How do the 12 classes typically get along with each other and with ordinary people?

[Generic NPC]

Although the player's handbook discusses how different playable races tend to view members of other races and how well they tend to get along, I don't recall seeing much of this involving classes. I'm interested in how each class tends to be viewed by ordinary people with no class levels, and how well different classes tend to get along with one another in a typical campaign setting. Is there any precedent for this sort of thing in official D&D handbooks and adventure paths, even from older editions?

That's the basic question I have, but I wrote out some further detail below in case it's helpful.

You see, I'm designing an unusual high-power, high-magic campaign setting in which people with class levels are much more common than normal, and in which each of the 12 classes is roughly equally common. In this world, for instance, even a rookie town guard would probably be at least a Lv.1 fighter, and a village priest would certainly be at least a Lv.1 cleric. The average professional adventurer would be between Lv.5 and 10, with the most famous ones even approaching Lv.17. Because class levels are so common, a person's class is like a formal profession that everyone is familiar with. For instance, if someone cast eldritch blast, almost everyone who saw it would recognize it and identify that person as being a warlock.

With this in mind, it's essential to determine how members of one class would be viewed by other people, because that would shape an enormous number of interactions in the world. For instance, a wizard, cleric, and druid might build a quick rapport over their love of magic and their orderly approach to spellcasting, but perhaps they might also feel tension over their differing approaches to magic, with pride in their own magical traditions compelling them always to make their own class's magic look good in the eyes of other spellcasting classes. Maybe the more "technical" classes would respect a barbarian's power but find their gung-ho fighting style a bit unrefined and reckless, whereas sorcerers might quickly make friends with barbarians because they both love unleashing their raw inner power and talent to "overpower" their problems. Maybe rogues and warlocks might be viewed with some caution or suspicion by many people because of their "dark and shady" talents, and might get along well with each other because they don't have to worry about being judged by one another.

(Note that for clerics, in this setting, there is one dominant faith that almost all non-evil clerics serve, and all domains except the death domain are present among its members. In quick summary, it's a very neutral good sort of faith, emphasizing kindness and respect toward others and a firm stand against evil, and philosophically accommodates all 7 of the original cleric domains. As a result, you wouldn't really see any more inter-cleric tension than you would within any other class.)

Although I've been developing my own ideas on this, I'm interested to see if there is any official precedent, with classes interacting with each other and ordinary people in consistent ways across official D&D media. Has anyone noticed anything like this in prior works, or perhaps devised any such interactions in their own games? Thank you for your input!

[Nifft]

Presumably all non-Charisma classes have their ups and downs, while the Charisma classes tend to get better press because they are full of Charisma.

IMHO the character's Background might have more impact on stereotype than his or her actual profession.


(Note that for clerics, in this setting, there is one dominant faith that almost all non-evil clerics serve, and all domains except the death domain are present among its members. In quick summary, it's a very neutral good sort of faith, emphasizing kindness and respect toward others and a firm stand against evil, and philosophically accommodates all 7 of the original cleric domains. As a result, you wouldn't really see any more inter-cleric tension than you would within any other class.)

Just as a counter-point, note that Europe saw quite a few religious wars between Christians on one side, and Christians on the other.

[JAL_1138]

Just as a counter-point, note that Europe saw quite a few religious wars between Christians on one side, and Christians on the other.

Soldier: "Father, how shall we know the Christians from the heretics (other Christians)?"
Bishop Amalric: "Kill them all. The Lord knoweth them that are His own."

[Temperjoke]

It really depends on their particular variation. For example, Nature Clerics, Oath of Ancient Paladins, and Druids probably get along well. I'd imagine Barbarians and Druids get along well. Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks probably all have a rivalry relationship, ranging from friendly to hated, due to their magic's source.

Wizard: "I have to work hard and study constantly learn new magic, that <expletive> Warlock cuts a deal for his power, and don't even get me started on the <stronger expletive> Sorcerer who's never needed to pick up a damn book in his life."

Warlock: "I risk my soul for power, instead of spending my life buried among books like the Wizard, and that <expletive> Sorcerer spends his nights at the tavern, instead of running errands for a Patron."

Sorcerer: "<expletive> you guys, do you have any idea how embarrassing it is to turn blue in the middle of a fight, or to suddenly grow a beard made out of feathers? It was <expletive> senior picture day at college!!!"

[Nifft]

Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks probably all have a rivalry relationship, ranging from friendly to hated, due to their magic's source.

All of them get along with Bards, though, and think that the Bard is totally on their side of the debate.

[Regitnui]

Well, go with your gut on a lot of them. Barbarians are stupid, bards are liars, clerics are preachy, druids are hippies, fighters are blunt instruments, monks are odd or insane, paladins have a stick up their armoured rears, rangers are uncivilized, rogues are all thieves or assassins, warlocks are the nearest thing to the devil you're likely to meet, sorcerers are loaded, living guns, and wizards are aloof, joyless airholes.

