what are classes to you?

[big teej]

do you treat them as sets of abilities with little to effect on the fluffyness?

or

do you treat them as in-game constructs?

or

do you do something else?



why?

NOTE this is not a "what's better" thread, this is a "what do you do and why?" thread


to start us off.
our group treats classes as in-game constructs. mostly because we like it that way, and it gives a starting point to roleplay.

[Tvtyrant]

Generally as a career, which is how all the groups I have played with do it. A Ranger is a forester type, a Barbarian is tribal, a Fighter is a mercenary, a Paladin has an order, etc. There is always a special snowflake effect (Paladin who has renounced order but is still more faithful then them, etc) but as PCs that is expected.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Classes are a set of mechanics to me, they don't have much to do with fluff. Think warblade, if that were an actual in-game name for something, it would be for some sort of weapon. Barbarian does not have to be a howling savage, he could instead be trained to use anger to his advantage. In my opinion, the samurai class might as well not exist, as a warblade can easily be a samurai with good mechanics.

[Psyren]

It depends on the class. Some are purely metagame constructs and make very little sense in-universe - I can think of few rogues who would go around calling themselves "rogues" as that would just invite suspicion and draw attention to their shadier activities. And few barbarians see themselves as "barbarians" - to them, civilization is the aberrant structure and their way is right and sensible.

Others definitely exist in-universe. "Cleric" is a profession, both in the game and in the society within the game. "Binder" is definitely what I would expect those individuals to go around calling each other. "Monk" is similarly form-fitting.

So to answer your question - it depends on how the members of the class see themselves in general.

[erikun]

In pretty much every system I've played except 3.x, they are jobs or, more generally, combat styles. I suppose some classes in 3.5e are similar, although a number of the classes end up simply bad as what they are supposed to do.

[Starbuck_II]

do you treat them as sets of abilities with little to effect on the fluffyness?

to start us off.
our group treats classes as in-game constructs. mostly because we like it that way, and it gives a starting point to roleplay.

Very much as set of abilities. I can make my own roleplay.


why?

Because Monks don't make sense regarding their fluff (why are monasteries make orphans killers?). Bards, Paladins, and Druid are only ones that sort of stuck in fluff, but even then can be changed some.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

It depends on the class. Some are purely metagame constructs and make very little sense in-universe - I can think of few rogues who would go around calling themselves "rogues" as that would just invite suspicion and draw attention to their shadier activities. And few barbarians see themselves as "barbarians" - to them, civilization is the aberrant structure and their way is right and sensible.

Others definitely exist in-universe. "Cleric" is a profession, both in the game and in the society within the game. "Binder" is definitely what I would expect those individuals to go around calling each other. "Monk" is similarly form-fitting.

So to answer your question - it depends on how the members of the class see themselves in general.

Basically this. There is no reason why barbarians are any less adept at conjuring magic, being devote, breathing fire, or even book learning than any other PC.

I lean heavily on the "metagame construct" side of things, even for prestige classes. Certain prestige class talk about some obscure order of mage knights? Okay, I can use that in world building as a DM or ask my DM about anything similar to such in game, going so far as to actually deal with the plot ramifications of the heavier stuff like Spellguard of Silverymoon's obligation token and other things. Just because the class says Bingbangbongos doesn't mean my bard's music is comes from some stupid bongos: the music is either in his very being... or an ocarina, I'm okay with that instrument.:smalltongue:

EDIT: As to "why?" Fluff is mutable. As fluid in form as any given changeling from game to game.

[Gensh]

So to answer your question - it depends on how the members of the class see themselves in general.

This is essentially what I do and what the only DM I've played under did as well. My rogue obviously didn't go around handing out business cards saying "Otis Bleu, Rogue;" it was "Otis Bleu, Bleu Insurance Agent." :smallwink: Things are more or less ambiguous depending on the class. The last campaign I ran had the Order of Paladins, each of whom had at least one level of paladin, but on the other hand, the "world's greatest necromancer" was a psion. If everyone wants to just do whatever, I'll break out Mutants & Masterminds instead.

[Amphetryon]

Classes are a metagame collection of abilities, the sum total of which describe the individual I'm playing when coupled with skills, feats, and personality peccadilloes.

[BIGMamaSloth]

I have always thought of base classes as nothing to do with role play but prestige classes as an impact on fluff.

[Psyren]

I have always thought of base classes as nothing to do with role play but prestige classes as an impact on fluff.

That again depends on the class. Take Green Star Adept, Alienist or Mage of the Arcane Order - they have heavy fluff, even to the point that it bleeds into their mechanics. But others like Loremaster or Archmage are barely professions at all, instead of just collections of abilities that could naturally flow out of their base class.

[Godskook]

I treat classes as an 'accurate representation' of someone's journey thus far, along with how they've improved from that journey. A thief is very likely statted as a rogue, but that doesn't mean that a rogue is a thief, nor that all thieves have rogue levels. Hell, even a good thief might actually be a marshal, if the situation suited. Some of the more pigeonholed ones are harder to work with like this(Paladin I'm looking at you!).

[Bovine Colonel]

It depends on the class.
Some classes, like fighters, barbarians, and rogues, can be applied to massive populations. A fighter can be a mercenary, a knight, a hunter, even an experienced bar brawler. Some other classes, not so much. A paladin is a paladin is a paladin.

[Rei_Jin]

To me, MOST classes are collections of abilities that you can colour how you like. There are some though, that are bound up in their own RP, like the Knight and the Paladin.

Note that that's classes, not Prestige Classes. To me, a Prestige Class is a character concept that is very specific. If I have levels in Rogue and Cleric, and then go into Black Flame Zealot, I'm a Black Flame Zealot. I trained in the abilities I needed to become what I was aiming for, and now I've reached my goal I'll be damned if I'll be known by anything else.

I'm an odd one though, as whilst I don't mind dipping in base classes, I prefer to focus on a Prestige Class rather than dipping in multiple. An Order of the Bow Initiate is more than just an archer, an Eldritch Disciple is more than an Arcanist, etc.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Class should not have to be a lifestyle. As a million people have stated in the past, fluff is mutable. Just for fun though, let's do a breakdown on how I view the core classes.

Fighter:

The title is, I think, the most ambiguous part. After all, all one need do to accurately describe themselves as a fighter is take part in well, fights, which virtually every adventure does at various points. All that aside, I generally view a fighter as one who has, somehow or other, managed to gain finer degree of control of a weapon than most people, and there are a multitude of ways one could fluff that.

Bard:

I honestly don't see why some people find this one to be stuck on the fluff. A bard should have a compelling personality for his abilities to make sense, but beyond that, it's one of the fluffiest classes around.

Barbarian:

The name is the unfortunate part here, as it conjures up images of Conan wannabes in hide loincloths spewing Hulk-speak while they stab things with sharp rocks. Personally, "Berserker" would have been better, but even then, a barbarian's power need not come from anger. Their "rage" could be refluffed into just about anything: it could be supernatural in origin or it could draw on some other emotion, such as determination, hatred (the cold, brutal kind, rather than the hot, loud kind) or even love. These are just examples; this blank could be filled many different ways.

Cleric:

Another one limited by its name, which makes it sound as though the character must be religiously devoted. Independent clerics, however, exist in many settings (except Faerun, but Faerun, well, kinda sucks in general). All a cleric needs, in my opinion is a strong will and an ideal of some sort that they are fiercely devoted to. It could be a god, or it could be a bacon and black olive pizza, just as long as they believe in it strongly enough.

Druid:

This is a tough one, mostly because of the annoying restrictions built into the crunch. They have to revere nature or they lose their powers. I'll be honest, I don't have an answer for this one apart from houseruling the restrictions away and requiring players to come up with some other plausible reason why they're a bear that has a bear and can also shoot bears.

