Ingame existence of classes?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Originally the following was part of this question: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/31405/are-fluff-class-descriptions-p art-of-the-rules -- Haven't gotten an answer yet, so I don't know if the class descriptions are part of the rules or just recommendations, but that question of which it was got me wondering:

Do classes exist ingame, or do they just describe skill sets? - For example could a fighter/cleric join a paladin order and become a defacto paladin without ever having taken a level in paladin? Could a ranger with access to nature magic and an animal companion and the right alignment/values become a ingame druid (i.e. another druid can teach him the secret druid language without becoming an exdruid) without ever taking a level in druid?

I'm interested in any RAW or RAI info, as well as non-hypothetical experience with situations like that in a game you actually participated in either as a player as a GM. How should such a situation be handled?

Thanks for participating!
Julix

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The character classes are cliches. There's no rule that's stopping your Barbarian from being a gentleman who enjoys math puzzles and tea. Etc etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Classes definitely exist in game, but are not necessarily referred to as such.

You have two distinct examples here, and I'll try to address them as best I can.

Your first example really depends on whether it is a "Paladin Order" or "Order of Really Good Guys Who Do Good Things (and We Have a Lot of Paladins)".

Paladins are in a distinct class all their own in universe. You recognize a Paladin due to his abilities and his unbreakable Code, neither of which can really be mimicked by anyone else.

A Paladin can be trusted to NEVER lie. A Lawful Good Cleric/Fighter, while still an honorable man, can do so with no issue if need arises.

Even then, a "Paladin Order" probably would in fact be an "Order of Really Good Guys Who Do Good Things (and We Have a Lot of Paladins)", because they're not likely to turn aside help in teh fight against evil like that.

Another good example is the Order of the Hellknights. All members of that order are Hellknights, or Hellknights in training (i.e. low level characters who don't quite meet the prerequisites for being a Hellknight yet). They have a number of special things just by being who they are (not least of which a very distinctive armor set whose true abilities are locked without an actual Hellknight wearing it).

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).

But these are, mostly, corner cases. Parts where the rules explicitly deny something.

Something being called the "Cabal of Sorcerers" doesn't necessarily have to be only the Sorcerer class, and nor does your Rogue's Guild need to be entirely made of Rogues.

For the most part, mechanics and "baked in" flavor for classes don't intrude on your ability to RP (which I am thankful for).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's an interesting question. I have frequently contended that some classes are who they are. A wizard might balk at the "gross oversimplification" of referring to him as a wizard, but ultimately would probably accept that "the uneducated will use such insufficient terms."

On the flip-side, referring to the fighter as a fighter or the barbarian as a barbarian probably falls far short of the mark. Soldier, warrior, mercenary, swordsman, knight, guardsmen, etc... probably works better.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm afraid I'll disagree with you a bit here. Certainly some classes have more "coherence", but even they are by no means automatic shoe-ins.

Rynjin wrote:

Paladins are in a distinct class all their own in universe. You recognize a Paladin due to his abilities and his unbreakable Code, neither of which can really be mimicked by anyone else.

A Paladin can be trusted to NEVER lie. A Lawful Good Cleric/Fighter, while still an honorable man, can do so with no issue if need arises.

A paladin may lie on occasion. It most likely (depending on concrete code) a violation of the code of conduct - and thus requires atonement down the road.

If I have a LG fighter who holds himself to the paladin code, who can, in universe, tell the difference merely by observing them act. The best an in-universe observer could maybe make out is that one of them is a little better battling with undead and demons, while the other has a bit more versatility to himself.

Rynjin wrote:


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).

So if a druid taught my Ranger the druidic language (becoming an ex-druid in the process), my ranger would suddenly become a druid?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
The character classes are cliches. There's no rule that's stopping your Barbarian from being a gentleman who enjoys math puzzles and tea. Etc etc.

Funny enough it's actually a npc in Golarion. This guy is part of an order of knight and gentlemen with only barbarian levels. He just has some anger issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've used a Bard to fill the in-game role of a cleric. He did things differently, but only slightly, and since no one had ever met a true cleric class cleric of his god, they all chalked it up to his faith's unique brand of doing things.

Some classes have more flexibility and can fill multiple roles or jobs.

For example, an expert. Few experts are the same; they have vastly different skills most times.

Archetypes heighten the differences, sometimes you can play an archetype so differently from the base class that it is nigh impossible to even tell what base class you are from in-game.


First of all, as a question of class mechanics and game-world descriptions, this doesn't belong in the rules forum.