[Temperjoke]

All of them get along with Bards, though, and think that the Bard is totally on their side of the debate.

Right? And the Bard is the only one who can get them to stop arguing at meal times.



The monk is that guy off in the corner, meditating usually, more of an acquaintance really. The rogue is the guy at the other table, trying to look cool by playing with knives out in the open. The fighter, paladin, and maybe the ranger are all talking about their weapons, comparing and contrasting them. The barbarian is probably drinking heavily at the bar.

[MrConsideration]

Warlocks think Clerics have just made a really, really bad deal with a particularly tough Outsider.

Wizards see themselves as the true masters of magic - they know it, explicitly - they are experts in it. Other classes dabble, but only a Wizard is rigorous in his approach.

Sorcerers seem to be a diverse bunch - to them, magic just is. In my personal setting a lot of aristocratic bloodlines throw up a lot of sorcerers and the main empire's line of succession judges people to be legitimate or not based on whether they've got the mojo. Sorcerers just get magic - they play it by ear. Wizards can spend years imitating what you can do by accident.

Druids in my game world are pretty diverse. Some see nature as an endless war of beast and man, using survival of the fittest and might makes right to justify the self-interested use of their powers. Other ascribe to a philosophy of balance, calmness, Zen-like onesness with the world and would get on with Monks quite well.

It depends on how far you take the fluff. If your barbarian has to be from some fringe 'barbarian' culture where you're only a man if you wrestle bears, it'll be different from whether your barbarian class just relates that you fight in a specific way, utilising anger and risky attacks.

[Shining Wrath]

Barbarians should always be on the outside socially. They are about raw physical power, and even if a barbarian has above-average intelligence or charisma that's not what they really care about.

Clerics are the representatives of a very real god or gods that very really interacts with the world, in a way that no one can mistake or dispute. That will carry enormous respect. There are no atheists; there are anti-theists, who wish the god(s) would leave mortals alone, but everyone believes that clerics are tapping into the same power source that formed the universe and decides the fates of souls.

Druids will be clerics with slightly different gods or god-like forces backing them up. Air, earth, fire, water, and nature itself are primal forces, and again, no sane adult doubts they are real and influence people's lives for good and ill. A druid will therefore also be a respected person (or feared).

Fighters will be more or less respected depending on how martial a society is. In some places they will have the highest status, in others, be viewed as jobs for those who can't cast spells. Rangers and Paladins will be in a similar status, with Paladins getting some clerical glow and Rangers some druidical.

The relationship among Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards will be similar to that among jazz musicians (sorcerers), classical musicians (wizards), and rap stars (warlocks) - some people play by feel, some by rigorous study, and for some, it's about who you represent as much as it is about the music.

[TheOOB]

Depends on what you mean by ordinary people and get along. Remember one thing that's important, classes are only really a PC thing, NPC's are not bound by classes, and as far as they are concerned class doesn't exist.

For most NPC's they are going to care more about what group/social class a character is than their ability. A fighter who is a knight or a man-at-arms in service to a lord will get far more respect than one who is an adventurer. People who wander from place to place and don't have roots or loyalty to a specific group will be disconcerting to most people. For most people there are the nobility, the church(s), the peasents, and that represents 99% of who they know(save for a few freemen who work specific jobs in their community). In a city there are guilds which give other people identities, but even city folk will be wary of random person with expensive gear.

The non-magical classes(fighter, rogue, ranger, and barbarian) will be judged on their social group. Divine characters(paladin, cleric, and to a lesser extent monk) will receive a greater amount of respect so long as their religion is not obviously anathema. People will treat them like priests even if they are not formally ordained by anyone. Arcane classes (wizard, sorcerer, bard, warlock) depend a lot on the setting. Most people can't tell the difference between them and will treat them all like whatever is most common. If there is a wizards guild or something they will have an easier time, but most people will want little to do with them unless they need them. Druids are a case by case basis thing. Usually disliked as they are not part of society, but their abilities are super beneficial to any community.

[jkat718]

Depends on what you mean by ordinary people and get along. Remember one thing that's important, classes are only really a PC thing, NPC's are not bound by classes, and as far as they are concerned class doesn't exist.

The OP explains (fairly well) that their setting is an exception to this rule.


I'd say that any "stereotypical" class representation is going to be pretty much exactly how people would view the other classes. Regitnui's post gives a pretty good rundown of the most common stereotypes for each class, and I particularly like Shining Wrath's Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard comparison of different musical styles.

One thing you might want to consider is how sub-classes such as Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster fit in. Are they respected by the Wizards for their attempts at magic? Or disdained for their magical weakness? Do the other Fighters/other Rogues accept them as being true to their classes, or do they say that the EKs/ATs think that they're better than their non-magical brethren? Also, how do Totem Barbarians, Nature Clerics, Druids, Ancients Paladins, and Rangers get along? Do they respect each other's ways of interacting with nature, or think that their way is the best? What about Moon and Land Druids?

