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

[Maxperson]

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.

Sure. In 1e and 2e fighters were the default fighting man. Starting in 3e, however, they took off past that default fighting man position. In 3e fighters received 11 additional feats that the warrior NPC class didn't get. That's a huge difference in ability.

 

[rmcoen]

In case no one mentioned it in the previous 16 pages I didn't read, take a fun diversion and read MC Planck's "World of Prime" series of novels. https://www.goodreads.com/series/129874-world-of-prime

He posits a world where the (3e) D&D rules are how the world works. Most people are commoners, so it's not a 1-to-1 with your concept, but he explores some meta-physics for the why of "levels" and "hit points" and "XP", and the societal impacts of same. Without explaining it all, XP is a physical thing, consuming it transforms you - but like a diode, nothing happens until you consume "enough", then your body adjusts and gains new power/capability. And your power level is sense-able, and has actual Rank Names... and generally acknowledged political/social power and responsibility!

And yes, he takes into account the social and mindset impacts of people with the ability to whip up magical effects EVERY DAY.

That being said, my current campaign has the general concept that most normal people are "2nd level", maybe 3rd if skilled/experienced (meaning old!); there are elites that are 4th, and famous legends at 5th. But, like another Thread on the hot-list email this week, NPCs don't necessarily have the same "Classes" and rules as PCs. That "level 3" Thug is a "Fighter 3", but his "subclass" has Extra Attack already, only with his "chosen" weapon; he doesn't have any notable armor skills, doesn't have Action Surge, and has no Fighting Style. The town guard is a level 2 Fighter with no Fighting Style, and the soldier is also a level 2 Fighter... but has that Fighting Style from army training. The Royal Guardsmen are level 3 and level 4 "fighters", but they have Extra Attack, and two or more Feats/Fighting Styles. The Blacksmith is a TashaSidekick Expert, level 2 or 3, with high STR, and maybe a "Feat" that increases his Proficiency Bonus with Smithing. And so on.

Adventurers exist because you can spend 6 months training in the army to learn a Fighting Style, or 2 weeks adventuring (and also gain "real world experience" = HP). Buuuuut, most adventurers die, so this isn't a path normal people want to take!

 

[TwoSix]

Sure. In 1e and 2e fighters were the default fighting man. Starting in 3e, however, they took off past that default fighting man position. In 3e fighters received 11 additional feats that the warrior NPC class didn't get. That's a huge difference in ability.

Here's where I'm coming from. A difference in ability does not create a difference in identity or narrative, or at least, not one that's distinct from the overarching "leveling' narrative.

A fighter's "identity" is just "normal guy, but gets better faster". Everyone can take feats, the fighter just gets more of them. Everyone can use weapons, the fighter is just a little better at it. Everyone can attack, the fighter can just sometimes move a little faste and attack more. Everyone can make saves, the fighter just saves a little more.

It's definitely "an" identity, but it's a bit weaksauce. Like someone suggested above, I'd rather see more martial type classes that are fairly distinct rather than just use fighter as the framework for every martial concept that doesn't have magic.

 

[Yaarel]

You are too. 5e doesn't have every NPC in the game have a PC class.

The whole point of the question is to go beyond the confines of the game as we know it and imagine something different.

The thread premise is to give everything a class. One way to do that is to turn everything into a class. I'm not sure why that imagining is anymore inappropriate or useless than giving farmers a level of Paladin.

Having a setting where every character uses a character sheet and has class levels, background, etcetera, is 5e rules-as-written.

Typically settings use statblocks for NPC Humanoids, but character sheets are legal.

A setting where "everyone" has a 5e class is legal and doable − and meaningful.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Offensive.

I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm honestly confused. I've made this as clear as I possibly can, and you still don't seem to be understanding. I've even literally provided an actual story demonstrating the concept and you still aren't understanding.

Correct. The background is what the D&D 5e game looks like.

You are inventing your own game.

There is no game. The very fact you are telling me I am making a game shows that you do not understand what I am talking about.

You can add story elements to a background. A background can be highly specific, like a specific manner of criminal unique to a specific town. Whatever narrative you want. It is part of the background description. Some official backgrounds have about a paragraph describing them.

Officially, a player can create their own background with its own unique narrative.