To answer your question, I am pretty flexible. The class name is mostly a broad description that isn't what they actually are. A fighter is probably not described as such, but rather a knight, soldier, mercenary, bodyguard, or something else. A barbarian is most likely not described as such, but rather a warrior of clan X, or any martial job describtion.

For some however there is a stronger connnection between class name and their in-game 'job'.
A druid is a good example. Being a druid means a certain behaviour and certain outlook on life. In my game, it is definately possible for a ranger who revere nature to be accepted amongst a group of druid, despite his class name.

Wizards is one of the classes that are hard to fill with other classes, if we have the traditional wizard academy, where magic is learned by years of scholarship. That doesn't mean a wizard couldn't describe himself as a warlock, mage, or something else.

Many prestige classes, as written, have game world flavour in them. As such, these require refluffing to fit into another role. Yet for most of these organizations, there is likely a lot of other classes as well.

Liberty's Edge

If you are playing in the world of Golarion this is a good question for the "Ask James Jacobs" thread as that is his area of expertise.

As a general rule I would say that there is a awareness of a difference between a Fighter or a Cavalier but that don't mean that a fighter can't be cavalier (notice the difference, bolded term against plain). I.e. a Fighter, Warrior or even a Magus can be part of a order of cavaliers if he meet the order requirements, but knowledgeable people would be aware that there is people with specific training that has specific abilities.

It is like when today we speak of a member of a unit of special forces. We can mean a form of generic training that is available (with restrictions) even to non military people, like some private security company, or we can be speaking of a member of the Navy SEALs (with the different archetypes taking the place of the specializations of the SEALs member).

- * -

Paladin and lying: while the code require you to act with honor, lying to an enemy generally is neither a chaotic or evil act and will not cause you to fall from grace immediately. I think that some deity specific code explicitly allow it.
An atonement will be required, but it is a minor break of the code, as long as there were valid motivations and it is not an habit.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Paladin and lying: while the code require you to act with honor, lying to an enemy generally is neither a chaotic or evil act and will not cause you to fall from grace immediately. I think that some deity specific code explicitly allow it.

An atonement will be required, but it is a minor break of the code, as long as there were valid motivations and it is not an habit.

That misses the point about the argument in its entirety. the paladins don't lie as compared to a fighter/cleric is to show that they are indeed very different, a paladin could lie, sure. but he wouldn't have to deal with getting an atonement spell, suddenly lose his magical prowess etc. it was also mentioned that you could TRUST a paladin to never lie, not that they would never do it. simply because of the many reason and mechanics that are unique to a paladin as opposed to a fighter/cleric.

Dark Archive

Remy Balster wrote:

I've used a Bard to fill the in-game role of a cleric. He did things differently, but only slightly, and since no one had ever met a true cleric class cleric of his god, they all chalked it up to his faith's unique brand of doing things.

Quite easy to do. A Bard makes a perfectly convincing Cleric of Shelyn or Cayden. Sing a bit, preach, cast the odd Cure or Summon spell. A layman wouldn't tell the difference.

In-game it would often be hard to tell the difference. To continue the Cleric example, you could have a gang of Iomedae followers including a Cleric, Paladin, Warpriest, inquisitor, Bard and Battle Oracle. Aside from their ranks within the church, could any normal person in Golarion tell the difference?


TerraNova wrote:
So if a druid taught my Ranger the druidic language (becoming an ex-druid in the process), my ranger would suddenly become a druid?

No. Where did you get that from?

"Druids are forbidden to teach non-Druids Druidic" does not translate to "Anyone who knows Druidic is a Druid". That's why there are fall consequences.


Classes are absolutely concrete concepts in the Golarion setting. Almost all the source books for races and cities have entries for how each class interacts with that race or city.


Although a ranger with enough magic items and UMD can potentially pass as a druid for a little while...


Rynjin wrote:
Even then, a "Paladin Order" probably would in fact be an "Order of Really Good Guys Who Do Good Things (and We Have a Lot of Paladins)", because they're not likely to turn aside help in teh fight against evil like that.

"could" not necesarily "would". The order could in fact only accept paladins (AKA, guyes that can smite evil and lay on hands).

Afther all, wisdom is a dump stat for paladin in Pf.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By definition, fluff is not rules.


Buri wrote:
Classes are absolutely concrete concepts in the Golarion setting. Almost all the source books for races and cities have entries for how each class interacts with that race or city.

Which is also fluff and not rules.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In my setting there isn't really an existence of classes, for the most part.

I can't see any reason why a Cleric or Ranger couldn't be called a Druid based on the definition of Druid and not the class description of one.