@Generic NPC: To answer the question you posed at the beginning of your post, 3.5 had a blurb for each class detailing a bit about their perspective on other classes. For example, the section on Druids contained the following paragraph:

Other Classes: The druid shares with rangers and many barbarians a reverence for nature and a familiarity with natural lands. She doesn’t much understand the urban mannerism typical of a rogue, and she finds arcane magic disruptive and slightly distasteful. The typical druid also dislikes the paladin’s devotion to abstract ideals instead of “the real world.” Druids, however, are nothing if not accepting of diversity, and they take little offense at other characters, even those very different from them.

[Cybren]

I think broadly, for the most part, classes are metagame concepts the characters aren't aware of. The brushes are too broad.

[Beleriphon]

At some level people are aware what a cleric, wizard, monk and other classes are. But a class isn't a job. A wizard can be a city guard just as well as a fighter, he just does his job in a different way. I think the important thing you need to examine is how do different classes group together. Is there an Adventurer's Guild that does adventuring realted things for all classes? Is there a College Arcana for wizards, and does it accept pact makers (ie. warlock) or those with natural magic explodiness (sorcerers), if not why not?

Other considerations include training. Not every fighter goes to fighter school, you could have a conscript that has survived dozen of battles, a wizard could be a trained in a Wizards School a la Hogwarts or they might be the apprentice a long wizard, is a bard a minstrel that weaves magic into their song or are they trained magic users with a strong cultural tradition? These can combine with your organizational level of interaction where two fighters can't stand each other because one is a noble who learned via personal trainer, and the other is a conscripted veteran of war.

[Coidzor]

IMHO the character's Background might have more impact on stereotype than his or her actual profession.

Agreed. The Background is what gives the character their traits, flaws, bonds, and ideals.


Just as a counter-point, note that Europe saw quite a few religious wars between Christians on one side, and Christians on the other.

Tempus has clerics on all sides of conflicts fairly typically, for an example in the Realms.

[Alikat]

There are no atheists; there are anti-theists, who wish the god(s) would leave mortals alone, but everyone believes that clerics are tapping into the same power source that formed the universe and decides the fates of souls.

You Sir, are underestimating the power of willful ignorance. People easily reject reality when it conflicts with their world view.

[JellyPooga]

Rogues will probably have something of a superiority complex, seeing everyone else as something of an incompetent. After all, a Rogue is actually good at his chosen skills and is always ready for action. Sure Fighters and Barbarians have great combat prowess, but take them out of a fight and they fail at normal life. Wizards and Sorcerers might command mighty arcane magics and Clerics the power of their gods, but once their spells are expended, what have you got? A glorified commoner. The only other class that comes close is the Bard, but (given the setting) it takes an extraordinary individual (i.e. level 3) to even approach what the lowest cutpurse or burglar (i.e. level 1) can achieve.

[Belac93]

Wizard: "These fools have no idea what power comes with learning"
Sorcerer: "I dunno, it just kinda...happens. I like it better than anyone else's though"
Cleric: "Warlocks are just people who made a deal with the wrong guy "
Warlock: "Clerics are just people who made a deal with the wrong guy "

[Nifft]

but once their spells are expended, what have you got?
Cantrips and Ritual casting, plus some non-spell class features like reading your mind (Knowledge Cleric) or deciding how well you just rolled on that skill check (Divination Wizard).

[Sigreid]

Fighters will be more or less respected depending on how martial a society is. In some places they will have the highest status, in others, be viewed as jobs for those who can't cast spells. Rangers and Paladins will be in a similar status, with Paladins getting some clerical glow and Rangers some druidical.


I find it hard to picture a setting where the commoners won't revere famous fighters. It's kind of the batman thing, they stand alone as showing that with the right tools, training and dedication anyone can stand against the horrors of the world.

[JellyPooga]

Cantrips and Ritual casting, plus some non-spell class features like reading your mind (Knowledge Cleric) or deciding how well you just rolled on that skill check (Divination Wizard).

Psh! Parlour tricks to impress the yokels :smallwink:

[Nifft]

Psh! Parlour tricks to impress the yokels :smallwink:

Using Thaumaturgy to impress yokels is totally using Thaumaturgy correctly, even if it's just the tip of the iceberg for that awesome cantrip. :cool:

Thaumaturgy + Guidance is such an awesome pair of cantrips to get for Magic Initiate, I can't even begin to gush in the proper quantity that they deserve. Pair that with Actor on a Charlatan Rogue (or Bard) and you can basically fool anyone about anything.

Oh, and you get a spell, too.

It's just crazy.

