DnD class question general

[Stormtrooper666]

Hey

I had 2 questions in your opinions

I was wondering just based off the classes, which would most likely be friends with one another? Like for example I think a cleric and paladin would get along?

My 2nd question would be what classes would most likely not get along? Also subclasses can be used. I'd assume a druid and ranger would get along based off shared nature but what would make them tick about one another?

Edir- I bring this up since dnd 3.5 added a "other classes" category for each class and would say how they'd most likely get along

[Khedrac]

Hey

I had 2 questions in your opinions

I was wondering just based off the classes, which would most likely be friends with one another? Like for example I think a cleric and paladin would get along?

My 2nd question would be what classes would most likely not get along? Also subclasses can be used. I'd assume a druid and ranger would get along based off shared nature but what would make them tick about one another?

Pretty much a meaningless pair of questions (so much so they look like they might be someone trolling - I am not accusing you of that, just warning that that is the appearance).

In the first place classes are not people - and generally people do not like or dislike someone because of their class. You give the example of a cleric and a paladin getting along - if the cleric is of an evil god that is very unlikely (but not impossible).
Another point to remember here is that people can be friends even if their whole outlook on life (and even their occupations) are completely opposed.
You then mention sub-classes without specifying which version of D&D you are talking about - and it really matters; consider Basic D&D where Elf and Dwarf are classes, the base setting (Known World/Mystara) uses the Tolkien-based trope that elves and dwarves don't get along so one could suggest these classes, but the stereotypes doesn't apply to everyone and even when it does it only applies in specific game-worlds where the trope applies.

This is as pointless as asking which professions might be friends in real life.

[Stormtrooper666]

Pretty much a meaningless pair of questions (so much so they look like they might be someone trolling - I am not accusing you of that, just warning that that is the appearance).

In the first place classes are not people - and generally people do not like or dislike someone because of their class. You give the example of a cleric and a paladin getting along - if the cleric is of an evil god that is very unlikely (but not impossible).
Another point to remember here is that people can be friends even if their whole outlook on life (and even their occupations) are completely opposed.
You then mention sub-classes without specifying which version of D&D you are talking about - and it really matters; consider Basic D&D where Elf and Dwarf are classes, the base setting (Known World/Mystara) uses the Tolkien-based trope that elves and dwarves don't get along so one could suggest these classes, but the stereotypes doesn't apply to everyone and even when it does it only applies in specific game-worlds where the trope applies.

This is as pointless as asking which professions might be friends in real life.

I only ask because I remember I believe dnd 3.5 players handbook had a category under each classes called "other classes" that would say for example "barbarians enjoy the company of rangers" I'm paraphrasing btw
I didnt think it was a wasted question considering wizards of the coast added it themselves

[animorte]

You're definitely onto something here. Keep in mind there's a lot more to the character than just what their class assumes. You can easily make exceptions to every rule. Anyway...

I would imagine Monk could get along with just about anything.

I think Rogue would struggle to align much with anything loud, like heavily armored anything (Paladin/Cleric/Fighter), and maybe an impatient Barbarian rushing head-long into the fray. Rogues would probably have a great deal of appreciation for anything with consistently high Dexterity, especially Ranger. I don't think they'd often be jealous of anything because their vast skill knowledge and overall consistency keeps them relevant. A few standouts like Bard and Knowledge Cleric may be an exception.

Of course, Druids would appreciate anything else in touch with nature and perhaps struggle with anything "environmentally unfriendly" like maybe Wizard/Sorcerer that uses fire to consistently lay waste to the land.

There's quite a few subclass themes that I think match up pretty nicely off the top of my noggin:

• Phantom Rogue/Spirits Bard
• Undead Warlock/Spores Druid
• Nature Cleric/Archfey Warlock
• Moon Druid/Beast Barbarian
• Eldritch Knight Fighter/Arcane Trickster Rogue
• Astral Self Monk/Fathomless Warlock
• Ancestral Guardian Barbarian/Ancients Paladin/Great Old One Warlock
• Long Death Monk/Grave Cleric
• Banneret Fighter/Zealot Barbarian

Then anything with the same name:
Storm Sorcerer/Barbarian (also Tempest Cleric)
Wild Magic Sorcerer/Barbarian

[Anymage]

3.5 did have that section. However, it's kinda pointless to try transferring over for two reasons. First, the end result should be that everybody in the party gets along because otherwise that's just a lot of fuss in what's meant to be a group game. Second, 5e has subclasses and backgrounds that are meant to flesh out characters beyond simple class. An eldritch knight fighter with the sage background would probably get along well well with a bunch of scholars, while the evocation wizard with the soldier background would be bristling for action in the same scenario. Entirely workable, yet at odds with what you'd at first think if I just happened to mention a fighter and a wizard.