Yes, I am aware that you can ADD story to a background. But the backgrounds don't DO anything. They can't level up, they can't grant new abilities. As a literary device they are nothing that hasn't already been in use as backstories. You can't tell new stories with that concept.

Yet you keep on making this about mechanics, by turning everything into a "class", even when it is inappropriate or useless.



So stop turning everything into class mechanics.

It is an unhelpful use of the D&D 5e design space.

I don't care about the DnD 5e design space. It can take a long jump off a short pier for all the use it has in this discussion right now. This isn't about mechanics. This is about story and world-building. And it is really insulting for you to call it "useless" or "inappropriate" when it is the basis for multiple sub-genres of fantasy with millions of readers.

So let me try this again.

The idea from the overarching LitRPG storytelling model, is to take the concept of "class" and "levels" and "experience points" and "skills" and "abilities" and make them real, tangible parts of the world. As true in the fantasy world as the 3rd Law of Motion or Electro-magnetism is in this world. People know what their class is, they can look at a character sheet that breaks their existence down into numbers and abilities. And there are a lot of very popular and successful fantasy stories that use this approach.

I am a level 14 Chicken Feathers Plucker.

I am a level 4 Chimney Sweeper.

What is the point?

The same point as "I am a Maiar" or "I am the King of Gondor". Whatever use it has to the story and the world.

You don't complain when people make up organizations like the Queensguard or the Dark Brotherhood. You don't complain when people say that all magic in the world comes from drinking the blood of a dead god, or from faerie dust. You don't complain when other fantasy concepts are used.

This is why I keep saying you don't get it. Because if you understood what I was saying, you wouldn't ask what the point of a story element is in a story.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In case no one mentioned it in the previous 16 pages I didn't read, take a fun diversion and read MC Planck's "World of Prime" series of novels. World of Prime Series by M.C. Planck

He posits a world where the (3e) D&D rules are how the world works. Most people are commoners, so it's not a 1-to-1 with your concept, but he explores some meta-physics for the why of "levels" and "hit points" and "XP", and the societal impacts of same. Without explaining it all, XP is a physical thing, consuming it transforms you - but like a diode, nothing happens until you consume "enough", then your body adjusts and gains new power/capability. And your power level is sense-able, and has actual Rank Names... and generally acknowledged political/social power and responsibility!

And yes, he takes into account the social and mindset impacts of people with the ability to whip up magical effects EVERY DAY.

I wasn't aware of this specific one, but I've been trying to talk about similar worlds.

One of the series I read years ago, cant remember the name off the top of my head, did do XP. They actually had the characters consuming the quantum reality/memories of the people they defeated. It was a dark take, and led to a lot of high level characters being a bit insane, but it also gave this dread to the hero's journey, because he could literally feel and hear the weight of what he had taken to be strong enough to stand against the tyranny he was fighting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Here's where I'm coming from. A difference in ability does not create a difference in identity or narrative, or at least, not one that's distinct from the overarching "leveling' narrative.

A fighter's "identity" is just "normal guy, but gets better faster". Everyone can take feats, the fighter just gets more of them. Everyone can use weapons, the fighter is just a little better at it. Everyone can attack, the fighter can just sometimes move a little faste and attack more. Everyone can make saves, the fighter just saves a little more.

It's definitely "an" identity, but it's a bit weaksauce. Like someone suggested above, I'd rather see more martial type classes that are fairly distinct rather than just use fighter as the framework for every martial concept that doesn't have magic.

It is a challenge, but there are also a few considerations. First, this is only really notable until level 3. And, by this same token, look at the monk. Everyone can dodge attacks, monks just do it better, everyone can punch, monks just do it better.

So, if you can stand the idea of being "normal guy" until level 3, then you can pull on the subclasses to give that flavor. And, then, you can start playing with that flavor. There is no true "why" to a Fighter's abilities. Maybe an eldritch Knight attacks three times because the third strike is the shadow of their magically enhanced sword striking their foes. Maybe a Champion uses indomitable as a rousing cry of defiance, while the Rune Knight uses it as a mystic rune they expend.

This can start happening after third level, and offers a way to circumvent the problem. Level 1 and 2 fighters are just "normal" level three they start becoming something else.

 

[Yaarel]

you still don't seem to be understanding

Please, dont confuse, "think it is an unhelpful idea", with, "dont understand the idea".