[Generic NPC]

Wow, thank you all for such friendly and helpful responses! This definitely gives me a lot of interesting ideas to mull over while finalizing the setting. Particularly, jkat718, your mention of the 3.5 PHB is exactly what I was looking for, and I'm super grateful that you mentioned it. Previously, I'd thought that the online SRD contained basically all the text in the PHB, and that it was just a starkly to-the-point mechanics-based book, but when I looked through my friend's copy, I found all sorts of interesting fluff. (And Complete Arcane gave me the 3.5 outlook on the warlock, too.) I'm surprised that the 5e PHB doesn't have anything like this, because it seems like it could give some good inspiration for settings.

For the basic premise of my setting, I started with imagining what a world would be like in which classes are formal and discrete "professions", born of traditions that have been shaped over centuries or more, and are easy enough to learn that most people have at least one class level. From that, I've been designing the world setting to accommodate these assumptions as effectively as possible. As I've carefully studied the official "fluff" of the classes while considering how other players have used them, I've been adding, modifying, and discarding ideas to refine the classes' histories and places in society to be as multi-dimensional as possible. I'm having a lot of fun with it.

For instance, with so many different variants of warriors and mages running around, a heavily multicultural world seems most likely. More than likely, different societies would have developed different warrior and mage traditions, and as these societies met and intermingled, they would have integrated and adapted each others' traditions, resulting in the large number of classes in the modern era. Similarly, the existence of subclasses strikes me as suggesting that although the classes' traditions stretch back far into the past, they're still in a state of change, with subclasses representing ongoing debate on how best to exemplify that adventuring tradition. I'd imagine that in the past, subclasses would have been very different than the modern ones (the ones in the PHB, in other words). As time passed, less popular subclasses would have died out, and more popular subclasses would have become accepted by the masses and had their features integrated into that class's core "chassis", like some sort of "subclass survival of the fittest". For instance, long ago, the fighter's action surge might have been part of an ancient subclass, but it met with such wide approval that all fighters began learning the technique, solidifying it as a universal fighter ability in the future.

Er, sorry if I went on a bit too long there. I'm having way too much fun designing this setting, ehehe. Thank you for your help!

[KorvinStarmast]

For the basic premise of my setting, I started with imagining what a world would be like in which classes are formal and discrete "professions", born of traditions that have been shaped over centuries or more, and are easy enough to learn that most people have at least one class level. ! Will this reflect something like ... Guilds/Unions/AMA/Bar Association/Professional Associations/Honor Fraternities/Masons etc?

[Generic NPC]

Will this reflect something like ... Guilds/Unions/AMA/Bar Association/Professional Associations/Honor Fraternities/Masons etc?

Yes, exactly. With classes being distinct entities with long traditions, I thought it would make sense for each class to have its own respectable good-aligned organization (colloquially called a guild) dedicated to supporting members of that class, plus ensuring that the class maintains a good reputation by working to discipline class members who shirk their responsibilities or commit evil acts. (Of course, the exact nature of each guild would differ by the class, like with "cleric guildhouses" being the temples.) Together, these 12 organizations would function almost like a big adventurers' guild that helps train and support heroes to oppose the numerous threats to the land and its people. It's actually the descriptions of the cleric temples and druidic society in the PHB that gave me this idea.

As it stands, the existence of guilds would grant adventurers a better reputation than in the average setting, because people could count on certified adventurers to be decent and reliable people. ...Not that it would prevent there from being certain stereotypes anyway, particularly because those guilds haven't always been around.

[Nifft]

Yes, exactly. With classes being distinct entities with long traditions, I thought it would make sense for each class to have its own respectable good-aligned organization (colloquially called a guild) dedicated to supporting members of that class

Honestly I don't see that at all.

In my game a Fey Bladelock and a Valor Bard might have more in common with each other than with a different subclass of their own class.

A Diviner, Knowledge Cleric, and a Lore Bard likewise might have a lot to talk about -- rather different things than the Evoker, the Tempest Cleric, and the Stormborn Sorcerer talk about.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

When there's a party:

The wizards don't show up.

Neither do the clerics and the druids, but they had the excuse that they are having philosophy night, where they discuss all sorts of things in a relaxed atmosphere under the enjoyment of a light beverage.

The bar starts to fill up with bards, rogues, barbarians and rangers. They're drinking, dancing and having a good time. Some of them reach the "screw it all let's just get drunk and dance woohoo" point as early as 10 o'clock.

The paladins arrive early and party hard, but after two hours they decide that this party is a hellish affair. They stir up trouble and get kicked out by the barbarians.

The barbarians are all riled up now, so after about another half hour they start making trouble, and the rest of the room only barely manages to get them outside with some pushing and a lot of tact. Thanks bards.

Finally the fighters arrive, fashionably late. They have a good time, get just the right amount of drunk, and leave with an attractive member of the opposite gender. Or maybe the same gender, if they're not lawful good and best buddies with a couple of paladins.

As it gets later drunken sorcerers start showing off, which really annoys the warlocks. It doesn't come to another fight, but for everybody involved the evening has been ruined, and they drag their spellcasting friends out the door to go home.

