PDA

View Full Version : Is it realistic for people to understand the classes?



EvilElitest
2008-02-17, 05:13 PM
Here is a question that comes up on the NPC/ PC creation thread, and something that comes up concerning 4E, is the idea that the people in the world wouldn't understand the mechanics, limitations, or abilities of the classes. Realistically, would people in the world generally understand the difference between a wizard or a cleric, or how magic works. Could NPCs or PC "in character" undestand the rules of the rules of teh game without metagaming? Discuss
from
EE

TheLogman
2008-02-17, 05:17 PM
I think it all depends on how much Fluff you use. For example:

Cleric: Prays to gods, gets magic, seems to be some sort of Cleric

Fighter: Focuses on Militant hitting stuff, probably army training explains feats

Rogue: Sneakiness and adaptability, if a person starts jabbing you in seemingly vital areas, and seems to be pretty Limber, quick, and skillful, you could see him as a Rogue

Monks/Pallys: Pretty obvious, since their stuff is not very similar to anything else

Bard: A guy that travels and sings/plays an instrument

Arcane magic may have a degree of Transparency when it comes to the various types, granted, but for the most parts, the classes do things that signify them as part of that class.

Parvum
2008-02-17, 05:21 PM
People would know that some people have god-given powers, whereas others use god-given talents to make their own power. They would know that divine classes are not encouraged to give their god's morals the finger. They know that rogues and monks are nimble and can avoid even magical attacks, because every rogue or monk with more than one level has evasion. They would NOT, however, know that rogues or monks cannot wear heavy armor, simply that they 'don't'.

Everything that can be learned from casual observation could be considered common knowledge. A smite, for example, does not have a fancy display (that I know of). A commoner looking upon it would see a paladin shout and hit a bit harder. Smite Evil would thus only be common knowledge if paladins went about telling everyone that they can smite with divine power.

mostlyharmful
2008-02-17, 05:24 PM
When people are able to do things that others just CANT it surely becomes pretty easy to distinguish the classes (at least some of them) from the npcs. This is obviously easiest with the casters, if the guy across from you can throw fireballs or force your flesh to knit back together instantly then you can narrow down what they are easily. It's the combat and skillmonkey classes that might be a little trickier, rage and bonus feats and sneak attack are all explainable mundanely so long as you squint really hard and dont pay attention to the details. Of the PHB classes the only ones an ingame analysis shouldn't be able to unequivicably identify are fighter, barbarian and rogue, all the rest bring something to the table that can't be ignored or explained as anything else.

With casters it should even be childs play to work out how high a level they are (to within one) due to the way spell levels work, you can pin down that the priest in frount of you is of the fifth gradation because they can cast raise dead and Hallow for example.
And a bit of observation and experiance in fighting should be eonough for someone to be able to pick out the mundane three pretty fast too.

EvilElitest
2008-02-17, 05:24 PM
So it would be logical to assume that in a gaming world where magic has been around for a while, most intellectual would generally understand the rules of magic and what not. For example, most wizards would know what they can or can't do compared to Clerics
from
EE

TheLogman
2008-02-17, 05:37 PM
Ya, I would think so, but it could go to another level.

Maybe the Wizards have the "Rules of Magic", one of them being: The Arcane cannot tap into the Positive Plane. You could say magical Lightening comes from the Air Plane, Fire from the Fire Plane, Cold and Water from the Water Plane, and Earth from the Earth Plane, and Arcane Magic can tap into those, but not the Positive Plane.

Then, you have the Clerics do the opposite: Have them do Positive and Negative, but not the Standard Elements.

Of course, neither of those "Rules" is completely true, but you know, rules are made to be broken.

Plus, you have the benefit of having a whole Material/Immaterial, Science/Morality, Stable/Spirit thing going on.