Ditto for Barbarians, Paladins, Cavaliers, Monks and Rogues all being just forms of Fighters.


I'd say it was a mixture of the two. The classes exists, but they would be more like... titles or ranks then solid concrete 'classes'

Pretty much the way they handle things in the novels. Yes there are such things as paladins and bard wandering around people know them by these terms. However many people may identify themselves as one thing, while mechanicaly being something else.

heck, that's why I can accept 'ninja' as a class. I don't like 'ninja'.... but shadowy assassin types? absolutely.

The world has ninjas in it... but not all shadowy assassin types are 'actually' ninjas.


This is similar to 'do characters know DCs for things', values of rolls, etc. Meta understanding versus in world understanding. Gets people quibbling about meta-knowledge with skill checks and attack rolls.

My understanding is this. If you make roll knowledge Arcana and get a 7
you're aware of your ignorance on the subject. "I thought you were schooled in the arcane?" "Yeah, but I didn't study ancient Cyclopian wands..."

If someone rolls an attack of a 27 and someone else rolls a 26, they both look amazing but the second guy is a little slower.

And if you understand the guy raging in a haze is a Barbarian, but this is distinctly different from a fighter that gets angry. Likewise, the powerful ranger, with nature magic, could serve as a warden of the woods functionally similar to the classic Druid, but it would be still a crime to teach the ranger Druidic.

If the fighter acts a lot like a paladin, he might at some point just start taking levels in Paladin. Likewise, if you are concerned for plot integrity, if the fighter acts decidedly unpaladin, he shouldn't take Levels in Paladin (to get those sweet sweet resistances).


BuzzardB wrote:

In my setting there isn't really an existence of classes, for the most part.

I can't see any reason why a Cleric or Ranger couldn't be called a Druid based on the definition of Druid and not the class description of one.

Ditto for Barbarians, Paladins, Cavaliers, Monks and Rogues all being just forms of Fighters.

This.

Class is not concept, concept is not class.


BuzzardB wrote:


I can't see any reason why a Cleric or Ranger couldn't be called a Druid based on the definition of Druid and not the class description of one.

Well, you could call yourself a Druid if you liked. You still won't get the wild shape ability.

If there's an organization that demands that you wild shape for them as part of the initiation ritual, you won't be able to join. Even if it calls itself the Order of Druids. Or for that matter, if it calls itself the International Holy Order of Paladins (IHOP). In that rather bizarre second case, every member of the International Holy Order of Paladins would actually have class levels in druid, and there's no reason to assume that any of them have class levels in paladin.


Class is just a game mechanic. It's easier to say "I'm playing a druid" than it is to say "I'm playing a wilderness loving guy who likes animals, casts spells, and can change shape into animal forms, as well as a few other handy abilities like being able to walk through rough natural terrain and such".

For RP purposes, people call themselves whatever they want. I once played a cleric/rogue multiclass who claimed to be a paladin. He also stole things from other party members and NOBODY ever thought it was him because paladins would never do that - even the players never questioned it.

In Golarion, a person who fights with a pair of light weapons might be a fighter, a ranger, or a rogue (or a few other classes too, maybe), but that guy might call himself a "fencer" or a "swashbuckler" or a "swordsman" or a "warrior" or a "soldier" or a "scalawag" or a "brigand" or a "thief" or a "dashing scoundrel" or whatever he wants.

Note that he might call himself a "fighting man" or even a "fighter" if he feels so inclined, which doesn't mean that he actually has any levels (game mechanic) in the fighter class (game mechanic).

In short, keep the game mechanics out of the fluffy RP, and everything will be fine.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
BuzzardB wrote:


I can't see any reason why a Cleric or Ranger couldn't be called a Druid based on the definition of Druid and not the class description of one.

Well, you could call yourself a Druid if you liked. You still won't get the wild shape ability.

Not sure what your point is, since nobody is claiming otherwise.


I've encountered people with their own settings in which classes are actual in-world concepts. In my experience, those people tend to prefer 2e or 4e over 3e/PF. There's a very good reason for that trend: the key distinguishing feature of 3e/PF when compared to other systems (especially AD&D and 4e) is the unrestricted multi-classing. In 3e/PF, you can take 20 classes for 1 level each (you'll be extraordinarily underpowered and crippled, but you could do it). In 4e, you can't.

Base classes as in-world features do not exist in any published D&D world I can think of. That includes older campaign settings created for AD&D, before multiclassing, and it includes new campaign settings created for 4e.

Prestige classes are a different story. In most worlds, many PrC do seem to "exist" as more than just metagame constructs.


