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

[TwoSix]

I wouldn't use [Commoner] because... what is that? A Commoner isn't a job, it is a social status. It would be like if asking if someone would like the Class of [Middle-Class].

But, shift it to jobs.

Would people know, recognize, and even desire to be a [Seamstress] or a [Farmer] if that made them better able to support their families? Well... people have a desire or a need to have those jobs already, so why not? And there are stories that approach this with the idea of undesirable classes. The Wandering Inn for example has a woman who is a "Runner" professionally, but her initial class was Farmer because of her family. This makes her slower than other Runners (because she isn't as high level) but her Farmer class came with the ability to carry heavy loads. So she runs bags full of ore, and other things that the more high-level runners can't carry, because she is stronger than them. Does she want her Farmer Class? Nope, she's embarrassed and ashamed of it, because it is a sign of her poor family and lower-class background.

Wandering Inn was one of the major inspirations around some of my thought processes for the first post.

A lot of posters say that class being something recognizable in the setting is the way they run their games. But doing worldbuilding around that premise, like Wandering Inn does, feels like a near necessity to have a realistic world where people actually recognize clerics are clerics and know how many spells they have.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In my eyes, a "class" is combat, whether fighting with spells or weapons.

For characters that are strictly civilians without combat experience, using backgrounds and-or statblocks is the best way to go, in order to assign skills, proficiency, and expertise, as well as any special features.

Of course, players characters that have class can advance in levels without any combat − but then most of the class features are going unused.

A setting where every character has levels in a class, is a setting where everyone has combat experience.

Except, if you are building a world where everyone has a class and a status sheet... some people having classes and others having statblocks doesn't make sense. And a "class" only applying to combat doesn't make sense, in the context of a setting where everyone has classes that give them skills, because being a soldier would be a class then, but also a job, and other jobs wouldn't have classes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Wandering Inn was one of the major inspirations around some of my thought processes for the first post.

A lot of posters say that class being something recognizable in the setting is the way they run their games. But doing worldbuilding around that premise, like Wandering Inn does, feels like a near necessity to have a realistic world where people actually recognize clerics are clerics and know how many spells they have.

I tend to agree. There are a few other ways, but to make game mechanics like spell slots make sense in a world, the world has to recognize the game mechanic in some way.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I feel like it might begin to resemble the Order of the Stick, that has that kind of meta-awareness where they discuss their classes as tangible concepts.

 

[Yaarel]

Except, if you are building a world where everyone has a class and a status sheet... some people having classes and others having statblocks doesn't make sense. And a "class" only applying to combat doesn't make sense, in the context of a setting where everyone has classes that give them skills, because being a soldier would be a class then, but also a job, and other jobs wouldn't have classes.

D&D is a combat game, and D&D classes represent fighting styles.

It is what the D&D rules are.

Meanwhile, translating every nonplayer character into a class, defacto means every nonplayer character is competent in combat.

 

[Yaarel]

Alternatively, if one makes most of the nonplayer characters be "zero level", then:

Dont add class levels. Do add background (including abilities, skills, tool, languages, and feat).

 

[TwoSix]

D&D is a combat game, and D&D classes represent fighting styles.

It is what the D&D rules are.

Meanwhile, translating every nonplayer character into a class, defacto means every nonplayer character is competent in combat.

I think that’s an interesting approach.

For your own games, where do you fall on the spectrum of viewing class as a pure metagame object to viewing class as a fully realized fictional element?

 

[Yaarel]

I think that’s an interesting approach.

For your own games, where do you fall on the spectrum of viewing class as a pure metagame object to viewing class as a fully realized fictional element?

In my games, class = combat fighting style.

NPCs are mostly statblocks. Special rivals and villains might have character sheets, "DM player characters" or DM characters.

I like the 2024 background, and am already thinking about "level zero" player characters. These have a background but without a class yet. The only trick is hit points. The simplest solution is, instead of max hit dice 8 hit points (d8) at level 1, the character gets roundup average at both level 0 and at level 1: 5 (d8) + 5 (d8) = 10 hit points.

But still, if background hit points are their own thing, perhaps the species determines the hit points, such as Human 5 (d8), Elf 5 (d8), Dwarf 6 (d10), Dragonborn 6 (d10), Orc 7 (d12), Halfling 4 (d6), Pixie 3 (d4), etcetera. Maybe.

Meanwhile, since the level 1 of a class is frontloaded in design space, possibly split of aspects like proficiencies as a separate level 0 or background.


Once deciding on the best way to go about it, we will start off the next campaign with background-level characters.

At that point, I might also make nonplayer characters using the background design space, tho the result would still look more like a statblock with abilities and skills, but adding noncombat features for its profession.

 

[TwoSix]

In my games, class = combat fighting style.

NPCs are mostly statblocks. Special rivals and villains might have character sheets, "DM player characters" or DM characters.

I like the 2024 background, and am already thinking about "level zero" player characters. These have a background but without a class yet. The only trick is hit points. The simplest solution is, instead of max hit dice 8 hit points (d8) at level 1, the character gets roundup average at both level 0 and at level 1: 5 (d8) + 5 (d8) = 10 hit points.

But still, if background hit points are their own thing, perhaps the species determines the hit points, such as Human 5 (d8), Elf 5 (d8), Dwarf 6 (d10), Dragonborn 6 (d10), Orc 7 (d12), Halfling 4 (d6), Pixie 3 (d4), etcetera. Maybe.

Meanwhile, since the level 1 of a class is frontloaded in design space, possibly split of aspects like proficiencies as a separate level 0 or background.


Once deciding on the best way to go about it, we will start off the next campaign with background-level characters.

At that point, I might also make nonplayer characters using the background design space, tho the result would still look more like a statblock but adding noncombat features for professions.

So my read here would be that you view class more as a metagame construct, since you answered primarily in metagame terms, not narrative ones.

 

[Yaarel]

So my read here would be that you view class more as a metagame construct, since you answered primarily in metagame terms, not narrative ones.

Narratively, any character who has a class either has fought in war or has been training to fight in war, such as in a military academy or clan warrior militia.

Wizard schools are combat training centers, such as training Wizards in self defense or − as in the case of the High culture Elves − Wizard schools are military institutions that are part of the town militia.