At the end of the evening the bards wrap up and get everybody out. They've been entertaining everyone the whole night, and are going to the afterparty with any rangers and rogues who are still sober enough to walk, with some help from their buddies.

During the afterparty the bards peal of one by one, generally accompanied by one or more slightly tipsy and very impressed people who are planning on having plenty more fun tonight.

The next morning all the rogues are gone, and so are the rangers' wallets.

The monks slowly start awakening from their trance, they've been floating over the bar reaching true enlightenment the entire night. Best party ever.

[druid91]

There are no atheists; there are anti-theists, who wish the god(s) would leave mortals alone, but everyone believes that clerics are tapping into the same power source that formed the universe and decides the fates of souls.

The Athar are a thing.

[Mith]

The monks slowly start awakening from their trance, they've been floating over the bar reaching true enlightenment the entire night. Best party ever.

And is wondering who cast a continual "Dancing lights" spell on their robes and sent them into a slow spin...

[Prophet_of_Io]

Class relations are often case by case but there are always some odd stereotypes that come from fact. The most popular classes, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard always have a smug superiority when in a famous party, even though internally they squabble a lot.

A lot of classes favor friends that have things in common with each other. Druids favor Rangers and Barbarians for their more naturalistic approaches. Barbarians favor Fighters and Monks for the challenge they could pose. Bards favor Paladin's and Sorcerers since they usually have a good story to tell, etc. Clerics are well liked and well hated by everyone. It just depends on who's the cleric, who's the god and who's the person.

[Logosloki]

Warlocks would depend on the predominate deities or factions within a region. You have to look at it from the commoner view. They aren't going to discern between fey, demon and great old one. To most you are going to be that being who sold their soul to evil. Some deities and regions may have neutral or favourable views but they themselves will be oddballs or evil themselves.

Warlocks are going to be secretive, they know or should know it is better that people don't know they exist.

One of the most interesting presentations i have seen would be world of warcraft. In Stormwind the warlock trainers are located in a room that is underground with the entrance in the backroom of a pub which does its best to dissuade people to patron it. In Ogrimmar the warlocks are located in a cave system inside the city, they aren't hidden away but the caves give their abode a certain atmosphere.

[steeldragons]

For my homebrew world (a fairly vanilla/generic D&D fantasy world by most criteria) how the classes interact with each other and how common people interact with them differs widely from region to region, religion to religion, nation to nation.

At it's most simplistic, "adventurers" have a discreet respect for each other's talents and abilities and their "commonality" as adventurers. Obviously, many characters don't fit this mold, the cloistered cleric or (monk or druid or paladin) who's never left their temple/order before, the scholarly mage (or cleric) who in typically buried in their scrolls and books is not (typically) considered an "adventurer" and may receive more (or less) respect from either commoners or other adventuring types depending on their relative power, likability, rarity (yes, that's actually a thing in my games/world), and general usefulness.

For a general overview, I would break it down (2e style) into base groupings and then, the farther from that grouping you are the more skeptical or potentially hostile classes may react to each other. Exceptions, of course, exist. Religion/Deity/alignments being the most common reasons, but there are others I will explain when we get to them.

Warriors. Obviously, the most common [potential] "adventurer type guy" wandering around, pretty much anywhere. The village militia and town guard. The merchant's bodyguards. The noble's mercenaries. The king's soldiers. Daring explorers to stalwart defenders to raiding marauders. From Half-orcs to Humans to Halflings, all peoples trained in the use of (some form) of weapons and armor.

Much as the game, itself, has ever intended, Fighters can be found just about anywhere among all peoples. They are the most common class to be found in the world. In 5e, this would be a combination of both Champion and [many] Battlemasters. Rangers are less common, generally to be found -if at all and only if they wish- in numbers only in border/frontier areas or beyond. For the purposes of 5e, I would place some [especially good/famous] Battlemaster-Fighters in this next tier of commonality. Barbarians in my world are a human culture and class. Only humans of that area/those tribes can be "barbarians" [the PC class] and so, they are rarer still (than fighters or rangers) due to location -the further from their homeland you go, the less likely to be encountered they are- as much as numbers. Paladins are the rarest of them all for their particularly rare qualifications necessary to receive their special powers. Eldritch Knight-Fighters , their numbers are strictly fewer as not all races will have a capacity for or access to this kind of mixed training of weaponry and magic. More martially focused/combat-oriented Monks would fall into this [most rare] group also.

They are welcomed by most as "stabilizing" forces or someone to keep an eye on or, perhaps, not "set off" so as to avoid trouble. They could, as easily, be overlooked as nothing special or threatening unless they make a point of causing trouble/helping out, intimidating/ingratiating themselves to the locals.