I understand well what the litRPG genre is. More on this in the next post.

I don't care about the DnD 5e design space. It can take a long jump off a short pier for all the use it has in this discussion right now. This isn't about mechanics. This is about story and world-building. And it is really insulting for you to call it "useless" or "inappropriate" when it is the basis for multiple sub-genres of fantasy with millions of readers.

That is my point. The Original Post is asking about "D&D 5e", and "what if everyone had a class". So for you to tell the D&D 5e rules to "take a long jump off a short pier", fails to answer the question of the thread, and generates answers that are unhelpful and nonrelevant to the D&D 5e game.

I understand both what you are saying, and that it fails to be D&D 5e.

Unless there is any new information about our talking past each other, I dont plan to continue this part of the conversation.

That said.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, I am aware that you can ADD story to a background. But the backgrounds don't DO anything. They can't level up, they can't grant new abilities. As a literary device they are nothing that hasn't already been in use as backstories. You can't tell new stories with that concept.

I agree there is a problem with the background, or at least there is a significant awkwardness.

Actually, a background can level up by means of gaining a higher Proficiency, such as +3 or +6. But as is, the only way to increase Proficiency is by increasing the level of the class.

One can level up by means of noncombat encounters. (In my games, noncombat encounters are worth the same as combat encounters, thus level at the same pace.) Hypothetically, a Farmer background can advance in levels by means of strictly noncombat encounters that relate to farming activities. Thus the Proficiency levels up with higher numbers, along with feats to supply Expertise, and perhaps more specialized features that relate to farming.

The problem with this use-only-the-background approach to leveling is, the lionshare of the character mechanics − the combat class − goes unused and is irrelevant.

To avoid having a huge irrelevant design space, is why it is better in 5e to use a statblock for noncombat character concepts.


Since the design space of each class level is roughly the equivalent of a feat, it is hypothetically possible to grant a feat at each character level, instead of a class level. There is still a character level, even without a class level. While advancing, the player can select noncombat feats relevant to Farmer. But this would be the same thing as creating a noncombat class, which would be unbalanced with any official 5e class in terms of combat. Thus the defacto noncombat class is nonviable for any official D&D 5e class, and for any typical D&D 5e game where the combat is central.

Nevertheless, noncombat is a technically viable way to play D&D 5e. But either most of the character sheet is the unused combat class, or the character is defacto a nonviable 5e class. Either way the approach of making a character strictly noncombat is problematic.


To avoid having a huge irrelevant design space, is why it is better in 5e to use a statblock. The statblock can list precisely what the character can do, without tripping over the gratiutous stuff that it wont or cant do. Moreover, it is hypothetically possible for a statblock to advance in levels − by means of completing noncombat encounters thus improving the Proficiency to higher numbers, and to other level appropriate statistics, plus accumulating feats for more statblock features.

There is no assumption that every statblock must be good at combat. Many statblocks are for a background-related concept, such as Farmer, Shopkeeper, and so on, who can lack combat capability. For the statblock mechanics, it is fine to lack combat. They dont need to balance, unlike 5e classes. The statblock and the character sheet are separate design spaces.

So let me try this again.

The idea from the overarching LitRPG storytelling model, is to take the concept of "class" and "levels" and "experience points" and "skills" and "abilities" and make them real, tangible parts of the world. As true in the fantasy world as the 3rd Law of Motion or Electro-magnetism is in this world. People know what their class is, they can look at a character sheet that breaks their existence down into numbers and abilities. And there are a lot of very popular and successful fantasy stories that use this approach.

For the litRPG genre, the story setting presents reality itself as some kind of roleplaying game, with game rules that the heroes of the story must master in order to succeed.

If you are familiar with it, the current anime tv series, Solo Leveling, is an example of the litRPG genre. Everyone in this world is a level zero character with negligible combat capacity. However, portals are opening up sporadically and fleetingly from an other world of monsters. These portals are imbuing the home world with magic that transforms a small percentage of the population, granting class levels. These are D&D-style combat classes, martial, arcane, etcetera. However, whether high tier or low tier, these people with a class level cant change their level because they are NPCs. The hero of the story is the only "player", the only one in the world who can advance in levels. He has gone from level zero to currently a high tier. (He estimates tier B, which seems about level 12 in D&D terms).