Zhayne wrote:
Which is also fluff and not rules.

Games have settings. The only setting that can be consistently assumed here is Golarion unless another is mentioned. In Golarion, what I said is true.

For settings, fluff is inherently rules because settings are fluff.


Zhayne wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
BuzzardB wrote:


I can't see any reason why a Cleric or Ranger couldn't be called a Druid based on the definition of Druid and not the class description of one.

Well, you could call yourself a Druid if you liked. You still won't get the wild shape ability.

Not sure what your point is, since nobody is claiming otherwise.

That labels are arbitrary, class features are real, and it's easily possible for a person or group to focus on either.


Buri wrote:
The only setting that can be consistently assumed here is Golarion unless another is mentioned.

Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Faerun, Planescape, Spelljammer, Birthright, Dragonlance, Rogukan, Ravenloft, Eberron, Dark Sun, Gamma World.

There, now that they've been mentioned, any published D&D setting can be assumed, by your weird standard.


137ben wrote:

Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Faerun, Planescape, Spelljammer, Birthright, Dragonlance, Rogukan, Ravenloft, Eberron, Dark Sun, Gamma World.

There, now that they've been mentioned, any published D&D setting can be assumed, by your weird standard.

Feel better about yourself?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say that caster classes might end up somewhat more defined, since each class has access to certain spells, get their magic from a certain source, and have certain other magical abilities. Those are very observable differences (sure, there are times where you could confuse the some of them for casual observation, but it would not be hard if you actually put them to rigorous testing)

But martial classes might be a bit more interchangeable. A fighter, cavalier, and barbarian could all be 'swordsmen', but observers might differentiate them based more of the style of their swordsmanship. "Oh, he is trained by Benedelli Benichi, the famous swordsman that fought 20 men armed with only his rapier and dagger" "Oh, he was trained by Blackwood at the royal academy" "Oh, he uses the swordstyle of the Gothic tribes". Essentially, I doubt that people could tell the difference between weapon specialization, a challenge, and rage.

There might be some broad general groupings, but those seems too loose and allows to much intermingling to actually be seen as accurate (the example of a cavalier order accepting a skilled fighter for example).


Buri wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Which is also fluff and not rules.

Games have settings. The only setting that can be consistently assumed here is Golarion unless another is mentioned. In Golarion, what I said is true.

For settings, fluff is inherently rules because settings are fluff.

Wow, that took a special kind of logic.


Good job. You typed words and said nothing.


Buri wrote:
137ben wrote:

Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Faerun, Planescape, Spelljammer, Birthright, Dragonlance, Rogukan, Ravenloft, Eberron, Dark Sun, Gamma World.

There, now that they've been mentioned, any published D&D setting can be assumed, by your weird standard.

Feel better about yourself?

Huh? Do you even know what you are trying to say?

You started by inventing some weird 'rule' that only campaign settings that were "mentioned" (your word) could be considered in this discussion. As Zhayne pointed out (and you chose to ignore), your proclamation is completely illogical...but I decided to humor you anyways by "mentioning" other campaign settings. So, going by your weird non-logic, all the campaign settings I listed are now part of the discussion, and your assertions are wrong in those settings.


I'd say some are pretty strong yeses as far as being identified in game as a particular class. Sorcerers have the bloodline and the ability to cast spells without studying them, or even really having to "learn" them. Only summoners can have Eidolons and both the Eidolon and the Summoner have an identifying arcane mark. Oracles access to mysteries and the unifying aspect of their curse set them apart from other divine casters.

But I could see how there could be confusion, especially to the uneducated. A wizard can have a familiar, so can a Witch. A cleric can heal, so can a Bard and a Witch. A fighter can wear heavy plate armor and hit you damn hard with the sharpened hunk of steel in his hand, so can the Cavalier and the Paladin.

I'd say it's a good way for you to flavor your game with however you decide to put it. Are abilities simply a collection of skills collected by the character or is there a driving, singular path that each person takes and it is understood by many that these paths are distinct in nature?


137ben wrote:

Huh? Do you even know what you are trying to say?

You started by inventing some weird 'rule' that only campaign settings that were "mentioned" (your word) could be considered in this discussion. As Zhayne pointed out (and you chose to ignore), your proclamation is completely illogical...but I decided to humor you anyways by "mentioning" other campaign settings. So, going by your weird non-logic, all the campaign settings I listed are now part of the discussion, and your assertions are wrong in those settings.

Never did I say it was a rule. However, if someone comes here asking a question the default assumption of setting is Golarion. Why? It's Paizo. All their setting materials deal with Golarion.