Monk:

The default fluff doesn't seem like it fits in most settings, but that gets us into the whole moronic "wuxia" debate, so that's as far as I'll take that one. That said, I think a monk should have some reason why they're good at punching things. Yes, I'm aware they're not actually good at that (or anything besides providing this site with traffic on Monkday), but for the purposes of this exercise, let's assume monks work, m'kay? Beyond that, it's just a matter of explaining the immunities and whatnot, which shouldn't be too hard.

Paladin:

Not as tough to refluff as many make it out to be, I believe. All you really need to be is someone with a strong sense of justice and enough conviction to back up the fact that you are so righteous that evil things get hurt worse when you poke them with a sharp stick than when your buddy the fighter pokes them with a sharp stick, and there's all kinds of angles that could take: a paladin could be a knight that spends a fortune on armor wax, or he could be a regular dude who lives in a regular town who just happens to be a really good guy who has a nasty temper when he sees something truly evil happening.

Ranger:

Is this one hard, really? He's likes hiding in the woods and his dog bites people and gets away with it. By that metric, my next-door neighbor is a gorram ranger. But seriously, the foresty stuff can go (a lot of ACFs for rangers are built around that very concept), and that takes a lot of the refluffing burden away. The rest is gravy, and shouldn't be hard to explain.

Rogue:

Sneakiness knows no bounds (or alignment really, lots of sneaky elected officials, yet most would classify them as lawful), but a rogue doesn't even have to be sneaky. They should have a touch of combat pragmatist about them, otherwise Sneak Attack would be hard to justify, but beyond them anyone with the physical capability could be a rogue.

Sorcerer:

If you go with the bloodline business, I guess they're kind of pigeonholed, but that power could come from anywhere you choose, really. It could even be refluffed to where it's not inborn (at least not for you) but rather something that you acquired in the course of living your life. If you can justify flying around and shooting lightning from your shins, you're pretty much good here.

Wizard:

Same as sorcerer, basically, but with a bit more of a bookish flavor. Again, just justify preparing spells beforehand and you're good.

[Lyndworm]

I prefer to keep fluff and crunch separate. The crunch is what allows the character as a whole to interact with the world, and nothing more. The fluff is what the world sees, hears, smells, tastes... the crunch is what the world feels.

[kardar233]

Classes are a purely out-of-game phenomenon. I nearly always write my fluff or at least get a character concept first and then apply classes that fit with the character's capabilities.

Case in point: I wrote a character recently for a play-by-post here. He was an incredibly driven and pragmatic character who nevertheless stuck by his personal rules. He used a two-handed sword, applied force and guile in equal measure, was the designated hatchet man and terror weapon and looked divine while acting infernally. Think Jaime Lannister crossed with a Druchii. He ended up being an Aasimar Rogue//Paladin of Tyranny/Ghost-Faced Killer. The mechanics of these classes and races worked together to construct the effect I was looking for. It could be more powerful; I could have gone Cleric->Prestige Paladin, or taken something else instead of Rogue, but this fit well and I'm sticking with it.

[Fax Celestis]

IOthers definitely exist in-universe. "Cleric" is a profession, both in the game and in the society within the game.

You can be a cleric without being a Cleric, though. You can call yourself a cleric, but have levels of Paladin, Crusader, Binder, Favored Soul, Archivist, Druid... Just because a class has a job title for a name doesn't mean everyone of that job has that class. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

There is little to no connection between the mechanical construct of a class and the fluff of a character who uses that class. Certainly, you can't take only rogue levels and call yourself a "wizard", but you could take nothing but warlock levels and call yourself a "wizard".

Classes are a mechanical basis to demonstrate your character, and they are given starter fluff for those who are less inventive. I sincerely wish they hadn't provided that fluff in the majority of cases, since most players, in my experience, use it as a crutch. Hang up the crutch and learn to walk on your own.

[Coidzor]

Building blocks to be used to represent a character, because that's what they are, tools to realize a concept.

Certain classes are particularly tied to in game constructions, though, to throw an example out there, not all religious leaders are going to be divine casters.


You can be a cleric without being a Cleric, though. You can call yourself a cleric, but have levels of Paladin, Crusader, Binder, Favored Soul, Archivist, Druid... Just because a class has a job title for a name doesn't mean everyone of that job has that class. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

Experts would even make good clerics. As would human paragons, come to think of it.

[big teej]

I must say I'm surprised that I'm the only one that views them as in-game constructs.


or at least, the only one that's posted here so far.


I think this would lead to an interesting tie-in to my other thread "a hypothetical discussion"

[wayfare]

I think of classes as the medium through which a PC can adventure. I tend to use profession rules (as in you choose a profession that grants you skills, and a class that grants you some more), so the PCs can Play a Blacksmith who is a Cleric or a Juggler who is a Spellthief or any combination you can imagine.

The profession provides you with an idea of what your character Does -- your class is an expression of how your character puts that to use. So if you are a Scribe who is a Paladin, you might end up fluffing yourself as the Warrior/Diplomat who brings forth the kings writ. Similarly, if you were a Scribe/Rogue, you could be a forger or even a person who uses his skills to detect forgery.

The class is like a set of tools that allow you to adventure through the world. The Warrior/Scribe above brings the kings message and smites those who disobey. The rogue/scibe might use his skills to steal gold back from forgers.

[Psyren]

You can be a cleric without being a Cleric, though. You can call yourself a cleric, but have levels of Paladin, Crusader, Binder, Favored Soul, Archivist, Druid... Just because a class has a job title for a name doesn't mean everyone of that job has that class. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

That was never my argument. Rather, I was saying that if you found yourself in a D&D world, walked up to a random citizen and said "hey, can you take me to a cleric?" that person would know what you were talking about. Now, even if they took you to a Binder/Druid/Archivist/X, or even if they took you to an Adept - the fact is that they would still recognize the name and associate it with a concept (servant of the gods, uses divine magic.)

In other words, the concept of "Cleric" exists within the universe of most settings. The definition varies from setting to setting - in FR, clerics are a dime a dozen; in Dragonlance, they're all but myths - but people still know what they are.

But if you walked up to a random person and said "take me to a rogue" they'd likely look at you like you were daft. "Rogue" is as broad a term in-universe as "scoundrel" - ask two different individuals that same question and you can end up taken to two completely different people, who may not have anything to do with each other profession-wise and may not even have the same class.

tl;dr - I was never saying "with a combination of classes W/X/Y, there is no possible way I cannot approximate the abilities of class Z well enough to pass mechanical muster." What I was saying was simply "Is class Z a word that people living in a D&D world would both recognize, and associate with the typical activities the default fluff is known for?"

[Techsmart]

Personally, I see classes as a set of rules given to the fluff. I think that the class and fluff should match, but don't need to perfectly. Actually (easilly) my favorite thing in pathfinder is the way they set up the classes. Instead of having three different classes for rogues, just use the alternate classes for it. (Yes, I know 3.5 had ACF, but this feels like it was done a bit better). That way, you can make fluff and class fit that much better.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm in between. For fighters and barbarians, I would not necessarily have my PC talk about them any differently until it was time to decide who got the heavy plate. Things like druids, paladins and clerics are obviously divine, but these also depend heavily on campaign setting rules. My PC might not make a huge distinction between a druid or a cleric of the same religion, nor make a huge distinction between a paladin and a cleric of similar faiths. I often have my PCs simply refer to all arcane casters or similar classes (like warlock) as mages.

I dislike it when people do things like make a druid and then don't worship nature or a nature deity (unless the campaign world supports it), but I also dislike it when all NPCs and people can be divided up into certain classes and given the same names. I doubt people in a fantasy setting have decided upon the same name for people, even when these people cross into other disciplines. Why do these people call their locksmiths, scouts, spies, assassins, city watch members and trap squad members all by the same name?