[animorte]

Pretty much a meaningless pair of questions (so much so they look like they might be someone trolling - I am not accusing you of that, just warning that that is the appearance).

I didnt think it was a wasted question considering wizards of the coast added it themselves

There's a specific box next to each race in the PHB that mentions how they each view the other races, which can easily be seen as a a sort of profiling.

Each character is more than their race/class/subclass/background would suggest. For example, one could say any high Charisma character gets along with everybody, but even in just the 4 skills, they could serve entirely different purposes.

That's why I chose to list similar themes that could more easily come to a understanding of each other's capabilities and possibly even motivation. Yes, it goes much deeper than the basic mechanics of the game.

[Kane0]

Wizards, Warlocks and Sorcerers to me feel like the meme of the three spidermen pointing at each other.

[Quertus]

I would imagine Monk could get along with just about anything.

Oh, yes, the chaotic Bard who just can't keep it in his pants, and all our adventures are based around getting money or components to cure their latest STDs? The uncultured Barbarian who took a dump in the monastery training grounds, because it looked like how his culture marked their latrines? The gifted Sorceress who never had to train a day in her life to obtain her obscene powers? Definitely never feel towards them.

With harsh monastic training, a Monk could easily be an even bigger stick-in-the-mud than your stereotypical Paladin.

[animorte]

With harsh monastic training, a Monk could easily be an even bigger stick-in-the-mud than your stereotypical Paladin.

One would like to think that the Monk might be at peace with themselves stuck that worldly petty concerns aren't so strong. But then anybody could be at peace with themselves and there are naturally exceptions to any expectation, as I said.

[Anonymouswizard]

3.5 did have that section. However, it's kinda pointless to try transferring over for two reasons. First, the end result should be that everybody in the party gets along because otherwise that's just a lot of fuss in what's meant to be a group game.

Bah, with enough work you can turn any game into Paranoia!

Also I've got a desire to run a 40k game where each of the PCs is from a different branch of the Imperial Cult, and then strand them on a planet which follows yet another branch, and see how long it takes for a fistfight to break out over which saints are canon. It'll be fun, and eventually they'll either stumble across the actual Chaos cult or call in an exterminatus.

Second, 5e has subclasses and backgrounds that are meant to flesh out characters beyond simple class. An eldritch knight fighter with the sage background would probably get along well well with a bunch of scholars, while the evocation wizard with the soldier background would be bristling for action in the same scenario. Entirely workable, yet at odds with what you'd at first think if I just happened to mention a fighter and a wizard.

Yep, characters are more than their class even in the most finely divided class systems.


ETA: Also the CG Bards really like Paladins. Everybody knows that Paladins are horndogs with access to Remove Disease.

[Vahnavoi]

Hey

I had 2 questions in your opinions

I was wondering just based off the classes, which would most likely be friends with one another? Like for example I think a cleric and paladin would get along?

My 2nd question would be what classes would most likely not get along?

Depends on edition, because different editions have different conduct requirements for the classes. The more generic a class is, the less meaningful it is for determining social interactions. I'll use 1st edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons to illustrate the point.

A fighter can be of any alignment. The only thing you know of a fighter just based on their class, is that they are skilled in warfare and have higher physical strength than average. While there are people who are principled pacifist, there is no class that is. Likewise, while there might be people who favor or despise the physically strong, there is no class with such preferences.

A magic-user (wizard) can likewise be of any alignment. The only things you know based on just their class is that they use arcane arts and are more intelligent than average. Similar to fighters above, while there might be people who favor or despise magic, or people who favor or despise intelligent people, there is no class with such preferences - not before you add classes such as the barbarian, or, what was it called, mage hunter (?) from supplements (Unearthed Arcana etc.). Such additional classes hate magic-users on principle.

Ranger sub-class of fighters can only be of good alignment, and paladin sub-class of fighters can only be lawful good. Furthermore, each class has its own specific code of conduct. This means two rangers (or two paladins) will have more in common with each other than they have with people of any other class, and rangers and paladins are at least partly ethically aligned with each other. Both will also have more in common with good fighters than members of other classes, and more in common with good people that with people of other alignments. Additionally, paladins are meant to donate significant part of their wealth to charities and religions of good causes, so a paladin has a lot in common with clerics and practitioners of good faiths.

The thief class can not be both lawful and good. This means any thief is at least a bit suspect from the viewpoint of any paladin. Thieves are also beholden to Thieves' Guilds, creating an internal split within the class between thieves that have high loyalty to a Guild (lawful and hence not good), people who were driven to theft because they oppose an unjust society (good and hence not lawful) and people who are in thievery only for their own benefit (chaotic).