So, come ask a question like "are classes a thing or a concept?" and the default answer is as it relates to Golarion. Why? No where in the rules is this the concreteness of these things called classes established outside of their abilities nor did the OP frame the discussion for a different setting on a Paizo message board. So, the only other perspective on this is the setting, where those classes and people operate, which is what I introduced to the discussion. That's apparently bad form, I take.

This was apparently lost in yours and Zhayne's ability to stretch simple statements to levels of absurdity. It smells of being a troll as I never made the assertions you claim I did. It also displays simple thinking. How on earth could I be talking about non-RAW concepts? The setting? No way. That's impossible, right? It's only responsible for the other half of how the game is played at any moment in time and should never be considered when things like "are classes a thing or just a grouping of abilities" is asked. Please...


Buri wrote:
137ben wrote:

Huh? Do you even know what you are trying to say?

You started by inventing some weird 'rule' that only campaign settings that were "mentioned" (your word) could be considered in this discussion. As Zhayne pointed out (and you chose to ignore), your proclamation is completely illogical...but I decided to humor you anyways by "mentioning" other campaign settings. So, going by your weird non-logic, all the campaign settings I listed are now part of the discussion, and your assertions are wrong in those settings.

Never did I say it was a rule. However, if someone comes here asking a question the default assumption of setting is Golarion. Why? It's Paizo. All their setting materials deal with Golarion.

Wrong, the default if someone asks a question in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game forums is that they are asking about the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. If you want to discuss Golarion, go to the Golarion forum

Quote:
So, come ask a question like "are classes a thing or a concept?" and the default answer is as it relates to Golarion. Why? No where in the rules is this the concreteness of these things called classes established outside of their abilities.

Except, that's completely false, because the PFRPG core rule book DOES establish it with multiclassing. If the classes were some sort of in-world established thing, multiclass characters would have to be treated completely differently. But by the core rules, they aren't, they work just like any other character. You don't need to go diving into campaign setting books to figure this out, it's one of the most basic rules of the game.

Now, like any rule, you can change it in your home games. You'd have to completely rewrite how multiclassing works, or just get rid of it entirely. Either way, you wouldn't be playing Pathfinder anymore, you'd be playing a homebrew-no-multiclassing system. There is another forum where you can discuss your homebrew system, too.

Back in Pathfinder, though, multiclass characters aren't treated any differently than single class characters, so it seems pretty clear that the game doesn't consider classes to be anything other than a metagame construction.


Funny note: both the RPG and campaign setting forums is grouped together under Pathfinder. Might they merely be aspects of the same thing? Hrmm...

Also, you should note that people of multiple professions do have different write ups than "pure" groups of a single class. A mix of fighters and rogues will have a different reputation than one of just fighters or just rogues.

Read any Paizo AP to get a feel for this can impact a group of PCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well, one thing is clear: in the Dungeons & Dragons movie, magic-users are an in-universe thing, and the main thief notes that he thought magic-users were known for their Intelligence. But then again, the best swordsman in that movie is a thief, the worst thief is a also a thief, and you can keep beholders on leashes, so that may not be the best source to cite. :)

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In the mechanics of the game, the same terms are used for quite different things. A 'level' could be a class level, a character level, one's caster level, or a spell level, all of which may be different, in the same character. 'Evil' could reference an act, a spell descriptor, a creature type, or one's alignment, and, again, those could be different, depending on the situation.

IMO, in a game setting, someone who is not a specialist in a particular field might think nothing of referring to an outdoorsy sort as a 'ranger' even if that individual is an outdoorsy fighter, a barbarian, etc., or refer to a holy warrior as a 'paladin' even if he's a martial cleric, a battle oracle or a just a particular devout cavalier or fighter. In the early days, a 'magic-user' might be called an evoker, an enchanter, a wizard, a sorcerer, etc. and not have levels in any class other than magic-user. A 'witch' might be a druid or a wizard. These days, sorcerer and witch are actual classes, and evoker and enchanter are specific wizard specializations, but the average non-wizard might have no clue about such minutiae, and refer to the 'Witch of the Woods' (who is an adept or druid) or refer to an arcanist as a 'Master of Sorcery' even if that person is a wizard, and holds actual sorcerers in contempt. Similarly, a Shoanti or Kellid cleric or fighter or ranger or even sorcerer might be referred to as a 'barbarian,' despite having no class levels in Barbarian, and plenty of disreputable sorts might be called 'Rogues,' despite having no class levels in Rogue.