[Greenish]

TAn Order of the Bow Initiate is more than just an archerOr less, as the case may be.


Certainly, you can't take only rogue levels and call yourself a "wizard"Bluff, sleight of hand, UMD and alchemical items? Your character would be aware he can do no real magic himself, but could still call himself a wizard. :smalltongue:

[LordBlades]

I regard classes for the most part as simple metagame constructs, a set of abilities that helps me further my character concept.

I differentiate between what a 'fighter' or a 'druid' means in the game world(the 'profession' if you like) and what a 'Fighter' or 'Druid' means in terms of mechanics.

You can very well have levels in fighter and call yourself a 'samurai', 'knight', 'warrior' or whatever, and you can call yourself a 'fighter' without any levels in the actual class.

[supermonkeyjoe]

For me Class names come up in-game about as much as ability scores do, you might not know the exact score or the exact class but if you knew someone you could get a pretty good idea of what they are capable of.

Likewise if someone wants to go around claiming they are a wizard even when they're not it's the same as someone claiming they're the smartest man in the world.

[The Big Dice]

Classes are a pair of handcuffs. What if I want to play a noble warrior who can talk to people and that isn't Lawful Good and isn't part of a church? What if I want to play an archer who isn't a ranger or a cleric? What if I want to play a wizard that lives in a cave because people annoy him?

If I can't play a concept without having to jump through multiple classes and waiting for level 6+, there's a problem.

[Shadowknight12]

A set of mechanical abilities vaguely tied together by someone else's idea of a theme. Thank goodness for the ability to replace class features for something else, otherwise matching fluff and crunch would be hell.

[Amphetryon]

Classes are a pair of handcuffs. What if I want to play a noble warrior who can talk to people and that isn't Lawful Good and isn't part of a church? What if I want to play an archer who isn't a ranger or a cleric? What if I want to play a wizard that lives in a cave because people annoy him?

If I can't play a concept without having to jump through multiple classes and waiting for level 6+, there's a problem.

I know from your other posts that d20 systems are not your cup of tea, but you can totally play any of those concepts in 3.X, pretty much right out of the gate. There are concepts that require finagling to make work in 3.X, but I don't think the ones listed here are among them. YMMV.

[Gnaeus]

You can be a cleric without being a Cleric, though. You can call yourself a cleric, but have levels of Paladin, Crusader, Binder, Favored Soul, Archivist, Druid... Just because a class has a job title for a name doesn't mean everyone of that job has that class. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

Classes are a mechanical basis to demonstrate your character, and they are given starter fluff for those who are less inventive.

Fax is correct as usual. I am currently playing a character who is a high priest of a god of chaos and war. He is a Bard/Swordsage/Chameleon. He is no less pious than a similar level Cleric, he just focuses on different elements of his god's portfolio. I would be really angry if someone tried to tell him he wasn't a priest just because he couldn't rebuke undead.

[Sucrose]

Classes are a pair of handcuffs. What if I want to play a noble warrior who can talk to people and that isn't Lawful Good and isn't part of a church? What if I want to play an archer who isn't a ranger or a cleric? What if I want to play a wizard that lives in a cave because people annoy him?

If I can't play a concept without having to jump through multiple classes and waiting for level 6+, there's a problem.

First one: Crusader or Warblade or Swashbuckler or Rogue or Bard with Perform (oratory) or just a Fighter with a decent Charisma score and some cross-class ranks in Diplomacy

Second one: Fighters make fine archers, as do Scouts and Rogues. Why do you specifically want to avoid being a Ranger, anyway? If it's to avoid any woodsman flavor, then just don't put any ranks in Survival. Sure, if you knew how to operate in the wild, then you could track the goblins, but you don't know jack.

Third one: Um, Wizard. Decide to live in a cave, have a low Charisma, and avoid people in RP. What, do you want benefits from your cave-dwelling lifestyle or something?:smallconfused:

All of your supposedly uncreatable character ideas work fine in the system, and can even be accomplished with pretty good fidelity in Core. I have my beefs with the 3.x system, especially the Core section, but the supposed weaknesses that you listed aren't among them.

OT: I see the classes very much as metagame constructs. The specific abilities will certainly be things that people in-game can take notice of, but the default flavor means nothing, since it's generally completely overwhelmed by the spice of the player's own creation.

[Greenish]

What if I want to play a wizard that lives in a cave because people annoy him?I first read "lizard" instead of "wizard" and was confused, since lizardfolk live in the caves all the time.

Though noticing it's "wizard" doesn't greatly reduce my confusion. There's even a variant "wilderness wizard" in one of the dragon mags.

[true_shinken]

This thread again?! I think it's becoming the new monkday...

I like to see classes as something people can relatye in game. They know what a Sorcerer is and how it is different form a Wizard and the like. The books also lend themselves to this view.
I'm OK with the occasional refluffing, but any of those crazy 'I'm a wizard refluffed as a fighter' or 'I don't have actual magical equipment, my equipment is just a lot of garbage that is not really magical, but works as if it is' would get a straight NO in my game.

[Psyren]

I like to see classes as something people can relatye in game. They know what a Sorcerer is and how it is different form a Wizard and the like. The books also lend themselves to this view.

This was my point. A commoner might not know the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer (beyond noticing that the former is more bookish and the latter is more fun to hang out with), but another wizard almost certainly would - holding his spontaneous rival in awe or contempt or any reaction between. "Sorcerer" in such a case becomes more than just a metagame concept for the players; it is a word/title the characters themselves can relate to as well.

In this sense, a class can be an concept within the game just as much as it can within the metagame.


In point of fact, this is exactly what the "Knowledge" skills were designed to do - provide our in-game personas with metagame knowledge.

[LordBlades]

This was my point. A commoner might not know the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer (beyond noticing that the former is more bookish and the latter is more fun to hang out with), but another wizard almost certainly would - holding his spontaneous rival in awe or contempt or any reaction between. "Sorcerer" in such a case becomes more than just a metagame concept for the players; it is a word/title the characters themselves can relate to as well.

The way I see it: in game a wizard might know the difference between guys that need to prepare their spells and guys that spontaneously cast. But the guy doing spontaneous magic in front of him might very well be a sorcerer, warmage, beguiler or dread necromancer. He can't really tell.

[thompur]

Fax is correct as usual. I am currently playing a character who is a high priest of a god of chaos and war. He is a Bard/Swordsage/Chameleon. He is no less pious than a similar level Cleric, he just focuses on different elements of his god's portfolio. I would be really angry if someone tried to tell him he wasn't a priest just because he couldn't rebuke undead.

I like this character. Just out of curiousity, What would he say if the townsfolk came to him in a panic, due to the Zombie hoards bearing down on them, asking him to use his priestly power to turn away the undead menace?(After all, you religious leader types do that, right!)

[true_shinken]

I like this character. Just out of curiousity, What would he say if the townsfolk came to him in a panic, due to the Zombie hoards bearing down on them, asking him to use his priestly power to turn away the undead menace?(After all, you religious leader types do that, right!)

He's a Chameleon. He has turn undead and divine spells.

[Divide by Zero]

I like this character. Just out of curiousity, What would he say if the townsfolk came to him in a panic, due to the Zombie hoards bearing down on them, asking him to use his priestly power to turn away the undead menace?(After all, you religious leader types do that, right!)

Kill them with fire. Or swords. Turn Undead sucks anyway.

[Doc Roc]

What are classes? A miserable little pile of secrets!

[Cog]

...asking him to use his priestly power to turn away the undead menace?(After all, you religious leader types do that, right!)
You're just using the idea that classes are an in-game construct to argue that classes are an in-game construct. Say a certain religious order tends to produce a lot of Favored Souls. It'd be hard not to call them religious leader types as well, even more so with that nice big (ahem) Charisma, but most of them won't be making any Turning checks either. Turning would still be common among the devout, but it would not be omnipresent, so the lack of it wouldn't prove anything.