The assassin subclass must be of evil alignment. Assassins are also beholden to Guilds and part of a rank structure. This means assassins are in principle opposed to ranger and paladins, making a genuine friendship between members of such classes a highly dubious. There's also another internal split, between assassins who have high loyalty to a Guild (hence lawful evil) versus those who are going solo (neutral or chaotic evil). The former will punish or kill the latter on principle to maintain a position of strength (such as monopoly on hired kills in a given city).

Clerics can be of any alignment save for absolute (true) neutral. However, they must be within one step (IIRC) of their god's alignment, and must obey strictures of their faith. This means there are as many different clerics as there are faiths and clerics of opposed faiths really do not get along. The rift between a cleric of a lawful good faith and that of a chaotic evil faith is more severe than between a paladin and an assassin, because it is divinely enforced: such clerics can be punished for associating with each other simply because their gods are enemies.

Druid sub-class of clerics must be absolute neutral. They are also part of the Druidic Circle, with a special language they must not teach to outsiders, special rules for advancement with the circle, etc. So, druids have much more common with each other than with anyone else and they are philosophically opposed to members of extreme alignments (lawful evil, lawful good, chaotic evil, chaotic good). Notably, this means there is by default a massive philosophical gap between paladins and druids, or druids and Guild assassins. They have entirely different ideas of how the world works. The idea that rangers and druids get along is also a mistake. Neutral good rangers might get along, but chaotic good and lawful good rangers have an entirely different mission statement than druids. In very rough terms, rangers exist to protect people from the wilderness, while druids exist to protect wilderness from the people.

Some editions have relationship tables for how different classes and races usually view each other. These can range for hate and aversion to friendliness, with the middle being indifference, meaning class (or race) is not a significant concern for some interaction. They can also be one-sided - A hates B but B loves A. Usually, these tables already factor in the idea that some classes and races trend towards certain alignments, so the further you drift from such assumptions, the less useful they become. So, for example, if the idea that A hates B but B loves A is founded on them being of different alignments, it will no longer make sense as a default if you remove alignment restrictions.

---

Wizards, Warlocks and Sorcerers to me feel like the meme of the three spidermen pointing at each other.

You are not wrong.

[Ionathus]

Yeah this really doesn't make sense from a RPing perspective, because so much comes down to how your table's barbarian gets along with your table's rogue.

Even if the barbarian charges in yelling and the rogue is sneaking around, maybe the rogue appreciates that. The barbarian becomes a useful distraction, or a meat shield, or a tactical opportunity for procc'ing sneak attack. Even in this one simple interaction, you've got a whole host of potential relationship dynamics for the rogue's feelings on the barb:

• "Dang, Brogg is really tearing them apart. I'll keep the stragglers off him from the shadows."
• "Ugh, Brogg charged headfirst into combat AGAIN. Guess it's my job to do cleanup, AGAIN. Blustering idiot."
• "Wow, we're so lucky to have Brogg. I could never hold my own in a face-to-face fight like that. I'm such a coward."
• "I'm so glad I get to hide in the back of every combat because dang, Brogg has a nice butt."

All with the same basic playstyle. And every class has multiple playstyle options.

So there's really no way to put together a list of what classes like each other. The beauty of tabletop RPGs is that you get to take a few small character prompts and make them your own.

[Vahnavoi]

@Ionathus:

Classes are character prompts and it isn't hard to write such prompts so that any reasonable person would realize two characters really aren't meant to be friends, and then either play to type or choose another class. For the same reason, the idea that class descriptions should lead to all classes being able to work together does not follow from anywhere. Additionally, player characters aren't the only classed entities in a game. Class relations are as much prompts for a game master to tell how different groups within a scenario approach the player characters and each other.

[Ionathus]

@Ionathus:

Classes are character prompts and it isn't hard to write such prompts so that any reasonable person would realize two characters really aren't meant to be friends, and then either play to type or choose another class. For the same reason, the idea that class descriptions should lead to all classes being able to work together does not follow from anywhere. Additionally, player characters aren't the only classed entities in a game. Class relations are as much prompts for a game master to tell how different groups within a scenario approach the player characters and each other.

I literally can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. Can you please rephrase?

[Luccan]

Paladin and Rogue/Thief fights are classic DnD PvP scenarios. Then again, so is either of those classes against basically any other PC

[animorte]

Wizards, Warlocks and Sorcerers to me feel like the meme of the three spidermen pointing at each other.

I fully meant to address the arcane casters and their varying methods not being taken seriously amongst one another, but this comment expressed that concept with precision and humor. Nice.