Especially for the litRPG genre, where reality itself is a game, there needs to be a clear and playable game. If the game is stupid or doesnt make sense, or doesnt have clear goals, then the game premise becomes a glaring distraction that detracts from any interesting narrative within the setting.

In other words, to suggest that a litRPG story doesnt need purposeful mechanics would be false. For the sake of the story, the actual game mechanics become more important than ever. In an actual D&D game, one can downplay, obfuscate, and reflavor mechanics. But in a litRPG story, the mechanics are front and center and cannot be fudged.

The same point as "I am a Maiar" or "I am the King of Gondor". Whatever use it has to the story and the world.

In a litRPG story, these identities like Maiar and King of Gondor EQUAL specific game mechanics. These rules must be coherent and part of a viable game that can actually be played. Typically, D&D 5e uses statblocks to describe these identities. At the same time, it is possible to write them up as a character sheet. For example, Gandolf approximates something like an Awsimar species and high tier Devotion Paladin, at least able to cast Flamestrike, plus possibly a Folk Hero background. A litRPG story can explicitly refer to the Proficiency of a statblock (which corresponds to the tier), or to the actual mechanics of the Paladin class.

Sometimes, the litRPG story leaves the stats unspecified. For example, in Solo Leveling, there was an earlier encountered Japanese-style "goddess" (kami), who is clearly powerful but whose tier hasnt been revealed in the story yet. But certainly, this creature has levels and rules that the premise of the story revolves around, and that the viewer can speculate about.

You don't complain when people make up organizations like the Queensguard or the Dark Brotherhood. You don't complain when people say that all magic in the world comes from drinking the blood of a dead god, or from faerie dust. You don't complain when other fantasy concepts are used.

If Game of Thrones were a litRPG, one would be able to complain if their behavior contradicts the game rules of that are the premise of the story.

Moreover, one can easily translate the Game of Thrones characters into D&D 5e stats. I estimate most people in the story are level zero with a background only and without a level in a class. Many of the main characters seem the lowest tier, levels 1 thru 4. A few highest level characters seem more like the professional tier, levels 5 thru 8. Probably the Dragons themselves and the Night King are a higher tier.

I would use statblocks to represent most of these Game of Thrones characters, while assigning a Proficiency that is appropriate to their apparent tier.

Keep in mind, even the Dungeons & Dragons movie, Honor among Thieves, has official statblocks to represent the heroes of the story. Despite the setting itself referring to character classes, like Druid, Bard, and Paladin, these characters use the statblock mechanics instead of class levels.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Please, dont confuse, "think it is an unhelpful idea", with, "dont understand the idea".

I understand well what the litRPG genre is. More on this in the next post.


That is my point. The Original Post is asking about "D&D 5e", and "what if everyone had a class". So for you to tell the D&D 5e rules to "take a long jump off a short pier", fails to answer the question of the thread, and generates answers that are unhelpful and nonrelevant to the D&D 5e game.

I understand both what you are saying, and that it fails to be D&D 5e.

Unless there is any new information about our talking past each other, I dont plan to continue this part of the conversation.

That said.

The OP did not ask about DnD 5e. The closest they got to that is in point #2 where they said everyone should have a recognizable player-facing class, a point they broke as soon as they got to point #9 and talked about transforming a class into a [cultist] or [Chosen Prophet] which are not something I recognize from the PHB. And if you want to claim my suggestions fail the OP on this point, then yours do the exact same by insisting on backgrounds and statblocks instead of classes.

This isn't about being DnD 5e. This is about building a setting. Settings are not built to be edition specific.

I agree there is a problem with the background, or at least there is a significant awkwardness.

Actually, a background can level up by means of gaining a higher Proficiency, such as +3 or +6. But as is, the only way to increase Proficiency is by increasing the level of the class.

Right, and having a background level and give nothing but proficiency bonus increases disregards what the concept of a level up MEANS for most people. And if you start giving new abilities on top of the proficiency, then your background is functioning as though it were a class.

One can level up by means of noncombat encounters. (In my games, noncombat encounters are worth the same as combat encounters, thus level at the same pace.) Hypothetically, a Farmer background can advance in levels by means of strictly noncombat encounters that relate to farming activities. Thus the Proficiency levels up with higher numbers, along with feats to supply Expertise, and perhaps more specialized features that relate to farming.