I doubt many people, in game, refers to themselves as a 'Fighter,' for that matter, since it's a pretty lame description, like a boxer calling himself a 'Puncher.' Soldier, Man-at-Arms, Guard, Knight, Warrior, Mercenary, Trooper, Dragoon, Armsman, Champion, etc. might be more common terms for someone with 'Fighter' class levels, whereas a Cavalier who is more focused on his banner than his horse might prefer to be known as a bannerman or an armiger, since he's not really got so much Cav in his Lier.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The answer is they are.... but the game mechanics only describe the skeleton of the characters, the operating mechanics. People will be first described by WHO they are.... Edward Longshanks, King of the English is far more important than the list of classes one might propose for his build. Simmilarly, Elminster is more than just a package of wizard/fighter/rougue/cleric/archmage, the classes are the foundation for the narrative character which is the totality of personality, history, and expression.


Apologies for the necro, I enjoy coming back to old questions sometimes and approaching it with a new perspective, and potentially new set of people get involved.

Firstly, Druids do not get Wild Shift until level 4, and many archetypes do not have it. Nature Bond or Nature Sense seems like an obvious class feature to "make" someone a Druid, though some archetypes trade it out. Wild empathy rangers have as well. Orisons however no archetype trades away. It is the only thing all druids seem to have in common besides the language.

I guess what I mean is that it might be next to impossible to determine who is a druid InGame. At which point I would decide that there is an InGame definition of a druid and anyone who meets that is effectively a druid and should be allowed to learn their language.

Unless the language is in fact what makes someone a druid...

"A druid also knows Druidic, a secret language known only to druids, which she learns upon becoming a 1st-level druid. Druidic is a free language for a druid; that is, she knows it in addition to her regular allotment of languages and it doesn't take up a language slot. Druids are forbidden to teach this language to nondruids.

Druidic has its own alphabet."

Does a druid have to do anything to get that language, or does it just appear at level 1? How exactly does a character get to be a first level druid anyway?

"...these primal magics are guarded over by servants of philosophical balance known as druids. Allies to beasts and manipulators of nature..."

It looks to me like there are two possibilities.

1. If the language is something that just pops into existence in the druids head as a form of being "Rewarded for their devotion" then all druids know the language and no one would have to be taught and one could simply say they are forbidden from teaching the language, right? But it says specifically teaching nondruids.

2. Alternatively if any kind of teaching is required, being a druid is the way of life and a person benefiting from ranger class features but defending nature and embracing and serving the philosophical balance would be all but indifferentiable from other potential druids (i.e. those in transition to becoming lvl 1 druid). Especially if he is already high enough level to cast nature related spells. I have a hard time seeing ingame how in this scenario the druid character that has no way of seeing someones mechanics could be punished for teaching a nondruid (the class) when he was teaching a druid (the lifestyle-liver).

Which of the two do you think it is?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think you've missed the entire point of the preceding exchange.

Classes and game mechanics are abstractions of the characters and the adventures they have in game, not the things themselves. Mechanics reduce things down so we can work them in the context of a game, they're not the story itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The question boils down to how can you measure ingame a class or even *gasp* a level? Certain class features are observable ingame. Only a paladin is immune to disease and can lay on hands. Spell slots come in distinct quantums and spells are grouped into levels.

Read the excellent Sepulchrave's Story Hour for what I consider an excellent tale in I game representation of class mechanics like spell levels and vancian casting.

Thanael wrote:

Many old threads on ENworld posited a sort of quantum theory of magic to explain Vancian casting. Spells are learned in valences similar to an electron's energy levels.

This most prominently features in Sepulchrave's famous Story Hour.

Thanael wrote:

Valences. Also use generic and funky spell names.

Check out Sepulchraves Excellent Story Hour here for excellent and very vancian wizards and their nerdy arcano-scientific lingo:

...

She must locate her books and items, but how? Now that her highest valences were denied to her, the ‘Discern Location’ dweomer was beyond her abilities – and she would have to acquire the spell in any case..

...

She loathed the prospect of moving, especially as her higher spell valences were within sight again.

In the end, she decided to take a risk. Feezuu summoned one of her Quasits.

"You will ‘Commune’ for me," she said.

"‘Communing,’ is not covered in our compact," the tiny Demon said slyly. "Do you wish to renegotiate?"

This ENWorld thread on How do you make a Mage magical? discussed this among other things..

Also this thread Do characters know what spell levels and HP are?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Julix wrote:
Do classes exist ingame, or do they just describe skill sets?