FlyMolo
2008-02-17, 05:37 PM
So it would be logical to assume that in a gaming world where magic has been around for a while, most intellectual would generally understand the rules of magic and what not. For example, most wizards would know what they can or can't do compared to Clerics
from
EE

Eh, probably. Depends on the setting. I mean, warlocks might look different, compared to wizards, say. I mean, a warlock points his arm and twiddles his fingers, and poof. Bolt of energy. A bit different from the wizards or clerics. Besides, a cleric looks like a cleric. Robes, symbols etched on stuff, priestly vestments, generally blunt weapons.

horseboy
2008-02-17, 05:41 PM
So it would be logical to assume that in a gaming world where magic has been around for a while, most intellectual would generally understand the rules of magic and what not. For example, most wizards would know what they can or can't do compared to Clerics
from
EE
Well, that really only holds true if everyone stays in a single class. With the ease of multi classing thing tend to get muddle pretty quick. Compound that with they're familiar with the repercussions and not the mechanics of "how" only "when we do this______, this_______comes out"
"How?"
"We're not sure yet, but we've got several compelling, competing theories."
Your concept of "for a while" and "how fast can theory advance" will determine how much they will know about what goes on inside the black box. The knowledge of Oxygen, after all, is only two years older than America. Up until then there several very wrong theories about why things burned. Just because they've seen it happen doesn't mean they haven't lost time with false cause and effect ratios.

huttj509
2008-02-17, 06:00 PM
If somebody were knowledgeable in religion I think it would not be unreasonable for them to have an idea of the spells clerics could be granted and their relative power. Similarly for someone who knows a lot about the Arcana of the world.

Spellcraft describes general knowledge of spells both divine and arcane.

I don't think any of those would grant in character knowledge of spell levels, unless the in character wizardly order used those levels to describe the tiers of spell power, for example.

Knowledge: Nobility might turn up "The Baron is renowned for his skill with the lute, and can bring grown men to tears with a few notes, or rally the most cowardly deserter. There are rumors of his music even being able to speed the closing of wounds!" It would not turn up "He's a Bard Level n."

So I think once someone can do something, it is in character for word to spread, and it to be known he can do that, but not to know what he will be able to do in the future, unless, say, a Cleric is being compared to a legendary holy man who could perform Miracles with varied effects, and maybe one day he shall be so great.

Edit: If there are many powerful wizards and clerics I'd expect wizards to know something like "Yeah, the divine power can have this effect, we haven't really figured out how to do that, but we did find a lot of neat things they can't do."

Sleet
2008-02-17, 06:04 PM
Could NPCs or PC "in character" undestand the rules of the rules of teh game without metagaming?

Completely depends on the NPC.

Joe Dirt Farmer from Mudville? To him, magic users probably fall into "Priests" (clerics, druids, paladins - those who he sees healing) and "Mages" (all other magic users). They don't know the rules - it's all mysterious and arcane to them. Imagine someone who has no real understanding of technology - they don't know the difference between C++ programmers and web designers, and what's more they don't really care, as it just doesn't matter to them.

More learned NPCs probably understand that spellcasters come in different flavors, and those with some ranks in Spellcraft or Knowledge (arcana) probably do get the mechanical differences between classes. Although, of course, they don't see them as "classes," but rather schools of magic, different bloodlines, different innate talents, etc.

Sebastian
2008-02-17, 06:31 PM
So it would be logical to assume that in a gaming world where magic has been around for a while, most intellectual would generally understand the rules of magic and what not. For example, most wizards would know what they can or can't do compared to Clerics
from
EE

Maybe, but things get more complicated really fast when you put in things like multiclassing, prestige classes, feats, variant classes, etc, etc.

Maybe it is just my personal preference but in my world classes are trasparent, the example I usually use is that you can have someone that call himself a paladin and that is called paladin by everyone else but that is actually "just" a fighter/cleric.

valadil
2008-02-17, 06:39 PM
In the worlds I play in, usually people know that you can have arcane and divine casters. Arcane casters can tell the difference between wizard, sorcerer, and bard, but to everyone else they're just mages.