[Anonymouswizard]

Isn't there like a 2e Fighter kit that actively hates and destroys magic? They must not have got on well with Wizards.

Although I might have been thinking of the 1e Barbarian.


But yeah, in general the group should get along. If the party consists of an Assassin, a Gladiator, a Warlock, and a Cleric then the priest probably isn't a sunshine and rainbows sort and should pick a god that won't cause too much conflict. Some conflict is fine, but you don't want so much as to sprain suspension of disbelief.

[gbaji]

I think Rogue would struggle to align much with anything loud, like heavily armored anything (Paladin/Cleric/Fighter), and maybe an impatient Barbarian rushing head-long into the fray. Rogues would probably have a great deal of appreciation for anything with consistently high Dexterity, especially Ranger. I don't think they'd often be jealous of anything because their vast skill knowledge and overall consistency keeps them relevant. A few standouts like Bard and Knowledge Cleric may be an exception.

Gonna second another poster here. I think that most rogues (especially in an adventuring party) would love loud, heavily armored fighter type characters. They are the meat shield, keeping hordes of bad guys off you. They give you flanking attack opportunities. They distract the bulk of the enemies so you can sneak around and find some juicy loot while everyone else is occupied.

Barbarians are even better. Just set them in the common room of an Inn, hand them some drinks and wait for the fight to break out. Perfect distraction for crime.

A rogue might appreciate another sneaky type person in the group, but that can also just mean competition for pilfered loot, or someone you have to share with cause they're just as sneaky and underhanded as you.

And I could totally see a rogue buddying up with a cleric. Perfect front man for a charitable scam. Cleric gets the donations for a "good cause" and the rogue pockets a share of the proceeds (and manages the books naturally). Easy money!

Rogues aren't just about picking locks and disarming traps, right? It's a whole worldview.

[animorte]

Yes, I definitely agree that they like somebody else keeping the attention off of them for combat. They'll just have a bit of eye-rolling for out-of-combat situations.

[Tanarii]

Thematically, you've got a couple of classes that group together as an adventuring buddy movie (not necessarily actual friends):

Defenders of the Frontier:
Barbarian, Druid, Ranger, Warlock (Fey)

Defenders of the City:
Fighter, Bard, Rogue, Wizard

Defenders of the Church:
Clerics, Paladin, Monk, Sorcerer (Divine Soul)

Faerie Knights:
Bard (Glamor), Druid (Summer Court), Paladin (Ancients), Warlock (Fey Pact)

Infiltrators:
Bard (Whispers), Rogue (Arcane Trickster), Warlock with Criminal Background and Misty Visions/Mask of a Thousand Faces, Monk (Shadow)

Holy Fullcasters Batman!
Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer (Divine Soul), Warlock (Celestial)


Then there's the classic 2-3 stooges:
F&GM = Barbarian + Rogue (AT)
Faith vs Logic = Cleric + Wizard
Civilized vs Uncouth = Bard + Ranger
My Magic is Best! = Wizard + Sorcerer + Warlock

Bah, with enough work you can turn any game into Paranoia!

With enough work, the GM and players can stop any game from turning into Paranoia!

[KorvinStarmast]

Pretty much a meaningless pair of questions (so much so they look like they might be someone trolling - I am not accusing you of that, just warning that that is the appearance).

In the first place classes are not people -

Covered most of my response right there, nice job.

To further elaborate: for the OP, let go of all of your assumptions about D&D that are based in 3.x.

Treat 5e like a new game and you'll enjoy it more.

We had a group of: a Hexblade (with a bit of Fighter) Warlock; a Divine soul (with a bit of fiend warlock) sorcerer, a lore bard (MC is for losers! ) and an Oath of Glory Paladin.

The Hexblade and the Paladin got along fine. Great even.

[Pauly]

People get along/become friends with others who have similar values not similar interests.

Druids whose values are protecting nature from people may not get along with rangers whose values are protecting people from nature (monsters) even though they may have very similar interests.

Also in D&D you have the situation where you have some very broad classes, especially the OG classes of wizard, fighter, rogue and cleric, and some other classes which are much tighter in focus such as monk, paladin or ranger. With the more tightly focussed classes you could draw up a chart saying this class likes these classes and dislikes these other classes, but for the broad classes there is much less to work with.

[Tanarii]

People get along/become friends with others who have similar values not similar interests.

Doesn't check out. I'm friends with people that have an interest in the same activities as me. Our values are frequently wildly different.

[KorvinStarmast]

Doesn't check out. I'm friends with people that have an interest in the same activities as me. Our values are frequently wildly different.

Ditto, particularly our Wednesday group.