[Psyren]

The way I see it: in game a wizard might know the difference between guys that need to prepare their spells and guys that spontaneously cast. But the guy doing spontaneous magic in front of him might very well be a sorcerer, warmage, beguiler or dread necromancer. He can't really tell.

I have no problems with this. A similar level of granularity would be required to distinguish a Loremaster and Paragnostic Apostle on sight. My only contention is with applying either extreme across the board equally to all classes.

[LordBlades]

I have no problems with this. A similar level of granularity would be required to distinguish a Loremaster and Paragnostic Apostle on sight. My only contention is with applying either extreme across the board equally to all classes.

Of course. In my view, people are familiar with the base concepts:

-they know some people cast spells (arcane and divine, spontaneously or prepared)
-they know some people can use the power of the mind to create magical effects (psionics)
-they know people can bind vestiges
-they know about incarnum
-they know some guys might get (through gift or training) a few supernatural abilities here and there

You won't be able to pass a fighter as a wizard (well you might call yourself a wizard, but you'll get laughed at), but you can very well pass a cleric devoted to nature as a druid or the other way around for example.

[Divide by Zero]

Of course. In my view, people are familiar with the base concepts:

-they know some people cast spells (arcane and divine, spontaneously or prepared)
-they know some people can use the power of the mind to create magical effects (psionics)
-they know people can bind vestiges
-they know about incarnum
-they know some guys might get (through gift or training) a few supernatural abilities here and there

You won't be able to pass a fighter as a wizard (well you might call yourself a wizard, but you'll get laughed at), but you can very well pass a cleric devoted to nature as a druid or the other way around for example.

Which fits very well as classes as a set of abilities. You're not "12th level cleric," you're "that guy who can cast powerful divine magic."

[Gnaeus]

I like this character. Just out of curiousity, What would he say if the townsfolk came to him in a panic, due to the Zombie hoards bearing down on them, asking him to use his priestly power to turn away the undead menace?(After all, you religious leader types do that, right!)

He would probably say that allmighty Yawrud supports every being maximizing his personal achievement potential without silly concerns like "Social Order" or "Morality" (and he would say it with fingerquotes). That this premise applies to necromancers with zombie hordes just like everyone else, and what have you done for me or my god that would make me care if someone eats your brain?

If they had a really good answer, he would start prepping anti-undead spells, or just go start a fight. Nothing says that high level cleric X has the charisma to be good at turning undead, or that he didn't PRC out into a class that doesn't advance turning, or that he didn't burn all his rebuke attempts on DMM that morning. Nothing says "Divine caster" like a shaped, sudden maximized Flamestrike.

[Psyren]

You won't be able to pass a fighter as a wizard (well you might call yourself a wizard, but you'll get laughed at), but you can very well pass a cleric devoted to nature as a druid or the other way around for example.

Here again, you are speaking from the perspective of the commoner/layperson. Fooling them is easy; fooling another druid with your nature-cleric is much harder (though not impossible.)

[Divide by Zero]

Here again, you are speaking from the perspective of the commoner/layperson. Fooling them is easy; fooling another druid with your nature-cleric is much harder (though not impossible.)

Druid is a different case in that it refers to a very specific thing (I mean, they even have their own language). It's more like most prestige classes in that regard.

[Sucrose]

Here again, you are speaking from the perspective of the commoner/layperson. Fooling them is easy; fooling another druid with your nature-cleric is much harder (though not impossible.)

I'd actually argue against that. You are granted divine spells, apparently through the same source, which fulfill most of the same roles as the druid's spells. You don't get exactly the same ones, and if you get an animal companion, it'll be a bit different than theirs (Wild Cohort), but all animals are a little different, after all. You might not have mastered the ability to turn into animals, but several other members of the circle can't manage it either, and at least you're still clearly devout, and have expressed nature's favor with more powerful magics.

The only way that I could see a nature-cleric being unworthy of the title of druid is if all druidic circles in all the world speak the same Druidic language, and one's DM does not allow one to take the language as one of one's languages known.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Classes are a pair of handcuffs. What if I want to play a noble warrior who can talk to people and that isn't Lawful Good and isn't part of a church? What if I want to play an archer who isn't a ranger or a cleric? What if I want to play a wizard that lives in a cave because people annoy him?

If I can't play a concept without having to jump through multiple classes and waiting for level 6+, there's a problem.

First one is a fighter, barbarian, crusader, or warblade. Second one is a fighter. Third one is a wizard, I don't know where you came up with the idea that a wizard cant be a hermit. :smallconfused:

[true_shinken]

The only way that I could see a nature-cleric being unworthy of the title of druid is if all druidic circles in all the world speak the same Druidic language, and one's DM does not allow one to take the language as one of one's languages known.

RAW is that you can't take druidic as a known language (unless you're a Druid and with a few other abilities), btw.

[Honest Tiefling]

Even if the druids could figure out that Bob the Nature cleric can't wildshape, there is the fact that Bob worships the same god. If Bob is high level, then clearly the awesome nature god likes him quite a lot. I kinda do not think druids will last long if they mock the level 15th cleric of the same god wandering into their circle, unless the nature god feels like making the clerics and druids fight for some reason. Maybe Bob can say at higher levels that he is so awesome that he doesn't need wildshape.

As for the wizard without spellbooks, I think the idea is that hermits can't get books for spells. I would say that a high enough level wizard could steal them easily enough and pop back home for a cup of tea alone. And I am sure that there are ways of making the class to not need a spellbook at all.

[Sucrose]

RAW is that you can't take druidic as a known language (unless you're a Druid and with a few other abilities), btw.

I'm aware of this. It can be replicated via Tongues, but I'll grant that that is the one thing that would prevent a nature Cleric from being regarded as a Druid. Though, as I've stated before, I do think that having every druid from everywhere in the world speak the same secret tongue is a little silly. Hippies aren't of the right mindset to create Illuminati.

[LordBlades]

I'd actually argue against that. You are granted divine spells, apparently through the same source, which fulfill most of the same roles as the druid's spells. You don't get exactly the same ones, and if you get an animal companion, it'll be a bit different than theirs (Wild Cohort), but all animals are a little different, after all. You might not have mastered the ability to turn into animals, but several other members of the circle can't manage it either, and at least you're still clearly devout, and have expressed nature's favor with more powerful magics.

The only way that I could see a nature-cleric being unworthy of the title of druid is if all druidic circles in all the world speak the same Druidic language, and one's DM does not allow one to take the language as one of one's languages known.

Yeah, it all depends on what's the in-character signification of the word 'druid'. If it means something along the lines of 'a person that worships nature tries to live in harmony with it and draws divine power by doing so' I think a cleric fits the bill equally well, especially if you abide to the druid RP restrictions (like not wearing metal armor and such).

[true_shinken]

I'm aware of this. It can be replicated via Tongues, but I'll grant that that is the one thing that would prevent a nature Cleric from being regarded as a Druid. Though, as I've stated before, I do think that having every druid from everywhere in the world speak the same secret tongue is a little silly. Hippies aren't of the right mindset to create Illuminati.

Maybe that's why they are druids and not hippies.

[Sucrose]

Maybe that's why they are druids and not hippies.

To-may-to, to-mah-to.:smalltongue:

[Gnaeus]

Though, as I've stated before, I do think that having every druid from everywhere in the world speak the same secret tongue is a little silly. Hippies aren't of the right mindset to create Illuminati.

For me it is less that and more of "Why do the druids of Malar and the Druids of Mielikki, whose gods hate each other, who have opposing ethics, share a secret language which they will speak with each other, but not with clerics of their own religion?"