John Campbell
2008-02-17, 06:45 PM
As soon as you say "classes", you've thrown realism out the window anyway.

Rutee
2008-02-17, 06:47 PM
Martial classes, as a rule, are too similar for someone who isn't an experienced fighter to be able to truly glean a difference in the effects. They could tell a lot of the in-character differences (Perhaps the swashbuckler fights with a flourish that the efficiency minded, calculating grimscythe user obviously can't be botherred to show), but the end results are too similar to be able to determine without extensive observation oneself; In short, while they might grasp some of the more gross differences, knowing that one is doing severe ligament and tendon damage and the other is shattering bones is going to be difficult tot ell. Further, those differences (BAB, Skill points) are easer to alleviate with multiclassing and the like that the unschooled fighter simply doesn't stand much of a chance, IMO.

Mage classes... are easier to learn about in an academic sense. You don't have to observe magic to be taught how to tell the difference in the end results, oftentimes (It's easier to differentiate between a Cloudkill and a Fireball then it is precision damage and brute force) and teaching that difference 'should' be easier, but there's so many different ways to cast spells (I'm looking at you, Warlock) that it's still not easy. And most campaign settings just don't have enough of them that it's reasonable to teach about the high end effects as something other then (often conflicting) legends.

No matter how you come down to it, the most a non-adventurer-type can really tell is the end results. They simply can't differentiate enough of the how without personal interaction on a constant basis. Even adventurer types are drawing from personal experience, so even they're not going to be able to quantify something outside their normal paradigm very easily. And they're never going to be able to articulate class as an in character concept (Unless you explicitly say it's an IC concept in your world), just a different method of learning some particular thing (The ARcane, the Divine, the Martial, etc)

Fhaolan
2008-02-17, 08:12 PM
For the classes (and other game rules) to be realistically understood by the average person in that gameworld depends on a lot of things.

Well... actually, no. It depends on one thing.

That everyone tells the truth.

As long as there are a fair number of people making it their business to spread false information, the truth will be obscured. And enough of the class abilities at low levels can be duplicated by other classes at various levels, so that trickery is fairly easy. A mid-level Bard can pretend to be a low-level Wizard, and also cast healing spells. A Cleric can pretend to be a Paladin fairly easily, while having a more extensive spell selection. A high-level Wizard can pretend to be pretty much anything if he/she prepares for it, while having lots of extra options available.

And there will always be people who do this. Because it's profitable. Just like a lot of current RL garbage that gets bandied about as if it's truth. Someone's making money off of it, needs to hide, or it just makes them feel important.

For example, in one game I was playing I had a relatively high-level Wizard/Bard who was pretending to be an oracle of some obscure foreign religion on a pilgrimage. His entire purpose was to get himself (and the party) out of the country because some former members of the party had managed to get them in serious trouble with the government. Now everyone that met the party is fully convinced that there is some religion out there that sends low-level priests out to spout prophetic gibberish at anyone foolish enough to stand still for too long.

snoopy13a
2008-02-17, 09:08 PM
Some classes are actual professions while others are simply constructs.

For example, a knight, a longbowman, a pikeman, and a brigand could all be members of the Fighter class but they would be considered by in-game characters to have different professions. They would consider themself as a knight, archer, etc and not as a "Fighter".

The same could be considered with the Rogue class as they consist of thieves, spies, scouts, among others.

On the other hand, a wizard is a person who studies spellbooks and casts magic. A wizard is both an in-game profession and class. The same with a Sorceror who instead of studying spells has a natural ability to cast spells. However, one cannot differenate between them unless they spend enough time with them to learn that one is constantly studying spells and the other isn't.

Clerics and Paladins both would be in-game professions (although not always called Clerics and Paladins). A Cleric could be referred to as a priest or priestess and a Paladin may be referred to as a knight of a particular deity.