The local culture, ultimately will make the call. A knightly warrior or actual paladin might be welcomed and indulged with reverence or be viewed as some stuff-shirt who doesn't really understand "the people." A barbarian could be viewed the exact same or directly opposite way in a different region...and that would also depend on how close you are to the barbarian's home territory (your typical norse-style northlands in my world). A particular band of rangers, tribe of barbarains, order of knights/paladins might be hailed as heroes in their home region, ignored as "just some other guys with swords" in another region [probably one that doesn't know their order/reputation], and/or detested as villainous outlaws or raiders in another.

As for other adventurers, the warriors are the much-necessary "solid foundation" of any expedition. Many cleric's temple has their own templars or [if not actual warrior-clerics or paladins themselves] other devout fighters to serve as their protectors. Thieves' guilds keep their share of "muscle"/enforcers to help "business" flow smoothly and/or impose discipline among its ranks, as necessary. And no mage with half a brain would dream of seeking out danger anywhere without a swordsman/bodyguard/strong body [at least one] to defend them, back them up, or simply deal with the non-magical threats.

So, yes, adventurers want fighters around...paladins, barbarians and rangers are more a matter individual of taste and/or regional difference. Clerics of similar alignment aren't going to have any problems with any of them that match their religion's tenets or embody some element of their deity's portfolio. Druids might not mind barbarians for their natural proclivities or even appreciate their feral nature...but a rabid animal is still to be avoided/put down. Rangers and druids (or clerics of natural deities) are often on the same page about a great many things. But the ranger's duty of protection or needs of their civilized peoples/lands may find itself at odds with the world's druidic order.

Thieves (rogues of all ilk) are going to get along well with warrior's willing to help out with the heavy lifting and watch their backs...or simply tolerating others who can be punching bags while the thief goes about their business...probably less so with paladins since they're a bit of of buzzkill when it comes to "laws" and "rules" (Paladins in my world/games are still demanded to be a/any Lawful alignment. While Thieves are permitted any alignment that is [I]not Lawful.).

Magic types (of any flavor that are not concerned with battle, which could include healer clerics or spell-focused druids as well as mages ["wizards"] or warlocks -my world does not have "sorcerers" as a class) are very much the same as rogues, needing the muscle and wanting the extra shield/sword/body between themselves and danger.

Well, that got lengthy. :smallbiggrin: As I'm new here, I think I'm going to stop here and break the remaining groups into separate posts...since obviously it can become a lot...very quickly.

[steeldragons]

Rogues. Thieves, being the next most common form of explorer/adventurer to be found in my homebrew world, as received by a much wider disparity of acceptance than Fighters (or warriors in general). For larger towns and cities where a "guild" might exist/be sanctioned, a thief might not really have much trouble or even enjoy the exercise of their "talents", but there are still crimes that are not tolerated and you're still going to be cased, beaten and thrown in jail (or worse) if you get caught...pretty much no matter where you are. Assassins are not a PC class in my world (as they are required, by my system, to be evil and I don't have evil PCs). Their numbers and locations where the Assassin's guild functions (though it is well known and widely feared that they can reach anywhere) make them a much rarer version of rogues.

Arcane Tricksters, are probably only marginally more rare than Assassins. Not a common mixture of disciplines for many human cultures, but possibly (gnomes) among other races (gnomes) quite common (gnomes). Depending on your aptitude, you might be respected among other thieves and/or useful for assassins or (as likely and depending on the region and commonality of magical use/talent) you might be looked down on as a freak or nuisance...or inferior class of/among rogues, as in "Yeah. That's cool n' all. But let's see ya pull off a heist wit'out yer hoity-toity magic. That's what makes a REAL thief! None o' this elfish cheatin'." Obviously in more magic-capable and/or -dependent cultures (i.e. among elves or a mage-heavy human culture) that would not be the case.

By the same token, Arcane Tricksters should get on well enough, if possessed of a somewhat dubious reputation, with other arcane magic-users, clerics of trickster deities (in whose temples they might even have a home/special order), and among fae creatures in general who enjoy a good illusion or enchantment "trick."

Equivalent to the "Paladin" of warriors, for true rarity, is the Bard rogue. In my world, chroniclers and mobile history/knowledge banks, as much as wandering minstrels/entertainers. They are greatly respected in a couple the world's major cultures, valued as exceptional entertainers and/or wise advisers in another nation or two. I adhere to the "must have Neutrality in their alignment" and so, their value as trusted counsellors, diplomats, and possibly even judges is widely accepted. Their unique and specific training in "the Bardic Arts" (history, music, magic, rogue skills, etc...) puts them on the rarity pedestal right alongside the Paladin, both in terms of limited numbers who actually make it through the training as well as the unique array of abilities that training engenders.

Bards who gain a poor reputation (liar, cad, thief) are basically finished no matter where they go and have no one to fault but themselves. Such bards will find a cool shoulder even from other bards, who are insulted by the sullying of their communal reputation. It is fine to be a talentless hack with the lyre...it is not fine to be a known deceiver. You have to keep up the appearance/pull the deception OFF!