They are groups of abilities. No one is aware of the classes themselves, only the class abilities they can see. No character refers to themselves as the Fighter class, but may refer to themselves as fighters or fighting men, as the case may be.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Julix wrote:

It looks to me like there are two possibilities.

1. If the language is something that just pops into existence in the druids head as a form of being "Rewarded for their devotion" then all druids know the language and no one would have to be taught and one could simply say they are forbidden from teaching the language, right? But it says specifically teaching nondruids.

2. Alternatively if any kind of teaching is required, being a druid is the way of life and a person benefiting from ranger class features but defending nature and embracing and serving the philosophical balance would be all but indifferentiable from other potential druids (i.e. those in transition to becoming lvl 1 druid). Especially if he is already high enough level to cast nature related spells. I have a hard time seeing ingame how in this scenario the druid character that has no way of seeing someones mechanics could be punished for teaching a nondruid (the class) when he was teaching a druid (the lifestyle-liver).

Which of the two do you think it is?

Neither of the above. Druidism is essentially a closed mystery cult, and the language is part of the final initiation into that mystery.

Disclosure: in settings where it's not appropriate, GM's should feel free to simply discard the language or treat it as a rare dead language of the past. (or unborn one in the future)


Julix wrote:
Originally the following was part of this question: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/31405/are-fluff-class-descriptions-p art-of-the-rules...

Fluff descriptions of anything - from fluff descriptions of classes and races, to fluff descriptions of spells and equipment and feats and skills - are not rules.

For example:

These are rules:

D20pfsrd wrote:


Longsword | Cost: 15 gp | Damage (sm): 1d6 | Damage (m): 1d8 | Critical: 19–20/×2 | Range: — | Weight: 4 lbs. | Damage type: S | Special: — | Source: CRB

As far as most DMs are concerned, you can't simply decide that your standard Longsword does 100d8 damage and cost 1gp, just because it fits your character concept.

These are NOT rules:

D20pfsrd wrote:


A longsword (also spelled long sword, long-sword) is a type of sword characterized as having a cruciform hilt with a grip for two handed use and a straight double-edged blade of around 100–122 cm (39–48 in).

Eastern Version: Hwandudaedo This heavy sword consists of large straight blade with a thick back and wickedly sharpened edge. It is equivalent to a longsword.

If it makes you happy to describe the blade of your sword as being slightly curved, with a star-shaped hilt, a greenish 50" blade, and a straight edge on one side and a saw-edge on the other, or if you'd rather describe your long sword like something out of a samurai or ninja movie, or whatever, go for it. So long as your description doesn't change the mechanical rules (damage done, cost, that sort of thing), it's nothing that any but the most picky DM's are going to worry about.

Julix wrote:
...Do classes exist ingame, or do they just describe skill sets?

Classes generally describe skill sets, but can exist in-game to describe someone with those skill sets. They don't necessarily have to describe someone with those EXACT skill sets, though.

For example:

Spoiler:

The set of mechanics known as a "Rogue" can actually be used to describe a police detective of the town guard, or a criminal, or a character like Zorro or the Scarlet Pimpernel or Robin Hood, or an action-archaeologist like Indiana Jones, or any of a variety of other character concepts. In this sense, the term "Rogue" is just an out-of-character convenience for describing a set of mechanics used to fill a set of archetypes found in fantasy literature.

Characters in-game might refer to characters as "rogues", and, mechanically, those "rogues" might even BE Rogues. (They might just as easily refer to a Rogue as "detective sergeant" or "doctor" or "the caped crusader, Batman", though.) In this sense, the term "rogue" is an in-character description of a character's occupation.

And, there's really no reason that characters in-game might not toss a whole shifty group of lawless characters they don't trust into the general category of "rogues", even if that rogue's gallery includes a Fighter, Rogue, Bard, and Cleric. In this sense, the term "rogue" is an in-character way of referring to a wandering group of lawless troublemakers, in much the same way the term might have been used in real life to describe a group of bandits or gangsters.

And, then there's nothing stopping you from saying "my character is a rogue, acting outside the limits of a Lawful Evil government to bring justice to the helpless, steal from the rich and give to the poor, and help the downtrodden! But, the 'Rogue' class doesn't really fit the type of character I've got in mind, so I'll take the Ranger, give him a mask and a rapier, a preferred enemy of 'human' (the Evil king's henchmen), and skills in...." In this sense, "rogue" is an out-of-character starting place for describing your character concept, and "Ranger" is just an out-of-character convenience for describing a set of mechanics.

Julix wrote:
...For example could a fighter/cleric join a paladin order and become a defacto paladin without ever having taken a level in paladin? Could a ranger with access to nature magic and an animal companion and the right alignment/values become a ingame druid (i.e. another druid can teach him the secret druid language without becoming an exdruid) without ever taking a level in druid?...