Still, a common person may not be able to differenate between a Cleric, Paladin, or even a Fighter until they observed them casting spells. Even then, they probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Cleric or Paladin unless the character told them: "I am a paladin/knight of X" or "I am a priest/priestess/cleric of X".

Basically, characters are viewed as having a "profession" not a class. Some classes, such as wizard, are a profession while other classes, such as Fighter, can encompass several different professions.

EvilElitest
2008-02-17, 09:14 PM
Some classes are actual professions while others are simply constructs.

For example, a knight, a longbowman, a pikeman, and a brigand could all be members of the Fighter class but they would be considered by in-game characters to have different professions. They would consider themself as a knight, archer, etc and not as a "Fighter".

The same could be considered with the Rogue class as they consist of thieves, spies, scouts, among others.

On the other hand, a wizard is a person who studies spellbooks and casts magic. A wizard is both an in-game profession and class. The same with a Sorceror who instead of studying spells has a natural ability to cast spells. However, one cannot differenate between them unless they spend enough time with them to learn that one is constantly studying spells and the other isn't.

Clerics and Paladins both would be in-game professions (although not always called Clerics and Paladins). A Cleric could be referred to as a priest or priestess and a Paladin may be referred to as a knight of a particular deity.

Still, a common person may not be able to differenate between a Cleric, Paladin, or even a Fighter until they observed them casting spells. Even then, they probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Cleric or Paladin unless the character told them: "I am a paladin/knight of X" or "I am a priest/priestess/cleric of X".

Basically, characters are viewed as having a "profession" not a class. Some classes, such as wizard, are a profession while other classes, such as Fighter, can encompass several different professions.

True, but an advanced culture with intellectuals would be able to figure out most of the differences between types of magic and the general differences between classes (a swashbuckler and a Samurai for example)

from
EE

Sir Iguejo
2008-02-17, 09:48 PM
True, but an advanced culture with intellectuals would be able to figure out most of the differences between types of magic and the general differences between classes (a swashbuckler and a Samurai for example)

from
EE

only if the PC classes are relatively common in the world.

If people has the opportunity to see swashbucklers, ninjas, wizards and warlocks walking by the street, they probably know that the roguish guy can hit you hard if you are looking the other side.

IMO, PC classes arent widely known to the point of this division be needed (grammar please). Commoners will know the differences between arcanists diviners and meleers (for obvious reasons) but only that.

horseboy
2008-02-17, 09:48 PM
True, but an advanced culture with intellectuals would be able to figure out most of the differences between types of magic and the general differences between classes (a swashbuckler and a Samurai for example)

from
EE
Then what's your class?

EvilElitest
2008-02-17, 09:50 PM
Then what's your class?

Currently? Homebrew class Student/Fencer
from
EE

Mewtarthio
2008-02-17, 09:52 PM
By the same token, however, different choices of feats and class features could be seen as different classes. For instance, a Fighter that optimizes himself for grappling would be seen as completely different from a Fighter that optimizes himself for horseback archery, just as any Fighter is seen as completely different from a Swashbuckler.

The Extinguisher
2008-02-17, 10:01 PM
I think that most people not part of a particular church would be able to pick apart the differences between clerics and paladins of different chuches. Back to back maybe. But not alone.

KoDT69
2008-02-17, 10:05 PM
For the most part, the basic classes would probably be easily understood by even the commoners. Even an INT 8 child would know the difference between a Fighter (seasoned warrior, knows great many fighting styles, possibly military or guard service) and the nomadic Barbarian (sheer power and intimidation and the ability to take a harder hit without flinching). Now when you get into Beguiler and Duskblade and other hybrid type classes, the lines would get fuzzy real quick. How would even the adventurer really know that his focus on Divination magic makes him the Unseen Seer as opposed to an Arcane Trickster? They probably view themselves as a Rogue/Wizard or Rogue/Sorcerer with certain knacks for different skills. Would a Crusader know he's not just a Paladin with a higher devotion to the almighty smack-down? Or a Swordsage could think he's a Monk that made it to the upper level of being one with himself and the universe or some crap.