[Sucrose]

For me it is less that and more of "Why do the druids of Malar and the Druids of Mielikki, whose gods hate each other, who have opposing ethics, share a secret language which they will speak with each other, but not with clerics of their own religion?"

Much more valid point than mine. As was hopefully indicated, my own defense of Druids not all knowing the same universal secret cant was rather tongue-in-cheek.

[Honest Tiefling]

I agree on Druidic, that it is weird that druids who try to kill each other get upset if druids teach the language to others of their church. And I believe it is stated that clerics and druids are both members of the church.

Guys, we know you are CoDzillas too, but if **** goes down, maybe a few more CoDzillas of the same religion can't hurt. It might be weird to explain to the god when you die as to why you refused the cleric's help.

When I play, I perfer to think that it doesn't exist. I think it is an odd carry-over from older editions of DnD when all druids were neutral.

[Psyren]

Druid is a different case in that it refers to a very specific thing (I mean, they even have their own language). It's more like most prestige classes in that regard.

But it's NOT a prestige class (even with Prestigious Class rules in play.) Which is of course the point - "classes are purely metagame" works better for some than others.

It's not a question that you can answer with "Yes, they all are" or "No, none of them are." It's about degrees.


I'm aware of this. It can be replicated via Tongues, but I'll grant that that is the one thing that would prevent a nature Cleric from being regarded as a Druid.

That is far from the only giveaway. Their spell lists are different, their divine foci are different, they have different rules about armor and weapons, different alignment restrictions, different attitudes to society and particularly civilization etc.

Even nature deities themselves are not perfect representatives of Nature itself. If they were, there would be no need to have both nature clerics and druids.

[KoboldCleric]

CMy (and my group's) mentality is that mechanics have no place within the actual gameworld. Just as I would never say "I've taken levels in commoner and adept" to describe my actual life choices (early working career, taking classes toward an MDiv), once in character I would never define my character's self in terms of class levels. He might call himself a ranger or a fighter in the same way I might call myself common man, but it has nothing to do with the mechanical concept of a class.

[Fax Celestis]

I agree on Druidic, that it is weird that druids who try to kill each other get upset if druids teach the language to others of their church. And I believe it is stated that clerics and druids are both members of the church.

I've always looked at it as that druid spells are written and spoken in druidic: in order to make use of them, you need to know the language.

[Honest Tiefling]

You would think that someone would get the idea not to speak the spells in the language that their enemies can understand, but not their allies. It makes thematic sense in a world where druids are not their own worst enemies. And have a reason not to share knowledge with anyone, ever.

[The Big Dice]

First one is a fighter, barbarian, crusader, or warblade. Second one is a fighter. Third one is a wizard, I don't know where you came up with the idea that a wizard cant be a hermit. :smallconfused:
First up, I dislike Tome of Battle immensely. More subsystems that only get support in a single book isn't the answer to systemic issues. It's just clutter. I don't care how much "better" or "effective" or "optimal" it is, it's just more stuff in a game that has plenty of stuff already.

I don't think a civilised noble barbarian works. Where's his Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty? Where's his Diplomacy? Where's his Sense Motive? Barbarian is a mechanical construct that only really fits into a narrow niche. And doesn't really represent the baresark that well in the first place.

The fighter who's an archer is going to have problems because he lacks Spot. How does he find his targets again? He also doesn't have Survival to track his targets. And the reason for not playing him as a Ranger is, I want access to those feats that require multiple levels of Fighter. I don't want low hit dice and a useless animal companion. I don't want to have to delay choosing certain feats because I'll get them for free next level and I don't want to do TWF stuff.

When it comes to the wizard hermit, remind me again how a guy with no ranks in Survival manages to live in the wilderness? What does he eat, Summoned animals?

My homebrew solution to fighter versatility is simple. They get Craft plus any six skills in their starting package. Sure, it's not going to give the same kind of flexibility as a prepared caster (theoretically) has. But it does allow for a character who can do more out of combat than climb, ride a horse, bully people and jump.

[SuperFerret]

So... "cross class" means "you'll never have this"? :smallconfused:

[SPoD]

When it comes to the wizard hermit, remind me again how a guy with no ranks in Survival manages to live in the wilderness? What does he eat, Summoned animals?

This is just being silly. First, having 2 cross-class ranks in Survival instead of 4 class ranks in Survival does not mean you starve to death on Day One of 1st level. In fact, since the wizard gets Knowledge (Survival) as a class skill, if he really wants to, he can spend 5 ranks on that so that by 2nd level, he's at more or less the same bonus as the ranger due to the synergy bonus.

Second, there are about a half-dozen other ways to get a skill as a class skill, or a fixed bonus to a skill, even at 1st level. If it matters so much, spend a feat on Self-Sufficient. Or Skill Focus (Survival). Or mutliclass. The idea is that you don't have infinite time in life, you need to pick and choose what to focus on. The more time you spend learning to forage, the less time you have to hit the books.

And third, if you're actually suggesting that the most powerful class in the game isn't capable of figuring out how to feed himself, well, I have no idea how to respond to that. Except to say that Magic Missile never misses, which is more than one can say for a hunter's bow. See the deer, kill the deer, eat the deer. And yes, you can have ranks in Spot cross-class, too.

Not being the absolute total best in the world at something is not the same as being unable to do it, and it doesn't ruin a concept.

[Amphetryon]

This is just being silly. First, having 2 cross-class ranks in Survival instead of 4 class ranks in Survival does not mean you starve to death on Day One of 1st level. In fact, since the wizard gets Knowledge (Survival) as a class skill, if he really wants to, he can spend 5 ranks on that so that by 2nd level, he's at more or less the same bonus as the ranger due to the synergy bonus.

Second, there are about a half-dozen other ways to get a skill as a class skill, or a fixed bonus to a skill, even at 1st level. If it matters so much, spend a feat on Self-Sufficient. Or Skill Focus (Survival). Or mutliclass. The idea is that you don't have infinite time in life, you need to pick and choose what to focus on. The more time you spend learning to forage, the less time you have to hit the books.

And third, if you're actually suggesting that the most powerful class in the game isn't capable of figuring out how to feed himself, well, I have no idea how to respond to that. Except to say that Magic Missile never misses, which is more than one can say for a hunter's bow. See the deer, kill the deer, eat the deer. And yes, you can have ranks in Spot cross-class, too.

Not being the absolute total best in the world at something is not the same as being unable to do it, and it doesn't ruin a concept.

Knowledge (nature), technically. I agree otherwise.

[Sucrose]

But it's NOT a prestige class (even with Prestigious Class rules in play.) Which is of course the point - "classes are purely metagame" works better for some than others.

It's not a question that you can answer with "Yes, they all are" or "No, none of them are." It's about degrees.



That is far from the only giveaway. Their spell lists are different, their divine foci are different, they have different rules about armor and weapons, different alignment restrictions, different attitudes to society and particularly civilization etc.

Even nature deities themselves are not perfect representatives of Nature itself. If they were, there would be no need to have both nature clerics and druids.

Strictly speaking, one could carve a wooden holy symbol out of mistletoe or holly. Still, I take your point. There are enough mechanical points of differentiation that it'd be clear that the druid and the cleric handle things a little differently. I don't think that that's a large enough difference for the Druid to claim that the Cleric doesn't have any right to the title of druid, though.

Different alignment restrictions don't mean a whole lot, since most clerics will still tend to be of the same alignment as their deity, and both Obad-Hai and the unicorn goddess whose name I cannot recall are of valid druidic alignments: True Neutral and Neutral Good.

While it's true that a given cleric and a given druid will have different attitudes toward civilization, the same's true of two druids from different groves. In fact, it's likely that a NG cleric will have a great deal more in common in terms of worldview with a NG druid than a NE druid would.

Still, you've brought up enough points that I can see why you'd argue this, even if I still disagree.