The problem with this use-only-the-background approach to leveling is, the lionshare of the character mechanics − the combat class − goes unused and is irrelevant.

To avoid having a huge irrelevant design space, is why it is better in 5e to use a statblock for noncombat character concepts.

Right, level up through non-combat encounters, gain non-combat abilities. But then why insist on this idea of a combat class and that it is the lionshare of what is going on? If you are leveling, and gaining abilities, then you have a class. That it is a non-combat class is irrelevant, and in fact likely a good thing. If everyone was capable of fighting at a high level, then what use would their be for soldiers, guards and adventurers?

And no, a statblock is not a better use for the story element. You can't have two people sitting at a bar, and one of them says "I am a level five warrior, guarding that caravan heading out east." and the other guy says "My statblock says I am Carl the Farmer" this conversation immediately becomes warped, because they can't compare to each other, they aren't having the same conversation. And before you say, "No one would want to play-" stop. Both of these people are NPCs, characters in the setting and the story, not controlled by any player at any theoretical table.

Since the design space of each class level is roughly the equivalent of a feat, it is hypothetically possible to grant a feat at each character level, instead of a class level. There is still a character level, even without a class level. While advancing, the player can select noncombat feats relevant to Farmer. But this would be the same thing as creating a noncombat class, which would be unbalanced with any official 5e class in terms of combat. Thus the defacto noncombat class is nonviable for any official D&D 5e class, and for any typical D&D 5e game where the combat is central.

Nevertheless, noncombat is a technically viable way to play D&D 5e. But either most of the character sheet is the unused combat class, or the character is defacto a nonviable 5e class. Either way the approach of making a character strictly noncombat is problematic.

Who cares what is viable for playing DnD 5e? Are you referring to character in terms of player character, or in terms of a story element? Because I'll go ahead and let you know, having a Ancient Dragon who is also an Archmage and in charge of an entire guild of artificers and weapon smiths is "unbalanced" in terms of player characters, and I'd never let someone play that in a game... but it is perfectly fine in Ravnica for that character to exist as part of the setting.

And this is why I keep saying what you are saying makes no sense. Whether or not a farmer is unbalanced in combat versus an elite soldier is not a concern when determining whether or not a farmer or an elite soldier EXIST WITHIN THE SETTING

To avoid having a huge irrelevant design space, is why it is better in 5e to use a statblock. The statblock can list precisely what the character can do, without tripping over the gratiutous stuff that it wont or cant do. Moreover, it is hypothetically possible for a statblock to advance in levels − by means of completing noncombat encounters thus improving the Proficiency to higher numbers, and to other level appropriate statistics, plus accumulating feats for more statblock features.

There is no assumption that every statblock must be good at combat. Many statblocks are for a background-related concept, such as Farmer, Shopkeeper, and so on, who can lack combat capability. For the statblock mechanics, it is fine to lack combat. They dont need to balance, unlike 5e classes. The statblock and the character sheet are separate design spaces.

And we don't care about mechanics. We are talking story elements. You are making a problem that does not exist. NPCs and their place in the story does not need to balance against players that may or may not even exist. Settings can be used for more than a game of DnD, so when you are building a setting, you cannot, should not, and have absolutely no reason to consider whether or not every single possible character in that setting is balanced in combat against a theoretical Player Character.

For the litRPG genre, the story setting presents reality itself as some kind of roleplaying game, with game rules that the heroes of the story must master in order to succeed.

If you are familiar with it, the current anime tv series, Solo Leveling, is an example of the litRPG genre. Everyone in this world is a level zero character with negligible combat capacity. However, portals are opening up sporadically and fleetingly from an other world of monsters. These portals are imbuing the home world with magic that transforms a small percentage of the population, granting class levels. These are D&D-style combat classes, martial, arcane, etcetera. However, whether high tier or low tier, these people with a class level cant change their level because they are NPCs. The hero of the story is the only "player", the only one in the world who can advance in levels. He has gone from level zero to currently a high tier. (He estimates tier B, which seems about level 12 in D&D terms).

Especially for the litRPG genre, where reality itself is a game, there needs to be a clear and playable game. If the game is stupid or doesnt make sense, or doesnt have clear goals, then the game premise becomes a glaring distraction that detracts from any interesting narrative within the setting.

