, especially since being a member of the God-Leader Youth Club since age 2 will ensure you get an even pointier stick in the gladiatorial game... or maybe a plate armor if you're the son of an allied noble house) Then conquer the world with your band of unstoppable heroes and make up for the initial training cost with tributes. I am sure someone will be able to calculate the body count, errm, the initial workforce investment.

Edit: if the God-Leader is feeling especially benevolent and generous, he can train a few clerics to level 5 to cast revivify on fallen trainees once XP have been awarded for their death. So they can keep kiling themselves, of course.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is just Is It Wrong to Pick Up Girls in the Dungeon?, the RPG.

I mean... yeah? It is a LitRPG concept, whether you give everyone a class through the Gods like in "Is it Wrong..." or through a system like they do in "Clear as Glass".

 

[TwoSix]

Fighters are masters of arms. Their skill with them is unparalleled. That's a clear distinction to me. The Three Musketeers facing guards. The former are clearly masters of arms and easily outdo the others in skill. Rogue is tougher.

That can work, I'm just not a huge fan. To me, that feels like the concept of level, more so than the concept of [Fighter]. I feel like an individual [Fighter] can stand out, but it's the story of the individual and their accomplishments, not a [Fighter] story. Like the [Fighter] is just the skeleton more interesting attributes are attached to.

I mean, 0-level characters were 0-level "fighters" for a reason, right? They were always meant to be bland, the baseline. That's why fallen paladins or rangers turned into fighters in 2e. They're the default.

 

[TwoSix]

A bloodbath. What you propose will lead to a tyrannical bloodbath.

It's a setting where everyone knows the [capabilities of classes] and that [combat bring XP] and that [XP brings level] to everyone, not just PCs who are exceptional and totally undistinguishable from everyone else. Even if it wasn't told explicitely if people know how many XP you need, charts will be made.

I can very well see an ethically-impaired leader making gladiatorial games among his own people after making them choose wizard as a class (or die, the coming of age ceremony being highly regulated and taking place in the civic temple of the God-Leader). Then have them fight to death with each other in your arena with pointy sticks until they are level 20. Then and only then, give them reagents and spellbooks, once you have ensured their loyalty (a geas is a way, but propaganda will work, especially since being a member of the God-Leader Youth Club since age 2 will ensure you get an even pointier stick in the gladiatorial game... or maybe a plate armor if you're the son of an allied noble house) Then conquer the world with your band of unstoppable heroes and make up for the initial training cost with tributes. I am sure someone will be able to calculate the body count, errm, the initial workforce investment.

Edit: if the God-Leader is feeling especially benevolent and generous, he can train a few clerics to level 5 to cast revivify on fallen trainees once XP have been awarded for their death. So they can keep kiling themselves, of course.

This sounds like a great adventure hook!