First up, I dislike Tome of Battle immensely. More subsystems that only get support in a single book isn't the answer to systemic issues. It's just clutter. I don't care how much "better" or "effective" or "optimal" it is, it's just more stuff in a game that has plenty of stuff already. It's stuff that allows one to more easily represent many melee archetypes reasonably. It also covers your question fairly easily.

I don't think a civilised noble barbarian works. Where's his Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty? Where's his Diplomacy? Where's his Sense Motive? Barbarian is a mechanical construct that only really fits into a narrow niche. And doesn't really represent the baresark that well in the first place.
You didn't ask for a total party face: you asked for a noble warrior who can talk well with people, and lacks alignment restrictions. And frankly, Barbarian is only one of a few options that have been mentioned. For example, the Swashbuckler pretty much covers all the bases that you've mentioned, as does a Rogue. Put in high stats in Strength and Constitution, and you'll have a reasonable frontliner who can do everything that you demand, even at medium BAB. If you simply must have the armor and shield and whatnot, spend a level on Fighter. Your people skills can still be more than sufficient.


The fighter who's an archer is going to have problems because he lacks Spot. How does he find his targets again? He also doesn't have Survival to track his targets. And the reason for not playing him as a Ranger is, I want access to those feats that require multiple levels of Fighter. I don't want low hit dice and a useless animal companion. I don't want to have to delay choosing certain feats because I'll get them for free next level and I don't want to do TWF stuff.
Then multiclass between Ranger and Fighter. A low hit dice at first level doesn't make a huge difference, and the skills will last for a while. If you're a Human, grab Able Learner, and you can continue advancing whatever skills you feel you need. And an archer does not have to be a tracker, nor does he have to be a spotter; if they're far enough away that he can't see them, then he's not particularly likely to hit, and tracking isn't really related to archery at all, save for the fact that both are used in hunting. That said, cross-class can still get you to reasonable levels there. If the animal companion isn't good enough for your taste, then trade it out for an ACF, like Distracting Shot. Not especially sure why you feel that an archer should be just as tough as a meleeist, but regardless, you would have more than enough hit points for your requirements.

When it comes to the wizard hermit, remind me again how a guy with no ranks in Survival manages to live in the wilderness? What does he eat, Summoned animals?
Cross-class Survival allows him to find enough water and food for himself for two days in one day, while moving about the countryside at a reasonable speed. (Take 10, get 12 from cross-class ranks and non-negative Wisdom).

My homebrew solution to fighter versatility is simple. They get Craft plus any six skills in their starting package. Sure, it's not going to give the same kind of flexibility as a prepared caster (theoretically) has. But it does allow for a character who can do more out of combat than climb, ride a horse, bully people and jump.
That's decent, and does expand the design space of the Fighter class. I'd still rather play a Warblade.

[Hirax]

I don't think a civilised noble barbarian works. Where's his Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty? Where's his Diplomacy? Where's his Sense Motive? Barbarian is a mechanical construct that only really fits into a narrow niche. And doesn't really represent the baresark that well in the first place.


As pointed out, cross class skills make that position questionable. I agree 100% with your fix for skills though. It's 3.5's worst feature, IMO, that skill lists are fixed for each class, rather than customizable.

However, sticking with making a noble barbarian, with 14 int (let's say 28 point buy gets you 15/10/14/14/10/12)** you could simply devote a couple skill points to becoming literate and grabbing all the skills you named, even if they're cross class. You get 4 skill points per level, only rangers, bards, and rogues get more, so you're at the middle section of the totem pole (above paladins, fighter, sorcerers, and clerics, among others) as far as being generally skillful. Add the collector of stories skill trick and they've got knowledge decently covered, in fact. You're not going be to exceedingly well educated (few ranks in knowledge) or adept at speech and debate (few ranks in diplomacy/sense motive), but that doesn't make you unrefined, you'd be able to hold your own fine at parties if you didn't dump charisma. And nobles engage in sports, remember. Fencing, archery, wrestling, jousting, etc. Perhaps you just spent more time doing those as a child, and less time (but not none) playing chess and reading books. You're that kid in school that definitely isn't stupid, and is even pretty smart, but just isn't that into it and takes their talents elsewhere. Your dad might not approve (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0113.html) of your using brawn more than brain, but screw him.

Also remember that raging doesn't necessarily mean going bat**** insane, especially if you grab the righteous wrath feat. It's the class name and hideous picture* to go along with it that give everyone their preconceived notions I suspect. I've always seen the barbarian class with the whirling frenzy variant as a good class for jedi, actually. They become stronger and faster (+str, an extra attack, +2 dodge bonus to AC and reflex saves), and their non-rage abilities actually fit too. Uncanny dodge? Trap sense? Damage reduction? Those all sound like jedi abilities to me. It's perfectly reasonable for a force user to have a non-lawful alignment (less reasonable for a jedi, but hardly irreconcilable), but the barbarian alignment restriction is stupid anyway. I totally think Mace Windu has at least a 1 level spirit lion totem whirling frenzy dip.

*Seriously, look at the barbarian picture in the PHB. What the hell is with those arrows strapped to his leg, the hideous strapped dagger, etc? Sure, most of the PHB class pictures have their quirks, but come on.

**edit: or if you want to do 22 point buy we could go 14/8/14/14/10/10

[Psyren]

I've always looked at it as that druid spells are written and spoken in druidic: in order to make use of them, you need to know the language.

I don't think so; if this were true, how would you identify a druid spell by its verbal component, or counterspell it, unless you were a druid too?


Strictly speaking, one could carve a wooden holy symbol out of mistletoe or holly. Still, I take your point. There are enough mechanical points of differentiation that it'd be clear that the druid and the cleric handle things a little differently. I don't think that that's a large enough difference for the Druid to claim that the Cleric doesn't have any right to the title of druid, though.

The Cleric would still have to toe the line very carefully to claim that designation. The other druids wouldn't look too kindly on him, say, running around in chainmail, even if he is technically allowed to.

[Fax Celestis]

I don't think so; if this were true, how would you identify a druid spell by its verbal component, or counterspell it, unless you were a druid too?

I know that the guy over there is speaking Russian despite the fact that I don't speak it myself. I can gather that this sign (http://www.signswithanattitude.com/images_signs/special_signs/cuidado_con_el_perro_image.jpg) is warning me about a dog despite not being able to read Spanish. Why, then, would such implicit meaning restricted to plain language and not be present in magic?

[Psyren]

I know that the guy over there is speaking Russian despite the fact that I don't speak it myself. I can gather that this sign (http://www.signswithanattitude.com/images_signs/special_signs/cuidado_con_el_perro_image.jpg) is warning me about a dog despite not being able to read Spanish. Why, then, would such implicit meaning restricted to plain language and not be present in magic?

Your first analogy falls through because to identify the spell, you would have to know what he is actually saying, not merely the language he is using. Otherwise you would simply know he is casting... something. Your second example relies on a visual to convey meaning, i.e. the image of the dog - which in the magical metaphor would translate to the visual of seeing the somatic or material component the druid employs. However, this falls through too because by RAW, you can identify spells being cast just by hearing them; so clearly the verbal component must be somehow sufficient on its own.

Occam's Razor therefore suggests there is simply a universal language of magic from which verbal components are derived, as that would solve both these issues.

[Fax Celestis]

What, then, do the ranks in Spellcraft used to identify spellcasting represent, if not learning about different kinds of magic? I don't have to understand what is being said to know the intent, nor do I have to understand the words used to know their meaning.

[Psyren]

Spellcraft is an amalgamation of learnings:

- Magical diagrams
- Gestures and other somatic movements
- The language of magic

Answer me this: if there is no universal language of magic, how then is my human wizard able to decipher the spellbook of the drow wizard he defeated? If druid spells are written/spoken in Druidic, how is it my cleric can identify the contents of a Druid scroll regardless of his own origins? If Duergar can cast spells in their own tongue, why is it no harder for my gnome bard to counterspell them than it is for him to counterspell another gnome?