In other words, to suggest that a litRPG story doesnt need purposeful mechanics would be false. For the sake of the story, the actual game mechanics become more important than ever. In an actual D&D game, one can downplay, obfuscate, and reflavor mechanics. But in a litRPG story, the mechanics are front and center and cannot be fudged.

You are only partially correct. Stories like the Wandering Inn, Primal Hunter, and Azarinth Healer would actually not make for good games, yet they are pretty good examples of the LitRPG concepts. The point isn't to make a playable game, but to use the language and aesthetic of game mechanics to tell the story.

As an example, in the story "The Weight of it All" a high level King uses his powerful 5th level ability to make a decree, and this decree acts like a curse. Anyone who defies the decree slowly wastes away, their health and energy draining until they obey the King's orders. This would be a horrific game design element. It would make for a naughty word game, if the players could just, with no warning, have their abilities locked and their health drained because some King made a royal decree that they were required to follow. But as a story element? It works. It created an interesting story, with interesting stakes and solutions.

If you truly need to think about it as a game, think of it as an MMORPG that has combat, crafting, political, entertainment, ect ect gameplay goals. Someone can play and have fun as a merchant, while someone else can play the monster-slaying part. The point is that the tools each person has, fits what they are.

In a litRPG story, these identities like Maiar and King of Gondor EQUAL specific game mechanics. These rules must be coherent and part of a viable game that can actually be played. Typically, D&D 5e uses statblocks to describe these identities. At the same time, it is possible to write them up as a character sheet. For example, Gandolf approximates something like an Awsimar species and high tier Devotion Paladin, at least able to cast Flamestrike, plus possibly a Folk Hero background. A litRPG story can explicitly refer to the Proficiency of a statblock (which corresponds to the tier), or to the actual mechanics of the Paladin class.

Sometimes, the litRPG story leaves the stats unspecified. For example, in Solo Leveling, there was an earlier encountered Japanese-style "goddess" (kami), who is clearly powerful but whose tier hasnt been revealed in the story yet. But certainly, this creature has levels and rules that the premise of the story revolves around, and that the viewer can speculate about.

Again, not really. Sure, they should be coherent, but there does not need to be a viable game that can be played. Take Azarinth Healer. You could, in theory, make a game that could handle the main character being able to manipulate ash, fight barehanded, fly, heal themselves or others, cause damage with magic, teleport, and regenerate from having their head cut off, but it would be a very difficult game to make. And something like capturing how her skills allow her to instinctively react to blows and counter-attack might be modelable, but would have a very different feel in a game than they do in the story.

If Game of Thrones were a litRPG, one would be able to complain if their behavior contradicts the game rules of that are the premise of the story.

If Game of Thrones was a LitRPG, then their behavior is part of the story. If you wrote a story where the behavior of the characters contradicts the rules you established for the story, you wrote a bad story.

Moreover, one can easily translate the Game of Thrones characters into D&D 5e stats. I estimate most people in the story are level zero with a background only and without a level in a class. Many of the main characters seem the lowest tier, levels 1 thru 4. A few highest level characters seem more like the professional tier, levels 5 thru 8. Probably the Dragons themselves and the Night King are a higher tier.

I would use statblocks to represent most of these Game of Thrones characters, while assigning a Proficiency that is appropriate to their apparent tier.

Keep in mind, even the Dungeons & Dragons movie, Honor among Thieves, has official statblocks to represent the heroes of the story. Despite the setting itself referring to character classes, like Druid, Bard, and Paladin, these characters use the statblock mechanics instead of class levels.

And keep in mind, in the setting of the Dungeons and Dragons movie, Honor Among Thieves, none of them referred to those statblocks. So saying that is what you should use to represent the classes within the setting is ludicrous. Sure, they made statblocks for the game mechanics to use them in the game, but they didn't use statblocks within the setting to represent the story. You are presenting this like it is a counter-point to what I am proposing, but in doing so you reveal the same misconception I keep harping on. Simon isn't a statblock within the setting of Faerun in the movie. He is a sorcerer. The statblock is only used at the table, by a DM, who is attempting to run Simon in combat. That isn't the setting. You don't build a setting with the tools you expect DMs to use at the table.