Ascension
2008-02-17, 10:16 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with the whole profession > class thing. I ran into this the first session of our current campaign. I was playing a rogue for the first time ever, and we were going around the table with IC introductions... The paladin, cleric, druid, and wizard could all freely introduce themselves as members of their class without breaking the fourth wall. Even the fighter sorta could, since he does fight... even though I would call him more a crossbowman than anything else. Me, on the other hand... I can't possibly introduce myself as a rogue in character. I do have some scout levels, so I could claim to be a scout without breaking character, but if I was pure rogue I'd have to call myself by some other name. Really, if the cultural implications of the term are retained at all in D&D, the same would go for barbarian. And quite a few of the prestige classes and non-base classes aren't profession titles.

(For what it's worth, I introduced myself as "an... observer of sorts" with a sly grin, leading to a general distrust of my character, even after I assured them that I would aid in their quest as long as it aided me in gathering the information I'm after. People are so suspicious these days! I ought to have protested that they should've had to roll sense motive checks...)

Kompera
2008-02-18, 12:56 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with the whole profession > class thing.

As do I. The campaign setting can have a huge impact on this, of course.

The clergy of the Rogue God, if they are all multi-classed Cleric/Rogues will have a distinctly different feel to the members of the community than the clergy of the Berserker God who are all Barbarian/Clerics and than the clergy of the God of music who are all Bard/Clerics.

The same can apply to any other clergy, organized crime family, military unit, magical college, etc, etc.

If such setting differences exist, there will be little chance of a person pointing at someone and saying "See that? That's a Wizard." Rather, they'll say "See those orange robes? That's a member of the College of Mysteries. And the black trim and fancy hat means she's a pretty senior member, too."

But it's completely up to the GM to breath this kind of life into their campaign setting. Otherwise, if all Wizards are generic, then the townsfolk will be saying "That's a Wizard" when one walks by. And that's just a little bit dull.

Xefas
2008-02-18, 01:49 AM
I've never run into this problem, or rather, I've never run into this as a problem, so I don't know if I'm entirely qualified to say for certain one way or the other.

However, I enjoy the idea of an immortal deity with nigh-infinite free-time and an insanely unfathomable intelligence cataloging every mortal potential into a comprehensive list. That way other gods can grab a copy so they can more accurately engage in their deific duties.

High Priest: "What does thou command, O' Almighty Hextor?"
Hextor: "Well, first, round up all of the followers who can only seem to shoot balls of fire at people and tell them to get to work learning how to conjure blinding dust at our enemies. Also, tell the men to start putting their spells into books instead of memorizing them out of nowhere. This spreadsheet says that'll increase their ability to diversify."
High Priest: "Right, right, what are those first ones called?"
Hextor: "Warmages."
High Priest: "Ah, yes, Warmages. Bloody inefficient bastards."
Hextor: "Indeed. Now, I've gotten word that a local boy's parents were killed recently. Better check into that. If the last several millenia are any indication, there's a 99% chance he'll be level 20 a couple months from now."

Rutee
2008-02-18, 01:58 AM
So the Gods school everyone on classes, making them IC concepts in your world? Spiffy.

Xefas
2008-02-18, 02:11 AM
So the Gods school everyone on classes, making them IC concepts in your world? Spiffy.

They don't in my current campaign. I'm just saying that it's a fun concept :smallsmile:

Maybe next game...

Artanis
2008-02-18, 01:05 PM
True, but an advanced culture with intellectuals would be able to figure out most of the differences between types of magic and the general differences between classes (a swashbuckler and a Samurai for example)
But how general is "general"?

Yes, somebody could tell the difference between a Swashbuckler and a Samurai. One is quick and dodgy, one hits things with a big sword. They may not recognize the concept of them being different "classes", but even Joe Q. DirtFarmer could tell that they fought differently.