The collection, recording and spreading of accurate information and knowledge is of tantamount importance to bards of my world. That is not to say lying is morally objectionable. It's a matter of degrees...what you lie about...and if you get caught. Their general interest in knowledge, nature and magic (to a greater or lesser extent) make them natural allies and good friends to druids and many wizardly types.

Now, among other adventurers...do you want rogues around? That will depend, greatly, on a PC's alignment. Even Lawful characters can be pragmatic and there is no arguing that a rogue's particular "skill set" is infinitely more useful and flexible than a mage or cleric's specific spell selection. For getting through the locks and traps, as well as simple recon/scouting, a rogue is a useful sort to have around...you just have to keep an eye on your purse and, if you are so inclined [lawful enough], subject them to a contract to keep them in line (and be able to justify seeking satisfaction if broken). Of course, there are plenty of neutral and/or good rogues though who are happy to join adventuring troupes as much for the thrill and exploration as the gold or fame/glory. As well as the bards who are as much interested in going along for the sheer experience to chronicle and compose with as any actual physical treasure or riches (though no bard worth his mandolin would turn those down either :smallamused:).

[steeldragons]

Priests. Everyone (PC races) is going to have a religion/spirituality/belief system of some kind. The Priests of the community are going to be the ones that protect and conduct that system. The most common, obviously, is the Cleric. My game world is, as most D&D fantasy worlds, a polytheistic cosmology, with deities covering the bulk of the world's areas/concerns and a cadre of [mostly] good and/or neutral gods that oversee the managing of creation and their creations (the mortal races) within it, and protect it from the machinations, corruptions and attempted destruction by a [smaller] cadre of evil deities and demon lords, devil princes, and other assorted extradimensional evils eager to subjugate or annihilate "good."

Similar to how rogues may be perceived, from common acceptance to hunted down scoundrels, the interactions of a given religion or priesthood within a given region is a matter of the prominent beliefs of the locale and the alignment of the locals. Clerics of the known gods of good or neutrality are rarely objected to, though disputes and differences of philosophy do happen: [civilized] cleric or followers of the LG supreme god of civilization/good/king of the gods/etc... often finds itself at odds with the more rural clerics or adherents of the goddess of nature/agriculture/weather and "those heathen druids." The adherents of the goddess of life and the goddess of death are often strained, though each recognizes the necessity of the other in maintaining the cosmos, and so are rarely openly hostile...and can be staunch [and incredibly effective] allies when facing the abominations of "undeath."

No one, of course, gets along with clerics known to serve evil deities or their [mostly] secretive cults other than in a few specific places. Public temples to evil entities/deities are present in only a few places in the whole of the known world and then, often, under some guise/branch of the religion that concerns itself with a necessary element/need of the population for their location. Entreating the goddess of disease[who also happens to be the goddess of swamps, decay, and the undead] with material riches for the temple/clerics to remove that burning sensation you picked up from that "courtier" is as effective, and less embarrassing, than going to the temple of the goddess of life/healing for the same thing.

Among the recognized "priests" of the world, Druids come in "second" with a world-wide organization of much secrecy and varying amounts of respect from realm to realm. They have been revered at various times and played a pivotal role at various times in the world's history. But, for now, they are the viewed as anything from mysterious "nature-priests" to "heathens" or outright "wilderness heretics" to some cityfolk.

[I]Monks of a particular "shaolin"/magical "ki" powers through spiritual enlightenment bent are usually so secluded and reclusive that they don't really serve a "priestly" role for the communities they might visit, viewed more as mystic hermits or spiritual warriors of a flavor different than a paladin. They are included here, however, as many can/will provide great wisdom, spiritual guidance, protection, and support for any settlement or people they might find themselves in, and so will hold the extremely "rare" slot (en par with paladins and bards, who share their "priestly" leanings) of the Priest group.

How other adventurers interact with these classes is, again, a matter of alignment and common interest. Warriors, generally, and paladins, specifically, will get along great with War or Life Domain clerics, maybe Light and/or Tempest Domains also, and battle-effective monks of a generally similar alignment. Druids and ranger and bards, as well as Nature or Weather [Tempest] domain clerics, maybe Trickery or Knowledge domain clerics too. Wizarding types are going to get on well with Knowledge domain clerics in general, druids and/or Trickery domain clerics of a similar alignment or any other domain that interests them...a mage that values/enjoys fire-based spells could easily have a love/hate relationship with a Light Domain cleric of the Sun or some such, a "Storm Witch" [a title, not the class] might surround themselves with Tempest clerics or hold a special place of honor in a weather deity's temple, etc...

Adventurers of all ilk can not complain that the priest's potential magical and melee support (particularly those with handy healing spells), augmenting any area the party might need, are universally useful.

