Class knowledge: metagaming?

[Misterwhisper]

There have been plenty of threads about out of game knowledge used in character as metagaming, like a character who has never met or seen a troll just so happens to start throwing alchemist fire without a knowledge check.

But what about class knowledge.

If you
If m li are fighting an enemy npc who is a cultist to an old god, and a player just goes, “he is a warlock I bet, they have tiny spell slots so just counterspell and then burn him down.”

Or

A angry tribesman charges the group wearing bearskins and wielding a great axe, and someone says, “don’t bother with elemental damage, throw psychic damage, bear totem is not resistant to that.

How much should a player know about class mechanics?
What about other subclasses of their own class?
Ex. Would a swashbuckler rogue know that arcane tricksters have an invisible mage hand?

Thoughts?

[Gastronomie]

I sorta let it pass. As long as players are controlling the adventurers, it's unavoidable to a certain extent.

But my Trolls all have different elemental weaknesses...

[stoutstien]

Well very few npc have levels in PC classes and tend to have just class features.
Tribal warrior has reckless attack but not rage.
Most npc casters don't last longer than 3-4 rounds so spell slot economy isn't very important.

[Gastronomie]

Well very few npc have levels in PC classes and tend to have just class features.
Tribal warrior has reckless attack but not rage.
Most npc casters don't last longer than 3-4 rounds so spell slot economy isn't very important.This is true.

If anything they'd have altered, more simple versions. For instance, an NPC Barbarian at my table will have constant resistance to nonmagical weapons instead of the Rage feature. Once a player tried to attack this Barbarian as much as possible before he gets initiative, thinking he will start Raging on his first turn, and was surprised that I said he had resistance from the start. An example where metagaming knowledge doesn't always work.

[Son of A Lich!]

I was just going to say, the fluff is mutable to the scenario; the best way to make a world feel unique is to give it something the players have never had access too.

For example; Gut Magic. I have a number of NPCs that have a sorta kinda homebrew system that builds generally off of the Warlock spell casting, but recharges spell slots based off of eating things.

Potions, food, people, etc.

Originally created by Gnolls but learned by numerous species of the cannibal races; Goblins, Ogres, Ghouls, Hags, Harpies, some sects of Yaun-ti, and so forth.

The spell casting is based off of CON, rather then CHR or whatever and gives them meta magic boosts when eating specific things (Most notably humanoid flesh). I treat their spell slots a little lower then a typical warlock, but they can cast in armor without penalty and are great shamans. Now, whenever my players see a spell caster with a femur in his hand, there is a race to disarm him before he can eat off of it.

They have learned around the fact that this is how the system works and carry it with them.

I wouldn't consider it meta gaming, necessarily.

The real ghast that hangs over this discussions head is a definition for "Meta-Gaming" that satisfies all parties. Good luck with that, though.

[Unoriginal]

There have been plenty of threads about out of game knowledge used in character as metagaming, like a character who has never met or seen a troll just so happens to start throwing alchemist fire without a knowledge check.

But what about class knowledge.

If you
If m li are fighting an enemy npc who is a cultist to an old god, and a player just goes, “he is a warlock I bet, they have tiny spell slots so just counterspell and then burn him down.”

Or

A angry tribesman charges the group wearing bearskins and wielding a great axe, and someone says, “don’t bother with elemental damage, throw psychic damage, bear totem is not resistant to that.

How much should a player know about class mechanics?
What about other subclasses of their own class?
Ex. Would a swashbuckler rogue know that arcane tricksters have an invisible mage hand?

Thoughts?

NPCs don't have class levels, generally.


Also, it's perfectly possible that people in the world would have knowledge of what the classes are capable of, however it is basically impossible to identify someone's class unless they use an obvious class feature.

An angry tribesman wearing bearskin and using a greataxe could be a Tribal Warrior. Or a Berserker NPC. Or a Champion NPC. Or a Paladin. Or any other combatant who uses a greataxe.

A cultist could be a Warlock, or a Cult Fanatic (using cleric spellcasting). Or a Commoner.

A Swashbuckler might know that an Arcane Trickster has an invisible hand, but how would they know the shady contact they're meeting in the bar is an arcane tricker?

[PhoenixPhyre]

They'd be wrong--NPCs in my games don't have class levels, even if they have class features. Heck, I rarely bother actually running spell slots--they have a few spells they can cast (from thematic lists) a certain number of times each. Basically innate casting, but using the fluff of regular casting. Makes no difference to the players, makes a huge difference to me trying to run the fights without taking forever.

"Classes" per se aren't a thing in-universe. They're a convenient abstract bundle of themed abilities that work together. There certainly are Paladins, but they're not PHB paladins. They're just people who draw their power from Oaths, just like PHB paladins do. 99% of the "clerics" are really more like commoners with ritual casting, magic initiate (cleric) and some innate casting.

[SociopathFriend]

How much should a player know about class mechanics?
What about other subclasses of their own class?
Ex. Would a swashbuckler rogue know that arcane tricksters have an invisible mage hand?

Thoughts?

Depends if they're familiar with the class- same as any other knowledge.

For example, if you journey with a Barbarian for weeks/months then I fully expect you've become familiar with how their Rage works (what it resists and does not, how they must fight every turn or else it turns off) and that sort of thing. This knowledge could even backfire if you misunderstand what manner of Barbarian you're facing.

If you journey with an Arcane Trickster that steals with invisible mage hands OR you once had an Arcane Trickster steal from you using that- it makes sense for you to hold a certain suspicion that any thief might have another invisible such hand around.
I was stolen from by a thief that never came near me. I don't know how he did it but that certainly doesn't prevent me from being paranoid about that sort of thing and taking precautions against it.

[hymer]

I have no problems with players trying to guess a statblock's capabilities. Sometimes they get it wrong, and that's the price they pay.

[Man_Over_Game]

How much should a player know about class mechanics?
What about other subclasses of their own class?
Ex. Would a swashbuckler rogue know that arcane tricksters have an invisible mage hand?

Thoughts?

I don't like it either. Trying to control it, though is nearly impossible and makes the game less fun. The best thing you can do is to leave Player Classes specific to them, unless they're some kind of helper-NPC, and then just have the bad guys all have unique mechanics that you can just steal off of other existing classes.

For example, a Dexterity-based Eldritch Knight that also happens to have the same Mage Hand Legerdemain ability that Arcane Tricksters get. Players wouldn't see that coming, until they've already seen him do it. Or a Cleric of the Flame, effectively being a Fiend Warlock with some defensive abilities.

[JeenLeen]

I have two opinions on this.

1) it seems reasonable that most PCs would know about standard PC class features. They are adventureres and trained such that it makes sense they'd know general stuff about other adventurers. It stretches a bit if they recall every nuance of what a Fighter can do at what level, but if they see a melee dude acting like a Fighter, it seems reasonable to assume he might know Fighter tricks. Likewise, assume a caster is like a caster.

2) the examples you give would annoy me a bit at a table, but I suppose it makes sense. I think what really bugs me is the assumption that the NPCs have PC levels. But the idea that "some barbarians resist all but psychic damage, so try that" seems reasonable. Likewise, "although wizards can worship Great Old Ones, I think it's mostly warlocks. So let's base our tactics on that assumption."