But what about classes that are more similar? The common person would be utterly incapable of telling the difference between a Warmage and a blasty Sorcerer. Even a thoroughly-educated intellectual would only know the academic difference between the two, and unable to tell from mere observation which fireball-slinger in a chain shirt is a pyromaniacal Warmage and which fireball-slinger in a chain shirt is a pyromaniacal Sorcerer who took a feat to let him use armor without spell failure.

Likewise, if you saw a sword-wielding plate wearer with divine heal-casting and a stick up his ass, it would be effectively impossible for even the most educated person to tell whether he was a Paladin or a Cleric/Fighter. Hell, depending on the setting, a Paladin might be a Cleric/Fighter in fluff terms, just mixing the two more thoroughly at once instead of alternating.



So it all depends. It depends on how you define "general". It depends on who the observer is. It depends on what information they have to go on. It even depends on the setting.

Falrin
2008-02-18, 01:46 PM
Here's how I do it.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)


You have mechanic classes wich make up 'real world functions'


Wizards are called wizards, sorcerors sorcerors.
Or when more 'focused' they can be conjurers, summoners, illusionists, ...

A mighty wizard lives in thet tower

But fighters can be called soldiers, militia, pikeman, ...

A band of thugs stand before you

Rogues are henchman, scouts, assassins, thieves, ...

Paladins are Paladins. Mostly with their god 'Paladin of Pelor'

And then there are the more specific names like: Knight of the arcane order, Finders of the honkyponky, holy handsome handymen, ..

He is a finder of the honyponky, we must show respect


This also goes the other way:

A 'bard' can be 10 Bard, or 1 expert, or 5 Rogue, ...
Soldiers can be swashbucklers, rogues, fighters, barbarians, ...

Chronos
2008-02-18, 02:58 PM
Wizards, at least, must know of the distinction between wizards and other spellcasting classes, because of the way they gain spells. A wizard is another spellcaster from whom I can learn new spells, and who can learn new spells from me. Wizards would probably also know, better than most, the distinctions between the various other caster classes. A wizard would probably be better able to tell the difference between a warmage and a sorcerer than the warmage or the sorcerer themselves would. But even at that, even a wizard is going to have a hard time telling a warmage from a sorcerer.

Frosty
2008-02-18, 04:05 PM
High Priest: "Ah, yes, Warmages. Bloody inefficient bastards."
Hextor: "Indeed. Now, I've gotten word that a local boy's parents were killed recently. Better check into that. If the last several millenia are any indication, there's a 99% chance he'll be level 20 a couple months from now."

Dude...so true. Evil Overlords should totally either 1) kill all orphans or 2) pay to have all murdered parents Raised so there will be no level 20 heroes trying to oppose him.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-19, 05:42 AM
This comes down to a broader question of whether the game rules are prescriptive or descriptive.

If the game rules are prescriptive then the world literally functions according to the game rules. Everybody really *does* have a class, all fighters really *are* trained in the use of *all* martial weapons. *All* commoners know how to fight with *one* simple weapon. People gain power in nice little chunks called "levels" and of course the only way to be a really, really good playwright is to be good at killing things.

If the game rules are descriptive then that means that they're just abstractions which represent how the world works in play. This means that, amongst other things, classes don't really exist, they're just a convenient simplification for the sake of playability. Even if we *do* assume that all priests get powers from their God, not all of them have to be proficient in heavy armour - that depends on the individual life experience of the individual cleric. While technically all fighters know how to fight with a Scythe as well as a longsword, a fighter who has never held a scythe in his life would look at you like you were mad if you suggested he fight with one.

I play a descriptive game, because I think prescriptive games are borderline stupid. You wind up with a world where "class" and "level" become in-character terms, and while the Order of the Stick is fun to read, it's not how I want my games to work.