I have frequently had NPC villains refer to certain PC characters as "holy warriors", not knowing whether they were up against a paladin or a cleric, and "magicians", seeing they had a foe who wielded magic and wasn't coming at them with a sword.
Paladins, wizards, clerics, druids, monks,...these all have institutions behind them, which helps define them and their roles in the world. (Like a "maester" from GoT). Whether someone else recognizes the Seal of Purity a paladin is wearing, or the holy regalia of a traveling cleric is another matter.
Fighters and rogues...these could be anybody.
I like the thought of classes being groups of mechanics showing ... well, how you progress. In a modern game, I have my USMC character protest being called a 'Soldier', despite that being the class's official name.
As far as Pathfinder? A few classes would naturally be more known as such. The unarmed, unarmoured combatant who keeps promises and punches out dragons? Likely a monk. The one with spellbooks and a familiar reading them beside? Probably a wizard.
The terms in their way do exist, but like said earlier--they're terms. That wizard could be cooped up in a dedicated shrine to some god of magic or knowledge, or hell even civic planning; the monk could be really smart and just like books.
That said, I think there are a few magic items that use class levels to determine a few things. Monk's robe and holy avenger come to mind. But that's magic and weird in its own way. But for the most part, in social settings, how often does the concept of class even need to come up? Aside from the barbarian reminding the party cleric to mind his manners and be polite towards the royal family, but that's a different kind of class ...
Chiming in with most of what everyone has already said;
Don't let the class abilities define what the "standard" is for you. Whether that be behaviors, tactics, personalities, or things like it. You get to define it.
In fact, quirky people who break those trains of thought often end up being the coolest and most memorable.
I have actually been thinking recently about how the same class, and even almost the exact same build, can be roleplayed differently; and conversely, how a single concept can be represented by different classes.
For example, a Swashbuckler with Slashing Grace could be:
a) Taldan Rondelero duelist with buckler and falcata
b) Aldori swordlord with aldori dueling sword
c) Qadiran dervish with scimitar
d) Lepidstadt trained sabre/rapier fencer (sub Fencing Grace if rapier)
e) Ronin from Minkai with katana
f) Shackles pirate with cutlass
or any of many other ideas. Some would benefit from taking an archetype, or multiclassing, but all could be well represented.
An ancient crone living in the wood, a wise woman who converses with nature and offers advice and herbal remedies could be:
a) Druid
b) Witch (Beastbonded with Animal or Plant Patron)
c) Sorcerer (Sylvan bloodline, possibly Crossblooded)
d) Adept
e) Shaman
f) Oracle
g) Hunter
Again, a prestige class (Green Faith Acolyte) or multiclassing might help, but any of these classes could portray the concept even if the specific class chosen puts small spins on the idea.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to poke fun at those who use metagame knowledge of classes in game.
If a PC declares themselves an Oracle, likely my PC(whichever one) will ask them to divine the future.
If a PC declares themselves to be a Fighter, likely, my PC might react by declaring themselves a lover, and/or then ask them what they do, or capable of, or do for a living. If "Fighter" is the only answer, then I will repeat, and answer the questions, replacing "lover", instead of "fighter".
I might have a Sorcerer PC, that declares himself/herself to be a "Master Wizard".
Basically, anyone who shoves too much metagame into RP, is going to eventually get irritated with me.
|
|
As far as Pathfinder? A few classes would naturally be more known as such. The unarmed, unarmoured combatant who keeps promises and punches out dragons? Likely a monk. The one with spellbooks and a familiar reading them beside? Probably a wizard.
Not so much so.
Your unarmed character could be an Unarmed Fighter that uses mage armor from his party wizard. Or a Brawler. Or a straight up Barbarian who relies on his HP instead of his AC to survive.
The fellow with the spellbooks and familiar could be a Magus, a Witch, or even a Sorcerer who likes to read.
^See? Quirky, and cool.
Honor amongst thieves, yo
As far as Pathfinder? A few classes would naturally be more known as such. The unarmed, unarmoured combatant who keeps promises and punches out dragons? Likely a monk. The one with spellbooks and a familiar reading them beside? Probably a wizard.Not so much so.
Your unarmed character could be an Unarmed Fighter that uses mage armor from his party wizard. Or a Brawler. Or a straight up Barbarian who relies on his HP instead of his AC to survive.
The fellow with the spellbooks and familiar could be a Magus, a Witch, or even a Sorcerer who likes to read.
Hence my use of 'likely' and 'probably'. Although the whole 'keeps promises' bit was supposed to imply lawful alignment (which DOES show up as an in-character concept, sadly), so I'd have to disqualify the unarmed barbarian from that list.