As far as I'm concerned, certainly.

I'd run a game (or play one) in a heartbeat in which, for example, all the characters are part of a church-organized military organization, in which the characters are nominally "paladins" or "knights" or whatever that have specialized in being a literal Paladin, or healing (Cleric), or combat (Fighter), or scouting (Rogue), or a special forces type dedicated to fighting a specific enemy in a specific terrain (Ranger), or a Wizard trained in 'white magic' to cast fireballs or whatever for artillery and other special support, or whatever. Let the PCs come up with any vows or codes of honor that seem appropriate, decide what breaking the code of honor means (only the actual Paladin has Rules on breaking the code of honor, but whether or not to house-rule some flexibility into that or to house-rule the same rules onto all the other PCs would be a discussion for the group to decide on), and move on from there.

That might not fit into the vision some DMs have for their game worlds, but really that's all negotiable fluff, in the end.

Ultimately, the whole thing tracks back to earliest editions of D&D: it was an extension of a medieval war game in which the various soldiers and other units got supplemented with fantasy units, and one of the battlefields ended up being a raid of an enemy's castle through the dungeons. Back in those days, "Elf", "Dwarf", "Hobbit", "Wizard", "Burglar", "Fighting Man", and so on were all "classes", and basically used to describe characters from fantasy literature, and they were basically conveniences for describing the collections of statistics needed to simulate those kinds of characters.


Do classes exist in game? Kinda. Since classes provide sets of abilities, and many of those abilities would be noticeable in game. But people would be called by their job rather than their Class.

I mean, people in game would obviously be aware that some people can cast spells, and that some spell casters get their magic from books and others are born with it. But people wouldn't know if he was an Arcanist or a Wizard, and could call him arcanist, wizard, mage, etc regardless of what class he possessed.

People in game would aware that some people are touched by the gods and can work miracles. But that doesn't mean knowing they are an Oracle versus being a Cleric. And you don't have to be one of these blessed people to lead others in worship. So both Oracles and Clerics could be called priests, father, pastor, shepard, etc but so would a Expert or Bard who preached the tenants of the faith to their congregation.

Now, that doesn't mean people don't know the difference between Father Gaius who gives great sermons but can't do miracles and Patriarch Fowler who can. They just wouldn't be able to say, as players do, that one is a Cleric and one is only an Expert.


I would also say that there are enough options/archetypes for classes to really muddy the waters/make it hard to tell the difference between various classes.

For example, we generally agree that Rage and rage powers are the defining Barbarian class feature. Yet Fighters and Rangers can both get those through archetypes, there's a cleric domain that grants Rage and a limited number of Rage Powers, etc...


It's a little bit like those novelty Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, Star Wars, or Civil War chess sets.

It's a little bit like wondering whether Luke Skywalker, General Lee, Captain Kirk, and Frodo are aware in-universe of whether they are Rooks, Bishops, Kings, Pawns, or whatever. Would Mr. Spock recognize Frodo as a Bishop? Would Darth Vader acknowledge Sauron as king?

Some of the replies to this thread have been a bit like asserting that the Star Wars universe or the American Civil War are a part of the rules of chess. Do we acknowledge the Force as one of the rules of chess? How should the way that Grant and Lee use artillery fit into the rules of Civil War chess?

Stop. Let it go! Don't try too hard to answer these questions.

In reality, D&D in all its forms has been a fairly schizophrenic and post-modern construct: it's a storytelling universe (like a novel or a movie or improv comedy), built on top of a mechanical war game (a set of rules, roughly comparable to Chess, mostly spawned in D&D's case from a cross between something like Yahtzee and something vaguely like rock-paper-scissors).

For our sanity, it's probably best not to think too much about how exactly those two elements interact in D&D, beyond conflict resolution. You go down that rabbit-hole too far, you will find only madness.

Accept the rule set as a convenient way of modeling what characters can and can't do and of resolving conflict, and accept the "fluff" as a way of describing a fantasy world and its characters for storytelling and flavor purposes, and try not to confuse the two very different tools too much.


Classes are collections of mechanical abilities intended to be used, in conjunction with other game elements, to realize a character concept. Some narrow classes, like wizard and paladin, might be formal terms, but most would not be something you'd introduce yourself as/identify with. Anybody can be an assassin without being an Assassin, for example, and one needn't be a Barbarian to be barbaric.

Especially true if you use archetypes and other customizations.

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Ingame existence of classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.