For these assumptions to work, there needs to be common ground; a tongue, and notation system, that captures the effects of a spell at its most basic level, unaffected by cultural or societal influence.

Besides, there is already a skill to learn Druidic, and it's not Spellcraft.

[Fax Celestis]

Answer me this: if there is no universal language of magic, how then is my human wizard able to decipher the spellbook of the drow wizard he defeated?Why does he have to decipher it if he knows the language?

[tonberrian]

Why does he have to decipher it if he knows the language?

The theory that 3.5 uses is that every wizard is paranoid and develops his own unique shorthand to confuse anyone who tries to read his books.

[Psyren]

Why does he have to decipher it if he knows the language?

That's easy: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#arcaneMagicalWritings)


To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The writer uses the same system no matter what her native language or culture. However, each character uses the system in her own way. Another person’s magical writing remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until she takes time to study and decipher it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I see a flaw in your logic.

To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The writer uses the same system no matter what her native language or culture. However, each character uses the system in her own way. Another person’s magical writing remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until she takes time to study and decipher it.

[Fax Celestis]

And I see another:


To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The writer uses the same system no matter what her native language or culture. However, each character uses the system in her own way. Another person’s magical writing remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until she takes time to study and decipher it.

[Psyren]

I see a flaw in your logic.

Um, you can decipher it regardless of the languages you yourself know. Human reading a drow spellbook, remember?


And I see another:

A more direct example then?

20 + spell level: Decipher a written spell (such as a scroll) without using read magic. One try per day. Requires a full-round action. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm)

This applies to all scrolls, arcane or divine, including Druid scrolls. Again - knowledge of Druidic not necessary.

Unless you're claiming that both Spellcraft and Speak Language teach Druidic.

[raxies94]

I think I tend to fall on the "flavor is mutable" side of the argument. It seems to me that you can take just about any class you like and reflavor it just about anyway you like.

[Fax Celestis]

Um, you can decipher it regardless of the languages you yourself know. Human reading a drow spellbook, remember?



A more direct example then?

20 + spell level: Decipher a written spell (such as a scroll) without using read magic. One try per day. Requires a full-round action. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm)

This applies to all scrolls, arcane or divine, including Druid scrolls. Again - knowledge of Druidic not necessary.

Unless you're claiming that both Spellcraft and Speak Language teach Druidic.

No, I'm claiming that Spellcraft teaches one enough druidic to know what spells are.

[tonberrian]

How can Druidic be a secret language if part of it is taught in basic Spellcraft?

[Hirax]

Druidic being secret in practice would only mean that a druid couldn't teach it to others. They would need to not even use it in front of others, or allow any writings of it to be found if they wanted to keep it secret, otherwise it could be deciphered and learned. Unless there's some sort of magical force in the very fabric of the universe protecting it. How to quantify that into it not being learnable simply for putting a skill point into it (or two if you don't have speak language) is pretty much homebrew territory, D&D language rules really are pretty strange. Though that's probably for the better.

[Fax Celestis]

How can Druidic be a secret language if part of it is taught in basic Spellcraft?

How many people know Esperanto? Klingon? Solresol? Interlingua? Unilingua? Just because a language is available doesn't mean you know it, even if it is based on another existing language, or you know smatterings of it.

EDIT: A better comparison would be "just because you're a biologist doesn't mean you know Latin or Greek, despite the fact that you work with words from those languages all the time."

[tonberrian]

Druidic being secret in practice would only mean that a druid couldn't teach it to others. They would need to not even use it in front of others, or allow any writings of it to be found if they wanted to keep it secret, otherwise it could be deciphered and learned. Unless there's some sort of magical force in the very fabric of the universe protecting it. How to quantify that into it not being learnable simply for putting a skill point into it (or two if you don't have speak language) is pretty much homebrew territory, D&D language rules really are pretty strange. Though that's probably for the better.

Ranger: "Hey, can I get a scroll of Cure Light Wounds? I wanna have one on hand for ... emergencies."
Druid: *hides ink-stained hands* "Ah, er, um, I can't help you. I don't know how to scribe scrolls, yeah."
Ranger: "But I just saw you writing one last week. That one right there, I remember your quill jumping when you saw me."
Druid: "Drat, he remembered that. Um, what I mean is that I'm out of ink for scroll making. Ran out on this scroll here, what a coincidence! Ha ha!"
Ranger: *points to ink jar right beside Druid*
Druid: "Ah, er, that's, um, mundane ink. What I need is something special, like, um, ink brewed from holly and mistletoe for 3 days while chanting prayers to Silvanus to it."
Ranger: "What a coincidence! That nice mayor gave me some of that for rescuing his son Timmy from the well! It's a good thing that that dog was there to tell us everything. Here, let me get it for you..."
Druid: *pulls out sundial-wristwatch* "OH LOOK AT THE TIME. I HAVE TO GO DO, UH, FORESTY THINGS OVER THERE NOW." *runs away*
Ranger: "We're in the middle of a desert." *walks over to boar companion* "Sorry Froo-Froo, he didn't spring for it."
Froo-Froo: Grunt.
Ranger: "Yeah, I'm disappointed too."

[Coidzor]

How many people know Esperanto? Klingon? Solresol? Interlingua? Unilingua? Just because a language is available doesn't mean you know it, even if it is based on another existing language, or you know smatterings of it.

That doesn't really work as an explanation for why someone who wanted to couldn't learn Klingon or Esperanto or Solresol or Interlingua.

[Fax Celestis]

That doesn't really work as an explanation for why someone who wanted to couldn't learn Klingon or Esperanto or Solresol or Interlingua.

Because no one will teach you? And again:


A better comparison would be "just because you're a biologist doesn't mean you know Latin or Greek, despite the fact that you work with words from those languages all the time."

[Coidzor]

Because no one will teach you? And again:

I have to be specifically taught the language by someone when there are adequate tools and materials available to learn it at all now?

[Fax Celestis]

I have to be specifically taught the language by someone when there are adequate tools and materials available to learn it at all now?

Define "adequate tools". There's no internet in D&D, and there's no Rosetta Stone: Druidic Edition. The only people who can teach you are the people who know it, and none of them want you to know it because for some inexplicable reason its a sacred language.

[big teej]

I have to be specifically taught the language by someone when there are adequate tools and materials available to learn it at all now?

-raises hand-
I do

I tried to teach myself Khazalid..... I gave myself a headache.


howver.

this is a topic about whether classes are in game or metagame constructs

not langauge

that deserves its own thread

go make it
-nudge-

[Coidzor]

Define "adequate tools".

So why make the comparison you did in the first place? :smallconfused:

In the case of Druidic, I certainly imagine that Mindrape, a Druid, and skillpoints to spend at level up should qualify as adequate tools.

Or skillpoints, a diplomacy/perform check, and an atonement spell procured through whatever means.

[LordBlades]

That is far from the only giveaway. Their spell lists are different, their divine foci are different, they have different rules about armor and weapons, different alignment restrictions, different attitudes to society and particularly civilization etc.

Their spell list are different on the whole, but they do have quite a large number of common spells. The rules for armor are different (druid is more restrictive), but there's nothing that's stopping the cleric from abiding to druid restrictions, which he would probably be doing anyway if he adopts the druidic lifestyle.

Also, as others have said, you can make your holy symbol out of holy&mistletoe.

In regards to attitude, that's a RP thing. I really don't see why a cleric couldn't have exact the same outlook on life as a druid.


Even nature deities themselves are not perfect representatives of Nature itself. If they were, there would be no need to have both nature clerics and druids.

You don't need to worship a nature deity, you can worship nature as an ideal, which means you draw power from nature itself, just like a druid.