But yes, those others on the list could often be mistaken for those archetypes. A cleric with a very nosy pet could be mistaken for that wizard I mentioned. And I'm doing what I can to play a barbarian who isn't from the Frozen North and addicted to ... well, OK, she's so far apparently drank her own body weight in ale, but that was more a bad roll for her weight than anything else.
|
As someone said earlier, all Classes are is a bundle of mechanics.
However, that said, they are a bundle of mechanics...which is to say a particular combination of in-world capabilities, and thus potentially noticeable in-world.
Now, in practical terms, basically nobody can tell the difference between a Slayer and a Fighter/Rogue. Or a Cavalier of some Orders and a Ranger. Or a Monk and a Brawler.
But when you get Classes with more obvious powers involved, particularly spell casting, the Classes and their limitations actually make it almost impossible to not figure out that these are codified things if you live in a world where they are.
Wizards, for example, are a pretty specific thing, and it's impossible to interact with them and not figure that out. A few Classes can impersonate them, in some cases even to other Wizards, but even the very closest, the Arcanist, has to know himself that what he does is quite a bit different from how Wizards do things, even if nobody else ever figure it out. And if he ever compares notes with another Arcanist, it'll become rapidly clear that they do things the same way.
As a less obvious example, let's take the Inquisitor. An Inquisitor can detect any alignment at-will. Bam. That right there is something of a defining trait, and not available to anyone else. People who can read the truth of anyone's soul with a look have a very specific skill set, and if they mention it to anyone, will rapidly become known for it. And once you have enough of them, you come up with a name for people with that particular trick...especially if they have a host of other tricks in common with each other.
Now, does everyone in the world view things this systematically? Of course not. Many particular Sorcerers and Oracles for example, being completely untaught, might not understand precisely what they are and might not recognize having anything in common with a fellow member of their Class who happens to have a radically different Bloodline or Mystery. Heck, a Fire Bloodline Sorcerer and a Flames Oracle might think they were the same kind of being. But they're wrong, and provably so by people with the resources to perform testing.
And the same holds true for all Classes with more overt powers. Even those with very similar abilities can be pretty easily told apart by people who actually sit them down and interview them, getting complete descriptions of their abilities and how they function. Not everyone will agree to that sort of interview, but enough will that categories can be found.
Now none of this means random people on the street can tell a Wizard from a Sorcerer, but a Wizard or Sorcerer certainly can under the right circumstances, as can anyone who's associated enough with both. And that holds even more true for Classes that differ more.
What is somewhat unclear in-world is the border between certain Archetypes and Classes. People in-world might be more likely to categorize an Unlettered Arcanist as a type of Witch than a type of Arcanist, or be more likely to categorize a Champion of Faith Warpriest to a LG deity as a kind of Paladin. That kind of mistake could definitely get made.
Even from a meta game standpoint it can be unclear. A friend and I played alchemists in the same campaign, and two of the players were unaware we were the same class (granted they were new to pathfinder, and did not know of the alchemist).
He was a goblin alchemist focused on bomb throwing, whereas I was a vivisectionist focused on mutagens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's kinda fuzzy. There is definitely room to interpret some cases as classes existing, such as Wizards and Clerics. Some are more dubious. Sorcery could very well be an academic term for that kind of magical influence.
However, there is nothing stopping a wizard from being referred to as a "witch", or a warpriest from being referred to as a "cleric". So, I don't think there is any simple answer either way concerning the subject.
It's kinda fuzzy. There is definitely room to interpret some cases as classes existing, such as Wizards and Clerics. Some are more dubious. Sorcery could very well be an academic term for that kind of magical influence.
However, there is nothing stopping a wizard from being referred to as a "witch", or a warpriest from being referred to as a "cleric". So, I don't think there is any simple answer either way concerning the subject.
Pretty much this. Some classes will tend towards grouping themselves, or possibly even advertising themselves as such, and said advertising may colour a character's opinions. But if your paladin credits his holy powers to an avenging anger, and maybe even hails from a more viking-esque hometown, clad in furs and swinging a greatsword ... when he meets up with the barbarian daughter of a beloved duke, who considers her anger a gift of the gods to use to defend civilisation, trusting in her faith to defend herself as she slays evil ... well, who'd call who what? :)
Classes definitely exist in game, but are not necessarily referred to as such. [...]
Likewise, your third example is impossible. Druids are forbidden to teach non-Druids the Druidic language. A Ranger is simply NOT a Druid (unless he takes a level of Druid).
[...]
It's obviously a corner case, but still one I'm interested in. If a player's PC with another class imitates the abilities of a druid, how is the other character (let's say an NPC) to know ingame that he is "in fact" not a druid (i.e. not mechanically classed as one)? How could there be negative consequences for that?