[steeldragons]

Wizards. Far from the limited definition of a "wizard" class, the "Wizard" category encompasses anyone who uses arcane, occult and/or otherwise esoteric non-divine super-natural energies, knowledge and/or ability. For the purposes of my homebrew, the default here is the Mage, a generalist version of 5e's wizard with some spontaneous spellcasting built in (hence the eviction of the completely unnecessary and redundant sorcerer class). They exist in varying numbers across the world. In the highly-magic dependent R'Hath Principalities ("the Mage-lands") where those without magic-use are second class citizens and members of the noble houses come with a generations-long legacy in wizardry and general magical power/prowess. Outside R'Hath or the academies/universities of large metropolitan or trading/high traffic cities, they become more rare. A 'high magic" region might see small gatherings in remote branches of the worldwide R'Hathi guild organization, independent groups (frowned upon by the guild and the common folk of most regions) or single masters teaching a lone student...down to the secluded "mad old man" who holds up in his tower outside of town, sought out only when the rarest or most strange [suspected magical] problems arise. Of course, then there are the barbarian tribal lands and the sea-faring empire of the United Island Kingdoms where non-divine/natural magic-use (let alone entreating with devils or fey) is illegal.

It should be noted that, while they may be the default "common" class to be considered "wizards", they are, by far, not common. Their studies, practices and general interests set them apart and acquiring any significant skill in the topic places demands on the individual that few can truly accept or master.

Taken in the context of the other posts on this topic, mages (and other wizard classes) should be thought of, in terms of their "per capita" saturation, as follows:

Common: . . .Champions, some BMs . . . Thieves
Uncommon . .some BMs, Rangers . . . . .(Assassins) . . . . . . .Clerics
Rare . . . . . . Barbarians . . . . . . . . . . . Arcane Tricksters . . Druids . .Mages, most Specialists
Very Rare: . . Paladins, Eldritch Knights . .Bards . . . . . . . . . . Monks . .two Specialists, Warlocks, Psychics

The arcane magical systems of my world are fairly well detailed and so following "generalist" Mages in commonality, and thus normalcy among most they encounter, are specialists of the following disciplines, in order from most to least common (and viewed as difficulty among mages themselves) ease of finding tutelage, acquiring materials for, etc...: Illusion, Enchantment, Divination, Conjuration, Abjuration, and Evocation. Following those, and entering the next rank of unusual, are Transmutation and Necromancy.

Warlocks also occupy this level of rarity and, among mages, are viewed as either "cheating hacks" (not actually learning/owning power themselves, but borrowed from others) or degenerate wicked demon-worshipers (which is the general perception by non-magic-users as well). Warlocks are well-advised to keep the origins of their arcane abilities to themselves and trusted companions. Mages, of course, will recognize the warlock for what they are right away.

At the pinnacle of rarity, possibly even beyond Paladins, is the Psychic (homebrewed psionics class). They are generally just viewed as "another weird guy that does magic", but of course, all arcane magic-users and psychics know this to be false, though magic is certainly capable of duplicating some of the psychic's directed mental energy effects.

Among adventurers themselves, the wizards are viewed with anything from respect to curiosity to disdain or outright fear. The PC's region of origin and the prevalence of magic-use and users there will undoubtedly color their perception. Barbarians [the class and culture], as a general rule, do not like them and would avoid them if they could. But, as with rogues, paladins or really any set of alignments or believes that don't always agree, being pragmatic (which includes, high on the priority list for a barbarian, prepared for battle) and recognizing the most effective way to deal with magic is magic, doesn't require you "liking/getting along with" the person. Bards, Clerics of knowledge (history, language, writing, etc...) and/or Magic deities, and most druids get along fairly well with most all wizardly types. Necromancers, of course, need not be "evil" and those that aren't, though often misunderstood, are tolerated...barely...if their unique kind of magical skill is needed/helpful.

Fiend-pacted Warlocks are almost universally reviled, as either wicked themselves or just plain liabilities, proven fools for being stupid enough to pact oneself with a devil or demon. It is not possible in my game to be a Fiend-pacted Warlock and maintain a Good alignment...and even Neutral, there will be a constant pull and temptation to "the dark side." As evil-aligned PCs are not permitted in my games, there is rarely an actual alignment issue so much as an issue of problematic perception within the game world to deal with, regardless of Warlock Patron.

Psychics, similarly, can suffer a good deal of persecution, even among other non-psychic individuals/adventurers for the misunderstanding of their powers (being believed "possessed" and such). They are, however, believed to have been blessed by the deity of knowledge and the mind, patron of psychics and teacher of the psionic disciplines, for that, they will almost universally be revered as "hand-touched by the All-Knowing" to Knowledge Domain clerics.

By and large, however, adventurers in need of magical assistance, expertise, or knowledge are all likely to seek out a wizard of some kind to help them and many become known/famous through tales and myth, the world over, for their power (on the sides of both good and evil). All of the most famous of adventuring groups and heroes of legend have at least one wizarding type among their allies.