Also, my point wasn't that I can build a cleric that's mechanically identical to a druid, but rather that you can make a cleric that fits what the people in the world understand by 'druid'.

[Hirax]

Define "adequate tools".

I'd say scrying on a group of druids for a while could get you a working knowledge of the language. Alternate having comprehend languages off and on so you can see how much you understand on you own, and compare that to what's actually being said.

There's also the question of how druids initially learn the language. Is it revealed to them divinely? If not it must be taught to them by someone, and that someone could conceivably be tricked into teaching it to someone impersonating a would-be druid.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, yes, one of the way a druid can 'Autumn' is to teach a non druid the language, though there is no strict mechanical way of doing this that I am aware of. Explaining what another druid is saying or what druidic writing says might count to the "Let's see how we can make the Paladin fall" kind of DM.

[Psyren]

No, I'm claiming that Spellcraft teaches one enough druidic to know what spells are.

So rather than there being one universal language of magic - you see Spellcraft as containing just enough smatterings of Common, Elvish, Orcish, Druidic, Dwarvish, Drow, Illumian, Gith, Quor, Ignan, Aquan, Terran, Infernal, Abyssal, Celestial, Sylvan, and any other language from splats - just enough to decipher any spell the speaker might choose to use? With no change in difficulty for the listener?

I see.

[Fax Celestis]

comprehend languagesA touch-range spell?


So rather than there being one universal language of magic - you see Spellcraft as containing just enough smatterings of Common, Elvish, Orcish, Druidic, Dwarvish, Drow, Illumian, Gith, Quor, Ignan, Aquan, Terran, Infernal, Abyssal, Celestial, Sylvan, and any other language from splats - just enough to decipher any spell the speaker might choose to use?

Actually, yes. If magic were easy, everyone would do it.


With no change in difficulty for the listener?
The spellcraft check to ID a spell does increase in difficulty according to the spell's complexity, so I don't see where you're getting that from.

[Psyren]

Actually, yes. If magic were easy, everyone would do it.

I don't see how the existence of a common magical language suddenly makes magic open to to the masses. All it does is remove language and cultural barriers to spell identification which are already presumed not to exist by RAW.


The spellcraft check to ID a spell does increase in difficulty according to the spell's complexity, so I don't see where you're getting that from.

Complexity relates to the spell itself, not its language. An elf's magic missile and an illumian's are the same DC for another elf to identify, even though one should be much simpler by your logic.

[Fax Celestis]

Complexity relates to the spell itself, not its language. An elf's magic missile and an illumian's are the same DC for another elf to identify, even though one should be much simpler by your logic.

The spellcraft skill represents learning the things that make you able to understand magic. If you don't have it, knowing that some of what he's saying is Elven isn't going to help any.

[Psyren]

The spellcraft skill represents learning the things that make you able to understand magic. If you don't have it, knowing that some of what he's saying is Elven isn't going to help any.

But by your logic, he is simply saying "fireball!" in Elvish, is he not? If i am, say, an Elf Fighter - why would I need Spellcraft to identify the spell if that were the case?

[Fax Celestis]

But by your logic, he is simply saying "fireball!" in Elvish, is he not? If i am, say, an Elf Fighter - why would I need Spellcraft to identify the spell if that were the case?

From my understanding, verbal components are bit more complex than that (unless we're talking the Power Word spells, but those have their own bizarreties anyway). The aforementioned elf fighter might pick out a few things about fire in the components, but there's likely some Ignan, Abyssal, Draconic, or other things in there too.

[Psyren]

From my understanding, verbal components are bit more complex than that (unless we're talking the Power Word spells, but those have their own bizarreties anyway). The aforementioned elf fighter might pick out a few things about fire in the components, but there's likely some Ignan, Abyssal, Draconic, or other things in there too.

You realize that this is functionally the same as magic having its own universal language, don't you? Afrikaans and English both started as mishmash polyglots just as you describe.

[Fax Celestis]

Did I ever say it wasn't?

[Psyren]

As a matter of fact, yeah, you kind of did:


I've always looked at it as that druid spells are written and spoken in druidic: in order to make use of them, you need to know the language.

But a cleric or even a sorcerer can fully understand a druid scroll's contents despite not knowing the language; therefore, the scroll must use the conglomerate language instead.

[Fax Celestis]

Guess I have a fluff/crunch disconnect then. Ah well.

[Hirax]

A touch-range spell?

Can't you cast it on yourself? If not tongues would also do the trick, and I think the MIC has something that let's you understand languages.

[Fax Celestis]

Can't you cast it on yourself? If not tongues would also do the trick, and I think the MIC has something that let's you understand languages.

No, not like that.


You can understand the spoken words of creatures or read otherwise incomprehensible written messages. In either case, you must touch the creature or the writing. The ability to read does not necessarily impart insight into the material, merely its literal meaning. The spell enables you to understand or read an unknown language, not speak or write it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

No, not like that.

That bolded part doesn't prove anything. You are a creature, and you can touch yourself.

[Psyren]

That bolded part doesn't prove anything. You are a creature, and you can touch yourself.

You have to touch the person/thing you're trying to understand. Sure you can cast it on yourself, but you generally understand yourself anyway so that wouldn't accomplish much.

The one you put on yourself is Tongues.

[big teej]

this thread is about whether classes are metagame constructs, or in game constructs. please move the language discussion to its own thread.

[Doc Roc]

this thread is about whether classes are metagame constructs, or in game constructs. please move the language discussion to its own thread.

Disclaimer: Yellow disclaimers are enraging.

[big teej]

Disclaimer: Yellow disclaimers are enraging.

got your attention didn't it? :smalltongue:

besides, I was worried about getting in trouble if I used red, so yellow was the next most attention grabbing option.

[Coidzor]

besides, I was worried about getting in trouble if I used red, so yellow was the next most attention grabbing option.

And the most illegible while still being visible.

[Doc Roc]

got your attention didn't it? :smalltongue:

besides, I was worried about getting in trouble if I used red, so yellow was the next most attention grabbing option.

In the interest of politeness, I will disclose that it really didn't get my attention so much as cause me to briefly black-out and awaken on top of a vast pile of bleached skulls. Subsequent investigation revealed them to be still warm.

[Honest Tiefling]

Ick. I hope you didn't get anything on the carpets. Through, I think it would be amusing to see what base class cannot be duplicated with a clever use of other class abilities. This would thusly render no class distinct enough for an NPC without specialized knowledge to notice that someone is not a particular class.

[cfalcon]

Classes are who you are. Old school.

[Psyren]

this thread is about whether classes are metagame constructs, or in game constructs. please move the language discussion to its own thread.

Actually, we were done. Also, discussions evolve, you know?


Classes are who you are. Old school.

That's truer than you know, since "Elf" was a class in old school :smalltongue:

[big teej]

Actually, we were done. Also, discussions evolve, you know?



That's truer than you know, since "Elf" was a class in old school :smalltongue:

the forum may have hiccuped while I was posting, because when I started typing it looked like it was still in full swing.

or I may have just missed it ending. :smallredface:

that said, I really did feel like it warranted it's own thread. it was an interesting topic.

[LordBlades]

Ick. I hope you didn't get anything on the carpets. Through, I think it would be amusing to see what base class cannot be duplicated with a clever use of other class abilities. This would thusly render no class distinct enough for an NPC without specialized knowledge to notice that someone is not a particular class.

You mean duplicate mechanically, or duplicate as in build something similar enough that the two look alike in the game world?

If it's the former, it's all about finding class features that no other class/prestige class grants. The first one that come to mind are Skirmish and Eldritch blast. I think no other classes grant these abilities.

If it's the latter, then none comes to mind.

[Honest Tiefling]

The latter, that the builds would be virtually indistinguishable in the game world.