How do Druid languages work? RAW anyone who doesn't have the class can't be taught without the Druid suffering consequences... still an atonement spell can deal with those consequences.
What ways are there (if you can mechanically be anything except a druid) to learn druidic?
Edit: Just realized Druid is a trained class, which means like Paladin orders druids should have organizations of sorts in which the training takes place. Someone teaches druidic to a "non druid" (i.e. anyone gaining their first level in druid) who has the intention of becoming a druid and typically does so in the process... - though maybe the language is a late part of the teaching process, i.e. after some nature magic already kicked in, something they'd lose if they taught the language to anyone else.
Still it only takes one ex druid to start teaching the language and it could become known to anyone, since as an ex druid she wouldn't forget the language, right?
It will depend on the class, and the source of the class’s ability. A strictly mundane ability like a feat or skill with a weapon is going to be hard to define. A granted ability from a deity on the other hand is going to be more obvious. In between we have the whole spectrum of class abilities.
Most divine classes including druid will be more defined. The ranger for example has not bound himself to the strictures of the druid class and does not draw from the same source of power, or at least not in the same way. Even if he can mechanically do everything a first level druid does it is not the same thing as being a druid. If he were to bind himself to the strictures of a druid and draw power from the same source then he probably did take a level of druid.
Even the sorcerer and the wizard are distinct ways of doing very similar things, but have big differences. The sorcerer power comes from within him and does not need to learn how to use it. As he grows stronger he automatically knows all the spells he will ever learn. The wizard on the other hand relies on learning and understanding how magic works. Without experimenting or learning from someone else he never gains spells. Having different casting stats is also going to make it easier to distinguish one from another.
In game most social organizations should not be based on class. Even religious organizations will have different classes including NPC classes. Many member of the church may be experts or warriors instead of clerics, inquisitors, or paladins. About the only organization I could see being restricted by class would be a wizards guild, or a temple of monks.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I once read a snippet of a Pathfinder Tales novel on the Paizo blog, in which some characters were wondering who they could sell a certain substance to for greatest profit. One said, "Wizards could use it for ink," to which another replied, "Wizards don't need this level of purity."
I once played in a PFS scenario in which an NPC informed the party that another NPC had traveled somewhere to learn the way of "the magus". Mechanically, he was indeed a magus.
I played another PFS scenario in which an NPC was described as having repeatedly tried to function within an order of paladins, but kept falling from grace. His stats included ex-paladin levels.
Are ALL of the mechanical classes recognized in the same way in-universe? Probably not. But some of them are part of canon.
The answer is "sometimes".
Some classes can be called a million different things (Slayer/Witch/Oracle/Fighter/Rogue/etc.), but some are hardcoded with rules and organization enough that they are unmistakable for anything but what they are (Paladin/Druid/Hellknight/etc.). You might have different namess for them in different parts of the world or different planes or different orders of those classes, but they are known by whatever that name is without error.
Also applies to holy men of specific Gods, but it can be hard to tell between a Cleric, a Warpriest and an Inquisitor. Or a Slayer/Witch/Oracle/Fighter/Rogue that worships that god... It's complicated.
I think it depends on the GM, the world, and how it is run.
In my own I generally encourage having the concept first and picking whichever class fits that best from a mechanical standpoint. Also love when player's adjust the fluff of abilities and class features to make it more thematically interesting too.
I recall one of my favourites being an android sorcerer that had re-fluffed all their spells into more technology based attacks. Magic missiles were homing actual missiles for instance, shield was a forcefield barrier, stuff like that. They always announced their attack for the verbal portion too ("Deploying missiles on target").
Classes do exist in the game world, even if characters only know it on an intuitive level. They know there's a certain brand of people who can fly into a rage, attack and channel spells at the same time, or have magical effects by playing music. They might not use the same terms as we do, especially considering (for example) a character doesn't need levels in alchemist to be an alchemist. However, they do know they exist, just as spellcasters understand the concept of Hit Dice even though they don't use that meta term to describe it.
I still think all the archetypes and alternate classes really muddy the issue of whether classes exist as an in-universe thing. I mean, how big of an in-universe difference would most people see between a Barbarian, a Viking Fighter, a Wild Stalker Ranger, and a Bloodrager? They all follow the basic pattern of "Get really mad, get powers from being mad, hit stuff."
Same for the Alchemist. How obvious of a difference would there be between an Alchemist, Investigator, and Mutation Warrior/Mutagenic Mauler? They're all drinking a mutagen, then hulking out.
The bottom line, at least for me, is that there are none of the clear lines of division a lot of people talk about. Rage is not the sole province of the Barbarian, or mutagens for the alchemist.